State v. Nieves, 383 Md. 573

861 A.2d 62 (2004) · Court of Appeals of Maryland · November 15, 2004 · No. No. 10, September Term, 2004

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that a strip search conducted incident to an arrest for minor traffic offenses was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion that Nieves was carrying weapons or contraband, notwithstanding his prior drug-related arrests and connection to a missing person's vehicle. The court affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and held that the cocaine obtained during the search should have been suppressed.

Holdings

  1. A strip search incident to arrest for a minor offense, when institutional safety is not at issue, must be supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying weapons or contraband.
  2. The strip search was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment because the minor traffic offenses did not indicate that Nieves possessed weapons or contraband, and the lieutenant's reliance on Nieves's prior drug arrests and his connection to the missing woman's truck did not establish individualized reasonable, articulable suspicion.

Questions Presented

  1. What standard governs the reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment of a strip search conducted incident to an arrest for a minor traffic offense?
  2. Whether the strip search of Nieves was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was carrying weapons or contraband.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (21)

  • State v. Nieves, 380 Md. 617, 846 A.2d 401 (2004)(prior procedural history)
  • Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979)(followed)
  • Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969)(followed)
  • United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973)(followed)
  • United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 801-05 (1974)(followed)
  • Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 646 n.2 (1983)(followed)
  • Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)(followed)
  • United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)(followed)
  • Fontaine v. State, 135 Md. App. 471, 482, 762 A.2d 1027, 1033 (2000)(distinguished)
  • Edwards v. State, 759 N.E.2d 626, 629-30 (Ind. 2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…