75 A.3d 1048
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- On Nov. 30, 2011, Detective Ramberg observed Marlon Smith enter a car; as it drove Ramberg saw the vehicle’s center (rear deck) brake light fail to illuminate when brakes were applied. Ramberg stopped the car to issue a safety equipment repair order.
- Upon approaching, officers smelled burnt marijuana; they removed driver and passenger (Smith) from the vehicle. While closing the passenger door, Ramberg saw a handgun in plain view on the passenger floorboard. Smith was arrested.
- Smith moved to suppress the handgun, arguing the traffic stop was unlawful because Maryland law (he claimed) requires only two working brake lights, so no vehicle-code violation occurred. The trial court denied suppression.
- At trial a jury convicted Smith of possession of a regulated firearm after a disqualifying conviction, wearing/carrying/transporting a handgun, and wearing/carrying/transporting a handgun in a vehicle; Smith appealed the denial of suppression.
- The Court of Special Appeals reviewed whether the stop was supported by a vehicle-code violation or, alternatively, by reasonable concern the vehicle was unsafe due to the inoperative center high‑mounted brake light (CHMSL).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop lawful under the Fourth Amendment? | Stop unlawful because Maryland law requires only two working brake lights, so no violation occurred to justify a stop. | Stop lawful because MVA regulation (C.O.M.A.R.) requires three working brake lights for vehicles made on/after 9/1/1985; §23-105 authorizes stops to issue repair orders. | Held: Stop was lawful — vehicle violated equipment standards (statute plus MVA regulation) and, alternatively, officer reasonably could view the vehicle as unsafe due to an inoperative CHMSL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer’s subjective motive irrelevant to stop’s constitutionality)
- State v. Williams, 401 Md. 676 (when applicable, MVA regulations are considered with statutory provisions to determine a vehicle-law violation)
- Gilmore v. State, 204 Md. App. 556 (an officer’s reasonable but mistaken belief of a violation is not enough if no actual violation occurred)
- Muse v. State, 146 Md. App. 395 (officer may stop vehicle that appears unsafe even if no specific code provision is violated)