Cannon v. State
Decision Date | 01 June 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 310,310 |
Citation | 200 A.2d 919,235 Md. 133 |
Parties | Willard M. CANNON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Edward F. Borgerding, Baltimore, for appellant.
David T. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and George F. Helinski, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Willard M. Cannon was tried and convicted by Judge Sodaro sitting without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of unlawful possession and control of narcotics, and as a second offender. From the judgment and sentence of five years in the penitentiary he appeals. He contends that the physical evidence introduced by the State at his trial was inadmissible because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure.
On July 31, 1963 about 12:20 p. m., the manager of a filling station in Baltimore found the appellant lying unconscious on the floor of the station's rest room. He called the police, and officer Keener and a companion in a radio car responded. On their arrival they observed a belt in the washbasin and the appellant on the floor with a puncture wound in his arm. An ambulance was summoned and, about the time Cannon was being placed into it, officer Welsh who was on routine patrol arrived. He looked into the rest room and observed a couple of drops of blood in the basin. Along with Keener, officer Welsh then accompanied the appellant to the hospital. After arriving there Welsh was handed the belt which Keener had found in the washbasin. The appellant was placed in the emergency room because it was believed he had taken an overdose of a drug. Cannon looked familiar to Welsh, who testified that in trying to establish appellant's identity he removed from Cannon's shirt pocket a case containing eye glasses. Whether these facts afford probable cause to believe a felony had been or was being committed is the question for our determination, for in the glasses case the officer found what later proved to be two glassine envelopes containing heroin. 1 Welsh testified that when appellant gained consciousness he placed him under arrest. It is clear by hosts of our decisions that where a police officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed by the person arrested a search of that person by the arresting officer without having first obtained a warrant for his arrest or a search warrant is permissible. Farrow v. State, 233 Md. 526, 197 A.2d 434; Edwardsen v. State, 231 Md. 332, 190 A.2d 84; Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413, 158 A.2d 80. A statement of the definition of 'probable cause' may be found in Edwards v. State, 196 Md. 233, 237, 76 A.2d 132, reiterated in Mulcahy. It exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious man to believe an offense has been or is being committed. This comports with the federal standard. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879.
Applying these observations to the case before us, we think that officer Welsh had sufficient basis to justify the search. He had seen blood in the washbasin of the rest room where appellant was found. At the hospital he was given the cloth belt by Keener who had observed the puncture wound. It was admittedly of a type a drug addict uses to make a tourniquet as a part of injecting heroin into his arm. Further, Welsh testified that he knew appellant to be an addict and had in fact previously arrested him for violation of the narcotics laws. These personal observations together with the experience of the officer who was a member of the narcotics squad constituted sufficient legal basis to establish probable cause to believe Cannon illegally possessed or had recently had in his possession narcotics.
Appellant contends that since officer Welsh testified his search was for purposes of identity, it was not therefore predicated upon probable cause to believe a felony had been committed, but upon curiosity as to the name of the appellant. Even if it were conceded the subjective intent was to establish identity only, this would in no way negate the personal knowledge Welsh had which was legally sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest. The fact that the search resulted in the discovery of contraband in no way precludes the use of that unexpected evidence if unexpected it was, in a trial for possession of narcotics. Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399. Cf. Brooks v. State, Md., 200 A.2d 177. In Edwards v. State, supra, the appellants were arrested and searched without a warrant for probable cause for having perpetrated a robbery in Virginia. However, their unsuccessful appeal was from a conviction of possessing and selling lottery tickets found on their persons and in the car in which they had been riding. Numerous seizures of evidence without warrants have been upheld by this Court though the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Davis
...defendant was under arrest when the blood was taken, or that his arrest was in any sense contemporaneous therewith. See Cannon v. State, 235 Md. 133, 137, 200 A.2d 919; Annot. 89 A.L.R.2d 715, 798. The record shows that the complaint was sworn to under date of June 1, 1965, and the warrant ......
-
Hyde v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...contemporaneous with a lawful arrest, whether made before or after, or partly before and party after, the actual arrest. See Cannon v. State, Md., 200 A.2d 919. The evidence seized during the search was accordingly With regard to contention (4), the alleged suppression of evidence by the St......
-
State v. Barnes
...113, 463 F.2d 949 (1972); People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531; Jones v. People, 167 Colo. 153, 445 P.2d 889; Cannon v. State, 235 Md. 133, 200 A.2d 919, cert. den., 379 U.S. 883, 85 S.Ct. 152, 13 L.Ed.2d 89; and State v. Murphy, 2 Or.App. 251, 465 P.2d 900, cert. den., 400 U.S. 944......
-
Gaudio v. State, 253
...vehicle valid. By the testimony of the trooper, he placed the appellants under arrest after the search of the truck. In Cannon v. State, 235 Md. 133, 200 A.2d 919 (1964), the Court of Appeals pointed out that the question of nonconsensual searches without a warrant prior to arrest was the s......
-
Probable Cause
...in the [defendant's] crotch area, which is not an ordinary means people use to carry goods. . . ." Id. at 672. In Cannon v. State, 235 Md. 133, 136, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 883 (1964), the Court of Appeals held there was probable cause to search the defendant when police, who were called to ......