Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sizer v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 28, 2017No. 1/17Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Adkins, J.,

which Hotten, J., joins.

At a suppression hearing, the State has the burden to “articulat[e] a sufficient factual basis for the stop, and appellate courts cannot fill in blanks in the evidentiary record.” In re Jeremy P., 197 Md.App. 1, 22, 11 A.3d 830 (2011). Most respectfully, I write separately because the State did not meet its burden of showing that the totality of the circumstances created reasonable suspicion justifying the officers’ decision to chase Mr. Sizer and use a hard take-down. We should not resolve this case by repairing the…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Brown v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API