Grant v. State, 141 A.3d 138

Deputy Atkins stopped Terrance Jamal Grant for speeding; Grant was the sole occupant and rolled down the passenger-side window.
Atkins testified he smelled marijuana during initial contact but could not recall whether he detected the odor before or after inserting his head into the vehicle through the passenger window; video suggested his head may have crossed the window pane.
Atkins called for a K-9 unit; the dog alerted and a subsequent search produced a film canister with 1.6 grams of marijuana and a smoking device.
Grant moved to suppress, arguing Atkins’ insertion of his head into the car constituted an unlawful search if the odor was detected only after that intrusion; the circuit court denied suppression, finding the odor provided articulable suspicion to detain while awaiting the dog.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, resolving the ambiguity in favor of the State; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed, holding the record was unclear when the odor was detected and that ambiguity required suppression.

Issue	Grant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Atkins conducted a lawful warrantless search by inserting his head into the car	Atkins detected odor only after head crossed window; physical intrusion was a search and State failed its burden so evidence must be suppressed	Any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the prevailing party on suppression; testimony that odor was detected on "initial contact" supports detection before intrusion	Reversed: record unclear when odor was detected; without finding odor before the intrusion State failed to show lawfulness and exclusionary rule applies
Whether the Court of Special Appeals properly resolved factual ambiguity by drawing inference for the State	Court must defer to circuit court findings; ambiguity requires defendant prevail	Ambiguity can be resolved under appellate supplemental rule in favor of prevailing party	Reversed: intermediate court applied an improper approach by drawing inferences inconsistent with the record

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop constitutional when officer has probable cause for a traffic violation)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (automobile exception: warrantless vehicle search permitted if probable cause exists)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on search incident to arrest in vehicle context)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applied to state courts)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule bars evidence as fruit of unlawful searches)