1 4 8 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
CRI M I NAL P ROCE DURE
S E AR CH A ND S EI Z URE C OMPUTA T I ON OF S T AT UT ORY 1 5 -D AY P E RI OD F OR E X E CU T I ON OF S E AR CH W ARRANT

J une 22, 2001

The H onor abl e Je r r

y F. B ar nes S ta te’s A tto rn e

y fo r C a rr o ll C o u n ty
Y o u h av e a sk ed fo r ou r op inion as to w h en the 1 5 -da ystatu tory tim e lim it f

o r t h e e x e c u tio n o f

a s e a rc h w a rr a n t c o m m e n c e s
. I n ouropi ni on, t he 15- dayper i od s houl d be comp ut ed begi nni ng on t he dayaft ert he s ear ch w ar r anti s i s s ued bya j udi ci al o ff icer.

I

S ta tu to r y T im e L im it
T he M ar y l and cr i m i nal code s et s a t i m e l i m i tfort he exe cut i on of s ear ch w ar r ant s i s s ued byM ar y l and court s
. I ts t at es i n r el evant p a rt:

.. . [ A ]n y se a rc h o r se izu re u n d e r th e a u th o rity

o f [ a ] se a rc h w a rra n t .. . sh a ll b e m a d e w ith in 15 cal endar day s fr om t he dat e of the i s s uance t her eof a nd aft ert he expi r at i on of t he 15- day p eriod said w arran t sha ll b e nu ll an d v o id. I f

. . . i tapp ear s
. . . t hatt he pr oper t yw as t aken undera w ar r anti s s ued more t han 15 ca l endar d a y s p rio r to se izu re , [th e ] j u d g e m u st c a u se it t o be r es t or ed t o t he per s on fr om w hom i tw as ta k e n
.G en. 148] 149

As part of code revision, this statute is beingrec odified as §1- 203 1 of the ne w Criminal ProcedureArti cl e, ef fe ctive Oc tober 1, 2001. See Chapter 10, L aws of Ma

ryland 2001.
See Federa l Ru leof

Crimi na l Proc e dure41 (c )( 1) (“ [thewa rrant] 2 shall command the officer to search, withi n a specified period of time not to exceed 10 days...”). That rule authorizes state courts, as we ll as fede ral courts, to issue sea

rch w arrants at the re quest of fe deral law enf orce ment officia ls. I f a Maryland court issues a war rant under the fede ral rule , the 10-day limit in that rule – or a ny shorter time pe riod stated in the wa rra nt by the issuing judg e – would per tain. A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cle 2 7, §551( a)

. A s ear ch 1
w ar r antt hati s not exec ut ed w i t hi n 15 day s aft er i t s i s s uance i s t o be return ed to the issuing jud g e. M ary land R u le 4-6 0 1 (d).
T h e 1 5 -d a yp e rio d w a s a d d e d to th e p re d e c e ss o r o f § 5 5 1 in 1950. C hapt er81, L aw s of M ar y l and 1950. T hi s r equi r ement i s “of s ub- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s , s i n c e n e i t h e rAr t i c l e 2 6 o f t h e M a r y l and D ecl ara t i on of R i ght s nort he Four t h A m endment i ncl uded s uch a r equi r ement

. ” I

n r e Spec i alI

nves t igat i on N

o. 228 , 54 M d. A pp. 149, 1 6 2 -6 3 , 4 5 8 A .2 d 8 2 0 , cer t

. deni ed , 296 M d. 414 ( 1983) ( r ecount i ng h is to ry o f

§ 5 5 1 ).
Pr es um abl y , t he purpos e of the 15- dayl i m i ti s s i m i l ar to t hat of t he 10- dayl i m i tfort he exe cut i on of sea r ch w ar r ant s i s s ued under the F ed era l R u les o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re. B o th ru les h elp e n su re 2 t hat a s ea rch w arr ant i s not executed aft er the p robable cause s uppor t i ng t he s ear ch has gr ow n “s t al e” a s a r es ul tof a de l ayaft er th e w a rr a n t is is s u e d

. Se e U ni t e d Stat e s v. Sg ro , 287 U

. S. 206 (1 9 3 2 ); D o n a ld

so n v . S ta te , 46 M d. A pp. 521, 527- 31, 420 A

. 2d 281 (1 9 8 0 )

. S e e g e n e ra lly L a F a v e , Sear ch and Sei z ur e §3. 7( a) ( 3d ed. 19 96 ). O f cou rs e, t he fa ct s and cir cum st ances o f a part i cularcase w i l l det er m i ne w het herany d el ayi n exec ut i on has r es ul t ed i n t he d iss ip a tio n o f

p ro b a b le c a u se . A s J u d g e M o y lan e x p lain e d in a n o ftquot ed pas s age:

T he ul t i m at e cr i t er i on i n det er m i ni ng t he degr ee of

evapor at i on of pr obabl e ca us e, how ever , i s notcas e l aw butr eas on. T he lik e lih o o d th a t th e e v id e n c e so u g h t is still i n pl ace i s a func t i on n o t si m pl yof w at ch and cal e n d a r b u t o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t d o n o t p u n ch a cl ock: t he cha r act erof t he cr i m e ( ch an ce1 5 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

encount eri n t he ni ghtorr egene r at i ng cons pi r acy ?), of t he cr i m inal ( nom adi c or ent r enche d?), of t he t hi ng t o be sei zed ( p e r i s h a b l e a n d e a s i l y t r a n s f e r a b l e o r of e n d u rin g u til ity to its h o ld e r? ), o f th e p lac e to be s ear ched ( m er e cr i m i nal forum of conveni ence or s ecur e oper at i onal bas e?) , et c. T he obs er vat i on of a ha l f-sm oked mar i j uana ci gar et t e i n an as ht r ayata cockt ai l par t ym ay w el l be s t al e t he dayaft ert he cl eani ng l ady has been i n; t he obs er vat i on of t he bur i al of a corpse i n a ce l l arm ayw el l notbe s t al e t hr ee deca des l at er
. T he har e and t he t or t oi s e do not di s appea ratt he s ame r at e of s peed.
A n dre se n v . S ta te , 2 4 M d

. A p p . 1 2 8 , 1 7 2 , 3 3 1 A .2 d 7 8 , cer t

. deni ed , 2 7 4 M d . 7 2 5 (1 9 7 5 ), a

ff’d , 427 U

. S. 463 ( 1976)

. I n t he abs ence of a s peci fi c deadl i ne s et by t he i s s ui ng j udge, t he 15- day l i m i thas been d e e m e d a “ re a so n a b le tim e to a llo w ” f o r th e e x e c u tio n o f

a w a rra n t. G riffin v . S ta te , 2 3 2 M d . 3 8 9 , 3 9 2 , 1 9 4 A .2 d 8 0 (1 9 6 3 ).

II
Co mp u t a t i o n o f

Ti me T he A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and pr ovi des a gene r al r ul e for th e c o m p u tatio n o f

tim e lim its se t f

o rth in sta tu tes . It p ro v id e s: I n comput i ng anyper i od of t i m e pr es cr i bed or al l o wed b y a n y a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e , t h e d a y of t he ac t , event , ordefa u lt , aft erw hi ch t he des i gnat ed per i od of t i m e begi ns t o r un i s not t o b e i nc lu d e d

. T he las tday of the peri od so com pu t ed is t o b e i ncluded un les s .
. . [i ]ti s a Sundayora l egal hol i day , i n w hi ch eventt he p e r i o d r u n s u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e n e x t d a y, w h ic h is n e ith e r a S u n d a yo r a h o lid a y
.... W hen t he per i od of t i m e al l ow ed i s m or e t han s e v e n d a ys , i n t e r m e d i a t e S u n d a y s a n d h o l i d a ys s h a ll b e c o n s id e re d a s o th e r d a y s
....G en. 148] 151

Th at r uleprov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 3 (a) Com

pu tation of tim e afte r an act , e v e nt, or de fau lt . In c omp uti ngany pe ri od of tim e pr e sc ribe d b y

the se ru le s, by ru le or orde r of c ourt , or by any a pp lic a blestatut e , th e da

y of thea c t, event, or defa

ult a fter which the designated pe riod of time beg ins to run is not included. I f the period of tim e a llo we d is more tha n s e ve n d ay s, intermediateSaturdays, Sunday s, and holiday s a re counted.... Thelast day of the period so computed is included unless ... it is a Saturday , Sun d ay , or holiday , in w h i ch eve nt the period runs until the e n d o f th e n e x td ay th ati s n o ta S atur d ay, S un d ay, or holiday

.... Maryland Rule 1-203(a). The statute was rec odified in its current form in 1997. Cha pter 31, 4 §6, L aws of Ma

ryland 1997. A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 1, §36. T he M ar y l and R ul es co n tai n a sim il arlyw o rde d p rov isi o n
. M ary land R u le 1-2 0 3 (a). 3
T he purpos e of t he s t atut e, w hi ch i s es s ent i al l y a codi fi cat i on of t he comm on l aw r ul e, i s to p rov i de a uni for m m et hod of c o m p u tin g a n y p e ri o d o f tim e p re s c ri b e d b ys ta tu te

. E q u ita b le L ife A s s ura n ce Soci et

y v. Jal ow s ky , 306 M d. 257, 262, 508 A

. 2d 137 (1986 ). Itt hu s bri ng s a “deg ree of ce rta in ty ” t o the l aw and al so avoi ds pr ej udi ce t o a par t y “i f t he t r i gger i ng event occur s t ow ar d t he end of the day

. ” Id. a t 2 6 5

. See a l so Jon es v. H

ub ba rd , 356 M d. 5 1 3 , 5 3 8 , 7 4 0 A .2 d 1 0 0 4 (1 9 9 9 ).
N ot abl y , t he s t atute c rea ti ng a uni for m r ul e fort he c o mp u t a t i o n o f t i me wa s f i r s t e n a c t e d i n 1 9 4 1

. Ch a p t e r5 2 2 , L a ws o f M a ryla n d 1 9 4 1 , or igi nal l y codi f i ed as A r t i cl e 94, §2. T hi s w as 4 pr i ort o es t abl i s hm entof t he 15- dayt i m e l i m i tfor t he exe cut i on of se a rc h w a rra n ts no w c o d if ied in A rticle 2 7 , § 5 5 1

. T h u s, it is p re su m e d th a t th e L e g isla tu re c re a ted th e 1 5 -d a yp e rio d in § 5 5 1 w ith t h e k n o wl e d g e t h a tt h e u n i f o r m me t h o d f

o rc o mp u t a t i o n o f

t i me w oul d be appl i ed and, by not s peci fy i ng ot herw i s e, appr oved of the u s e o f th a t m e th o d o f

c o m p u ta tio n
. E qu i t ab l e L i f e, supra , 306 M d. a t 2 6 3

. See al

s o H am pt on v. U

ni ver s i t y of Mar yl and atB al t i m or e, 1 0 9 M d . A p p . 2 9 7 , 3 0 7 , 6 7 4 A .2 d 1 4 5 , cer t

. deni ed , 343 M d. 333, cer t

. deni ed , 5 1 9 U

. S

. 1 0 3 2 (19 9 6 ).1 5 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
III
C oncl usi on I n ouropi ni on, a s ear ch w ar r anti s s ued bya M ar y l and cou rt u n d e rA r t i c l e 2 7 , § 5 5 1 , m u s tb e e x e c u t e d w i t h i n 1 5 c a l e n d a rd a ys aft eri ti s s i gned bythe issuing j udge. T he 15- dayper i od i s t o be comput ed i n acc or dance w i t h A r t i cl e 1, §36, and t her efor e begi ns on t he dayaft ert he w ar r anti s s i gned.
J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce