Davis v. State
426 Md. 211
| Md. | 2012Background
- Montgomery County police obtained an ex parte wiretap order targeting Davis's Virginia-registered mobile phone to intercept communications in the investigation of drug distribution.
- The listening post hearing the intercepted call was located in Montgomery County; the call involved a Virginia-based caller/recipient and originated outside Maryland.
- Over nine pounds of marijuana were found in Davis's possession during a post-interception search, leading to a Maryland charge for possession with intent to distribute.
- Davis moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the wiretap did not authorize interception of extraterritorial communications; the circuit court denied the motion.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, adopting a Rodriguez-based framework that focuses on where the interception is heard, not the phone's location or the call’s endpoints.
- The Court of Appeals ultimately held that interception is lawful so long as the listening post is within the issuing court's jurisdiction; the motion to suppress was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 10-408(c)(3) permits extraterritorial interception | Davis argues § 10-408(c)(3) requires the device be within Maryland, limiting interception to within-state communications. | State contends the statute, read with federal analogy, allows interception as long as the listening post is in Maryland. | Interception lawful; listening post within Maryland allows extraterritorial interception. |
| Scope of Maryland’s wiretap statute vs Title III | Davis asserts Maryland’s statute should not be interpreted by importing federal Title III gloss beyond its text. | State argues Maryland’s act tracks Title III and should be read in pari materia for jurisdictional purposes. | Maryland statute is interpreted in light of Title III, but the holding ultimately aligns with the majority interpretation that interception occurs where heard if within the issuing court’s jurisdiction. |
| Effect of legislative history on § 10-408(c)(3) | Davis emphasizes history shows the clause expands within-state reach rather than extraterritorial scope. | State relies on history to justify expanded intra-state reach for mobile interceptions. | Legislative history supports broader intra-state reach but does not justify extraterritorial interception beyond Maryland’s borders. |
| Distinct treatment of mobile vs landline interception jurisdiction | Davis argues there is a jurisdictional distinction (landline vs mobile) that Maryland did not codify in the same way as Title III. | State treats mobile interceptions as within the same statutory framework expanded by § 10-408(c)(3). | Interception jurisdiction anchored to listening post within the issuing court’s territory; no requirement that the device be within Maryland at interception time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mustafa v. State, 323 Md. 65 (Md. 1991) (status as Maryland act guiding Title III alignment)
- Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1992) (interception occurs where contents are first heard)
- Adams v. State, 289 Md. 221 (Md. 1981) (Maryland wiretap act tracks Title III broadly)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (U.S. 2001) (contextual framework for privacy and interception)
- State v. Siegel, 266 Md. 256 (Md. 1972) ( Maryland privacy posture in wiretapping context)