Turkes v. State
199 Md. App. 96
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Officer Smith stopped Turkes for window tint with a safety repair order issued; the stop occurred May 2, 2009 on Greig Street, PG County.
- During the stop Turkes exited abruptly and looked toward a black bag in the door well, which later disappeared.
- Turkes displayed nervous behavior and furtive movements; after signing the repair order, the officer sought to investigate further.
- The officer conducted a car search after Turkes claimed no knowledge of the bag; a pat-down occurred when the officer felt a hard object.
- After arrest, a further search yielded four hundred glassine bags, a razor blade, and 40 grams of crack cocaine, along with the bag.
- The suppression motion was denied by the circuit court; on appeal the issues included stop validity, second stop, vehicle search, frisk, and strip search; the first and fifth issues were preserved at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Turkes contends no reasonable suspicion. | State asserts tint violation observation suffices. | Yes, stop supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether there was a valid second stop post-signing of the repair order | Turkes argues continued detention lacked basis. | State contends second stop justified by reasonable suspicion. | Yes, second stop supported by reasonable articulable suspicion. |
| Whether the car search was supported by reasonable suspicion | Turkes asserts lack of sufficient suspicion for search. | State argues second stop and bag threat justification valid. | Yes, search reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Whether the frisk of Turkes was lawful | Turkes claims unlawful frisk. | State maintains frisk justified by possible weapon. | Yes, frisk lawful under Terry/McDowell framework. |
| Whether the strip search was improperly conducted in public | Turkes argues strip search violation of privacy. | State contendsBell factors balance privacy vs. officer safety. | No, search deemed reasonable under Bell factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 401 Md. 676, 934 A.2d 38 (Md. 2007) (tinting stop and repair order framework; reasonable suspicion for tint stop)
- Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 735 A.2d 491 (Md. 1999) (limits on continuing stops after initial stop; need for reasonable suspicion)
- Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 100 S. Ct. 2752 (U.S. 1980) (general rule that broad categories must be narrowed by specific inferences for suspicion)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581 (U.S. 1989) (reasonable suspicion based on totality of circumstances from facts viewed together)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S. Ct. 3469 (U.S. 1983) (allowing protective search of vehicle passenger compartment under reasonable suspicion of danger)
- McDowell v. State, 407 Md. 327, 965 A.2d 877 (Md. 2009) (frisk/search standards for weapons based on articulable suspicion)
- Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 324, 924 A.2d 308 (Md. 2007) (Bell/Paulino framework for reach-in searches incident to arrest)
- Allen v. State, 197 Md. App. 308, 13 A.3d 801 (Md. 2011) (reach-in searches; balance of scope and privacy under Bell factors)
- Nieves v. State, 383 Md. 573, 861 A.2d 62 (Md. 2004) (Maryland limits on strip searches in public settings)