Faith v. State
213 A.3d 809
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2019Background
- Traffic stop on I-70 (7:18 p.m.) for following too closely; deputies noted track marks and suspected drug use; K-9 alerted to Faith’s vehicle and officers found drug paraphernalia and bags in the car.
- Female Sergeant Ensor was called to conduct a “female search.” She positioned Faith between police cruisers on the highway shoulder, with emergency lights flashing, Faith’s passenger and 3-year-old child nearby, and moderate–heavy passing traffic.
- Ensor directed Faith to unbutton and pull her shorts/underwear away so Ensor could visually inspect. Ensor saw a condom protruding from Faith’s underwear; Faith retrieved it and it contained multiple bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine.
- Faith was arrested and later given Miranda warnings; she moved to suppress the drugs and pre-Miranda statements. The suppression court excluded pre-Miranda statements but denied suppression of the drug evidence.
- On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held the warrantless, non-exigent visual inspection of Faith’s genital area on the highway shoulder—done in daylight with bystanders and passing motorists present—violated the Fourth Amendment; conviction reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Faith's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roadside visual inspection of Faith’s genital area was a constitutionally unreasonable sexually invasive search | The search was a visual body-cavity/sexually invasive search conducted in public without exigent circumstances; evidence should be suppressed | The intrusion was minimal (only Ensor viewed), conducted to protect privacy and officer safety, and justified by canine alert/vehicle contraband | Court: Although scope (a look-in) was intrusive, the absence of exigent circumstances and the public manner/location made the search unreasonable; suppression of drug evidence required |
| Whether the State met its burden to justify conducting the invasive search at the scene rather than in private | Police could and should have taken Faith to a private location (vehicle interior or station); public roadside search was unnecessary and degrading | Routine field look-in searches are lawful and less intrusive than full strip searches; waiting would be impractical or unnecessary | Court: State failed to show a legitimate, non-pretextual need to search at that precise moment; exigency required for public sexually invasive searches was not established |
| Whether shielding from direct view (single female officer, turned away from traffic) cures public-search modality concerns | Presence of passenger, child, and passing motorists made the search effectively public; shielding by officer insufficient | Steps taken (positioning, female officer, turning away) minimized exposure and were reasonable privacy protections | Court: Partial shielding did not satisfy Fourth Amendment; potential and actual public observation weighed heavily against reasonableness |
| Whether the drugs and subsequent statements were admissible given the alleged unlawfulness of the search | Evidence and derivative statements must be excluded as fruits of unconstitutional search/interrogation | The drugs were properly seized; pre-Miranda statements suppressed but drug evidence admissible | Court: Drugs suppressed because obtained from unconstitutional roadside invasive search; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (balancing test for intrusive searches in confinement and factors for reasonableness)
- Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341 (searches exposing genital/anal areas in public require exigent circumstances; roadside invasive search held unreasonable)
- Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (visual exposure of underwear/genital area is highly intrusive; societal privacy expectations)
- Allen v. State, 197 Md. App. 308 (reach-in/visual searches can be reasonable when conducted out of public view and with privacy protections)
- Partlow v. State, 199 Md. App. 624 (reach-in/partial-exposure may be reasonable where conducted away from public view and exigency concerns exist)
- Turkes v. State, 199 Md. App. 96 (roadside reach-in search reasonable where exigent facts—flight, missing bag, pat-down revealing hard object—supported immediate intrusive search)
- Sims v. Labowitz, 885 F.3d 254 (4th Cir.) (describing sexually invasive searches and applying Bell factors)
- United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 974 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing on-street inspections from private searches; permitted reach-in after moving suspect to shielded area)