Md. top court weighs constitutionality of trunk search

Listen to this article

ANNAPOLIS – Attorneys for Maryland and a driver accused of illegal drug possession battled at the state’s top court Friday over whether Montgomery County police were constitutionally justified in searching a car’s trunk after finding illegal drugs in the passenger’s possession only during a traffic stop and after a fruitless search of the vehicle’s interior.

Appearing before the Court of Appeals, the opposing lawyers agreed the search would be valid only if the police had sufficient reason to connect the passenger’s illegal drug possession to the driver, the car’s presumed owner with access to the trunk. But the attorneys sharply disagreed over whether police could have reasonably drawn this connection through driver Casey Johnson’s behavior during the Germantown traffic stop nearly three years ago.

Assistant Maryland Attorney General Sarah P. Pritzlaff defended the search, saying Johnson’s actions indicated criminal involvement, giving police probable cause to open the trunk. But Johnson’s defense attorney, Sam Cowin, called her action’s innocuous, rendering the search of the trunk to be in violation of her Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

Pritzlaff cited traffic officer Robert Sheehan’s testimony that, after pulling Johnson over for a broken brake light, he saw her lean over the center console toward the passenger, Anthony Haqq, who was reaching under his seat as if trying to conceal drugs or weapons.

Sheehan further testified Johnson was much more nervous than the usual motorist when he asked for her license and registration, as her voice was shaking and her hands trembling so much she had difficulty grasping her wallet, Pritzlaff told the high court.

Johnson also gave short, evasive answers to basic questions, such as where she had been and where she was heading, Pritzlaff said, citing Sheehan.

Haqq, who had a previous conviction for assault on an officer, was searched and police found 13 grams of marijuana in his waistband, according to court documents.

Though no drugs were found on Johnson, officers reasonably concluded she and Haqq were involved in “joint criminal activity” and thus they had probable cause to search the trunk of the Mitsubishi Gallant, where they found more than 104 grams of marijuana, Pritzlaff said.

“They (the officers) would have been derelict in their duty if they did not think Johnson was involved,” Pritzlaff said. “Once you connect him (the passenger) to the driver, you have probable cause to search the vehicle.”

But Judge Sally D. Adkins appeared unconvinced, saying a motorist stopped by a police officer could be extremely nervous and a driver leaning toward a passenger might be reaching for the glove compartment and not concealing illegal drugs.

Under the state’s argument, Adkins continued, “a perfectly honest driver of a perfectly clean, drug-free car can be subject to a search.”

Cowin, Johnson’s attorney, said his client’s behavior during the traffic stop indicated neither criminal involvement nor coordinated activity with Haqq.

The police had no probable cause to search the trunk because the “passenger’s movements were confined to the interior of the car,” where no drugs were found, added Cowin, of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP in Washington.

Supreme Court case

Johnson was convicted in September 2015 of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, while Haqq was acquitted of the same charge.

The intermediate Court of Special Appeals overturned Johnson’s conviction in March, saying the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk.

The state appealed.

The Court of Appeals is expected to render its decision by Aug. 31. The case is State of Maryland v. Casey O. Johnson, No. 22 September Term 2017.

Whichever side loses the case could seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the Fourth Amendment issue.

During the hour-long argument, Judge Shirley M. Watts said the issue of whether a passenger’s drug possession could be imputed to the driver appears to be distinct from any considered by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

The closest case appears to be Maryland v. Pringle – a case cited by both sides – in which the Supreme Court held in 2003 that police have probable cause to arrest a car’s front-seat passenger after finding drugs in the vehicle’s back-seat armrest during a traffic stop. The justices’ unanimous ruling reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision police lacked probable cause.