Gerety & Antkowiak v. State, 246 A.3d 629

A passerby called 911 reporting a man and woman inside a parked SUV who appeared "really high" and possibly unconscious; dispatcher linked caller to paramedics and police for a welfare check.
Officer Silva responded to a different nearby parking lot, found Damian Gerety (driver) and Briana Antkowiak nodding in the SUV, asked if they needed medical assistance; both declined.
Silva requested identification, ran names through databases, discovered outstanding warrants for Gerety, then arrested him; during the encounter and subsequent search, officers found controlled substances including 1.44 grams of heroin.
Gerety and Antkowiak were initially indicted on multiple counts but the State proceeded only on a single count of simple possession of heroin; defendants pled not guilty on agreed facts and moved for acquittal under Maryland’s Good Samaritan statute, CP § 1-210(c).
The trial court denied immunity and convicted both (sentence: time served). On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the immunity applied because officers were at the scene solely due to the 911 medical welfare call and discovery of warrants did not defeat the immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does CP § 1-210(c) immunize defendants from prosecution when evidence was discovered after a 911 call reporting a suspected drug-related medical emergency?	Gerety/Antkowiak: Yes — officers were at scene solely because of the medical call, so evidence was "obtained solely as a result" and immunity applies.	State: No — defendants refused medical assistance and vehicle movement shows no emergency; alternatively, discovery of outstanding warrants rendered evidence independent of the medical call.	Reversed: Immunity applies because the officers’ presence was solely due to the medical welfare call; refusal of aid or vehicle movement does not defeat the statutory protection.
Does the presence/discovery of outstanding warrants during the encounter attenuate or defeat the § 1-210(c) immunity?	Gerety/Antkowiak: No — the warrants were discovered only because officers were there due to the medical call, so the evidence still was obtained solely as a result of that call.	State: Yes — warrants gave an independent basis to arrest/search, breaking the causal chain that § 1-210(c) requires.	Held: No attenuation — the statute’s "solely as a result" inquiry asks why officers were at the scene; because they were there only for the medical welfare check, subsequent discovery of warrants does not negate immunity.

Noble v. State, 238 Md. App. 153 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) (held Good Samaritan immunity extends to passive recipients and emphasized lifesaving legislative purpose)
State v. Bey, 452 Md. 255 (Md. 2017) (sets forth statutory interpretation principles)
Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261 (Md. 2006) (discusses attenuation doctrine in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence)
Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488 (Md. 2001) (explains exclusions to exclusionary rule and balancing law enforcement needs)
Bellard v. State, 452 Md. 467 (Md. 2017) (review standard for statutory interpretation is de novo)