AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for attempting to traffic methamphetamine by possessing it with the intent to distribute. The conviction stemmed from a search conducted by officers in a storage unit linked to the Defendant. The search occurred close to and after 10:00 p.m., which the Defendant challenged as illegal due to the timing of the execution of the search warrant.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of the storage unit. He contended that the search was illegal because it was executed close to and after 10:00 p.m., violating the stipulated search warrant execution times without reasonable cause for nighttime search.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State, presumably, argued in support of the legality of the search and the denial of the motion to suppress, although specific arguments from the State are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search conducted close to and after 10:00 p.m., in alleged violation of the stipulated times for executing a search warrant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress and upheld his conviction.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring): The Court found the Defendant's arguments regarding the timing of the search warrant execution unpersuasive. It referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Santiago, which allows for a search to commence after 10:00 p.m. if the warrant execution began before that time. The Court noted that Rule 5-211(B)’s restrictions on nighttime searches primarily concern searches of residences to mitigate privacy and safety concerns, which did not strictly apply in this case involving a storage unit. The Court concluded that the search did not violate the bright-line rule set forth in Rule 5-211(B) and that the timing of the search, even if later than preferred, did not render the search of the storage unit unreasonable.