Upshur v. State, 56 A.3d 620

Upshur was charged with attempted murder and related offenses in Somerset County and moved to suppress subscriber data, a photographic ID, and evidence from a search warrant.
Detective Bozman obtained Upshur’s name and address from Sprint using an exigent-circumstances form, without a Maryland subpoena, warrant, court order, or subscriber consent.
Sprint later provided the same subscriber information to the State’s Attorney subpoena out-of-state, which post-dates the initial disclosure.
Whittington identified Upshur from a one-photo (booking photo) display before trial, after the officer showed Upshur’s photo without warnings.
The circuit court denied the suppression motions; Upshur was convicted of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and carrying a concealed weapon.
On appeal, the court held that subscriber data was not protected by a Fourth Amendment privacy interest and that there was no suppression remedy under the Stored Communications Act; the photographic identification was admissible despite impermissibly suggestive procedures because it was reliable under Biggers factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the SCA data disclosure violated the statute	Upshur—data obtained without subpoena/warrant violated SCA.	State—no exclusionary remedy exists under SCA; subpoena later served independent source/inevitable discovery.	No suppression remedy; Fourth Amendment privacy not protect subscriber data; data excluded from suppression analysis.
Whether subscriber data is subject to exclusionary rule	Upshur argues data tainted the entire case due to SCA violation.	State—no exclusionary rule exists for SCA violations absent a statutory remedy.	No exclusionary remedy under SCA; evidence not suppressed on this basis.
Whether the out-of-court photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive	Upshur contends single-photo ID was unduly suggestive and unreliable.	Whittington’s identification was reliable despite suggestiveness.	Identification unreliable stage reached; but court found reliability via Biggers factors; identification allowed.
Whether the in-court identification was independently reliable	Upshur argues no independent source shown for in-court ID.	State showed independent observations by Whittington of Upshur prior to the assault.	Court held clear and convincing evidence supported independent source for in-court ID.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed)
Chan v. State, 78 Md. App. 287 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989) (creation of exclusionary rules requires explicit statutory remedy)
Jones v. State, 395 Md. 97 (Md. 2006) (two-step ID reliability framework for confirmatory identifications)
In re Matthew S., 199 Md. App. 436 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (reliability factors for identification where suggestive)
Rustin v. State, 46 Md. App. 28 (Md. Ct. App. 1980) (distinguishes overruled/unduly suggestive identifications)
Hamel v. State, 179 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. App. 2008) (Article 26 parity with Fourth Amendment protections)
Thompson v. State, 395 Md. 240 (Md. 2006) (statutory exclusionary rule limitations; no inherent remedy absent statute)