record of the suppression hearing in Maryland

2002Our review of the trial court’s ruling with respect to a suppression motion “ordinarily is limited to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000); see Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 368 , 735 A.2d 491 (1999); State v. Fernon, 133 Md.App. 41, 43 , 754 A.2d 463 (2000).

2002Our review of the trial court’s ruling with respect to a suppression motion “ordinarily is limited to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000); see Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 368 , 735 A.2d 491 (1999); State v. Fernon, 133 Md.App. 41, 43 , 754 A.2d 463 (2000).

2006As the Court of Appeals pointed out in Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670-71 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987), quoting with approval from Jackson v. State, 52 Md.App. 327 , 332 n. 5, 449 A.2d 438 (1982): In determining whether the denial of a motion to suppress ... is correct, “the appellate court looks to the record of the suppression hearing ... and does not consider the record of the trial itself.” (Internal citations omitted.) To the same effect, see State v. Carroll, 383 Md. 438 , 859 A.2d 1138 (2004); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000); and Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642, 648 , 537

2006As the Court of Appeals pointed out in Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670-71 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987), quoting with approval from Jackson v. State, 52 Md.App. 327 , 332 n. 5, 449 A.2d 438 (1982): In determining whether the denial of a motion to suppress ... is correct, “the appellate court looks to the record of the suppression hearing ... and does not consider the record of the trial itself.” (Internal citations omitted.) To the same effect, see State v. Carroll, 383 Md. 438 , 859 A.2d 1138 (2004); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000); and Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642, 648 , 537

2019Suppression Hearing Law 101 As we narrow our focus to the hearing on the motion to suppress the identification of the appellant by Detective Nickles, no precept of appellate review is more fundamental than that articulated by the Court of Appeals in In re Tariq A–R–Y, 347 Md. 484, 488 , 701 A.2d 691 (1997): 7 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we look only to the record of the suppression hearing and do not consider the evidence admitted at trial.

2019Suppression Hearing Law 101 As we narrow our focus to the hearing on the motion to suppress the identification of the appellant by Detective Nickles, no precept of appellate review is more fundamental than that articulated by the Court of Appeals in In re Tariq A–R–Y, 347 Md. 484, 488 , 701 A.2d 691 (1997): 7 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we look only to the record of the suppression hearing and do not consider the evidence admitted at trial.

2026We held “that the record of the suppression hearing . . . fail[ed] to establish that a reasonable and prudent police officer would have had reasonable suspicion to stop [the defendant.]” Id. at 289 , 753 A.2d at 528-29 .

2026We held “that the record of the suppression hearing . . . fail[ed] to establish that a reasonable and prudent police officer would have had reasonable suspicion to stop [the defendant.]” Id. at 289 , 753 A.2d at 528-29 .

1991In determining the propriety of the lower court’s ruling, we “must look to the record of the suppression hearing and not to the evidence presented at trial.” McMillian, 65 Md.App. at 33 , 499 A.2d 192 ; see also Gamble v. State, 318 Md. 120, 125 , 567 A.2d 95 (1989).

1991In determining the propriety of the lower court’s ruling, we “must look to the record of the suppression hearing and not to the evidence presented at trial.” McMillian, 65 Md.App. at 33 , 499 A.2d 192 ; see also Gamble v. State, 318 Md. 120, 125 , 567 A.2d 95 (1989).

2020Standard of Review On appeal, this Court reviews “a hearing judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment” by considering “only the facts generated by the record of the suppression hearing.” Sizer v. State, 456 Md. 350, 362 (2017) (citing Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 498 (2007)).

2016That standard first delineates the evidence and argument subject to review: “When an appellate court reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, it will consider only the facts and information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” 399 Md. at 498 .

2006STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard which we must apply in our review of a challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress has been summarized by the Court of Appeals in State v. Collins, 367 Md. 700, 706-07 , 790 A.2d 660 (2002): Our review of a Circuit Court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment is limited, ordinarily, to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing and not the record of the trial.

2006STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard which we must apply in our review of a challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress has been summarized by the Court of Appeals in State v. Collins, 367 Md. 700, 706-07 , 790 A.2d 660 (2002): Our review of a Circuit Court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment is limited, ordinarily, to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing and not the record of the trial.

2018State v. Nieves , 383 Md. 573 , 581, 861 A.2d 62 (2004).

2018State v. Nieves , 383 Md. 573 , 581, 861 A.2d 62 (2004).

2026III STANDARD OF REVIEW Our review of a “circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment is limited to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” State v. Stone, 493 Md. 78 , 96 (2026) (citing Sizer v. State, 456 Md. 350, 362 (2017)).

2025Motion to Suppress We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment “based solely on the record of the suppression hearing.” Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 401 (2002); accord Thornton v. State, 465 Md. 122, 139 (2019) (quoting Sizer v. State, 456 Md. 350, 362 (2017)).

2006As the Court of Appeals pointed out in Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670-71 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987), quoting with approval from Jackson v. State, 52 Md.App. 327 , 332 n. 5, 449 A.2d 438 (1982): In determining whether the denial of a motion to suppress ... is correct, “the appellate court looks to the record of the suppression hearing ... and does not consider the record of the trial itself.” (Internal citations omitted.) To the same effect, see State v. Carroll, 383 Md. 438 , 859 A.2d 1138 (2004); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000); and Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642, 648 , 537

2006As the Court of Appeals pointed out in Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670-71 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987), quoting with approval from Jackson v. State, 52 Md.App. 327 , 332 n. 5, 449 A.2d 438 (1982): In determining whether the denial of a motion to suppress ... is correct, “the appellate court looks to the record of the suppression hearing ... and does not consider the record of the trial itself.” (Internal citations omitted.) To the same effect, see State v. Carroll, 383 Md. 438 , 859 A.2d 1138 (2004); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000); and Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642, 648 , 537

2019Standard of Review We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress on “‘only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing.’” Gupta v. State, 452 Md. 103, 129 (2017) (quoting Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68 , 82–83 (2008)). “[W]e ‘extend great deference 5 to the findings of the motions court as to first-level findings of fact and as to the credibility of witnesses, unless those findings are clearly erroneous.’” Jones v. State, 213 Md.

2017This Court reviews a circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress based on “only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68 , 82–83 (2008).

2012Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007); Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 274 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 93 , 821 A.2d 372 (2003)).

2012Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007); Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 274 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 93 , 821 A.2d 372 (2003)).

2019Gamble v. State, 318 Md. 120, 125 , 567 A.2d 95, 98 (1989); Herod v. State, 311 Md. 288, 290 , 534 A.2d 362, 363 (1987); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749, 755 (1987).

2019Gamble v. State, 318 Md. 120, 125 , 567 A.2d 95, 98 (1989); Herod v. State, 311 Md. 288, 290 , 534 A.2d 362, 363 (1987); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749, 755 (1987).

2010Owens v. State, 399 Md. 388, 403 , 924 A.2d 1072 (2007) (quoting State v. Rucker, 374 Md. 199, 207 , 821 A.2d 439 (2003)).

2010Owens v. State, 399 Md. 388, 403 , 924 A.2d 1072 (2007) (quoting State v. Rucker, 374 Md. 199, 207 , 821 A.2d 439 (2003)).

2006See Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 368 , 735 A.2d 491 (1999); In re Tariq A-R-Y, 347 Md. 484, 488 , 701 A.2d 691 (1997); Simpler v. State, 318 Md. 311, 312 , 568 A.2d 22 , (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987).

2006See Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 368 , 735 A.2d 491 (1999); In re Tariq A-R-Y, 347 Md. 484, 488 , 701 A.2d 691 (1997); Simpler v. State, 318 Md. 311, 312 , 568 A.2d 22 , (1990); Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 670 , 521 A.2d 749 (1987).

2012Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007); Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 274 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 93 , 821 A.2d 372 (2003)).

2012Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007); Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 274 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 93 , 821 A.2d 372 (2003)).

2002In Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554 , 774 A.2d 420 (2001), we reiterated the standard of review of a ruling upon a motion to suppress: "In our review of the trial court's denial of [a] motion to suppress, we are limited to the record of the suppression hearing.

2002In Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554 , 774 A.2d 420 (2001), we reiterated the standard of review of a ruling upon a motion to suppress: “In our review of the trial court’s denial of [a] motion to suppress, we are limited to the record of the suppression hearing.

2004Relying, inter alia, on Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), he asserts: “Because police officers should not be rewarded for intentionally violating Miranda , this Court should suppress the appellant’s second written statement, which was given ... within two hours of the conclusion of the first written statement, as the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Our review of the trial court’s ruling with respect to a suppression motion “ordinarily is limited to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 7

2004Relying, inter alia, on Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), he asserts: “Because police officers should not be rewarded for intentionally violating Miranda , this Court should suppress the appellant’s second written statement, which was given ... within two hours of the conclusion of the first written statement, as the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Our review of the trial court’s ruling with respect to a suppression motion “ordinarily is limited to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 7

2017Ford contends, however, that his remarks were involuntary due to his "weakened and distressed mental and physical state." In our view, the record of the suppression hearing does not support this conclusion. *187 Under federal and Maryland constitutional law, a statement is involuntary if it results from "police conduct that overbears the will of the suspect and induces the suspect to confess." Lee , supra , 418 Md. at 159 , 12 A.3d 1238 .

2017Ford contends, however, that his remarks were involuntary due to his "weakened and distressed mental and physical state." In our view, the record of the suppression hearing does not support this conclusion. *187 Under federal and Maryland constitutional law, a statement is involuntary if it results from "police conduct that overbears the will of the suspect and induces the suspect to confess." Lee , supra , 418 Md. at 159 , 12 A.3d 1238 .

2009Owens v. State, 399 Md. 388, 403 , 924 A.2d 1072 (2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1064 , 169 L.Ed.2d 813 (2008); Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341, 348 , 924 A.2d 308 (2007) (citing Carter v. State, 367 Md. 447, 457 , 788 A.2d 646 (2002)), c ert. denied, 552 U.S. 1071 , 128 S.Ct. 709 , 169 L.Ed.2d 571 (2007).

2009Owens v. State, 399 Md. 388, 403 , 924 A.2d 1072 (2007), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1064 , 169 L.Ed.2d 813 (2008); Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341, 348 , 924 A.2d 308 (2007) (citing Carter v. State, 367 Md. 447, 457 , 788 A.2d 646 (2002)), c ert. denied, 552 U.S. 1071 , 128 S.Ct. 709 , 169 L.Ed.2d 571 (2007).

2019In reviewing the circuit court’s disposition of Mr. Wallace’s motion to suppress, “‘we look only to the record of the suppression hearing and do not consider the evidence admitted at trial.’” James v. State, 191 Md.

2019Standard of Review We limit our review of the denial of a motion to suppress to the record of the suppression hearing. *354 James v. State , 191 Md.

2011STANDARD OF REVIEW When this Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, “we ordinarily consider only the information contained in the record of the suppression hearing, and not the trial record.” Lewis v. State, 398 Md. 349, 358 , 920 A.2d 1080, 1085 (2007); see Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462, 477 , 893 A.2d 1119, 1128 (2006).

2011STANDARD OF REVIEW When this Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, “we ordinarily consider only the information contained in the record of the suppression hearing, and not the trial record.” Lewis v. State, 398 Md. 349, 358 , 920 A.2d 1080, 1085 (2007); see Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462, 477 , 893 A.2d 1119, 1128 (2006).

2013“In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we consider only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 349 , 958 A.2d 356 (2008); Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68, 82-83 , 939 A.2d 689 (2008); Gatewood v. State, 158 Md.App. 458, 475-76 , 857 A.2d 590 (2004); Mendes v. State, 146 Md.App. 23, 40 , 806 A.2d 370 (2002).

2013“In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we consider only the evidence contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 349 , 958 A.2d 356 (2008); Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68, 82-83 , 939 A.2d 689 (2008); Gatewood v. State, 158 Md.App. 458, 475-76 , 857 A.2d 590 (2004); Mendes v. State, 146 Md.App. 23, 40 , 806 A.2d 370 (2002).

2012Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007); Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 274 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 93 , 821 A.2d 372 (2003)).

2012Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007); Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 274 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 93 , 821 A.2d 372 (2003)).