MD Supreme Court to weigh whether police can stop drivers using cellphones, 3 other cases

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court this month has agreed to hear four cases, including one that will determine whether police officers have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop on drivers using a cellphone while driving.

The high court granted review of Carlos D. Bivens v. Amondre Clark on May 5 and granted review of State of Maryland v. Michael Eugene Stone, Jeffrey Reyes v. State of Maryland, and William L. Hallam v. New Life Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc., et al. on May 22.

The Maryland Supreme Court will hear Bivens on June 5 and will hear the three remaining cases during the court’s September 2025 term.

Stone

In Stone, the high court will decide whether police officers have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop when they observe a driver using a cellphone “in a manner that is consistent with sending a text message or initiating a phone call.”

In a January unreported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court found the Washington County Circuit Court erred in denying Stone’s motion to suppress a search of his car and person after police observed Stone “manipulate” his cellphone while driving. After conducting a traffic stop, police seized a controlled dangerous substance from Stone’s car and person, leading to Stone’s arrest.

Judge Melanie Shaw, writing for the appellate court, found that Stone pressing his cellphone screen was “innocuous behavior unless additional information indicates criminal activity.”

In a dissenting opinion, Senior Judge Glenn Harrell Jr. wrote that the case poses a question “presenting a close call worthy of consideration by our Supreme Court” and the police officers’ observation of Stone potentially typing a message “merited an investigatory stop.”

In Maryland, it is illegal to use a cellphone while driving, except for using a GPS, calling 911, and starting or ending a call. Most states prohibit drivers from using handheld cellphones while driving, with Pennsylvania being added to that group of states starting in June.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an Iowa case that asked the court to consider whether police officers — in states that have laws prohibiting drivers from texting while driving — have reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory traffic stop when they observe a driver holding and manipulating a cellphone.

Reyes

In Reyes, the high court is tasked with determining when a criminal defendant’s sentence is imposed under Maryland Rule 4-345, and if the trial court illegally increased Reyes’ sentence. The trial court sentenced him to one year with all but nine months suspended, followed by three years of supervised probation, but later, after advising Reyes of his post-trial rights, changed the sentence to five years with all but nine months suspended and three years of supervised probation.

In a March reported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court held the Prince George’s County Circuit Court did not illegally increase Reyes’ sentence for second-degree assault, finding there was nothing in the sentencing transcript to indicate that the sentencing proceeding concluded between the court’s announcement of its intent to impose a one-year sentence and when the court imposed the five-year sentence.

Under Rule 4-345, a court can increase a defendant’s sentence only if the original sentence was illegal, in cases of fraud, mistake or irregularity, or to correct a mistake the court made in announcing the original sentence.

Hallam

In Hallam, the high court will decide if the appellate court erred in holding that New Life Evangelical Baptist Church was able to raise its claim of fraud in post-sale exceptions filed pursuant to Rule 14-305(s), and if the appellate court erred in holding the church had preserved its right to raise its claim of fraud post-sale where it failed to perfect its right to litigate the same fraud claim pre-sale.

Hallam, as trustee for a parishioner of New Life, sought the foreclosure of real property in Baltimore City owned by the church, from which the church sought to block the foreclosure and sale by arguing Hallam did not have the legal right to foreclose on the properties. The appellate court invalidated the foreclosure sale and remanded the case to the Baltimore City Circuit Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether the parishioner obtained the mortgage by fraud.

Bivens

In Bivens, the high court will decide whether the lower court correctly concluded that, upon vacaturs of a defendant’s convictions, the Division of Correction must immediately execute any remaining valid sentence in the individual’s term of confinement, apply credit for time served under the vacated conviction — pursuant to Criminal Procedure Article § 6-218(d) — and ensure that any new conviction imposed upon re-prosecution is treated as a new, separate judgment rather than a modification or replacement sentence.

In June last year, Clark filed a petition in the Baltimore City Circuit Court for writ of habeas corpus, contending he was entitled to release in April 2024 and has since been unlawfully detained at the Roxbury Correctional Institution in Hagerstown, where Bivens is the warden and his legal custodian.

The Montgomery County Circuit Court sentenced Clark in 2016 for firearm possession and burglary; the court in 2023 granted Clark’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, resulting in Clark withdrawing his guilty pleas in three of his pending cases. In April 2024, Clark pled guilty and was sentenced to time served, from which the court ordered his release.

Bivens has argued Clark’s claims lack merit, where although Clark’s guilty pleas in three cases were withdrawn, his convictions and consecutive sentences in two other cases were undisturbed.