# 1995 CORVETTE VIN 1G1YY22P585103433 v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · February 23, 1999 · 353 Md. 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694194

## Case

- **Full name:** One 1995 Corvette Vin# 1g1yy22p585103433 v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** February 23, 1999
- **Citations:** 353 Md. 114; 724 A.2d 680; 1999 Md. LEXIS 58
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Raker
- **Judges:** Cathell, Raker
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694194

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the lower court’s conclusion that Plymouth Sedan is no longer good law and applying the exclusionary rule to a civil in rem forfeiture action
- observing that the Supreme Court has noted that the sixth amendment Confrontation Clause is limited to criminal proceedings
- acknowledging that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to curb improper police conduct

## Opinion text

RAKER, Judge,
concurring.
I believe Judge Moylan, writing below for the Court of Special Appeals, was correct in his analysis of this ease. I concur in the judgment of the Court reversing the intermediate appellate court for the sole reason that neither this Court, nor the Court of Special Appeals, has the power to disregard or overrule the United States Supreme Court holding in Plymouth Sedan.
The Supreme Court of Iowa expressed a similar sentiment in In re Flowers, 474 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 1991) when it said:
*140 We are not unaware that, since the time the Plymouth Sedan and Janis cases were decided, some reshaping has occurred in fourth amendment jurisprudence involving the exclusionary rule. We are unwilling to anticipate the demise of Plymouth Sedan, however, in the absence of a clear indication from the Supreme Court that it is no longer to be followed.
For those reasons, I concur in the judgment only.
Judge CHASANOW has authorized me to state that he joins in the views expressed herein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694194. Public record. Not legal advice.