McCracken v. State
429 Md. 507
Md.2012Background
- Officer responded to report of armed individual; woman described hacking and kidnapping; petitioner argued he did not hack and gave inconsistent explanations.
- Officer patted down petitioner during a lawful Terry frisk and felt a left-pocket item he believed to be car keys and a remote.
- Officer seized the keys/remote and used the remote to locate a nearby car, shining flashlight into an open glove compartment and observing a handgun.
- Petitioner moved to suppress the keys, remote, and handgun; suppression court denied; handgun seizure challenged as tainted by initial seizure.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed suppression de novo on Fourth Amendment grounds.
- Court held the plain feel doctrine applied; seized items were immediately apparent as evidence of hacking; suppression denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plain feel allowed seizure of keys and remote. | McCracken: not immediately apparent; lacking probable cause. | State: plain feel justified by probable cause from totality of circumstances. | Yes; plain feel seizure upheld. |
| Whether handgun seizure was tainted by initial seizure of keys/remote. | Suppression of handgun as fruit of unlawful seizure. | Handgun independently seized under plain feel/abatement of taint. | Handgun not tainted; affirmed. |
| Whether probable cause supported the plain feel seizure. | Probable cause lacked until remote alarm confirmed vehicle connection. | Totality of circumstances gave fair probability items related to hacking. | Probable cause exists; plain feel justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (frisk limited to weapons; guarded expansion when immediately apparent contraband)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (plain feel limits; must be immediately apparent as contraband)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 821 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (plain view doctrine requires immediate apparent incriminating character)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (three-pronged plain view inquiry including lawful access)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (probable cause is a practical, not technical, standard; totality of circumstances)
- Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (objective assessment of officer's actions at the time)
- Bailey v. State, 412 Md. 349 (Md. 2010) (immediacy of incriminating nature crucial to plain feel)
- Purnell v. State, 832 A.2d 714 (Del. 2003) (keys not immediately linked to crime; seizure unlawful)
- Abdul-Maleek v. State, 426 Md. 59 (Md. 2012) (judges presumed to know and apply the law)