Joppy v. State, 158 A.3d 1112

Background

Appellant Abdullah Malik Joppy (a/k/a Richard Joppy) was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a CDS and conspiracy after a federal warrant search of Apartment 104, 3320 Teagarden Circle, occupied by his girlfriend Victoria Gaines and alleged to be Joppy’s primary residence.
The FBI and Montgomery County PD conducted a multi-month (Feb–May 2015) investigation of a drug distribution network led by George Gee using wiretaps, pen registers, surveillance, and controlled buys; Special Agent Charles Adams authored the 29‑page affidavit for the June 1, 2015 search warrant.
Surveillance and intercepted calls tied Joppy to repeated meetings, pickups, and references to 3320 Teagarden Circle as his “crib”; apartment manager and observed routine entry/exit supported that it was his primary residence despite not being on the lease.
On execution (June 8, 2015) officers found Joppy asleep in the bedroom; in a closet they found a pill bottle with two baggies of crack cocaine (~5 grams total) and a digital scale in a suitcase.
At the suppression hearing, defense argued only that the affidavit failed to show Joppy’s criminality (no observed transactions by him); the appellant raised nexus, staleness, and Good Faith arguments for the first time on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Joppy)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Probable cause / nexus between criminal activity and 3320 Teagarden Circle	Affidavit did not establish a nexus tying Joppy’s criminal conduct to the residence	Affidavit plus wiretaps, surveillance, manager identification and routine entry provided a substantial basis for nexus	Not preserved on appeal (never argued below); even if considered, nexus was adequately supported and magistrate had substantial basis
Staleness of the evidence supporting nexus	Intercepts/surveillance in Feb–Mar were stale by warrant issuance/execution in June	Continuing conspiracy, ongoing activity, residence stability, and corroborating surveillances kept probable cause fresh	Not preserved on appeal; even if considered, evidence was not stale under governing factors
Applicability of the Leon good‑faith exception	Good‑faith exception should not apply when the warrant lacks nexus or is otherwise deficient	Officers reasonably relied on a detailed judicially‑issued warrant; Leon/Sheppard apply because the affidavit was not “bare bones” and no Leon exceptions apply	Not raised below as primary issue; alternatively, good‑faith exception applies—warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause to render reliance unreasonable
Legal sufficiency of conviction for possession with intent to distribute	The cocaine was found in girlfriend’s jacket; insufficient evidence to tie Joppy to the specific contraband	Totality of investigation and bedroom/closet context support constructive possession and intent to distribute	Motion for acquittal preserved as a generic sufficiency challenge; evidence was legally sufficient to support possession with intent to distribute

Key Cases Cited

Holmes v. State, 368 Md. 506 (2002) (explains nexus in drug/weapon cases and permits reasonable inferences from the type of crime and where evidence is likely kept)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule and lists narrow exceptions)
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) (applies Leon rationale where officers reasonably relied on a magistrate’s warrant despite technical defects)
Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976) (sets out staleness/evaporation framework: consider crime character, object sought, defendant, and place to be searched)
State v. Coley, 145 Md. App. 502 (2002) (applies Holmes and emphasizes deference to issuing magistrate under the substantial‑basis standard)
State v. Faulkner, 190 Md. App. 37 (2010) (reverses suppression where nexus and ongoing criminal enterprise justified search; reiterates preference for warrants)
Patterson v. State, 401 Md. 76 (2007) (discusses Leon/Leon exceptions and affirms application of good‑faith analysis)