Santos v. State
148 A.3d 117
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- On Sept. 30, 2014, narcotics detectives in an unmarked car observed Santos parked away from a McDonald’s in a parking lot known for drug activity; a female passenger (Amanda Fitch) entered the restaurant and sat with another man.
- Santos drove past the officers, was stopped for manipulating a cell phone and not wearing a seat belt; officers noted excessive nervousness and sweating.
- During the stop officers asked where Santos had been; he said the mall and denied meeting anyone, which conflicted with the officers’ observations of Ms. Fitch.
- Sergeant Rakowski went to the McDonald’s, located Ms. Fitch (with manager’s help), who admitted she had bought and used heroin from Santos and said Santos retrieved drugs from behind the passenger seat.
- Based on Fitch’s admission, detectives arrested Santos and searched his car, finding a modified WD-40 can containing heroin and cocaine; Santos moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an illegal search.
- The circuit court denied the suppression motion, found officers credible, concluded the initial stop was valid and that reasonable articulable suspicion supported a Terry detention; Santos entered conditional guilty pleas and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Santos’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop lawful? | Stop was pretextual and invalid because officers were undercover and only seat-belt stops require uniformed officers | Stop valid under Whren; handheld phone use justifies stop | Stop lawful under Whren (officers saw phone manipulation; seat-belt point not fatal) |
| Did questioning and brief detention exceed traffic-stop scope? | Questions about where/with whom he had been were unrelated and unlawfully prolonged the stop | Unrelated questions within timeframe of stop are permitted and did not measurably extend detention | Questions were permissible and did not measurably extend the stop |
| Was there reasonable articulable suspicion to expand detention to a Terry investigation? | Inconsistent statements and officer observations insufficient; detention became unlawful | Totality of circumstances (location, behavior, nervousness, inconsistent statement, Fitch’s conduct) gave reasonable suspicion | Court held reasonable articulable suspicion existed to continue detention and investigate for drugs |
| Was the duration of the detention unreasonable? | Officers took too long (records/warrant checks, trip to McDonald’s) | Officers promptly pursued investigation; Fitch was located and admitted purchase within ~15 minutes | Detention duration was reasonable and officers diligently pursued means to confirm/dispel suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective justification for traffic stops governs regardless of officer’s subjective intent)
- Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356 (1999) (once traffic-stop purpose is fulfilled, continued detention requires consent or reasonable articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion analysis under the totality of the circumstances; officers may rely on training/experience)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to traffic stop do not convert the stop so long as they do not measurably extend its duration)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (innocent acts viewed together can give rise to reasonable suspicion)
- Jackson v. State, 190 Md. App. 497 (2010) (a traffic stop can develop a parallel Terry investigation; reasonable suspicion may arise during the stop)