Opinion ID: 1978971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Intervening Event Factor

Text: We therefore turn our attention to the second factor to evaluate the existence of an intervening event. As we stated in Myers, 395 Md. at 287-88, 909 A.2d at 1063-64, `[a]n intervening circumstance is an event that breaks the causal connection between the unlawful conduct and the derivative evidence' (citing Ferguson, 301 Md. at 551, 483 A.2d at 1259). In this case, the officers discovered the baggie of marijuana on the ground after Sergeant Bryant learned of Petitioner's outstanding arrest warrant, stood Petitioner up from the curb, and arrested him pursuant to that warrant. Sergeant Bryant did not ask Petitioner and Martin to sit on the ground until after he received the code Sam Roberts, alerting him that one of the two men had a warrant outstanding for his arrest. We therefore agree with the State that the police had probable cause to arrest Petitioner before they discovered the marijuana. [7] Although Petitioner may have discarded the bag of marijuana while he was seated on the ground, that fact is not dispositive to our analysis or holding in this case. [8] While Petitioner again cites Ienco, this time for the proposition that a lawful arrest is not an intervening circumstance because the Ienco court determined that it was not an intervening event, we must reject that argument as well. Petitioner's argument lacks merit because Ienco is distinguishable from the case sub judice on a significant point. The officers in Ienco did not discover an outstanding warrant, as Sergeant Bryant did in this case; hence, Ienco is inapposite. [9]