Whittington v. State, 230 A.3d 148

Harford County detectives investigating drug distributor David Hall used a wiretap and surveillance; Kevin Whittington was the highest-volume caller to Hall and was observed in suspected evasive driving and short stops consistent with drug activity.
On Oct. 8, 2016 detectives obtained an Electronic Device Location Information Order under Md. Crim. Proc. § 1-203.1 authorizing covert GPS attachment to Whittington’s Dodge Stratus for 30 days.
GPS monitoring corroborated movement patterns; detectives then obtained a search warrant (Oct. 24, 2016) for Whittington’s car, person, and 4 Cloverwood Ct., Apt. 202, yielding large amounts of cocaine, pills, and cash; Whittington was arrested and charged.
Whittington moved to suppress all evidence, arguing the GPS order was unconstitutional (Jones requires a warrant), the search-warrant affidavit lacked a nexus to the apartment, and the good-faith exception should not apply.
The suppression court found the GPS order valid, concluded the district-court search warrant lacked a substantial basis for probable cause but applied the Leon good-faith exception, and denied suppression.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed: it held that orders under CP § 1-203.1 satisfy Fourth Amendment warrant requirements and that officers reasonably relied in good faith on the search warrant.

Issue	Whittington's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a court order under CP § 1-203.1 authorizing placement of a GPS device satisfies Fourth Amendment warrant requirements	§ 1-203.1 permits warrantless GPS tracking; Jones requires a warrant	§ 1-203.1 incorporates oath, probable cause, neutral magistrate, particularity and time limits; substance, not label, controls	CP § 1-203.1 orders meet warrant requisites (neutral magistrate, probable cause, oath, particularity, 30-day limit, tech identification)
Whether evidence from the subsequent search should be suppressed because the search warrant lacked probable cause and officers could not reasonably rely on it	Warrant affidavit failed to establish nexus to the apartment and was speculative; officers could not rely in good faith	Affidavit gave facts, training-based inferences, and recent surveillance; reliance on the issued warrant was objectively reasonable	Good-faith exception applies; suppression denied

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking of a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
State v. Copes, 454 Md. 581 (2017) (Fourth Amendment requirements are met by substance not label; warrant standards applied to modern surveillance)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Agurs v. State, 415 Md. 62 (2010) (discusses nexus requirement for search warrants and produced a fractured Court on the good-faith issue)
Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (a court order authorizing electronic interception can constitute a valid Fourth Amendment warrant)
State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350 (2016) (warrant/order must identify surveillance technology and its scope to satisfy particularity)
Greenstreet v. State, 392 Md. 652 (2006) (standard of review: issuing judge must have a substantial basis for probable cause)
Patterson v. State, 401 Md. 76 (2007) (good-faith exception applied where officers reasonably relied on warrant based on training and recent observations)
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) (particularity and limitation requirements for electronic surveillance warrants)