Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See id. at 444-45 , 282 A.3d at 110 . 2023See id. at 444-45 , 282 A.3d at 110 . | 2 | 2 |
Grant v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See also Grant v. State, 449 Md. 1, 14-15 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McDonnellgreen1 sentence2025I think they had probable cause . . . because he’s the registered owner of the vehicle, he’s in possession of that vehicle about 24 hours after it is seen leaving the scene of a double murder. 6 The State does not contest that the appellant was placed under arrest when the handcuffs were applied to him. 9 I, frankly, reasonable minds can differ, and I think we do, but based on what I’ve heard, I believe the police had probable cause to arrest Mr. Shuler[.] (Emphasis added.) (ii) On review of a ruling on a suppression motion, “[w]e consider only the record from the suppression hearing, which we | 1 | 1 |
Rush v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68, 82-83 , 939 A.2d 689, 697 (2008). 2008Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68, 82-83 , 939 A.2d 689, 697 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2018Lee v. State , 418 Md. 136 , 148-49, 12 A.3d 1238 (2011). 2018Lee v. State , 418 Md. 136 , 148-49, 12 A.3d 1238 (2011). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stokes v. State
green
2 sentences2012In so holding, we relied on Stokes v. State, 289 Md. 155 , 423 A.2d 552 (1980), in which we held that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the State “could not meet the burden of proving the exception because no evidence was produced at the suppression hearing to support the exception.” Elliott, 417 Md. at 438 , 10 A.3d at 776 . 2012In so holding, we relied on Stokes v. State, 289 Md. 155 , 423 A.2d 552 (1980), in which we held that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the State “could not meet the burden of proving the exception because no evidence was produced at the suppression hearing to support the exception.” Elliott, 417 Md. at 438 , 10 A.3d at 776 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Elliott v. State
green
2 sentences2012In so holding, we relied on Stokes v. State, 289 Md. 155 , 423 A.2d 552 (1980), in which we held that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the State “could not meet the burden of proving the exception because no evidence was produced at the suppression hearing to support the exception.” Elliott, 417 Md. at 438 , 10 A.3d at 776 . 2012In so holding, we relied on Stokes v. State, 289 Md. 155 , 423 A.2d 552 (1980), in which we held that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the State “could not meet the burden of proving the exception because no evidence was produced at the suppression hearing to support the exception.” Elliott, 417 Md. at 438 , 10 A.3d at 776 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cartnail v. State
green
2 sentences2002Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310-11 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000). 2002Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310-11 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Winder v. State
green
2 sentences2002Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310-11 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000). 2002Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 310-11 , 765 A.2d 97 (2001); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.