Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; November 3, 1978; Maryland; State Appellate Court
On January 31, 1978, Edmond Henry Daugherty was convicted of marijuana possession following an incident involving Officer Anthony Collins of the Maryland Natural Resources Police. On October 8, 1977, while on patrol, Collins observed Daugherty near his vehicle after having previously seen a deer. When confronted, Daugherty claimed he was hunting squirrels and had loaded rifled slugs in his shotgun for protection against wild dogs. Collins issued a citation for hunting deer out of season and, without Daugherty’s consent, searched his vehicle. During the search, Collins found a paper bag containing approximately three ounces of marijuana.
Daugherty's pre-trial motion to suppress the marijuana evidence was based on the assertion that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court agreed, stating that Collins' search could not be justified as a search incident to an arrest since the citation issued was akin to a traffic ticket and did not constitute an arrest. Even if there had been an arrest, the search would have been limited to the individual and their immediate area, not the vehicle.
The court also considered the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement, which allows warrantless searches of vehicles under certain circumstances if there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. However, the court found that Officer Collins lacked the necessary probable cause to justify the search of Daugherty’s car.
The "automobile exception" requires showing exigent circumstances alongside probable cause for warrantless searches under Section 10-1104 of the Natural Resources Article. A law enforcement officer may search vehicles without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe wildlife or devices are possessed illegally and obtaining a warrant is impractical. Although no Maryland cases are cited, precedent from other states, such as U.S. v. Stricklin and State v. Krogness, establishes that the probable cause standard for automobile searches also applies to game law violations. The Krogness court emphasized that differing standards would undermine Fourth Amendment protections by granting excessive discretion to police.
Probable cause for searching a vehicle exists when the officer has trustworthy information suggesting the presence of items subject to seizure. This standard is less rigorous than that required for a conviction, needing more than mere suspicion but not definitive proof of a crime. Officer Collins lacked probable cause in this case, as he did not believe the vehicle contained a deer carcass and had no reason to suspect an over-limit violation for squirrels or quail, which were in season. His inquiry about the hunting coat, which belonged to the appellant, did not provide sufficient grounds for suspicion or probable cause to justify the search.
Officer Collins mistakenly believed that he could conduct a search of the appellant's car and associated items without probable cause or exigent circumstances, which contradicts applicable statutes and case law. Even if probable cause were assumed, the search exceeded permissible limits, particularly by opening a paper bag that did not meet the legal definition of a game bag, which is typically made of rubberized cloth for blood-proofing. The lack of any hard or heavy contents in the bag should have prompted Collins to halt the search. The search violated established principles from the Richardson case, which dictate that searches must be for specific items and limited in scope. Therefore, since Collins lacked probable cause and exceeded reasonable search boundaries, the search was deemed illegal, warranting the exclusion of the marijuana evidence obtained. The judgment was reversed, with costs assigned to Somerset County. The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were also cited, reinforcing the necessity of probable cause for warrantless searches.
