Eusebio v. State, 245 Md. App. 1

Background:

Detective Travis surveilled suspected dealer Reginald McClure for six weeks (including GPS tracking and short trips to New York), then applied for two warrants: one captioned for McClure’s residence and one captioned for McClure’s 2009 black Infiniti (VIN and plate specified).
Both warrants incorporated the affidavit and contained identical command language authorizing search of the residence, chattels, and “other person/s found in or upon said premises who may be participating in [the drug-distribution scheme] and who may be concealing evidence.”
Officers executed the warrants after tracking McClure’s car back to Spanish Bay Court, stopped/pinned the parked Infiniti, and removed driver McClure and passenger Alvin Eusebio; two baggies of marijuana fell from Eusebio’s pants during removal.
Searches produced 61.1 g suspected cocaine on McClure and 50.2 g suspected heroin in Eusebio’s groin; both were arrested. Eusebio moved to suppress the heroin evidence.
Eusebio argued (1) the warrant failed particularity for the vehicle and did not authorize the stop/search of the car or its occupants, and (2) there was no nexus/probable cause to search him under the warrant’s “may be participating” language. The State argued the warrant covered the car and detention and alternatively that probable cause and search-incident-to-arrest justified the search.
The circuit court denied the suppression motion; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Eusebio's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Warrant particularity for the automobile	The warrant’s body used “premises” and did not sufficiently authorize search of the vehicle; thus it was defective or at least did not permit the stop/search	The warrant’s caption and incorporated affidavit specifically identified McClure’s Infiniti; read commonsensically it authorized the car search	Warrant sufficiently particular: caption, VIN, plate, make/model satisfied definiteness and limitedness, so it was not an impermissibly general warrant
Authority to seize/stop the car and occupants under the warrant	Even if warrant authorized car search, it did not expressly authorize seizing/stopping the vehicle or its passengers, so the stop was unlawful absent independent probable cause	Police with a valid warrant to search the car may seize the car to effectuate the search; seizure is reasonable and tied to executing the warrant	Seizing the car and detaining occupants to conduct a warranted search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; police may stop/seize the vehicle to effectuate the search
Scope of "other person/s... who may be participating" language	That clause authorized searching persons in the vehicle (including Eusebio) without a prior judicial finding of probable cause; warrant thus allowed the search	The clause is an all-present-participants provision and cannot, by itself, supply judicial probable cause for unnamed individuals; searches must be justified by other grounds	An all-persons-present warrant (where magistrate finds probable cause as to all present) can be valid; an all-present-participants clause is inoperative — it does not itself supply probable cause to search unnamed persons
Lawfulness of the search of Eusebio’s person	No judicial probable cause was found as to Eusebio; his search was beyond the warrant’s scope and should be suppressed	Officers developed probable cause (marijuana fell, observed fidgeting in groin, investigative context) and legally arrested and searched him; search also valid as incident to arrest	The search was lawful: officers had probable cause to arrest Eusebio based on the totality of circumstances and the search was valid as contemporaneous search incident to arrest (so evidence admissible)

Key Cases Cited

Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (warrant must limit search to areas for which probable cause exists)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passenger in vehicle stop is seized and may challenge stop)
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (automobile-search principles and warrantless searches of vehicles on probable cause)
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (warrant to search premises carries limited authority to detain occupants)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle during lawful stop)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (officer may order passengers out of lawfully stopped car)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness judged objectively)
Pacheco v. State, 465 Md. 311 (Maryland standard for reviewing suppression rulings)