What is the current state of the law on how to suppress or suppress evidence of a break-in at the home of an alleged drug dealer?

State court decisions are in accord with these principles. ³ For present purposes, State v. Alexander, supra, 124 Md.App. 258, 721 A.2d 275, is particularly instructive. In that case, an anonymous caller reported to the local police on Thanksgiving Day that his next-door neighbor's basement door was open and he believed the neighbor was away. (Id. at p. 262, 721 A.2d 275.) The responding officer "noticed that the basement door was 'wide open,' but observed no signs of a forcible entry." (Id. at p. 263, 721 A.2d 275.) Nevertheless, his training and experience suggested a breaking and entering was in progress, and he called for assistance. In the meantime, he announced his presence and knocked on the front door; he heard a dog barking inside but otherwise received no reply. (Id. at p. 264, 721 A.2d 275.) When the officer's backup arrived, the two entered through the open basement door "and began a sweep of the residence to determine if anyone was inside. They first noticed that the basement was in disarray. While still searching for possible intruders, they opened the door of a walk-in closet

Page 10

Although "sympathiz[ing] with the police officers' perspective," the trial court suppressed the evidence. (State v. Alexander, supra, 124 Md.App. at p. 264, 721 A.2d 275.) The appellate court reversed. In terms apropos to our inquiry, the court explained its reasoning: "When the police initially entered the home of the [defendants], the [defendants] were not the target of any police investigation nor were they believed to be harboring fugitives or concealing evidence of crime. There was, moreover, no remote hint of subterfuge; no narcotics officers were waiting, opportunistically, for an excuse to reconnoiter an otherwise protected asylum. [p ] It is undisputed that the police were not pursuing the [defendants] but were attempting to come to their possible aid. Fourth Amendment justification for seizing the persons of the [defendants] or for searching their home for evidence of crime, therefore, was not in any way an issue. Probable cause to invade the Fourth Amendment rights of a suspect, as the basis for either a search warrant or for appropriate warrantless activity, was not in any way an issue. The [defendants] were not suspects but citizens in possible distress. From the police perspective at all times prior to the ultimate discovery of drugs ..., the [defendants] were innocent homeowners who were the possible victims of a crime and who were deserving of prompt police intervention and protection." (Id. at pp. 261-262, 721 A.2d 275.)