Anthony Bandiero, Attorney and Senior Legal Instructor, Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training

A roadside chat answering a question from a Maryland officer who asked that the agency not be named. A man walks onto a closed repair shop lot at night, unlocks a car and drives off. The officer wants to know how far he can go.

The person asked, you know, if a person walks onto a closed repair shop late at night, unlocks the car with keys, and drives off, can the officer stop him, demand ID, run him, and make him produce any kind of documentation for repair receipts and so forth?

All right. Here’s what we know. The car did belong to the person driving. He already paid for the work. He can only pick it up at night, so the shop gave him his spare keys and permission to come and get it after hours.

The receipt is also in the car, but the driver does not want to show it, does not want to hand it over, because there’s personal information on there. I guess he is maybe worried that the cop is going to harass him. I don’t know. You know, who knows what the motive is there, but that’s what we have.

So, the officer doesn’t know any of this. All the officer knows is that he sees this man walking onto the closed commercial lot, and unlock the door and drive away.

What does a Terry stop require?

All right. So, what’s the law? The law is a Terry stop requires specific articulable facts that reasonably suggest criminal activity. A hunch is not enough. We know that from Terry, from 1968.

Now, reasonable suspicion is judged objectively on the totality of the circumstances, what the officer knew at the moment of the seizure. The innocent explanation he didn’t know about doesn’t count against him. That is United States v. Arvizu, 2002.

What if the conduct is equally consistent with lawful activity?

Now, here there is a little bit of a Maryland twist, I think. When the conduct the officer sees is equally consistent with lawful and unlawful activity, he’s going to have to point to some facts that don’t apply to a substantial portion of law-abiding people.

In other words, the Supreme Court of Maryland said that in State v. Stone, 2026, that, you know, you got to be able to point to some specific facts, otherwise it’s too general. It’s almost like, I call these like dragnet.

Now, also, you can’t stop somebody just to make sure that they’re lawful. We get those principles from Delaware v. Prouse, 1979.

Can police demand ID in Maryland without a stop and identify statute?

Also, there’s an identification issue. Can we demand ID from somebody in Maryland under reasonable suspicion?

Well, we know in Hiibel, that is a 2004 case, that if your state has a statute requiring a detainee to state his name and so forth, well, then that’s valid. But there’s two things here. First, the Supreme Court allowed a state to compel a name, not just a physical ID, so that’s a problem. But second, it only works if the state actually has such a law.

Maryland does not have a stop and identify statute. So, the detainee is not obligated to answer, and absent probable cause, he must be released when the investigation is done. That’s Collins v. State, Supreme Court of Maryland, 2003.

When does a driver have to show a license in Maryland?

Now, here is what Maryland does have. Once he is driving, the license statute kicks in. That is 16-112, subsection (c), paragraph one. So, it says each individual driving a motor vehicle on any highway in the state shall display the license to any uniformed police officer who demands it. Well, that’s presuming a valid stop, right?

And that also makes it a violation to give a fictitious name, a false name, and so forth.

So, finally, refusal to cooperate cannot supply the reasonable suspicion that was missing before the stop. That is Brown v. Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, 1979.

Is a late-night pickup from a closed shop enough for a stop?

Let’s apply it to the facts as we know them. Let’s start with the crime. In Maryland, taking a vehicle from another’s custody without the owner’s permission is obviously unauthorized removal of property under 7-203. Now, the offense that the officer is investigating is this law, right? 7-203.

Now, let’s weigh the facts as the officer had them. Middle of the night, business closed, the customer was on a commercial lot. He drives off. Those facts do point to auto theft.

Cut in the other direction, he used the keys. Apparently, he was calm, no forced entry, no furtive behavior. Keys don’t end the inquiry, because keys can be copied. I don’t know what kind of car this is, but if it’s a car that’s like known to be easy to, you know, start with a shaved key and so forth.

But, you know, there are some things that really, it seems to me, we’re a little 50/50. If the answer is, “Hey, it was just late and it looked odd,” I don’t think that’s good. I think that’s a little thin.

I would like other things like, you know, were there recent thefts in the area? Was there damage to any gates and so forth? Was there somebody idling down the street as if to help him, as an accessory, remove the vehicle, versus like an Uber driver dropping him off?

So, I would say that I would like a little bit more here. But I will tell you that to me it’s so close and it’s so ambivalent either way that if this person is thinking about a lawsuit, I don’t know if it’s going to really work that well. Because, you know, the courts are looking for something a little clear that this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Does refusing to show the repair receipt count against the driver?

But at the same time, I would say if you are going to make this stop, be diligent about it. Don’t fall for any traps. Don’t get ego in the way, or fall for contempt of cop. Just do the investigation.

If you think the person, at the end of the day, didn’t steal the car, the fact that they don’t want to show you the receipt is a factor against them. I mean, this whole “I don’t want to show my address” is kind of ridiculous. If you can easily just disprove that the car was stolen by showing a piece of paper, I don’t know why a reasonable person would not do it. But at the end of the day, they don’t necessarily have to, okay?

Is a possibly stolen car just a civil issue?

Also, this whole thing where the driver’s like, “Well, this is a civil issue.” Well, civil issue doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether or not the officer reasonably believes that the car was taken without authorization.

Why does articulation matter on a close-call stop?

At the end of the day, it’s an interesting question. But I will tell you, if there’s anything that I take away from this case, it’s the articulation.

Remember what Shakespeare said. He said, “Ye who articulates the most wins.” Articulate everything you have, you know, even if it’s a small little factor. Throw in the kitchen sink, because courts care about those things.

The short version

  • A Terry stop requires specific articulable facts that reasonably suggest criminal activity. A hunch is not enough.
  • The innocent explanation he didn’t know about doesn’t count against him.
  • When the conduct is equally consistent with lawful and unlawful activity, you got to be able to point to some specific facts, otherwise it’s too general.
  • Maryland does not have a stop and identify statute. The detainee is not obligated to answer.
  • Once he is driving, the license statute kicks in. That is presuming a valid stop.
  • Refusal to cooperate cannot supply the reasonable suspicion that was missing before the stop.
  • “It was just late and it looked odd” is a little thin. I would like a little bit more here.
  • If you make the stop, be diligent about it. Don’t fall for contempt of cop. Just do the investigation.
  • Articulate everything you have. Throw in the kitchen sink, because courts care about those things.

At the end of the day, we’re trying to help cops get it right every single time. All right, stay safe out there, and we’ll see you at the next roadside chat.

Related from Blue to Gold

This article is a lightly edited transcript of a Blue to Gold roadside chat and is for training purposes only. It is not legal advice. Check your own state law and your prosecutor before acting. Source video: EP#1066