State v. Kruzel

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).