Howell v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
MOYLAN, Judge.
This appeal by Charles Brian Howell is a frustrating one. The cause for frustration is that the slippery quality of its lone argument is not an isolated instance of fuzzy and imprecise logic and thought but sadly representative of a growing trend toward such fuzziness and imprecision. Our rejection of the claim may serve one normative purpose: to help lay to rest the myth that some undifferentiated exclusionary rule hovers vaguely above us like a precept of natural law, waiting to be invoked whenever some reviewing authority is displeased with the course of investigative…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Massachusetts v. SheppardSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- People v. DeforeNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Lawrence v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Fitzgerald v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- State v. BrownConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Padilla v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- In re Darryl P.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.