Fair v. State, 16 A.3d 211

Arnell Fair was arrested with Scott Tanner and charged with possession of marijuana, possession of firearm by a convicted felon, and related vehicle offenses; detective Mahan found marijuana in plain view in Fair's Cadillac and recovered a handgun from the center console and a paycheck in Fair's name.
Pretrial suppression denied; the suppression court held the marijuana search incident to arrest was permissible and that opening the console for the gun was a bona fide inventory/search rather than an investigative search.
The Cadillac, parked near Tanner's Lexus, was linked to Fair by keys/remote seized from Fair at arrest; Tanner identified his car, and Detective Mahan opened the Cadillac after activating the remote, revealing marijuana in plain view.
The State sought to admit the paycheck found in the center console; the paycheck’s date was elicited later, and the court ruled the paycheck was admissible to show Fair's possessory interest in the vehicle, not for its truth.
Fair was convicted by a jury of marijuana possession and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; he appealed challenging suppression ruling and hearsay ruling, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
The judgment was entered against Fair with sentences of five years for the firearm conviction and one year for marijuana, to be served consecutively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
suppression of keys/remote, marijuana, and firearm	Fair contends the keys/remote and vehicle search were not justified as Fourth Amendment searches.	State argues inventory/search rationale and automobile exception justified warrantless access.	Affirmed suppression denial; search proper under inventory/automobile exception.
hearsay about paycheck date	Fair argues the paycheck's date is hearsay and not within a proper exception.	State contends the paycheck is non-hearsay as a verbal act showing possession, not truth of contents.	Affirmed admission of paycheck; treated as non-hearsay verbal act for purpose of linking to vehicle.

Daniels v. State, 172 Md.App. 75 (Md. App. 2006) (standard of review on suppression; deference to findings, de novo legal analysis)
Holland v. State, 122 Md.App. 532 (Md. App. 1998) (searches of property already in custody may be non-intrusive if no fresh intrusion required)
Stoddard v. State, 389 Md. 681 (Md. 2005) (implied assertions doctrine; limits on hearsay for non-verbal conduct)
Bernadyn v. State, 390 Md. 1 (Md. 2005) (limits of implied assertions and when a document proves residence; need for limiting instruction)
Garner v. State, 414 Md. 372 (Md. 2010) (verbal acts and implied assertions; categorization of anonymous calls as non-hearsay when not offered to prove truth of assertion)
Fields v. State, 168 Md.App. 22 (Md. App. 2006) (non-hearsay circumstantial crime-scene evidence; analysis of implied assertions vs. non-assertive evidence)
Best v. State, 71 Md.App. 422 (Md. App. 1987) (non-hearsay nature of telephone conversation testimony; verbal acts)