MD: Car remote seized incident to arrest could be used to look for the car, and then a plain view occurred when the car was found

Defendant was arrested for smoking marijuana, and it was not a Fourth Amendment violation to take the car’s remote and go looking for it and seeing marijuana in plain view. The keys were seized in a search incident. The officer could have searched the car under the automobile exception. Fair v. State, 198 Md. App. 1, 16 A.3d 211 (2011):

At issue here is not a “subsequent search” of the keys and remote. Therefore, we need not decide whether Holland and Wallace would authorize the use of keys included among the inventoried belongings of an arrestee to carry out a search of a place or an automobile without probable cause to obtain a warrant. As we explain, a warrant was not necessary to search the vehicle in this case.

Clearly, the focus of the investigation shifted from the original violation to the marijuana inside the vehicle when Detective Mahan observed the marijuana in plain view inside the Cadillac next to Tanner’s vehicle. …

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not noticing a discrepancy between the time stamp on photographs of his vehicle that suggest that the search of the car occurred before the consent. Nothing shows that this would have changed the outcome. United States v. Daniels, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34144 (E.D. La. March 18, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.