State v. Harding
196 Md. App. 384
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2010Background
- MD Court of Special Appeals reverses a suppression order and remands for trial on the merits.
- Appellee Harding was stopped and arrested after a K-9 alerted to CDS in a blue Audi; initial stop and car search were upheld, but a strip search at the station was challenged.
- Police conducted a routine strip-search-like procedure at precinct Six; evidence (crack cocaine) was dropped from the pants during the strip search and later excluded.
- The panel distinguishes between routine search incident to arrest (valid with probable cause) and a more invasive search requiring separate justification.
- Court ultimately holds that the pre-station searches were lawful and reverses the suppression order, remanding for trial on the merits.
- The opinion emphasizes a single, bright-line framework: strip searches require particularized suspicion; modality concerns are distinct and secondary to justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What justification is required for a strip search beyond a routine search incident to arrest? | Harding argues there was no sufficient particularized suspicion. | State argues information from informant, K-9 alert, and surrounding circumstances provided probable cause and particularized suspicion. | Yes; requires particularized suspicion for strip search; beyond routine search, justification is needed. |
| Did the K-9 alert and surrounding circumstances supply sufficient probable cause for arrest and subsequent searches? | Harding contends K-9 alert does not justify a full strip search. | State asserts K-9 alert plus informant tips created probable cause to arrest and search. | K-9 alert plus corroborative facts supported probable cause to arrest and justify subsequent searches. |
| How should the justification for beyond-search-intrusions be analyzed relative to modality concerns? | Not specifically addressed beyond the necessity of justification. | Modality concerns (privacy, embarrassment) are secondary to justification. | Justification takes precedence; modality concerns are separate and do not override sufficiency of justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nieves, 383 Md. 573 (Md. 2004) (recognizes reasonable particularized suspicion for strip searches)
- Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341 (Md. 2007) (modality and multiple categories; distinguishes between modalities and justification)
- State v. Funkhouser, 140 Md.App. 696 (Md. 2001) (probable cause to search vehicle equals probable cause to arrest driver; relationship of probable cause to arrest and search)
- Ofori, 170 Md.App. 211 (Md. 2006) (probable cause for arrest and its relation to search of vehicle; applicability to strip searches)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (institutional security and body searches; balancing reasonableness in detention facilities)