IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

__________________
September Term, 2016
__________________
No. 1139
___________________
State of Maryland
Appellant,
v.
.
Donna Terronte
Appellee's,
__________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dorchester County
(The Honorable Dewayne Wayne, Judge)
____________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
____________________

Reddy Dagger
Eden Rock
DAGGER AND ROCK, L.L.P.
1102 North and Mile Street
Cambridge, Maryland

Table Contents
Statement of Case.1
Question of Fact1
Statement of Fact..2,3
Standard of Review..3
Argument.3-8
Conclusion..9
Certificate of Service....1a
Appendix.......2a
Excerpt of Reporters Official Transcript3a-24a

Table of Authorities

MD Code, Criminal Law, 5-602 through MD Code, Criminal Law, 5-6094

MD Code, Criminal Law, 5-612 4
MD Code, Criminal Law, 5-602.4

Wilkes v. Maryland, 362 Md. 554, 74 A.2d 420 (2001)..5,6,7,8

Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462, 893 A.2d 119 (2006)...4,6,7
Pryor v. State, 122 Md. App. 671, 716 A2.d 338 (1998).7
In re Montrail, 325 Md. 527, 601 A.2d 1102 (1992)...8
Whren v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (2011)5
State v. Mason, 173 Md. App. 414, 919 A.2d 752 (2007)4
State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 826 A.2d 486 (2003)..6
Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 735 A.2d 491(1999)5
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491(1983)5
Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015)..8
Henderson v. State, 416 Md. 125, 143,5A.3d 10726

ii
STATEMENT OF CASE
Donna Terronte was pulled over on a violation that a plastic cover was hindering the
ability to read her tag number. The Appellee did not argue the justification of the original
stop. The officer called in the K-9 unit to investigate a articulable suspicion of the
officers that Ms. Terronte may have been carrying drugs in her vehicle. . The case was
heard in the Dorchester County, Circuit Court. Defendant argued that the stop was
extended longer than reasonably necessary and violated her 4th amendment right of search
and seizure. Ms. Terronte made a motion to suppress the evidence of $142,000 worth of
cocaine found during the search. The visiting Judge did not hear the evidence and record
of the actual stop which showed that the Officer was diligent in efforts to complete the
purpose of the stop and the K-9 search was done during the time Sargent Todd was
completing the mandatory license and warrant check. The Judge granted the Appellees
motion to suppress. The State appealed the case.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Did the trial court err in suppressing the evidence due to a 4th amendment violation by a
traffic stop that was extended to gather information to complete the stop?

1
STATEMENT OF FACT
Sargent Clifford Todd was in the area of Rt. 50 and Rt. 16 in Dorchester County at
10:58p.m. (Line 11-12 page 5), when he stopped a vehicle that had a plastic license plate
over its registration plate driven by Donna Terronte (line 17-18 page 5). In which the tags
were not visible at all (line 1, page 6)At 10:59p.m. (line 19 page 6). Sargent Todd called
in the stop to the Easton barracks and was advised the computer systems in which
licenses, vehicle registrations and outstanding warrants are checked was down. Dispatch
was unable to advise to when the systems would be back online. (Line 14-15 Page 6).
Sargent Todd approached the vehicle and requested Ms. Terronte's license and
registration card (line 17 page 7). Ms Terronte's informed Sargent Todd she was on her
way to Ocean City, her hands were shaking and she seemed nervous and restless (line
17-18 page 7). At 11:02 p.m. Sargent Todd returned to the vehicle with the drivers
license and registration card (Line 1-3 page 8). Sargent Todd contacted the canine unit at

this time. (Line 10-11 page 8) At 11:08 p.m. (Line 13, page 9) Sargent Todd contacted
the Easton barracks again and was informed the systems were still down (Line 14-15
page 8). At 11:09p.m.(line 2 page 10) Sargent Todd diligently worked on acquiring the
information by immediately contacting the Salisbury barracks and requesting the
information for license and outstanding warrant checks, the dispatcher said he would call
back with the information(line 7-11 page 10). Sargent Todd explained the delay to Ms.
Terronte twice and that because of liability purposes could not allow her to leave. ( lines
13-21 page 10). Sargent Todd again asked about her trip and she gave an inconsistent
2
story to the one she had made just prior. (Line 7-14 page 11). Ms. Terronte's "eyes were
watering and she appeared to be crying, she was jumpy and couldn't keep still." (Line
15-16 page 11). At 11:19 p.m.Sargent Todd received a call from the Easton dispatcher
that Trooper First Class could not find the location. (Line 19-21 page11). At this time
under reasonable diligence of the situation, Sargent Todd contacted the Salisbury
barracks to see if they had the information (line 21-22 page 11). At 11:23 Sargent Todd
contacted the Salisbury barracks again and was informed they were busy taking overflow
from the Easton barrack(line 16-20 page 12). At 11:26p.m.Trooper First Class McDaniel
of the K-9 unit arrived. (Line 3-5 page 13). At 11:27p.m. the Salisbury barrack
communication officer called back and advised Sargent Todd of Ms. Terronte extensive
criminal background ( Line 10-12 page 13). At approximately 11:30 Trooper First Class

McDaniel ran the dog around the vehicle and observed the dog sit to the rear side of the
vehicle. ( Line 14-15 page 13). Sargent Todd explained the probable cause to check the
vehicle to Ms. Terronte and Trooper McDaniel and Sargent Todd conducted a vehicle
check from approximately 11:30p.m. until 11:40pm. (Line 3 page 14).

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In Byndloss, the standard of review has been decided by the court in that the
courts apply great deference to the hearing judge's fact finding and will not disturb the
findings unless clearly erroneous, however, we review independently the application of
the law to those facts to determine if the evidence at issue was obtained in violation of the
law and, accordingly, should be suppressed. The application of law in this case requires
De Novo as a standard of review. Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462, 1128, 893 A.2d

119 (2006).

ARGUMENT
The Trial court erred in suppressing the evidence when it found that that traffic
stop was ongoing at the time of the K-9 search. In ... cases under MD Code, Criminal
Law, 5-602 through 5609 and 5612 though 5614, the State may appeal from a
decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State or requires the return
of property alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United
States, the Constitution of Maryland, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. State v.
Mason, 173 Md. App. 414, 919 A.2d 752 (2007).

4
The Fourth Amendment guarantees [t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Whren
v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996). In plain language of Wilkes, the Fourth Amendment
protects the public from unreasonable searches and seizures. Wilkes v. Maryland, 362
Md. 554, 430, 74 A.2d 420 (2001). The courts have ruled that [t]emporary detention of
individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period
and for a limited purpose, constitutes a seizure of persons within the meaning of the

First Amendment. Id. at 809, 810. Although a traffic stop constitutes a seizure of
persons' within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment], such a seizure is
constitutionally reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic
violation has occurred. Id. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the
detention of a person must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to
effectuate the purpose of the stop. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491(1983). It is
established that a records check of a driver's license, registration, and outstanding
warrants is an integral part of any traffic stop. Wilkes, 364 Md. at 578. Appellee does not
challenge the validity of the traffic stop. (Record at 11-12 page 3). Once the initial
purpose for a stop is fulfilled, a continued detention is only permissible if justified by
additional independent reasonable articulable suspicion. Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356,
735 A.2d 491(1999). [O]nce the underlying basis for the initial traffic stop has
concluded, a police-driver encounter which implicates the Fourth Amendment is
5
constitutionally permissible only if either (1) the driver consents to the continuing
intrusion or (2) the officer has, at a minimum, a reasonable, articulable suspicion that
criminal activity is afoot.. Henderson v. State, 416 Md. 125, 143,5A.3d 1072. Quoting
Ferris, 355 Md. At 372. In Henderson, where the courts ruled that the officers did not
have an articulable suspicion to suspend stop and for the search and seizure. This
application is not relative to our case today. Appellee does not dispute the legitimacy of

the stop, therefore the initial seizure was justified and we turn to address whether the
traffic stop was longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. See
Royer, 460 U.S. at 500. In determining whether petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights
have been violated, we must first establish when the initial legitimate stop ends. Byndloss
v. State, 391 Md. 462, 893 A.2d 119 (2006) quoting State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 826
A.2d 486 (2003). In Wilkes the courts have determined that a stop was unreasonable due
to the length of time over which it occurred. Wilkes, 364 Md. at 57677, 774 A.2d at 433.
The courts stated that it is necessary to revisit the facts, as expounded upon supra, in
order to determine whether Sergeant Todddiligently pursued the retrieval of the license,
registration, and warrant information from MILES and NCIC. Id. Due to computer error
Sargent Todd was unable to complete the records check of a drivers license, registration
of the vehicle and warrant checks that are and integral part of any traffic stop thus
prolonging the duration of the stop. Wilkes, 364 Md. At 578. In this case there is no
information to show that Sargent Todd prolonged the stay and was anything but diligent
6
in his attempts to get information, the traffic stop was extended by technical difficulties.
Id. The circumstances presented in Pryor, in which a stop was made for a speeding
violation and the driver was detained and made to wait for the K-9 unit the Court of
Special Appeals suppressed the evidence obtained from the search, finding that a person
stopped for a minor traffic violation cannot be detained at the scene of the stop longer

than it takesor reasonably should taketo issue a citation for the traffic violation that
the motorist committed. Pryor v. State, 122 Md.App. 671, 716 A.2d 338, cert. denied,
352 Md. 312, 721 A.2d 990 (1998). Pryor has no application to the case here as the initial
reason for this stop was ongoing, the officer and the detention lasted no longer than
necessary to complete the purpose of the initial stop. Whereas in Pryor, the officer pulled
the subject over for a minor traffic violation and did not attempt to complete the initial
purpose of the stop while he waited for the arrival of the K-9 unit. Id. at 676.
Furthermore, in Wilkes the court also stated If the K9 scan was conducted prior to [the
Trooper] receiving any information from the [barrack] concerning the computer check,
then, as we have indicated ... the initial purpose for the traffic stop was not yet fulfilled
and the K9 scan was justified without additional independent reasonable articulable
suspicion. Wilkes, at 583. In Byndloss, a single detention takes place and K-9 scan for
drugs is constitutionally permissible in situations where the scan is at a point in time
when the trooper was still awaiting the results of the license and registration check [and]
the scan did not prolong the detention. Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. At 149. The initial

7
reason for the traffic stop in this case- a concealed license plate was still ongoing when
the K-9 unit arrived and conducted the scan of the Appellees vehicle. Id. at 437.
Identifying with the facts of Montrail, the courts held that the K9 search of a vehicle,

which detected narcotics, while awaiting results of computer check on driver's license
and vehicle registration, was permissible), In re Montrail, 325 Md. 527, 601 A.2d 1102
(1992). The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not
lengthen the roadside detention, (dog sniff), but a traffic stop become[s] unlawful if it is
prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a
warning ticket. Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015).
The questioning of Ms. Terronte took place while Officer Todd was waiting for the
results of a computer check which would constitute as a reasonable continued
investigation of the scene, while awaiting the results of a computer check that is
permissible police procedure under the Fourth Amendment. Wilkes, 364 Md. at 57880,
774 A.2d at 43435. Officer Terronte, was diligent in trying to obtain information to
complete the traffic stop, and utilized any alternative he could to obtain the necessary
information to complete the stop. The K-9 search was done during the search for
information on the traffic violation and did not further the stop longer than necessary.
Therefore, in precedence of the above cases the evidence obtained from the K-9 stop
should be admissible.

8
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set above this case should be Reversed and Remanded with
instruction to the Circuit Court of Dorchester County.

Statutes
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I-Search and Seizure
Amendment IV. Search and Seizure (West, 2016).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11th day of April, 2016, 2 copies of the
foregoing Brief of Appellant and 2 copies of the Record Extract were served on
each of the counsel listed below, via overnight courier, postage prepaid.
______________________
Reddy Dagger
1102 North and Mile Street
Cambridge, Maryland

2a
APPENDIX

3a