Skip to main content

King v. State

Citations

  • 434 Md. 472
  • 76 A.3d 1035
  • 2013 WL 5495244
  • 2013 Md. LEXIS 599

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that Article 26 has been interpreted by Maryland courts as being in pari materia with the Fourth Amendment
  • stating that “[a]lthough we have asserted that Article 26 may have a meaning independent of the Fourth Amendment,” to date, we have not held “that it provides greater protection against state searches than its federal kin”
  • “[T]he application of [the exclusionary rule] [prohibiting the use of illegally obtained evidence] is appropriate when the Constitution or a statute requires it.”
  • “[T]his Court has interpreted historically Article 26 in pari materia with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
  • “[T]his Court has interpreted historically Article 26 in pari materia with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
  • issue not raised below is not preserved for appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Harrell, Ret

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.