Maryland Supreme Court: Touching a Phone While Driving Is Not Enough for a Traffic Stop

State of Maryland v. Michael Eugene Stone, No. 16, September Term 2025
Opinion Date: January 27, 2026
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court of Maryland has reaffirmed critical Fourth Amendment protections, ruling that merely touching or manipulating a phone while driving—without more—does not create reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. The decision significantly impacts Maryland’s distracted‑driving enforcement and sets a clear constitutional boundary for police stops.

Background: Traffic Stop Leads to Drug Charges

Police officers in Hagerstown, Maryland stopped Mr. Stone after observing him manipulating or pressing the screen of a cellphone mounted to his windshield while the car was in motion. Officers provided no further details about texting, swiping, or any specific illegal activity.

Although Stone was not charged with a mobile‑phone violation, officers searched his vehicle and recovered fentanyl, resulting in drug‑related charges. Stone moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop itself was unconstitutional.

Relevant statutes included:

• Transportation Article § 21‑1124
• Transportation Article § 21‑1124.1
• Transportation Article § 21‑1124.2

These govern texting and other prohibited uses of handheld devices while driving.

Trial Court: Phone Manipulation Alone Creates Suspicion

The Circuit Court for Washington County denied the suppression motion, reasoning that because the observed conduct could have been texting, it created reasonable articulable suspicion for a traffic stop. Stone was later convicted of fentanyl possession at trial.

Appellate Court: Innocent Conduct Is Not Enough

The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the conviction, finding that:

• Touching or manipulating a mounted phone is innocent conduct.
• Officers articulated no facts suggesting illegal device use.
• Observing ambiguous behavior cannot justify a stop under Maryland’s distracted‑driving statutes.

Supreme Court of Maryland: Ambiguous Phone Use Cannot Justify a Stop

The Supreme Court affirmed.
According to the Court, when conduct is equally consistent with lawful and unlawful phone use, the Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts suggesting illegality.
Just observing someone touch a mounted phone:

• ❌ does not eliminate a “substantial portion of innocent drivers,”
• ❌ does not provide reasonable suspicion,
• ❌ cannot justify a traffic stop.

Therefore, the stop was unconstitutional, and the evidence obtained during the search was properly suppressed.

What This Means for Maryland Drivers

This ruling clarifies:

1. Police need more than speculation.
   Changing music, using GPS, adjusting a mounted device—these are lawful and common.
2. Distracted‑driving enforcement must be evidence‑based.
   Ambiguous conduct alone cannot trigger a traffic stop.
3. Evidence from unconstitutional stops can be thrown out.
   For Stone, this meant the drug evidence was suppressed and his conviction reversed.

Facing Criminal or Traffic Charges? We Can Help.

If you’ve been stopped—or searched—based on questionable or minimal suspicion, you may have strong grounds to challenge the evidence. Our firm aggressively defends your constitutional rights.

Contact the Law Offices of Gritz, Hanifin & Shih, LLC today for a free consultation.
Hablamos Español.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Can police stop me for touching my phone while driving in Maryland?
   No. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that merely touching or pressing a mounted phone—without more—is not enough to justify a traffic stop.
2. What do Maryland’s distracted driving laws prohibit?
   Under TR §§ 21‑1124, 21‑1124.1, and 21‑1124.2, texting and certain handheld uses are prohibited. But drivers may still use GPS, initiate or end calls, or call 911.
3. What counts as reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop?
   Police must articulate specific facts that reasonably suggest illegal conduct—not behavior equally consistent with lawful actions.
4. What happens if a stop is unconstitutional?
   Any evidence obtained during the unlawful stop or search may be suppressed, meaning it cannot be used in court.
5. Does this ruling weaken distracted‑driving enforcement?
   The Court said no—officers can still stop drivers when they observe conduct clearly indicating illegal device use. They simply cannot rely on ambiguous behavior alone.
6. How does this ruling affect criminal cases involving additional charges, like drug possession?
   If the stop is unconstitutional, any evidence found afterward may be inadmissible, which can dramatically change the outcome of a case.