ID: Def was entitled to retrieve duffle bag in rental car before inventory

Defendant had standing to challenge the search of his duffle bag in a rental car. The State conceded that the officers’ conduct in refusing to allow him to take the luggage from a rental car and notifying him that the duffle bag would be searched and inventoried was illegal, and thus, his abandonment was not voluntary and did not divest him of standing. State v. Ross, 2016 Ida. App. LEXIS 86 (July 6, 2016).

Without knowing whether officer stuck head in car window to smell marijuana, court couldn’t decide the search issue. Court of Special Appeals applied the wrong standard of review to that question essentially putting the burden on the defendant when the state had to support the warrantless search. “Court of Appeals held that the circuit court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress, where the evidence regarding whether an officer detected the odor of marijuana before or after he inserted his head into the passenger window of Petitioner’s vehicle during a traffic stop could not be determined, and therefore, did not establish that the officer’s warrantless search was lawful. The Court of Appeals further held that the Court of Special Appeals, in applying a supplemental rule of interpretation to resolve an alleged ambiguity, thereby drawing inferences in favor of the State, did not apply the appropriate standard of review to the circuit court’s judgment because the inference made was inconsistent with the evidence of record.” Grant v. State, 2016 Md. LEXIS 443 (July 12, 2016).