Grimm v. State
158 A.3d 1037
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- On April 19, 2014 Sgt. Lamb stopped a maroon Honda matching a HIDTA tip; Brian Grimm was the driver and occupants were not wearing seatbelts.
- Officer Keightley arrived with Malinois K‑9 "Ace," a certified narcotics dog trained to detect heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, MDMA, and marijuana.
- Ace performed an exterior scan and gave a positive alert at the driver’s door; Sgt. Lamb then searched the vehicle and found a large quantity of heroin and amphetamine.
- Grimm moved to suppress, arguing Ace was unreliable (training deficiencies, false alerts, handler cuing) and therefore the alert did not supply probable cause.
- The suppression hearing produced competing expert testimony; the court found Sgt. Mary Davis (State’s expert) most credible and concluded Ace was reliable and his alert provided probable cause.
- Grimm entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the suppression issue; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ace’s alert provided probable cause for a warrantless Carroll search | Grimm: Ace was unreliable on April 19, 2014 (insufficient training, many false alerts, possible handler cuing), so alert cannot support probable cause | State: Ace was certified and had adequate training; under Florida v. Harris a certification/training record can establish reliability | Court: No error — suppression court’s factual finding that Ace was reliable not clearly erroneous; alert provided probable cause |
| Whether the suppression court should apply a rigid evidentiary checklist for dog reliability | Grimm: Court should scrutinize field performance, training deficiencies, and certification gaps more strictly | State: Reliability may be established by certification/training and weighed against defense challenges; use totality of circumstances per Harris | Court: Followed Florida v. Harris; rejected rigid checklist and applied totality-of-circumstances; proper deference to suppression court’s credibility findings |
| Admissibility of post-scan (August 2014) recertification evidence | Grimm: Evidence of recertification months after the scan is irrelevant to dog’s reliability on April 19, 2014 | State: Post-scan certification is relevant to rebut defense theory that dog lost olfactory ability or became unreliable | Court: Admissible — it tended to make loss-of-ability explanation less probable and was properly considered by the suppression court |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (a dog’s certification/training can establish reliability; courts must use totality of circumstances and allow defendant to challenge reliability)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception permits warrantless vehicle searches on probable cause)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretextual traffic stops are permissible where probable cause for a traffic violation exists)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is evaluated under a totality-of-the-circumstances standard; 'fair probability' test)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (probable cause and reasonable suspicion review: mixed questions of law and fact; historical facts reviewed for clear error)
- State v. Wallace, 372 Md. 137 (2002) (Maryland: properly trained canine alert establishes probable cause for Carroll search)
- Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554 (2001) (timing and conduct of K‑9 scans in traffic stops; relation to scope of stop)
- Gadson v. State, 341 Md. 1 (1995) (a trained drug dog’s positive alert provides probable cause to search a vehicle)