DEON LEROY WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Alpert, Filed Dec. 2, 2016,
Strip Search – Strip search was lawful when conducted in police barracks incident to arrest for traffic violation given nervousness, large quantity of cash, and reliable informant information that the Defendant was in possession of drugs

Facts: An MSP Sgt. received a tip from a CI that the Defendant was attending a “Narcotics Anonymous… or some kind of meeting” and would leave there to make “drug drops” to individuals in the area. A check of the Defendant’s record revealed that his driver’s license was suspended and revoked. When MSP saw him driving, they conducted a traffic stop of the defendant and arrested him for driving suspended/revoked. Search incident to arrest no drugs were found on him or in the vehicle, but he had $1,356 in cash on him and appeared nervous.
The sergeant noted that appellant was cooperative but nervous – his chest was rapidly “moving up and down,” the muscles in his neck “were visibly contracting,” and he was sweating, even though the temperature was a mild 75 degrees. The sergeant testified that he believed “criminal activity was afoot” based on his prior contact with appellant, the information from CI#3, the large sum of cash, and appellant’s nervousness.”
The Defendant was transported to the police barracks in Easton in Talbot County where he was strip searched and a baggie was seen protruding from his anus. When the Defendant refused to retrieve the bag himself, a search warrant was obtained and the baggie was removed by medical personnel. Two baggies were recovered: one contained heroin, the other contained cocaine.
The Sgt. then wrote a search warrant for the Defendant’s home based on the following: The Defendant is a registered sex offender and the target address was his listed address; the Sgt. contacted the officer responsible for sex-offender registry home visits and confirmed that the Defendant had been present at the target address during several home visits; the Defendant previously gave the target address during a car stop; various CIs had given the Defendant’s address as either the target address or had dealings with the defendant in the area of the target address;
A search warrant was executed at the suspect’s home. CDS and six firearms were recovered from a bedroom in the home. Located in that bedroom was a piece of mail addressed to the Defendant, Adult male clothing and hats, several boxes of ammunition, and $488 in $5 and $1 denominations. Found around the house were baggies with the corners missing. These baggies “were similar in nature to the one removed from appellant’s anus.”

In a “4-corners” analysis of a search warrant, the question is “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis to conclude that the warrant was supported by probable cause.”

Strip Searches:
– “Reach-in search” – manipulation of the arrestee’s clothes such that the police are able to reach in and retrieve the contraband without exposing the arrestee’s private areas
– “Strip Search” – inspection of a naked individual, without scrutiny of the body cavities
– “Visual Body Cavity Search” – Visual inspection of the genital and anal areas
– “Manual Body Cavity Search” – Touching or probing of body cavities

Determining whether a strip search is necessary involves balancing:
– the scope of the particular intrusion
– the manner in which it is conducted
– the justification for initiating it
– the place in which it is conducted.

Scope- Always going to be intrusive, but question is how much

Manner-

Justification- whether the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that evidence of criminal activity would be found in the place searched
Ok where known dealer was found with large quantity of cash and k9 alerted twice without finding CDS
Not ok where arrested for driving without a license and strip searched because of prior drug charges and using car of a drug user

Place –
Paulino v. State exposed to public
Moore v. State in police station

Nexus:
– Maryland has rejected the notion that, without more, “there is probable cause to believe that drug dealers keep drugs and records of their drug trade in their homes.”

Sufficient nexus where: reliable CI told Sgt. that Defendant is at target address during the day and leaves there to distribute heroin; other CIs gave information that the target met them at a location near the target address to buy from him; the police had just found the Defendant with drugs; the Sgt. averred in the warrant application that, based on his extensive training and experience, drug dealers often keep their stash at their
residence but do not sell drugs from their house to protect their stash from the police and others

Good Faith- Does not apply where:
(1) when the judicial officer issuing the warrant was misled by an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth;
(2) when the magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role;
(3) when a warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;
or (4) when the warrant is facially deficient (e.g., failing to particularize the place to be searched)

Juror Slumber – No error where defense claimed that juror was sleeping, but judge’s observations were to the contrary. No prejudice shown or remedy requested.

Sufficiency of Evidence – Single piece of mail addressed to Defendant in the room where the guns and drugs were found was sufficient basis for conviction even where other people lived in the home