Coley v. State
81 A.3d 650
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- On July 8, 2012 Deputy William Bodnar found Melissa Coley seated in a parked, nonrunning Ford Focus at a trailer park near Walker’s Grocery; the driver’s door was open and Coley’s feet were on the ground. Trooper Norton assisted.
- In the vehicle’s center console Deputy Bodnar observed an open beer can and torn one-inch plastic Ziploc baggies which, from his training, he believed were used to package heroin.
- Bodnar had multiple prior contacts with Coley over several days and had served her a cease-and-desist for loitering; on one prior contact Coley told him she was a former heroin user who had been clean about a year.
- After observing the torn baggies, Bodnar handcuffed and detained Coley, searched her purse and the vehicle without a warrant, and seized wax paper, a lighter, Q-tips, syringes, and Ziploc baggies containing suspected heroin.
- Coley moved to suppress the evidence; the suppression judge denied the motion, finding the torn baggies (plus the officer’s knowledge of prior heroin use) gave probable cause to search under the automobile exception.
- Coley pled guilty; on appeal the State conceded error, but the Court of Special Appeals independently reviewed the suppression record and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether torn one-inch Ziploc baggies in plain view provided probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile (Carroll) exception | Coley: torn bags and an open beer can are not contraband; paraphernalia possession is not an arrestable offense and empty bags alone do not establish probable cause for more contraband | State/Officer: officer’s training/experience identifies bag size and torn condition as heroin packaging; combined with prior admission of heroin use, there was a fair probability of finding heroin or paraphernalia | Held: Yes — baggies plus officer’s prior knowledge that Coley had been a heroin user constituted probable cause to search the vehicle; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether observation of an open beer can or suspicion of prostitution justified the search | Coley: beer can and unconfirmed prostitution suspicions do not supply probable cause to search a parked car on private property | State: initially conceded those facts did not suffice; suppression judge agreed they were insufficient | Held: Court agreed beer can and prostitution suspicion did not justify the search; they were not relied upon for probable cause |
| Whether discovery of some noncontraband/contraband items can justify searching for additional contraband (relying on Bell and Carroll principles) | Coley: discovery of empty baggies is insufficient to infer presence of more contraband; Bell suggests finding one item doesn’t necessarily justify broader search | State/Officer: argued torn baggies indicated prior use and supported searching for additional concealed contraband under Carroll | Held: Court distinguished Bell and concluded the particular combination of bag characteristics plus known prior heroin use supported the inference that more contraband likely existed, so the extended search was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (recognizes automobile exception permitting warrantless vehicle searches upon probable cause)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of vehicle search tied to probable cause)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (per curiam—readily mobile car + probable cause permits warrantless search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause is a practical, totality-of-the-circumstances test)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable-cause standard described as practical and nontechnical)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (appellate review: facts deferential, legal application de novo)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonableness standard for stops/searches)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protection and warrant requirement baseline)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (aggregation of innocent factors can support reasonable suspicion)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (prior reputation or conduct can inform probable cause analysis)
- Bell v. State, 96 Md. App. 46 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (discusses limits on extending a search after retrieval of observed contraband)
- Bell v. State, 334 Md. 178 (Md. 1994) (affirming aspects of the Bell analysis)