Legal Opinion

State v. Lee

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 23, 2003No. 81, Sept. Term, 2001PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, C.J.

The sole issue, which the State of Maryland, the petitioner, raises in this Court is whether evidence seized pursuant to a warrant, executed without knocking and announcing the police presence prior to forcing the door to the premises, is admissible pursuant to the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. The Circuit Court for Harford County denied the motion to suppress, filed by the respondent, Kai Ruchell Lee, ruling that the possibility of the destruction of the cocaine recovered was an exigent circumstance that justified the unannounced entry. The Court of Special Appeals…

2Cases cited62 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  5. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Bailey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  2. State v. SuddithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  3. Swift v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  4. State v. NievesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  5. Parker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API