Whittington v. State
474 Md. 1
| Md. | 2021Background
- Harford County Narcotics Task Force obtained a 30-day GPS "Application for Court Order" under Md. Crim. Proc. § 1-203.1 and placed a tracker on Whittington’s 2002 Dodge Stratus.
- GPS data and surveillance showed Whittington repeatedly traveling between his suspected residence (4 Cloverwood Ct., Essex) and locations suspected to be stash houses; detectives also observed evasive driving and intercepted coded communications linking Whittington to a known dealer (David Hall).
- Based on a 16‑page affidavit (incorporating GPS data, surveillance, CI info, and officers’ training/experience), detectives obtained a search warrant for multiple locations, including Whittington’s vehicle and Cloverwood Ct.; searches recovered cocaine and cash.
- Whittington moved to suppress, arguing (1) the § 1-203.1 "court order" for GPS tracking did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement because it was not labeled a "warrant," (2) the search warrant lacked probable cause as to Cloverwood Ct., and (3) the good-faith exception did not apply. The circuit court found the warrant lacked probable cause as to the residence but admitted evidence under the good-faith exception and upheld the § 1-203.1 order’s validity.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding: the § 1-203.1 court order satisfies the Fourth Amendment (label not dispositive); the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause; and, alternatively, officers reasonably relied on the warrant in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 1-203.1 "court order" authorizing GPS tracking satisfies the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement | Whittington: Fourth Amendment requires a document labeled a "warrant"; a "court order" cannot substitute and allows circumvention of warrant protections | State: Label is immaterial; § 1-203.1 contains the substantive warrant requirements (probable cause, oath, particularity, neutral magistrate) | Court: Label irrelevant; § 1-203.1 substantively meets warrant requirements (substance over form) |
| Whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for probable cause to search Cloverwood Ct. based largely on circumstantial evidence and GPS data | Whittington: Affidavit lacked direct evidence tying criminal activity to the residence; only showed he may sleep there | State: GPS patterns, surveillance, association with known dealer, prior drug history, and officers’ experience supplied reasonable inferences tying residence to stash activity | Court: Affidavit provided a substantial basis—reasonable inferences from GPS, observations, confederation, and officers’ expertise created nexus to residence |
| Whether evidence should be excluded because officers could not reasonably rely on the warrant | Whittington: Even if § 1-203.1 valid, the warrant lacked indicia of probable cause so reliance was unreasonable | State: Affidavit contained sufficient detailed, first‑hand observations and experience-based inferences so reliance was objectively reasonable | Court: Assuming arguendo insufficient probable cause, officers nonetheless acted in objective good faith; suppression not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (placement of GPS on vehicle is a search)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (warrant requirements: neutral magistrate, probable cause on oath, particularity)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (analyzes sufficiency of statutory court orders vs. warrants for location‑based data)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a flexible, practical standard; deferential review)
- Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979) (neutral, detached magistrate requirement)
- Stevenson v. State, 455 Md. 709 (2017) (Maryland standard: issuing judge need only have a "substantial basis" for probable cause)
- Patterson v. State, 401 Md. 76 (2007) (good‑faith reliance may be reasonable even where reviewing court finds no substantial basis)
- Agurs v. State, 415 Md. 62 (2010) (discusses limits of good‑faith application where affidavit is conclusory)
- Copes v. State, 454 Md. 581 (2017) (substance over form; court orders can meet Fourth Amendment warrant requirements)
- Holmes v. State, 368 Md. 506 (2002) (permissible inference that drug dealers keep evidence at residence)
- Mills v. State, 278 Md. 262 (1976) (reasonable inference that instrumentalities of a crime will be at defendant’s residence)
- United States v. Thomas, 989 F.2d 1252 (4th Cir. 1993) (observations away from residence may support a warrant for the residence when logical nexus exists)