The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This important right ensures that law enforcement must follow specific procedures before entering private property or collecting personal information.
In Maryland, as in all states, the Fourth Amendment plays a key role in criminal investigations and court proceedings. This article explains what the Fourth Amendment means, how it applies in Maryland, and what recent cases and statistics reveal about its use.
If you believe that your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, contact a Baltimore criminal defense lawyer for representation.
What Is the Fourth Amendment?
“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…”
This means that police officers must have a good reason—called “probable cause”—before they can search someone’s home, car, or belongings. In most cases, they must also get a warrant from a judge. A warrant is a legal document that gives permission for a search or arrest.
For a free legal consultation, call (410) 390-3101
How the Fourth Amendment Works in Maryland
In Maryland, the Fourth Amendment is enforced through state and federal courts. If police officers search someone without a warrant or without probable cause, the evidence they find may not be allowed in court. This is called the “exclusionary rule.” It helps protect people from illegal searches.
Maryland courts also follow certain legal doctrines that affect how the Fourth Amendment is applied. For example:
- Independent Source Doctrine: If police find evidence through a legal method, even after an illegal search, the evidence may still be used in court.
- Inevitable Discovery Doctrine: If police would have found the evidence anyway through legal means, it may be allowed even if the search was illegal.
These doctrines are meant to balance individual rights with law enforcement needs.
Important Maryland Case: Maryland v. Garrison
One major case that shaped Fourth Amendment law in Maryland is Maryland v. Garrison (1987). In this case, Baltimore police had a warrant to search an apartment on the third floor of a building. They did not know that the floor had two separate apartments. They searched both and found illegal drugs in the wrong apartment. The person who lived there argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the search was legal because the officers reasonably believed they were following the warrant. This case showed that courts may allow searches if police act in good faith, even if mistakes are made.
Click to contact our lawyers today
Common Fourth Amendment Issues in Maryland
Several types of cases in Maryland involve Fourth Amendment questions. These include:
- Traffic Stops: Police must have a reason to stop a car. If they search the car without permission or a warrant, it may be illegal.
- Home Searches: Officers usually need a warrant to enter someone’s home. If they enter without one, the search may be challenged in court.
- Digital Privacy: With more people using phones and computers, courts are deciding how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital data.
In recent years, Maryland courts have seen more cases involving digital privacy. For example, police may try to access phone records or GPS data. These actions often require a warrant, depending on the situation.
Complete a Free Case Evaluation form now
Key Legal Developments in Maryland (2024)
In this case, the Maryland Appellate Court reversed a lower court’s decision to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent frisk. Officer Antonio Ruiz conducted a Terry stop and frisk after observing erratic driving and suspicious behavior. The court ruled that Ruiz had reasonable suspicion to initiate the frisk, making the search lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of a government copy of a defendant’s hard drive—after consent had been revoked—violated the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized that digital data carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if the physical device is no longer in the defendant’s possession.
- Geofence Warrants and Digital Surveillance
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the use of geofence warrants in United States v. Chatrie. Although the case originated in Virginia, it has implications for Maryland. The court upheld the use of location data obtained from Google, stating that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in data voluntarily shared with third parties. This ruling reinforces the controversial “third-party doctrine” in digital privacy cases.
Digital Privacy and the Fourth Amendment
Maryland courts are increasingly addressing how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital data. In 2024, the Maryland Supreme Court clarified that individuals retain privacy rights over electronic data—even if the government has a copy.
This decision aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Carpenter v. United States (2018), which held that accessing historical cell-site location data without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
Key takeaways for Maryland residents:
- Consent to search digital devices can be withdrawn.
- Government access to digital data requires a warrant unless an exception applies.
- Courts distinguish between physical devices and the data stored on them.
Statistics on Fourth Amendment Violations
While exact numbers remain difficult to pinpoint, recent data and case law confirm that Fourth Amendment violations continue to be a significant factor in Maryland criminal proceedings. According to the Maryland Judiciary’s 2024 Annual Statistical Abstract:
- Over 5,800 motions to suppress evidence were filed in criminal cases statewide—an increase from 2022.
- Approximately 32% of these motions involved claims of illegal searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
- Judges granted suppression in 21% of those cases, excluding evidence due to unlawful government conduct.
These figures reflect a growing awareness of constitutional protections and a judiciary that actively enforces them. The uptick in suppression motions and rulings suggests that defense attorneys are increasingly challenging questionable search practices, especially in cases involving digital data and warrantless surveillance.
For example, in Eric Allen Harley v. State of Maryland (2024), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed whether evidence obtained after officers remained in a suspect’s home without consent could be admitted. The court ultimately upheld the evidence under the independent source doctrine, but the case underscores how Fourth Amendment claims are regularly litigated and scrutinized.
Challenges and Controversies
Some legal experts believe that Fourth Amendment rights are being weakened. One concern is the “third-party doctrine.” This rule says that if you share information with someone else—like a phone company or internet provider—you may lose your privacy rights.
For example, in Smith v. Maryland (1979), the Supreme Court said that police could collect phone call records without a warrant because the phone company already had the data.
Critics argue that this rule does not fit today’s world, where people share data with many companies. They believe that courts should update the law to better protect privacy.
Call The Bishop Law Group for Legal Help
If you believe your Fourth Amendment rights were violated—whether through an unlawful search, seizure, or digital surveillance—don’t wait. The Bishop Law Group is a trusted Maryland law firm committed to defending your constitutional protections and challenging government overreach.
Our experienced attorneys understand the complexities of search and seizure law. Whether evidence was obtained without a warrant, your digital privacy was compromised, or your home or vehicle was searched improperly, we will fight to ensure your rights are respected and upheld in court.
Let the law work for you—not against you.
Call or text (410) 390-3101 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form
