Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog
This blog devotes a lot of space to the suppression of evidence before a trial of an accused person. That is because warrantless searches that violate your Fourth Amendment rights occur frequently, and the inclusion or exclusion of the evidence the police obtained in an illegal search or seizure may represent the difference between a conviction or an acquittal (or dismissal) of the charges against you. Given the importance of these arguments, it pays to ensure you have an experienced and effective Maryland criminal defense lawyer on your side when facing drug or weapons charges.
Take, for example, a recent evidence suppression case from Prince George’s County. The evidence the police obtained during a vehicle search was inadmissible at trial because the police lacked an appropriate basis for searching the interior of the defendant’s car.
In reaching that conclusion, the Appellate Court helpfully laid out some “ground rules” for what is — and what is not — a legal vehicle search. The court’s recitation of the law serves as a notable reminder of two things:
- Small details (and differences) can matter a great deal in a search-and-seizure case, and
- Search-and-seizure law concepts can sometimes be analogized to sports.
So, how, you may wonder, is search-and-seizure law related to sports? Today, we will focus on two aspects of sports officiating that make our point.
1. Breaking the Plane
In several sports, players score by advancing the ball across a marked line. In rugby, players score by crossing the “try line.” In American football, players score a “touchdown” when they cross a line and reach the “end zone.”
In this regard, inches (or even fractions of an inch) can make immense differences. For example, in American football, if the ball carrier advances the ball to the white paint of the goal line — even if just by a millimeter and for only a millisecond — they have scored. Announcers and game officials call this “breaking the plane” of the end zone.
Maryland has a similar provision in Fourth Amendment law that comes into play when the police stop your vehicle and ask you to roll down your window. A 2016 Maryland Supreme Court case lays out the stereotypical scenario. There, police pulled a man over for speeding. As the deputy approached, the driver rolled down his passenger-side window, and the officer stuck his head inside the car. At some point, the deputy smelled marijuana, detained the driver, ordered a drug sniffing dog, and eventually located drugs and drug paraphernalia inside the car.
The defense contended that the search was illegal. The key to the entire case was precisely when the deputy first smelled the odor of marijuana. In football and rugby, the difference between a goal and no goal can come down to which of two things happened first: the ball “broke the plane” of the goal area or the ball carrier being (within the rules) legally “down.” According to the Supreme Court, the legality or illegality of a search like this comes down to answering a similar question: did the officer first sniff the odor of marijuana before or after his head “broke the plane” of the car’s open window? If the deputy did not perceive marijuana until after his head crossed inside the open window, the search was illegal and the evidence inadmissible.
2. Inconclusive Video Replay Footage
Many sports now use video replay to make some crucial determinations. In sports like baseball, basketball, and American football, the rules state that when video replay footage is ambiguous or inconclusive, game officials should uphold their original in-game ruling.
With the significant expansion of police body cams, search-and-seizure disputes can, like sports, involve the interpretation of replayed video footage. Like sports, the courts utilize a special construct when the footage is ambiguous or inconclusive.
The 2016 drug case mentioned above is again helpful. That case involved bodycam footage as evidence. Based on the footage played in court, “the point at which [the deputy] detected the odor of marijuana was not clear,” but his “head appeared to cross the window pane into the interior” of the car. In other words, the bodycam video was not entirely conclusive. When that happens, “the defendant must prevail,” according to the Supreme Court. What that declaration makes plain is that, even if the bodycam footage appeared that an officer’s head probably did not cross the plane into the open window, the trial court would still be required to rule in favor of the defense an suppress the evidence if the video evidence was anything less than clear, conclusive, and definitive.
Your drugs or weapons case can come down to some very minute, discrete distinctions, differentiations, and determinations of the law and the facts of the dispute. Ensuring you have the strongest defense possible means understanding all the factors and their nuances. If you have been accused of a crime, count on the diligent Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC to ensure your rights are protected to the fullest extent of the law.. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or use our online form to schedule your consultation.