On December 27, 2022, Xavier Sanchez-Santos rolled through a flashing red light in Montgomery County.
It was the kind of minor traffic violation that happens thousands of times across Maryland — a momentary lapse that typically ends with a warning or a ticket.
But for Mr. Sanchez-Santos, this routine stop would spiral into a legal battle that would test the boundaries of how new laws apply to old cases.
When Sergeant Dan McCarthy approached the stopped vehicle, he noticed something that would have been unremarkable to most people: what appeared to be marijuana on Sanchez-Santos’s pant leg.
The officer also detected the smell of recently burned marijuana coming from the car.
In December 2022, these observations provided the police with all the legal justification they needed to search the entire vehicle without a warrant.
The search of Mr. Sanchez-Santos’ vehicle uncovered a large bag of marijuana and something far more serious — a black Glock 17 handgun. For someone with Sanchez-Santos’s criminal history, possessing that firearm was a felony that could mean years in prison.
But here’s where the story takes an unexpected turn: Six months after that traffic stop, Maryland would fundamentally change its laws about marijuana and police searches.
The question that would eventually reach Maryland’s appellate court was deceptively simple yet profoundly important:
When the law changes to protect citizens from certain searches, what happens to individuals whose cases are still pending in the system?
What Actually Happened: A Timeline of Legal Change
The Night Everything Changed
The facts of that December 2022 evening were straightforward and undisputed.
Mr. Sanchez-Santos failed to stop at a flashing red light — a clear traffic violation that gave Police Sergeant McCarthy legitimate grounds to pull him over.
During their interaction, the officer observed marijuana in plain view on Sanchez-Santos’s clothing and smelled the distinctive odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle.
Under Maryland law as it existed that night, these observations triggered what lawyers call the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Simply put, the smell of marijuana alone gave police probable cause to search any vehicle without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. This rule had been firmly established in Maryland for years, upheld by countless court decisions.
The search revealed two items that would transform a simple traffic stop into a serious criminal case: a substantial quantity of marijuana and a loaded Glock 17 handgun.
While the marijuana might have resulted in minor charges, the firearm was a different matter entirely.
Mr. Sanchez-Santos had previously been convicted of a crime of violence, making it illegal for him to possess any firearm. This violation carried the potential for significant prison time.
The Law Evolves While the Case Proceeds
As Sanchez-Santos’s case wound its way through the court system, Maryland’s legislature was busy reconsidering the state’s approach to marijuana.
On July 1, 2023 — six months after the traffic stop — Section 1-211 of the Criminal Procedure Article went into effect.
This new law represented a dramatic shift in police powers: officers could no longer search a vehicle based solely on the odor of marijuana.
The timing created a peculiar situation.
When Sergeant McCarthy searched Sanchez-Santos’s vehicle in December 2022, he was acting in accordance with established law.
But by the time the court held a hearing on Sanchez-Santos’s motion to suppress the evidence in February 2024, that exact search would have been illegal if conducted under the new rules.
Sanchez-Santos’s lawyer seized on this timing, arguing that since the new law was in effect when the judge decided the motion, it should apply to their case.
After all, why should someone face prison based on evidence obtained through a search that Maryland had since declared improper?
Xavier Sanchez-Santos’ Legal Battle Takes Shape
At the suppression hearing on February 8, 2024, Mr. Sanchez-Santos’s attorney presented a compelling argument.
Yes, the search occurred before the new law took effect, but the court was making its decision after Maryland had clearly stated that such searches violate citizens’ rights.
Shouldn’t the court apply the current understanding of the law rather than rely on outdated precedent?
The trial judge disagreed.
Following existing case law, the court found that what mattered was the law in effect at the time of the search, not at the time of the court’s decision.
Since Sergeant McCarthy’s search was legal when it occurred in December 2022, the evidence would not be suppressed despite the subsequent change in law.
Sanchez-Santos entered a conditional guilty plea — a special type of plea that allowed him to admit guilt while preserving his right to appeal the suppression issue.
He was convicted of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence, then immediately appealed to Maryland’s Appellate Court.
Understanding Retroactivity: When New Laws Apply to Old Cases
To understand why Sanchez-Santos lost his appeal, we must examine a fundamental concept in American law: the doctrine of retroactivity.
This principle addresses a seemingly simple question with surprisingly complex answers:
When a law changes, does it apply to things that happened before the change?
Imagine you’re driving on a highway with a speed limit of 65 miles per hour. Next month, the state lowers the limit to 55 mph. Can you receive a ticket retroactively for driving 65 mph last week?
Of course not — you were following the law as it existed at the time.
This basic fairness principle generally means that new laws apply only prospectively — to future conduct.
However, criminal procedure adds layers of complexity, especially when new laws expand protections for defendants’ rights.
Why Criminal Cases Are Different
Criminal law involves a special tension.
On the one hand, society has an interest in finality — criminal cases must come to a conclusion at some point, and convicted defendants can’t endlessly challenge their convictions based on every change in the law.
On the other hand, we have a deep commitment to fairness and the protection of constitutional rights.
This tension has led courts to develop nuanced rules about when procedural changes in criminal law apply retroactively.
Some types of changes — like those affecting the fundamental fairness of a trial — might apply to all cases, even those long since final. Others apply only to cases that are still being worked through the direct appeal process.
Still others never apply retroactively at all.
Maryland’s Approach to the Marijuana Search Law
In Sanchez-Santos v. State, Maryland’s Appellate Court had to determine which category Section 1-211 fell into.
The court’s analysis relied heavily on two recent precedents that had addressed nearly identical issues.
First came Kelly v. State, decided earlier in 2024.
In Kelly, police had searched a vehicle based on a marijuana odor before July 1, 2023, and the defendant argued the new law should apply retroactively.
The Appellate Court rejected this argument, establishing that Section 1-211 was not retroactive.
But Sanchez-Santos’s lawyer spotted what seemed like an important distinction.
In Kelly, both the search and the suppression hearing occurred before the new law took effect. In Sanchez-Santos’s case, while the search happened before July 1, 2023, the suppression hearing took place after the law changed. Shouldn’t that matter?
The Appellate Court found this distinction unpersuasive, relying on a June 2025 case, Cutchember v. State. As the court explained in Sanchez-Santos, this was a “distinction without a difference.”
The critical date for determining whether Section 1-211 applies is the date of the search itself, not when a court later reviews the legality of that search.
The Logic Behind the Rule
The court’s reasoning reflects a fundamental principle regarding the operation of constitutional rights.
As the Cutchember court explained: “a search cannot violate a nonexistent statutory right.”
In other words, Sergeant McCarthy could not have violated Section 1-211 in December 2022 because that law didn’t exist yet.
Think of it this way: If you build a house in 2022 following all applicable building codes, and the county adopted stricter codes in 2023, you don’t have to tear down and rebuild your home. Your house was built legally, and it remains legal despite changes in standards for new construction.
The same logic applies to police searches; officers must follow the law as it exists at the time they act.
Sergeant McCarthy followed the law as it stood in December 2022. The fact that Maryland later decided to provide greater protection against marijuana-based searches doesn’t retroactively make his actions illegal.
The Practical Impact: What This Means for Different Audiences
For Pro Se Litigants and Those Facing Charges
Important: This article discusses criminal law, where mistakes can have severe consequences. Do not rely on this article alone for legal decisions. Seek immediate legal counsel if facing criminal charges.
If you’re representing yourself or facing criminal charges involving evidence from a vehicle search, the Sanchez-Santos decision carries crucial lessons:
Understanding the Date That Matters
The legality of a police search depends on the law in effect when the search occurred, not when your case goes to court.
If police searched your vehicle before July 1, 2023, based on marijuana odor alone, that search was likely legal even though the exact search would be illegal today.
Strategic Considerations
If your case involves a pre-July 2023 marijuana-based search, focusing your defense on challenging the search’s legality under Section 1-211 will likely fail.
Instead, consider:
- Whether the officer had legitimate grounds for the initial traffic stop
- Whether other circumstances beyond marijuana odor justified the search
- Whether proper procedures were followed in handling the evidence
- Negotiating plea arrangements that acknowledge the reality of current law
Looking Forward
For any searches occurring after July 1, 2023, police need more than just a marijuana odor to search your vehicle.
However, remember that officers can still search based on other factors like visible contraband, consent, or other circumstances establishing probable cause for non-marijuana crimes.
For Legal Practitioners
The Sanchez-Santos decision, while unsurprising given Kelly and Cutchember, offers several tactical insights:
Preservation Issues
The court’s analysis suggests that procedural posture arguments about when suppression motions are decided carry little weight.
Focus instead on substantive arguments about the search itself under the law applicable at the time.
Alternative Theories
With retroactivity arguments foreclosed, consider whether:
- The initial stop itself was unlawful.
- The officer’s observations actually established probable cause under pre-2023 standards.
- Other Fourth Amendment violations occurred during the encounter.
- Your client might benefit from drug court or other alternative dispositions.
Client Counseling
Be prepared to explain to clients why “the law has changed” doesn’t necessarily help their case.
You may want to use the building code analogy (mentioned above) or similar examples to help them understand why timing is crucial in criminal law.
For Maryland Citizens
This case illuminates an essential reality about how legal change works in our system:
Maryland Laws Change Gradually
When Maryland decides to provide new protections for citizens, those protections don’t immediately help everyone.
People whose cases are already in the system may not benefit from the change, creating a transition period where similar conduct leads to different outcomes based solely on timing.
Understanding Your Rights in Maryland
As of July 1, 2023, Maryland police are prohibited from searching a vehicle solely based on the odor of marijuana.
However, police can still search your vehicle if they:
- See contraband in plain view.
- Have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of other crimes.
- Obtain your voluntary consent.
- Have other lawful justification under the Fourth Amendment.
The Bigger Picture
The Sanchez-Santos case represents thousands of similar situations across Maryland where people were searched under the old marijuana rules.
These individuals must live with the consequences of searches that would be illegal today, illustrating how criminal justice reform often works incrementally rather than sweeping away past practices.
Why This Matters: The Broader Implications
The Sanchez-Santos decision teaches us several important lessons about how our legal system balances competing values:
- Finality vs. Fairness: Courts must balance the need for finality in criminal cases against evolving understandings of citizens’ rights. The retroactivity doctrine represents one way the system strikes this balance, even when it leads to results that might seem unfair to individual defendants.
- Legislative Intent: When the Maryland legislature passed Section 1-211, lawmakers could have made it explicitly retroactive but chose not to. Courts respect this choice, recognizing that legislatures must balance many considerations when changing criminal laws.
- Systemic Change Takes Time: Major shifts in the criminal justice system — such as Maryland’s evolving approach to marijuana — happen gradually. The Sanchez-Santos case reminds us that legal change is a process, not an event. That process inevitably creates situations where similar facts lead to different outcomes, depending on the timing.
- The Role of Precedent: The swift resolution of Sanchez-Santos’s appeal, based on Kelly and Cutchember, demonstrates how precedent fosters predictability in the law. Once the Appellate Court decided the retroactivity issue in those cases, the outcome here was essentially predetermined.
Timing is Everything!
As Maryland continues to evolve its criminal laws, we can expect to see more cases like Sanchez-Santos — situations where defendants are caught between old rules and new protections.
These cases remind us that while the law must be stable enough to provide guidance, it must also be flexible enough to grow with our changing understanding of justice and individual rights.
The next time you hear about a change in criminal law, remember Xavier Sanchez-Santos and the thousands like him whose cases were decided under yesterday’s rules while tomorrow’s protections were taking shape.
Their experiences remind us that in the law, as in life, timing truly is everything.
M. Preston Lane Jr. is the founder and principal writer of Maryland Law Blog, offering in-depth analysis of Maryland’s appellate court decisions and case law.
Mr. Lane brings a unique perspective rooted in Maryland’s legal and cultural history. Drawing on their legal research experience, Mr. Lane dissects complex legal topics, making them accessible to both legal professionals and everyday readers. His passion lies in clarifying legal processes and sharing stories that shape Maryland’s evolving judicial landscape.
When he isn’t mulling over Maryland court rulings, Lane explores Maryland’s rich legal heritage and engages with the legal community to spotlight key developments across the state.