Johnson v. State

Leahy, J. “If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?” John Wooden, UCLA Head Coach (1948-1975) On a snowy evening in January, 2015, a Montgomery County Police Officer became suspicious that criminal activity may be afoot after he stopped Casey 0. Johnson (“Appellant” or “Johnson”) for a broken tail light in Germantown, Maryland. After more officers and a K-9 unit arrived at the scene, Johnson and her two passengers were asked to exit the vehicle. The police searched Johnson’s two jacket pockets and found nothing, but when they searched Anthony Haqq, the front passenger, they found a baggie of 13 grams of marijuana in his waistband and smelled PCP on his breath.

As they arrested the front passenger, the police proceeded to search Johnson’s entire vehicle, including the trunk, while the K-9 stood idly by. A digital scale and 104.72 grams of marijuana were found inside a paper bag inside a backpack that was inside the trunk. Then the officers arrested Johnson, and diming the search incident, found $544.00 on her person. A grand jury charged Johnson with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

Prior to trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Johnson moved to suppress all evidence seized by the police, who she claimed, violated the protection afforded her under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. The circuit court denied Johnson’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found Johnson guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and the ²⁴⁴ court sentenced Johnson to five years suspended in favor of supervised probation. On appeal, Johnson presents two issues for our review: 1. “Did the police have reasonable articulable suspicion to continue detaining Ms. Johnson after a reasonable amount of time to process a traffic stop had passed?” 2. “Did the police have probable cause to search Ms. Johnson’s trunk based on drug evidence found on the person of her front-seat passenger?” Johnson’s questions confine our review to the facts and argument presented before the suppression court.

See Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 498-99 , 924 A.2d 1129 (2007); Ferris v. State, 355 Md. 356, 368 , 735 A.2d 491 (1999). Because the officers lacked probable cause to believe that drugs were in the trunk based solely on the drugs found in the waistband and on the breath of the front passenger, we hold that the suppression court erred by concluding the officers were permitted to conduct a warrantless search of the trunk pursuant to the Carroll Doctrine. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); see also California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1999); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Wilson v. State, 174 Md.App. 434 , 921 A.2d 881 (2007). Given our disposition of this issue, we need not address Johnson’s first question.

BACKGROUND Suppression Hearing The circuit court held a hearing on Johnson’s motion to suppress on April 16, 2015. Because the State tried Johnson and her front-seat passenger, Haqq, together, the suppression court heard arguments from both defendants on their pending motions. Johnson claimed the officers lacked reasonable artic-ulable suspicion to prolong the stop past the purpose of writing a citation for the traffic law violation and that the officers lacked probable cause to search the trunk of Johnson’s ²⁴⁵ vehicle. Officers Robert Sheehan and Michael Mancuso testified for the State, and Haqq testified for the defense.

The following facts were established at the suppression hearing from these witnesses, and from Officer Sheehan’s dashboard camera video of the traffic stop, which was played during his testimony. The Stop The defective tail light on Johnson’s car was apparent on the video of the stop that occurred at 7:25 p.m. on January 9, 2015 near the intersection of Middlebrook Road and German-town Road in Germantown. Johnson had two passengers with her: Anthony Haqq 1 in the front seat and Kevin Helms 2 in the back seat. At the time of the stop, Officer Sheehan was assigned to the Germantown District Community Action Team, a unit placed “in areas of high crime for crime suppression.” He had served as a police officer for twelve years, including approximately one year on the Special Investigations Criminal Street Gang Unit, and approximately one year on the Special Investigations Narcotics Enforcement Team.

Officer Sheehan also took several classes concentrating on drug interdiction, and completed 417 hours of training on drug interdiction. He testified that the stop occurred in a high-crime area. Officer Sheehan explained that he initiated the traffic stop to issue the driver a safety equipment repair order. When he activated his emergency equipment, Johnson drove “very slowly,” turned into a Safeway parking lot, and stopped in the second parking aisle. 3 It had been snowing and was dark out, ²⁴⁶ so Officer Sheehan shined a spotlight on the rear window of Johnson’s vehicle.

Furtive Movements and Nervousness Officer Sheehan perceived, through the rear window of the vehicle, Johnson and the front-seat passenger, Haqq, making “furtive movements.” Specifically, he observed: It looked like [Johnson] may have been manipulating something in the center console area. She was bent over it. I could see her hand, her left hand on the steering wheel as she bent over the center console area, reaching in that area and reaching over towards Haqq’s seat. ... I could see her, portion from her elbow up moving, and I could see her shoulder.

I couldn’t see her arm. I’m sorry. Her hand. [[Image here]] [Haqq] was moving around in his seat. He appeared to be either reaching under his seat on to the floorboard in front of his seat, and occasionally would lift his rear end up off the seat and then bring it back down, as if he was either trying to reach underneath where he was sitting, or the seat or the floorboard.

Haqq contested Officer Sheehan’s observations and testified that neither he nor Johnson were moving around in their seats. Officer Sheehan related that, after observing the furtive movements, the first thought that came to his mind was that the vehicle’s occupants were trying to conceal drugs or weapons. So at 7:25:50 p.m. he “jump[ed] out of [his] car real quick to [go] up to the vehicle to see what was going on.” Shining his flashlight into the vehicle as he approached, he observed Haqq “leaned over his own legs” and that “his hands were in between his legs.” According to Officer Sheehan, when he got to the driver’s window and introduced himself, Haqq “immediately jumped back in his seat ... and pulled his shirt down over his crotch area.” Johnson’s “voice was shaking[,]” and Officer Sheehan observed “the carotid pulse in her neck [was] beating rapidly[.]” ²⁴⁷ Officer Sheehan attested that in his twelve years of experience conducting traffic stops, he developed a sense for “traffic stop nervous,” which he described as “a normal baseline for a person that I just stopped for a regular violation.” Johnson, however, was “extremely nervous” according to Officer Shee-han, who described Johnson’s “trembling” hands “fumbl[e] through her wallet for her license .... ” From these observations, Johnson appeared to Officer Sheehan more nervous than “traffic stop nervous.” Johnson asked Haqq for help locating the vehicle’s registration in the glove box, but “he didn’t move” and instead sat “like a statue” staring out the window. Haqq’s brief testimony during the hearing that he “just sat in [his] seat and stared out the window” was consistent with Officer Sheehan’s version of the events.

Upon returning to his patrol car at 7:26:27 p.m., Officer Sheehan called in to request that his Germantown District Community Action Team members assist him with the stop. Immediately thereafter, he began processing the traffic stop on “eTix,” and conducting the routine license, registration, and warrant cheeks in four systems. 4 While conducting these checks he observed Haqq resume making furtive movements. Specifically, Officer Sheehan testified that “[a]s I am working on the computer, I can see now that Mr. Haqq is no longer statue-esque [sic] and not moving” but rather, “I could see ... the top of [Haqq’s] body moving back and forth ... lifting up off his seat and leaning back a little bit” and “his arms moving in front on him.” At the point on the video corresponding to Officer Sheehan’s testimony, a voice is heard on the video informing Officer Sheehan that “NICIC clear. 2009 Mitsubishi 4-door. License status, valid.

Points zero. NCIC person clear.” 5 ²⁴⁸ Just after Officer Sheehan received the information on the background checks, Officer Dos Santos arrived at the stop at 7:29:30 p.m. Officer Sheehan brought Officer Dos Santos up to date, explained that he had already requested a K-9 unit, and recommended that they wait for another member of the team to arrive for “officer safety reasons” before approaching the vehicle again because there were three occupants in the car. At 7:32 p.m.

Officer Mancuso arrived, and after Officer Shee-han summarized his observations, the three officers approached Johnson’s car. The Frisk and Search Incident Officer Sheehan asked Johnson to step out of the car so that he could show her the broken brake light and ask her a few questions. The video displayed the following exchange beginning at 7:32:44 p.m.: Officer Sheehan: Who are these people in the car with you? Ms. Johnson: Oh.

My friends. Officer Sheehan: Friends? Where are y’all coming from? Ms. Johnson: Coming from right over here.

Officer Sheehan: Okay. And then stopping you, I could see a lot of movement in the car, all right? Ms. Johnson: Oh. Okay.

Officer Sheehan: Okay? You were moving around a lot, he was moving around an awful lot, front passenger, and I couldn’t see him because of the salt on the window. Ms. Johnson: Oh. Okay.

Officer Sheehan: What were you guys doing? Ms. Johnson: Oh, nothing. I was just, I mean, moving around, because I don’t understand. I was just (unintelligible), I wasn’t doing anything.

Officer Sheehan: Okay. All right. Is anything illegal in the car that I need to know about? No drugs?

Ms. Johnson: No. ²⁴⁹ Officer Sheehan: No weapons? Ms. Johnson: No, sir. Officer Sheehan: Okay. Where do these guys live?

Do they live in the area? Ms. Johnson: Yeah. Officer Sheehan: Okay. How long have you known them for?

Ms. Johnson: I don’t know. You know, about a month? Officer Sheehan: Do you know if they have anything illegal on them? Ms. Johnson: No. No sir.

Officer Sheehan: Okay. Nothing illegal in the car. Ms. Johnson: No. Officer Sheehan: Can I search your vehicle to make sure there’s nothing illegal inside there? Ms. Johnson: I’m not understanding why you need to?

Officer Sheehan: I just explained why. Because after I stopped you, you guys were moving around an awful lot. Ms. Johnson: I understand that, I’m just saying that, to me, I’m not understanding why you have to search the car? Officer Sheehan: I don’t have to.

I’m just asking consent. Ms. Johnson: Yeah. I just don’t think that that’s appropriate, but— Officer Sheehan: Okay. So, you don’t want me to.

Ms. Johnson: I mean, I mean, I don’t—no. Because I don’t understand why you need to. Officer Sheehan: Okay. That’s fine.

I’ve talked to you, I just thought that I might (unintelligible) them too. Ms. Johnson: Yeah, I mean. I mean. No. As the quoted exchange demonstrates, Johnson denied Officer Sheehan consent to search her vehicle.

But soon after, she did consent to Officer Sheehan’s request to search the outer ²⁵⁰ two pockets of her sweatshirt. That search did not reveal any contraband or weapons. Officer Sheehan’s exchange with Johnson concluded at 7:35:16 p.m. 6 Meanwhile, Officer Mancuso had retrieved Haqq’s information, and Officer Dos Santos had retrieved Mr. Helms’ information. Officer Mancuso remained standing next to Haqq’s passenger window, while Officer Sheehan ran the passengers’ checks.

By 7:37:07 p.m. there were five officers on the scene— Officers Sheehan, Dos Santos, Mancuso, Stone, and Dzenkow-ski. Officer Sheehan testified that while he ran the background checks he also re-opened the e-ticket for the repair order for Johnson’s broken brake light at 7:41 p.m. 7 By 7:42:39 p.m. Officer Sheehan completed the passengers’ background checks, which revealed both passengers had “PWID [possession with intent to distribute] or distribution priors,” and Haqq had “a couple of assault on law enforcements.” At 7:44:18 p.m. Officer Kelly—the sixth officer—arrived with a K-9.

Officer Sheehan informed Johnson that a K-9 unit would conduct a scan of her vehicle. Officer Mancuso testified that, at this point in the stop, he asked Haqq and Helms to exit the vehicle in accordance with the police department’s policy. At 7:46 p.m., before the K-9 scan of the vehicle, Haqq exited the vehicle and, on his own initiative, turned around, placing his hands on the roof of the car, and spread his feet. Haqq testified that he did that because he was nervous.

Officer Mancuso testified that he then asked Haqq whether he could conduct a search of his person, and that he smelled POP on Haqq’s breath when Haqq responded to his request. Haqq ²⁵¹ claimed Officer Mancuso did not ask him anything, but proceeded to search his pants area and shirt. The search revealed a baggie of 13.14 grams of marijuana in Haqq’s waistband. Officer Mancuso testified that based on his training and experience, he knew the baggie contained over 10 grams of marijuana. 8 Haqq was arrested.

The officers then conducted a search of the entire vehicle, including the trunk. In the trunk they discovered a backpack, according to Officer Sheehan, who testified: “I opened up the backpack, and inside was ... a large black shopping bag ... inside, I could see orange peels, coffee grounds, a digital scale, and a large container of 4C Iced Tea Mix. When I opened up the container of 4C Iced Tea Mix, there was a gallon sized bag of marijuana inside of it.” He related that the marijuana was found to weigh 104.72 grams. When the officers placed Johnson under arrest, Officer Dzenkowski searched Johnson and found $544.00 in cash “folded into different bundles.” Closing Arguments During closing arguments, the State argued that Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), permits officers to conduct traffic stops with the dual purposes of issuing a citation for a traffic law violation and investigating a suspected crime and that the traffic stop can transmute into a Terry investigation of a suspected crime.

The State contended that the officers did not unreasonably detain Johnson and Haqq because the traffic stop began at 7:25 p.m. and was ongoing through 7:32 p.m., at which point the officers had developed reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop when they learned that both passengers had “possession with intent to distribute priors.” ²⁵² According to the State, by 7:46 p.m., the officers had developed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the entire vehicle pursuant to the Carroll Doctrine after Officer Mancuso smelled POP on Haqq’s breath and performed a consent search revealing a baggie of 13.14 grams of marijuana in Haqq’s waistband. The State confirmed that Officer Kelly did not conduct a K-9 scan of the vehicle because the marijuana found on Haqq “supplied the probable cause” to search the entire vehicle. Johnson countered that the police detained her unlawfully beyond the time it took to effectuate the traffic stop—and that the furtive movements and Johnson and' Haqq’s degree of nervousness were insufficient to form reasonable suspicion for a second stop because police cannot rely on nervousness to form the requisite probable cause under Whitehead v. State, 116 Md.App. 497 , 698 A.2d 1115 (1997). Johnson urged the suppression court (as to the second and dispositive issue in this appeal) that there was no nexus between the marijuana found on Haqq and the marijuana and scale found inside the backpack that was in the trunk of the car.

Johnson’s counsel adopted the closing argument of Haqq’s counsel, who asserted that there was “no independent probable cause for the officers to search the inside of the vehicle, let alone the trunk of the vehicle.” “[Mjarijuana found on a passenger is not enough to search a vehicle that he doesn’t own, that he has not been driving.” At best, counsel reasoned, the officers could have performed a Gant search, 9 which would have been limited to the passenger side of the vehicle where Haqq was sitting. Counsel maintained that the police could only perform a Carroll search if they had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband. Suppression Ruling After considering the parties’ arguments, the suppression court reconvened on April 28, 2015 and, in denying Johnson’s ²⁵³ motion to suppress, made extensive findings of fact. The court began by observing that [u]pon stopping the vehicle the officer approached and asked for the driver’s information.

Thereafter the officer followed normal procedures associated with the routine stop for a broken taillight. Both before and while in the midst of these normal procedures the officer became suspicious of additional illegal activity and initiated further measures of investigation. The stop began at 7:25:45. We had the benefit of a video that, of the stop which had a time sequence reported and marijuana was taken from the front passenger, Mr. Haqq, at 7:46:45 just short of 21 minutes.

The court acknowledged that the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on “common sense judgments and inference about human behavior,” and credited the experience and specialized training of the police officers. The court credited the other facts relied upon by the State, including that 1) the stop occurred in a high crime area, 2) the officer observed Johnson and Haqq’s furtive movements, and 3) Haqq and Johnson showed an “unusual degree of nervousness.” The court concluded that the repair citation was completed at 7:41 p.m. (even though Officer Sheehan did not physically give the citation to Johnson at that time), “approximately 16 minutes after the stop[,]” and that during this time there was no unlawful detention “with all that was going on with regard to the warrant checks and with regard to the observations of the defendants by the police officer.” The court next observed that a few minutes later the passengers were asked to exit the vehicle in accordance with police department policy for the purpose of conducting a canine search. The court found that Haqq consented freely to the search of his person: [Officer Mancuso] testified that upon defendant Haqq stepping outside the vehicle that the defendant immediately faced the car and put his hands up onto the vehicle’s roof.

The defendant admits he did this without officer direction ... because he was nervous .... The officer then asked if ²⁵⁴ he could search the defendant’s person to which the defendant responded according to Officer Mancuso [‘]go ahead.['] The court also noted that Officer Mancuso smelled PCP on the breath of defendant Haqq when he had exited the vehicle. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that, even if Haqq gave consent, that consent was not voluntary. The court stated its finding on the voluntariness of Haqq’s consent: The Court finds that a reasonable person in this situation would have felt free to decline the officer’s request.

The defendant’s consent, defendant Haqq was not coerced or granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority. Significant to this finding is the fact that just minutes earlier defendant Johnson refused to consent to the search of the vehicle which lends credence to and support of the finding that the environment of the stop was not one in which the defendant’s [sic] will were overborne. The suppression court then turned to the issue of whether the officers had developed probable cause to conduct a search of the entire vehicle pursuant to the Carroll Doctrine. In denying the motion to suppress, the court announced its finding that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle’s trunk: Under [the Carroll] doctrine if a car is readily mobilef,] and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband[,] the Fourth Amendment permits police to search the vehicle without warrant. ... ...

Probable cause is a flexible common sense standard. It exists for a warrantless automobile search where facts and circumstances known to the police are such that it would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the vehicle contained articles lawfully subject to seizure. A practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. ... In this case[,] the police recovered a baggie of marijuana from defendant Haqq.

The police ... had testified there was a strong odor of PCP on his breath. These facts, in conjunction with the furtive behavior previously observed by the ²⁵⁵ officer, the location of the stop, the evasive answers provided by the occupants and the extreme nervousness of both the front driver and the front passenger occupant were sufficient to establish probable cause to search the vehicle. Jury Trial Johnson was tried on the charge for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. 10 After a two-day jury trial, Johnson was found guilty on September 22, 2015. As mentioned supra, the trial court sentenced Johnson to five years of imprisonment suspended in favor of supervised probation on November 19, 2015.

Johnson filed this appeal timely on December 17, 2015. DISCUSSION The Supreme Court has made clear that when the police stop a motor vehicle and detain the oceupant(s), the detention is a seizure that implicates the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 , 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979), and is “subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). A traffic stop “is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Id. (citing Prouse, 440 U.S. at 653 , 99 S.Ct. 1391 ; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)).

There is no dispute that the initial traffic stop in this case was valid. Officer Sheehan had probable cause to believe that Johnson violated a traffic law by driving with a broken tail ²⁵⁶ light. Indeed, Johnson does not challenge the traffic stop itself; instead, in her first question on appeal she assails the constitutionality of the traffic stop’s duration, and claims Officer Sheehan did not have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a Terry investigative stop after the traffic stop concluded. Because we hold that the officers lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the trunk of Johnson’s vehicle, the issue of whether Officer Sheehan developed reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a Terry investigative stop is a constitutional question that is not necessary to decide today.

Curran v. Price, 334 Md. 149, 171 , 638 A.2d 93 (1994) (“We have long adhered to the policy of not deciding constitutional issues unnecessarily.”). We therefore turn to the second issue presented by Johnson. H-( A. Standard of Review The issue before us concerns the trial court’s denial of Johnson’s motion to suppress evidence; therefore, we view the facts presented at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—in this case, the State. Sellman v. State, 449 Md. 526, 531, 538 , 144 A.3d 771 (2016); see also Moats v. State, 230 Md.App. 374, 384 , 148 A.3d 51 (2016) (citation omitted), cert. granted, 451 Md. 576 , 155 A.3d 433 (2017).

We defer to the suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, and review those findings and determinations for clear error. Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 401 , 813 A.2d 231 (2002). Although we ‘“do not engage in de novo fact-finding[,]’ ” Padilla v. State, 180 Md.App. 210, 218 , 949 A.2d 68 (2008) (quoting Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106, 131 , 919 A.2d 1200 (2007)), “[i]n determining whether a constitutional right has been violated, we make an independent, de novo, constitutional appraisal by applying the law to facts presented in a particular case.” Williams, 372 Md. at 401 , 813 A.2d 231 (citing Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554, 569 , 774 A.2d 420 ; Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 283-84 , 753 A.2d 519 (2000)). In so doing, we note ²⁵⁷ that the burden of justifying the search before the suppression court in this case was upon the State, for “once it is established ... that the search in issue was warrantless, a tectonic shift occurs in the allocation of the burdens.

The respective roles of the State and of the defense are procedurally and dramatically reversed.” Epps v. State, 193 Md.App. 687, 703 , 1 A.3d 488 (2010). “ ‘The very possibility of such a shift is a direct consequence of the Supreme'Court’s strong preference for searches and seizures pursuant to judicially approved warrants over warrantless searches and seizures.’ ” Id. at 704 , 1 A.3d 488 (quoting Herbert v. State, 136 Md.App. 458, 485 , 766 A.2d 190 (2001)). B. The Search Exceeded the Scope Permitted Under the Carroll Doctrine Before this Court, Johnson argues that the police did not have probable cause to search the trunk of her vehicle based on discovering marijuana in Haqq’s waistband and smelling PCP on Haqq’s breath. 11 Johnson contends that police were required to have a “particularized and objective basis” to believe that Johnson granted Haqq access to her trunk before they could search the trunk without a warrant. Furthermore, Johnson argues that searches under the Carroll Doctrine do not give police officers carte blanche to search the entire vehicle including the trunk. Instead, Johnson contends that the “automobile exception” limits the scope of a warrant-less search to specific places within a vehicle for which police officers have probable cause to search for the object of the suspected criminal activity.

According to Johnson, Maryland ²⁵⁸ courts have drawn a distinction between passengers and the driver: passengers, unless there is something indicating otherwise, do not have control over the contents of the vehicle. 12 Johnson points out that the officers only recovered evidence of drugs on the person of the front-seat passenger, Haqq, prior to their search of the trunk and there was no indication (or evidence) that Haqq may have placed drugs in the trunk of Johnson’s vehicle. According to Johnson, neither Johnson’s furtive movements reaching toward the center console, nor passenger Haqq’s furtive movements pulling his shirt over his knees and reaching toward the floor, could supply the probable cause required for a lawful search of the trunk. Johnson revisits Officer Sheehan’s testimony that Haqq “might have shoved something under his seat,” and concedes, at most, the facts available to police at the time were that drugs may have been placed by Haqq in the front-passenger side of the car. ²⁵⁹ Conversely, the State contends the police are not required to have a “particularized basis” to search specific areas of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is within the vehicle. The State relies on Acevedo, Ross, and Wilson, supra, for the proposition that because the police recovered marijuana from Haqq during a consent search and further smelled PCP on his breath, the “probable cause to search Johnson’s car for drugs or paraphernalia extended to every part of the car in which such items could be concealed!,]” including the trunk.

Citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 , 119 S.Ct. 1297 , 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999), the State rejects Johnson’s contention that we should differentiate between drivers and passengers in determining whether the police developed probable cause, and presses that Johnson’s nervousness and furtive movements proved she was aware Haqq had contraband in his possession. We have not had occasion to examine whether the police may have probable cause to search the trunk of a vehicle without a warrant under the Carroll Doctrine based solely on finding drugs on the person of a passenger. We begin our analysis with the ascendant constitutional framework. 1. The Requirements and Scope of Searches Pursuant to the Carroll Doctrine.

The Reasonableness Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated!.]” U.S. Const, amend. TV. Surveying federal constitutional law, we explained in State v. Andrews, that “[t]he Fourth Amendment protects not against all intrusions as such, ‘but against intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances, or which are made in an improper manner.’ ” 227 Md.App. 350, 373-74 , 134 A.3d 324 (2016) (quoting Maryland v. King, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 1969 , 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013)). As such, the Fourth Amendment mandates that searches and seizures be reasonable, but “what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place.” Id.

(citing State v. Alexander, 124 Md. ²⁶⁰ App. 258, 265, 721 A.2d 275 (1998)) (emphasis added in Alexander ). Reasonableness “generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant[,]” Riley v. California — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014), for it is an established principle that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (footnotes omitted). The National Prohibition Act drove the Supreme Court’s first significant articulation of the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. Carroll, 267 U.S. at 136, 45 S.Ct. 280 .

We quote Chief Justice Taft’s vivid rendition of the facts in Carroll : We know in this way that Grand Rapids is about 152 miles from Detroit, and that Detroit and its neighborhood along the Detroit river, which is the international boundary, is one of the most active centers for introducing illegally into this country spirituous liquors for distribution into the interior. It is obvious from the evidence that the prohibition agents were engaged in a regular patrol along the important highways from Detroit to Grand Rapids to stop and seize liquor carried in automobiles. They knew or had convincing evidence to make them believe that the Carroll boys, as they called them, were so-called ‘bootleggers’ in Grand Rapids; i.e., that they were engaged in plying the unlawful trade of selling such liquor in that city. The officers had soon after noted their going from Grand Rapids half way to Detroit, and attempted to follow them to