Kevin Whittington v. State of Maryland, No. 35, September Term 2020. Opinion by
Hotten, J.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – FOURTH AMENDMENT – WARRANT
REQUIREMENT – Detectives applied for and received a court order, pursuant to Md.
Code Ann., Criminal Procedure (“Crim. Proc.”) § 1-203.1, that authorized the placement
of a tracking device on Petitioner’s vehicle for thirty days. Thereafter, members of law
enforcement executed a search of Petitioner’s vehicle and residence, pursuant to a search
warrant supported in part by location information provided through the tracking device.
Petitioner challenged whether the issuance of a “court order” pursuant to Crim. Proc. § 1-
203.1 violated the United States Constitution because it did not use the precise label of
“warrant.” The Court of Appeals held that Crim. Proc. § 1-203.1 substantially complied
with the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and the label “court order” instead of “warrant” did not render the statute unconstitutional.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – FOURTH AMENDMENT – PROBABLE CAUSE – A
warrant withstands appellate scrutiny if the issuing judge had a “substantial basis” in
concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Stevenson v. State, 455
Md. 709, 723-24, 168 A.3d 967, 975-76 (2017). A substantial basis may arise from
reasonable inferences of criminal activity and not necessarily from direct inculpatory
observations. The Court of Appeals held that the issuing judge had a substantial basis to
conclude that a search of Petitioner’s vehicle and residence would yield evidence of
wrongdoing through GPS tracking of Petitioner’s vehicle traveling to and from suspected
stash houses, reasonable inferences from detectives’ professional experience, and first-
hand observations of Petitioner’s suspected involvement in narcotics transactions, evasive
driving, and confederation with a known narcotics distributor.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – FOURTH AMENDMENT – GOOD FAITH
EXCEPTION – The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution permits the admission of evidence obtained
pursuant to a warrant later shown to lack probable cause, so long as the officers reasonably
relied on the warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. United States v. Leon,
468 U.S. 897, 922-24, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3420-21 (1984). An officer may reasonably rely
on a warrant that provides some indicia of probable cause or generates disagreement among
thoughtful, competent judges as to a finding of probable cause. Stevenson, 455 Md. at 729,
168 A.3d at 978-79. The Court of Appeals held, arguendo, that if the underlying warrant
lacked a substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause, the detectives reasonably
relied on the warrant because it contained observations of Petitioner engaged in suspected
narcotics activity.