Driver’s Consent to Search a Car Does Not Give Consent to a Passenger Frisk

A Terry Frisk of a passenger in a vehicle must be associated with a legitimate concern for the officer’s safety, not because consent was given to search a vehicle 

Sellman v. State, 2016 BL 274588, Md., No. 84, 8/24/16.

   The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a frisk of a passenger without a reasonable suspicion that the passenger posed a danger is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Even when consent was given to search the car, the permission did not extend to a search of the passengers without reasonable suspicion that they were armed and dangerous.

   During argument, the state contended that the high crime area of the stop and the time of night warranted a frisk, citing that residents have complained about numerous thefts at the apartment complex and the passengers appeared overly nervous, providing conflicting statements. The court disagreed with this argument, however, finding that generalized concerns were not enough for reasonable suspicion. “The officers did not observe furtive gestures, evasive maneuvers, bulges, bags or containers, or any instruments associated with the suspected crime of the theft, i.e., theft of property from cars.”

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Sellman_v_State_No_84_2016_BL_274588_Md_Aug_24_2016_Court_Opinion.