Davis v. State
199 Md. App. 273
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Davis was convicted in Montgomery County Circuit Court of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; denial of suppression motion affirmed; interception of a wireless cellular call in Virginia was conducted under a Maryland wiretap statute; Judge Harrington issued a broad ex parte order covering a mobile device anywhere in Maryland; the interception allegedly produced derivative marijuana evidence later seized at Davis's Maryland home; Davis challenged the interception as extraterritorial under §10-408(c)(3) and sought suppression under §10-405; the trial court denied suppression, and Davis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland Wiretap Act covers cellular-to-cellular interception | Davis contends the Act does not apply to cellular-to-cellular interception | State asserts the Act, as amended, covers cellular communications and allows statewide interception | Yes; Maryland Act covers cellular interceptions and allows statewide interception under the amended framework |
| Interpretation of §10-408(c)(3)’s 'anywhere within the State' | Phrase modifies the communication device itself, potentially immunizing mobile phones | Phrase broadens intercept authority to any location within the State, not just the judge’s territorial jurisdiction | Phrase meaningfully broadens to permit interception anywhere within Maryland for mobile devices |
| Where does interception occur for jurisdiction—phone location or listening post? | Interception must be at the device’s location within Maryland if the device is not within the state | Interception occurs at both the tapped device location and the listening post where contents are first heard | Interception occurs at both the device location and the listening post; either can anchor jurisdiction |
| Derivative evidence suppression under §10-405 | Derivative evidence should be suppressed due to unlawful interception | Interceptions were lawful; derivative evidence admissible | Derivative evidence admissible; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment concerns in wiretapping)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Application of Fourth Amendment to interception of intangible conversations)
- Mustafa v. State, 323 Md. 65 (Md. 1991) (Maryland act tracks Title III with additional restrictions; two-party consent concept)
- Adams v. State, 289 Md. 221 (Md. 1981) (Maryland act mirrors Title III; one-party vs two-party consent distinctions)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (U.S. 2001) (Title III coverage expanded to electronic and cordless communications)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1992) (Place of interception may be where the contents are first heard; listening post and tapped phone both valid)
- United States v. Ramirez, 112 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 1997) (Upheld interception where listening post location determined; mobile interceptions across state lines)
- United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2006) (Listening post location can confer jurisdiction despite phone location)