Soles v. State

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question posed by this appeal is whether United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S. Ct. 2476 , 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977) should be retroactively applied to a 1971 criminal ³⁹⁸ conviction. If Chadwick is so applied, the appellant, Charles Calvin Soles, will receive a new trial, and some evidence will be excluded. On the other hand, if Chadwick is not interpreted to be retroactive, no new trial will be forthcoming. 1 We observe that in Soles v. State, 16 Md. App. 656 , 299 A.2d 502 , cert. denied, 415 U.S. 950 (1973), 2 we affirmed the conviction of Soles for having violated the Controlled Dangerous Substances Laws of this State and for attempted bribery.

The facts of that case are fully set out in our reported opinion, and we see no reason why we should retravel that route. Instead, we shall only refer to the facts necessary to explain the appellant’s contention in this appeal. A warrantless stop and search of appellant’s motor vehicle was made by Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police "moments after it had crossed the Maryland line into Prince George’s County.” The arresting officer demanded that Soles "produce the keys to the trunk” of the car. Upon opening the lid, the officer "discovered a dark-colored briefcase.

It was locked. After the appellant failed to produce a key for the briefcase, the police snapped it open. Much of the incriminating evidence was found inside the briefcase. The rest had been found inside the locked trunk.” We are here concerned with the content of the briefcase rather than of the trunk.

Soles argues that Chadwick has retroactive application, and that as a result of applying it to him, the search of his briefcase was an unconstitutional invasion of his Fourth Amendment rights. To underpin his position, Soles cites us to Shingleton v. State, 39 Md. App. 527, 539 , 387 A.2d 1134, 1141 (1978) where we said, in note 6: "Although Chadwick was handed down subsequent to the trial of the case sub judice, we believe its decision, reaffirming established standards of ³⁹⁹ search and seizure, may be viewed retroactively in accordance with the considerations set forth in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203 (1967): 'The criteria guiding resolution of the question implicate (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.’ See Rassmussen v. State, 18 Md. App. 443, 448-50 , 306 A.2d 577, 580 (1973); Scott v. State, 7 Md. App. 505, 516-18 , 256 A.2d 384, 391-92 (1969).” Shingleton does not stand for the proposition that Chadwick must be viewed retroactively in all events. Our dictum in note 6 is no part of the holding. We were merely endeavoring to