Fourth Amendment > Searches > Warrants > Burden
In warrantless-search and-seizure cases, the State bears the burden of overcoming the
presumption that a warrant was required. Eusebio v. State, 245 Md. App. 1, 22 (2020)
(citation omitted). In the instant case, the State had the burden of establishing that the
order issued pursuant to CP § 1-203.1 met the requirements of a warrant.
Fourth Amendment > Searches > Warrants > Particularity > Surveillance
Technology
In our effort to stay apace with scientific advances, we have recognized that in order for a
neutral magistrate to “particularly describe[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized,” the application for a warrant or order must identify, among other
things, what type of tracking device law enforcement intends to use. See State v. Andrews,
227 Md. App. 350, 376 (2016).
Statutes > Statutory Interpretation > Plain Language
To determine Legislative intent, we turn first to the plain meaning of the statute. Berry v.
State, 244 Md. App. 234, 244 (2019). “Even if the plain meaning is clear and unambiguous,
we often look to legislative intent and purpose to determine if they ratify our analysis and
interpretation of a statute.” Hammonds v. State, 436 Md. 22, 44 (2013).
Statutes > Statutory Interpretation > Plain Language
The plain language of CP § 1.203.1 shows that the statute embodies all of the warrant
requirements inhering in the Fourth Amendment. Subsection b provides, in pertinent part,
that a court may issue an order that allows law enforcement to obtain location information
“after determining[,] from an application described in paragraph (2) of this subsection[,]”
that “there is probable cause to believe that . . . a misdemeanor or felony has been, is being,
or will be committed . . . by the individual about whom location information is being
sought[.]” CP § 1-203.1(b)(1)-(1)(i). Paragraph (2) requires a written application that is
“signed and sworn to by the applicant” and is “accompanied by an affidavit that[] . . . sets
forth the basis for probable cause . . . and [] contains facts within the personal knowledge
of the affiant.” CP § 1-203.1(b)(2).
Statutes > Statutory Interpretation > Plain Language
In light of the particularity requirement, the statute requires that any order issued pursuant
to it must “describe with reasonable particularity[] . . . the type of electronic device
associated with the location information being sought”; “the user of the electronic device,
if known, or the identifying number of the electronic device about which location