Game Changer (?) for MD Criminal Defense Attorneys
RONALD SINCLAIR,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND.
No. 43, September Term, 2014.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Argued January 8, 2015.
Filed: July 27, 2015.
Barbera, C.J., Harrell,[*] Battaglia, Greene, McDonald, Watts, Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by McDONALD, J.
Petitioner Ronald Sinclair was convicted of various charges related to a carjacking. Part of the evidence against him was derived from a flip cell phone that was seized from him incident to his arrest — screen images that matched the custom wheel rims of the stolen car. He sought to exclude that evidence from his trial in an oral motion made by his attorney on the morning of trial. The Circuit Court allowed the use of that evidence and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed that decision. Before us, Mr. Sinclair relies on the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Riley v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) to argue that the arresting officer's review of photos on the cell phone without a warrant was an unconstitutional search and that the evidence derived from the cell phone should have been suppressed.
We hold that, in failing to make his motion to suppress the evidence derived from his cell phone within the time period and with the specificity required by the Maryland Rules, Mr. Sinclair waived that motion. Moreover, even had the motion been made in a timely manner, the primary evidence obtained from the cell phone — the screen saver image that was in plain view upon physical inspection of the phone — was admissible under the Supreme Court's decision in Riley.
Conclusion
In failing to make his motion to suppress the three photographs of his cell phone screen within the time period and with the specificity required by the Maryland Rules, Mr. Sinclair waived that motion. If the motion had not been waived and if a pretrial hearing had established the facts as posited by Mr. Sinclair, the primary evidence obtained from the cell phone — the screen saver image that was in plain view upon physical inspection of the phone — would be admissible under the Supreme Court's decision in Riley. The remaining two photographs which, under the facts as posited by Mr. Sinclair, were the product of a warrantless search of the cell phone's data, would not be admissible. However, given that one of those photos was identical to the first photo and the other was of limited probative value and cumulative at best, that error was harmless.
Kathleen M. Kirchner, Esq. is a former Maryland Assistants States Attorney for Anne Arundel County. She began her own practice in 2008 and as a prosecutor and private criminal defense attorney she has handled literally thousands of cases including DUI, misdemeanors, simple to serious felonies, family law and personal injury.