Armwood v. State
| Citation | 229 Md. 565,185 A.2d 357 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 39,39 |
| Parties | Charles ARMWOOD v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
John D. Alexander, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.
Joseph S. Kaufman, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell State's Atty. and Robert V. Lazzaro, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
Appellant, Charles Armwood, was tried without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore in December, 1961, on a six count indictment for violation of the narcotics laws. The first three counts charged him with possession of a narcotic drug, having a narcotic drug under his control, and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. In the last three counts he was charged with these violations as a second offender, based upon a 1957 conviction under the narcotics laws.
Prior to trial appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence on the ground that a search of his apartment and the resulting seizure of narcotic drugs was illegal because it was done against his will and without his consent. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion pending the hearing of the testimony. At the conclusion of the testimony the motion to suppress was denied, as was a motion for a directed verdict. The verdict was guilty on the first (possession) and fourth (corresponding second offender) counts and appellant was sentenced to imprisonment. In this appeal he alleges error in denial of the motion to suppress evidence, and insufficiency of the evidence to convict him of possession of narcotics.
At about 2:30 A.M. on October 29, 1961, Officers Davis and Robinson of the Baltimore narcotics squad proceeded with other officers to 7 North Monroe Street for the purpose of placing the premises under surveillance. Officer Davis testified that information had been received from his superiors that 'Sadie' Briscoe (a man), a known narcotics violator, was wanted by the police and that he was living with the appellant at 7 North Monroe Street. Shortly after arrival of the policemen, Armwood and Rose Briscoe, the sister of 'Sadie' Briscoe, left the house, saw the officers and ran down an alley. The officers knew Armwood, and he knew at least some of them. The officers pursued the appellant and one of them yelled to him to halt, which he did. They approached him 'to question him as to his actions and as to why he ran,' and said they neither touched nor searched him at that time. One of the officers said to appellant '* * * we are in receipt of information that you just got some stuff [meaning heroin] and that you live at 7 North Monroe Street.' Thereupon, according to the officers, appellant made a gesture and said, 'All right, you have got me.' He admitted having a room at 7 North Monroe Street and said 'I will take you up there and I will show it to you.' One of the officers testified that the appellant said he 'wanted a break at that time.' The officers accompanied Armwood back to 7 North Monroe where they had to ring the bell and knock on the door because he did not have a key. The second floor tenant admitted them and the officers said the appellant invited them to the third floor. According to the officers Armwood pushed open the unlocked door to his room and pointed to a woman's purse on the bed, in which the policemen found a substantial quantity of heroin, two eye droppers, one hypodermic needle and one burnt bottle top wrapped in tinfoil. The officers took possession of the narcotics and paraphernalia. When appellant was questioned further, he stated that he had gone to a hotel in the city where he had received the narcotics from a dope peddler on consignment. Officer Davis testified that Armwood was not arrested until the officers were inside the apartment and the narcotics had been found in the purse. A previous narcotics violation by Armwood was proved in the case. He did not take the stand, and the officers' testimony that he invited them to go to his apartment and pointed out the purse containing the narcotics and paraphernalia was not contradicted.
In urging that his motion to suppress the evidence found by the officers should have been granted, appellant contends that the officers' behavior in the alley was sufficient to constitute an arrest, and that the arrest was illegal. He maintains that under the circumstances as they occurred the apparent consent which he gave to the search did not amount to free and voluntary consent, but rather was submission to authority, and that therefore the evidence was inadmissible.
In our view of the case we need not determine whether the occurrences in the alley amounted to an accosting, a detention for questioning without a formal arrest, or an arrest, lawful or unlawful. (For a thorough discussion by Chief Judge Brune for the Court of the distinctions between them, see Price v. State, 227 Md. 28, 175 A.2d 11 (1962)). For, even if we assume, without deciding, that an illegal arrest occurred in the alley, it does not follow that the search of the apartment was unlawful. It is well established in this State that the fact that an arrest was illegal does not make a subsequent search unlawful and the evidence obtained thereby inadmissible if the accused voluntarily consented to the search. Payne v. State, 207 Md. 51, 113 A.2d 93 (1955). A defendant cannot complain of a search to which he freely consented. Shields v. State, 229 Md. 153, 182 A.2d 348 (1962); Lyles v. State, 203 Md. 605, 102 A.2d 291 (1954); Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310 (1952); Reed v. State, 197 Md. 540, 79 A.2d 852 (1951).
We think the case of Payne v. State, supra, is closely in point and controls the question before us. In that case officers saw a woman place lottery slips in a garbage can outside her house, from which the defendant had departed shortly before. An officer found the defendant several blocks away and demanded that he return to the house. There, the woman said the defendant had some lottery slips concealed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillian v. State
...at the time of the alleged consent would make the evidence inadmissible." In so holding, the court distinguished Armwood v. State, 229 Md. 565, 185 A.2d 357 (1962) and the cases cited therein. Although the arrests in those cases were illegal due to lack of probable cause, the court found th......
-
Garrison v. State
...interest in the premises, was not its sole occupant at the time the contraband was found, as were the appellants in Armwood v. State, 229 Md. 565, 185 A.2d 357 (1962); and Dodson v. State, supra. In Yanch v. State, 201 Md. 296, 93 A.2d 749 (1953), the wife of a tavern keeper had been convic......
-
Gross v. State
...that reasonable searches must be made as the result of valid search warrants. Heyward v. State, 161 Md. 685, 158 A. 897; Armwood v. State, 229 Md. 565, 185 A.2d 357; 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, pp. 226-232. The above consent of the accused clearly rendered the search for, an......
-
Herbert v. State
...establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he put them there or that they were in his possession is without force." Armwood v. State, 229 Md. 565, 570, 185 A.2d 357 (1962). "That the narcotics were not on his person but in the house of which he was a resident did not prevent the inference the......