Brooks v. State

Citation235 Md. 23,200 A.2d 177
Decision Date07 May 1964
Docket NumberNo. 252,252
PartiesAlfonso Arkell BROOKS, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

J. Franklyn Bourne, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Russell R. Reno, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., and James H. Taylor, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a search incident to one offense justified the seizure of items connected with another offense.

About 10:30 in the morning of February 27, 1962, the defendant (Alfonso Arkell Brooks, Jr.) went to the home of Margaret Griffith in Upper Marlboro, asked her where someone lived and told her he was interested in buying race horses. At that time she observed that the automobile of the defendant was of a dark color. Later (about 11:00 o'clock), when she went to her kitchen to prepare dinner, she noticed a similar dark colored automobile at the home of a neighbor. When Allen N. Curtin (the neighbor) came home from work later in the day, he found that a screen had been removed from one of the windows and upon entering the house he discovered that his television was missing and that some packaged hogmeat labeled with his surname had been taken from the freezer.

A week or so prior to the arrest of the defendant, the Prince George's County police sent a circular to the District of Columbia police stating that the owner or operator of a 1950 Chrysler, with D.C. tags numbered MT628, was wanted in connection with a series of housebreakings. The district police checked the license number and learned that it had been issued for a Buick automobile registered in the name of the defendant whose address was given as 615 Gallatin Street, Washington, D. C.

The defendant was arrested on the night of March 8, 1962. In the morning of the next day, the police, under a warrant to search the premises at 615 Gallatin Street, recovered thirteen packages of hogmeat labeled 'Curtin' from a freezer in the basement of the house where the defendant resided with Mary Pace. Subsequently the defendant was indicted for statutory burglary, grand larceny and receiving stolen goods.

At the trial, besides the testimony of the owner of the stolen hogmeat and the witness who had twice seen a dark colored automobile on the day of the theft, the State introduced the testimony of a number of police officers who testified as to the arrest of the defendant and the search of the premises from which the hogmeat was recovered. On the theory that it had been illegally seized, the defendant objected to the admission of the testimony relating to the recovery of the hogmeat, but the objection was overruled. At the close of the case, the defendant moved to strike the evidence admitted over his objection, but the motion was denied. The lower court, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty on the first and second counts of the indictment and sentenced him to eight years in prison.

The circumstances leading to the arrest of the defendant and the search for and seizure of the hogmeat on the premises in which he resided are:

At approximately 9:00 o'clock in the evening of March 8, 1962, while an officer of the district police accompanied by a deputy sheriff of the county were patrolling the area of Gallatin Street, they saw a Chrysler automobile, with D.C. tags MT628, parked at the curb. The automobile was locked but with the aid of a flashlight the deputy sheriff could see pieces of merchandise covered with a blanket lying in the back of the automobile from which the rear seat had been removed.

A call was made for another police car and for police detectives. When the car arrived, all of the police officers sat in it awaiting developments. Shortly before the arrival of the detectives, the officer on patrol duty, who knew the defendant, saw him pass by, glance at the police car, and continue on. A short time after the detectives arrived, the defendant passed by again. One of the detectives suggested to the officer on patrol duty that he call out 'Brooks, come here.'

When the defendant approached the police car, he was asked if the Chrysler was his and he replied 'yes.' When he was asked for his registration card, he stated that it was in the glove compartment and promptly unlocked the automobile and got the card. When the deputy sheriff examined the card, he asked why Buick tags were on the Chrysler and the defendant told him that he had disposed of the Buick and transferred the tags to the Chrysler without notifying the licensing authorities. When he was questioned about the merchandise in the back of the automobile, he stated that he was 'holding it for a friend,' but later he explained that he had bought the merchandise cheap because he knew that it had been stolen. And when he was asked if the police could look at what was in the automobile, the defendant opened a door and allowed them to examine the articles lying in the back. The defendant was then arrested and taken to the sixth precinct police station, where he was apparently interviewed but the record does not disclose what if anything he may have told the police at the station.

On the following morning, a police detective from the county furnished a police detective from the district with information concerning another housebreaking in Prince George's County and a list of the articles taken from the house, and the two of them proceeded to the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia and obtained a search warrant from the presiding judge authorizing a search of the premises at 615 Gallatin Street.

Armed with the search warrant, the police detectives went to the premises to be searched and served the warrant on Mary Pace who admitted that the premises were hers and that the defendant stayed with her in a relationship described by the police as that of a 'boy friend' and 'girl friend.'

The entire house was searched for the items described in the affidavit attached to the application for the search warrant, but none was found. Instead the police detectives found a number of other items of stolen property, including the packages of hogmeat labeled 'Curtin,' the testimony as to which was objected to by the defendant.

In essence the six interrelated contentions made by the defendant on appeal present only two questions: (i) whether the testimony concerning the recovery of the hogmeat was admissible; and (ii) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the defendant of statutory burglary and grand larceny.

(i)

The primary contention is that the seizure of the hogmeat was illegal because the item was not listed in the affidavit attached to the application for the search warrant. The general rule is that property other than that for which a search is being made under the authority of a search warrant connot be seized under the authority of that warrant because it does not come within the description of the warrant. See People v. Pruess, 225 Mich. 115, 195 N.W. 684 (1923); Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927). The rule is otherwise, however, when an executing officer, upon entering the premises under a valid search warrant, finds thereon contraband or property, the possession of which is illegal and constitutes an offense against the state or government. See the annotation, Search and Seizure--Different Offense, 169 A.L.R. 1419, 1424. Under the latter circumstances, the officer has a right to seize such property even though it was not described in the search warrant. In Allen v. State, 178 Md. 269, 13 A.2d 352 (1940), it was held that a lottery book was within the purview of property authorized to be seized by a search warrant authorizing the seizure of 'any and all race track and bookmaking paraphernalia.' Cf. Braxton v. State, 234 Md. 1, 197 A.2d 841 (1964) and cases cited, wherein a seizure made after lawful arrest was held legal. The cases in other jurisdictions, both state and federal, have been more to the point. In Williams v. State, 216 Miss. 158, 61 So.2d 793 (1953), where the officers lawfully entered premises under a warrant to search for a still and intoxicating liquor and while there discovered and seized articles they knew had been stolen, it was held that the stolen property was admissible in evidence as an exception to the general rule (excluding property not listed in the search warrant) because it was of a contraband nature. To the same effect, see Joyner v. City of Lakeland, 90 So.2d 118 (Fla.1956); Robertson v. State, 188 Tenn. 471, 221 S.W.2d 520 (1949); State v. McKindel, 148 Wash. 237, 268 P. 593 (Wash.1928). See also 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, Ch. VII, § 9, p. 402, et seq. Among the federal cases in this area, see Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 351, 293 F.2d 539 (1961); Sanders v. United States, 238 F.2d 145 (10th Cir. 1956); Palmer v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 103, 203 F.2d 66 (1953); United States v. Howard, 138 F.Supp. 376 (D.C.Md.1956). In Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 at p. 155, 67 S.Ct. 1098 at p. 1103, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1946), it was said:

'If entry upon the premises be authorized and the search which follows be valid, there is nothing in the Fourth Amendment which inhibits the seizure by law-enforcement agents of government property the possession of which is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Special Investigation No. 228, In re, 318
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 7, 1983
    ...not ordered returned.25 And see Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 155, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 1103, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947); Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 29, 200 A.2d 177 (1964); and Anglin v. State, 1 Md.App. 85, 88-89, 227 A.2d 364 (1967).26 We ourselves have not been without sin. On at least o......
  • Boswell v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 30, 1968
    ...v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839; Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338; Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 185 A.2d 496; Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 200 A.2d 177; Matthews v. State, 237 Md. 384, 206 A.2d 714; Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 209 A.2d 604.3 See for example: Gamble v. State, ......
  • State v. Wilson, 26
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1977
    ...States v. Golay, 502 F.2d 182, 185 (8th Cir. 1974); Aron v. United States, 382 F.2d 965, 973-74 (8th Cir. 1967); Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 28-30, 200 A.2d 177 (1964); Comi v. State, 26 Md.App. 511, 517, 519, 338 A.2d 918, cert. denied, 276 Md. 740 (1975); Gerstein v. State, 10 Md.App. 32......
  • Molter v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 7, 2011
    ...47 (1962); Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 108, 185 A.2d 496 (1962); Cason v. State, 230 Md. 356, 358, 187 A.2d 103 (1963); Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 200 A.2d 177 (1964); Curry v. State, 235 Md. 378, 201 A.2d 792 (1964); McCray v. State, 236 Md. 9, 202 A.2d 320 (1964); Bey v. State, 237 Md.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT