Preview:

Labaron Stanberry v. State of Maryland, No. 107, September Term, 1995 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES--Abandonment of luggage may not be inferred from bus passenger's mere failure to assert ownership in response to police questioning during a drug interdiction. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES--Individual possesses legitimate expectation of privacy in contents of his or her luggage. Briefly relinquishing control of luggage does not necessarily amount to abandonment.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 107 September Term, 1995

LABARON STANBERRY v. STATE OF MARYLAND

*Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker JJ.

Opinion by Raker, J.

Filed:

November 12, 1996

*Murphy, C.J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A,

3 he also participated in the decision and the adoption of this opinion.

We granted Petitioner's request for a writ of certiorari to answer the following question: Did the lower court err in denying Petitioner's motion to suppress the contents of his suitcase which was left on a Greyhound bus during a twenty minute stop at the Maryland House and which was searched in Petitioner's absence after police officers held it up and asked the passengers on the bus whether it belonged to them and received no response? I. On August 16, 1993, the Maryland State Police were monitoring Greyhound buses at the Maryland House rest stop on Interstate I-95 as part of a routine drug interdiction investigation. At

approximately 8:55 p.m., Petitioner's bus arrived at the rest stop from Newark, New Jersey for a twenty-minute rest stop. troopers, who were in plain clothes and were not Two state displaying

weapons, contacted the bus driver and arranged to board the bus and conduct the interdiction procedure once all of the passengers reboarded.1 At approximately 9:20 p.m., the bus driver counted the

passengers and concluded, erroneously, that everyone had returned to the bus. Two of the troopers then boarded the bus, identified

themselves, and informed the passengers that they were performing a "drug interdiction." The troopers stated that the purpose of the

interdiction was to prevent the flow of drugs into the State, and

The troopers did not count the passengers as they disembarked at the rest stop.

1

2 they requested the cooperation of the passengers. A third trooper

remained outside the bus throughout the interdiction. The two troopers proceeded to opposite ends of the bus and began asking passengers to identify their baggage. In the overhead

rack, Trooper Burnette located a black suit bag that was not claimed by any of the passengers seated near it. He continued

questioning passengers, and after completing his section of the bus, Trooper Burnette returned to the black bag and again asked the nearby passengers if the bag belonged to any of them. claimed the bag. No one

Finally, after all of the other baggage had been

claimed, Trooper Burnette took the suit bag to the front of the bus, held the bag overhead, and asked all of the passengers if anyone owned the bag. No one claimed the bag.

The troopers removed the bag from the bus, opened it, and searched it. The contents included a white shopping bag which One of the smaller bags

contained four smaller plastic bags.

contained cocaine, and each of the other three bags contained approximately one hundred baggies of heroin. The troopers closed

the suit bag, left it beside the bus door, and proceeded to question some of the passengers. outside the bus to watch the bag. Petitioner then returned to reboard the bus. The bus driver The third trooper remained

initially stopped Petitioner from reboarding, but then realized that he had miscounted the number of people on the bus before the interdiction began, and that Petitioner was a passenger. Before

3 Petitioner reboarded, the trooper stationed outside the bus asked him if the black suit bag belonged to him. Petitioner initially

claimed ownership of the bag, but immediately contradicted himself and stated that it did not belong to him. Petitioner then told the

trooper that he was transporting the drugs to Richmond, Virginia in return for $300. The troopers arrested Petitioner.

Petitioner was indicted by the Grand Jury for Harford County with one count of bringing a controlled dangerous substance into the State, one count of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute, and one count of

possession of a controlled dangerous substance in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.) Article 27,

Download Stanberry v. State.pdf

Maryland Law