Dixon v. State, 1893
| Decision Date | 06 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 1893,1893 |
| Citation | 758 A.2d 1063,133 Md. App. 654 |
| Parties | Orville Radcliffe DIXON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Michael A. Kamara, Baltimore, for appellant.
M. Jennifer Landis, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, and Douglas Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before DAVIS, HOLLANDER, and ADKINS, JJ.
This case involves an informant's tip that led Montgomery County police to search the trunk of a car driven by Oliver Radcliffe Dixon, appellant, on January 22, 1999. During the search, the police recovered nine bags of marijuana. Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of Md.Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1999 Supp.), Art. 27, § 286(a)(1) ("Art.27"), and possession of marijuana, in violation of Art. 27, § 287(a). Dixon was sentenced to three years of incarceration, with all but nine months suspended, for the felony offense. On appeal, he presents five issues for our consideration, which we have condensed, rephrased, and reordered as follows:
I. Did the court err in denying the motion to suppress the marijuana that was recovered during a search of the trunk of appellant's car?
II. Did the court err in denying the motion to suppress appellant's statements to police, when the police, inter alia, threatened appellant with deportation?
III. Did the court err in granting the State's motion in limine, which barred testimony at trial concerning probable cause?
IV. Did the court err in adjourning the trial in order to allow the State to locate an expert witness?
We answer the first question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we shall reverse appellants' convictions. Therefore, we need not consider the remaining questions.
Dixon, a Jamaican national, moved to suppress the marijuana recovered from the trunk of his car and his statement to the police, claiming they were obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, made without probable cause. He also sought to suppress his statement to police on the ground that it was "elicited with threats of deportation, cunning statements, and without mandatory procedural safeguards."
The suppression hearing was held on May 14,1999 (Woodward, J.). Officer Steven Phelps of the Montgomery County Police Department's Germantown District Special Assignment Team ("SAT") testified for the State. He explained that the Germantown SAT is a plain-clothes unit that operates in a covert capacity.
Phelps stated that, during the afternoon of January 22, 1999, he received a phone call from a confidential informant. The following testimony is relevant:
According to Phelps, the informant told him that a black male named Orville Dixon would be transporting approximately ten pounds of marijuana to the second level of a parking garage adjacent to the Nordstrom's department store at the Montgomery Mall. The informant further indicated that Dixon would arrive at the garage at approximately 8:15 p.m. in a dark-colored Acura to conduct a drug sale. The informant did not advise Phelps as to where in the car the marijuana would be located.
Phelps and other SAT officers proceeded to the garage. As a consequence of information provided on an earlier occasion by the informant concerning Dixon, Phelps "had done previous surveillance on Mr. Dixon" and his Acura, and had obtained photographs of him from the Motor Vehicle Administration. Nevertheless, Phelps did not elaborate either on the substance of the information previously provided by the informant or the results of any surveillance of Dixon that Phelps had conducted.
When the police arrived at the garage at approximately 7:00 p.m. to set up surveillance, the Acura was already on the second level. A computer check of the license plate confirmed that the vehicle was registered to appellant. At approximately 8:15 p.m., Phelps saw Dixon emerge from a stairwell in the garage and walk in the direction of his vehicle. According to Phelps, Dixon "look[ed] around as if he was looking for someone," but never went to his car and soon returned the way he had come. A short time later, Dixon returned to the second level of the garage, walked to his vehicle, removed keys from his pocket, unlocked the driver's door, and entered the car. At that time, several unmarked police cars "blocked the vehicle in," removed appellant from the car, and handcuffed him.
Phelps did not see anything in the passenger compartment consistent with the informant's description of the contraband. Consequently, he proceeded to open the trunk. Phelps acknowledged that the police did not ask Dixon to consent to the search, nor did the police have a search warrant. Upon opening the trunk, Phelps immediately noticed a strong odor of marijuana. He also saw a red rubber bag in the trunk. Inside that bag was a plastic garbage bag containing nine gallon-sized bags, each containing suspected marijuana.
According to Phelps, Dixon was then arrested and transported to the Rockville police station, where he was interviewed. Phelps testified that he read Dixon his Miranda2 rights, and appellant signed the advice of rights form at 9:50 p.m. Phelps denied that any officers threatened appellant or made any promises or inducements to him. Additionally, Phelps indicated that appellant never asked to speak with a lawyer. On cross-examination, however, Phelps acknowledged that, during Dixon's interview, he and another officer asked appellant "where he was from, and there was a discussion about deportation."
With respect to the informant's reliability, the following testimony of Officer Phelps is pertinent:
* * *
Appellant's counsel attempted to question Phelps about the extent of his prior surveillance of Dixon:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...at 428, 10 A.3d 761 (citing Bouldin v. State, 276 Md. 511, 515–16, 350 A.2d 130 (1976).) 9 Williams asserts, citing Dixon v. State, 133 Md.App. 654, 758 A.2d 1063 (2000), that we have previously “found ... that using police vehicles to block a car can constitute an arrest.” In Dixon, police......
-
Bailey v. State
...manual seizure of the appellant and the subsequent restraint of his liberty plainly constituted an arrest."); Dixon v. State, 133 Md.App. 654, 673, 758 A.2d 1063, 1073 (2000) (officers exceeded the permissible scope of an investigative Terry stop and "arrested appellant at the time they blo......
-
Smith v. State
...was fruit of the poisonous tree. Smith maintains that the facts of the instant case are indistinguishable from Dixon v. State, 133 Md.App. 654, 758 A.2d 1063 (2000). In Dixon, an officer with the Montgomery County Police Department received a phone call from a confidential informant. Id. at......
-
Massey v. State
...364 Md. 536, 774 A.2d 409 (2001). Challenging the basis for police actions in this case, Massey relies primarily on Dixon v. State, 133 Md.App. 654, 758 A.2d 1063 (2000), in which this Court determined that a tip from a confidential informant did not provide police with probable cause. The ......