Reginald Anthony Longshore v. State of Maryland, 399 Md. 486

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considers whether police officers' use of handcuffs during an investigative stop constituted an arrest requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. The court reviews the circumstances surrounding the stop, including an informant's videotape, a drug-detection dog's alerts, and the subsequent vehicle search. It also discusses the standards governing appellate review of suppression rulings and the distinction between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Holdings

1. Longshore was arrested when police asked him to leave his vehicle and placed him in handcuffs. Because he was not suspected of being armed or dangerous and there was no objective indication that he posed a flight risk, the handcuffing was not justified as a protective or flight-prevention measure during a Terry stop.
2. The circumstances did not provide a substantial basis for probable cause at the time Longshore was handcuffed and arrested. The failed initial drug-dog sniff was significant negative evidence, and the videotape, trace drugs in Carlson's vehicle, Longshore's prior drug arrests, and nervousness did not collectively establish probable cause.
3. A person's refusal to consent to a warrantless search of an automobile is inadmissible as evidence of guilt and cannot be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The detective's testimony that Longshore refused consent was prejudicial, and the curative instruction did not cure the error; the trial court therefore abused its discretion by denying a mistrial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Longshore was arrested, rather than merely detained, when police removed him from his vehicle and handcuffed him.
2. Whether probable cause supported that warrantless arrest under the totality of the circumstances.
3. Whether the initial failed drug-dog sniff and later inconsistent alerts materially undermined probable cause.
4. Whether evidence of Longshore's refusal to consent to a warrantless vehicle search was inadmissible and whether the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after the testimony was admitted.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded