![]() ![]() ![]() But I feel that when one comes into Maryland, they have to avail themselves of the laws and that the officer was justified in 2 conducting the stop, which is all that he did at this point after observing the tint violation. Certainly this case didn’t deal with it, but the issue is that counsel says it only applies if it’s a Maryland vehicle. What he does beyond that, he has a lot of discretion as to whether he issues a citation or how he handles the stop, but I think under the case of Turkes Maryland, it’s clear that a tint violation can provide the reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a stop. The court reasoned as follows: “I looked at the case and I looked at the law again and I think that when an officer suspects a violation, I think that he is justified in conducting a stop. And those are the agreed-upon facts.” Following this statement to the court, the parties argued their legal theories to the court, and as indicated, the court denied the motion to suppress. And the parties also stipulate that the vehicle was registered and tagged through the Commonwealth of Virginia. We stipulate that there was a stop in Prince George’s County, the basis of which was as stated in the charging document, for a window tint exceeding Maryland state minimum. The State would argue that the vehicle was being driven in Maryland and needed to comply with Maryland law. So is arguing that the tint law violation does not apply and, therefore, the basis-there’s not sufficient basis for the stop. There’s no dispute that it was violating the Maryland tint law however, the vehicle was registered in Virginia. ![]() The parties presented the following agreed-upon statement of facts for the court’s decision on the motion to suppress, stating as follows: “: So was pulled over pursuant to a traffic stop for a tint violation. If it is not successful, if Your Honor finds that a stop was valid, then the parties have an agreed-upon plea as well as a sentencing agreement that we would run by Your Honor.” The trial court heard an agreed-upon statement of facts supporting appellant’s motion to suppress and denied the motion, found appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced appellant to a term of incarceration of one year, all but one day suspended, credit for time served, and eighteen months unsupervised probation. Appellant would litigate his motion to suppress the evidence based upon the lack of probable cause or reasonable grounds for the officer to stop his vehicle, and if the court denied the motion, defense counsel told the court the following: “If the motion is successful, then obviously the case is over. On the day of trial, counsel informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement, and they would proceed on the charge of possession of marijuana only, with a not guilty plea and an agreed-upon statement of facts. Appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury for Prince George’s County with five offenses: possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana, possession of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. He appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and he presents one question for our review, which we have rephrased: Did the police have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop appellant’s vehicle solely for a window-tint violation? We shall answer that question in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of conviction. Filed: Aug 12:25-04:00 Ronald Baez, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of possession of marijuana. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Shaw Geter, Raker, Irma S. CT161114X REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No. That the vehicle may be registered in a foreign jurisdiction does not vitiate the lawfulness of the stop. Code, Transportation Article, § 22-406(i)(1)(i) for Maryland vehicles, is sufficient grounds to stop the vehicle for further investigation. FOURTH AMENDMENT – ARREST, STOP, OR INQUIRY – GROUNDS A reasonable articulable suspicion that a vehicle’s windows are tinted darker than 35%, the standard established by Md. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |