Dow v. State
| Decision Date | 18 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 125,125 |
| Citation | 207 Md. 80,113 A.2d 423,49 A.L.R.2d 1205 |
| Parties | , 49 A.L.R.2d 1205 Walter Lorenzo DOW and Willie Howard Wynn, v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Ernest L. Perkins, Baltimore (R. Palmer Ingram and Malcolm J. Coan, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., and James W. Murphy, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This appeal challenges the validity of the execution of a search warrant which resulted in evidence causing the conviction of the appellants for violations of the lottery law by a court sitting without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore.
The warrant commanded the police 'to go to the vicinity of 2115 W. North Ave., Baltimore City, State of Maryland; and there diligently search the pockets of the clothing of the said three colored men who are previously described and who will be identified by the said Officer * * *.' The police, upon obtaining the warrant, immediately went to the vicinity of 2210 Presstman Street and there searched and arrested the two appellants, finding on one a package of lottery slips and on the other, a cut card, which is used in lottery. The appellants contend that the warrant could 2210 Presstman Street is not in that vicinity. vicinity of 2115 W. North Ave. and that 2210 Presstman Street is not in that vicinity. The State's contention is that the warrant could be executed eight blocks from the address set forth therein on the ground that this would be within the vicinity. It urges also that the place of search was well within the area of observation of the police over a period of days, as the affidavit of probable cause discloses.
We do not think it necessary to decide whether the vicinity of one address extends for eight blocks or not, because it is our view that the warrant could validly be executed anywhere within the limits of Baltimore City. It is conceded that there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The observations of the police extended from October 12 to October 20. The men suspected were observed on a number of these days in the vicinity of 1809 Baker Street, 2040 W. Lanvale Street, and 2115 W. North Avenue, and their conduct clearly supported the probability that they were engaged in lottery. It is conceded further that the descriptions in the warrant were accurate descriptions of the men involved and that the appellants are two of the three men who were suspected, and described in the warrant.
The historical background which led to the prohibitions against unlawful search and seizure found in the Federal and State Constitutions is set forth in Asner v. State, 193 Md. 68, 75, 65 A.2d 881. Generally, the statutory implementations of these constitutional safeguards have authorized, and most of the decisions deal with, the search of places and things but not of persons. However, in Maryland, the Legislature by Code 1951, Art. 27, § 328, has permitted the issuance of a warrant authorizing police to '* * * search such suspected individual, building, apartment, premises, place or thing, and to seize any property found liable to seizure under the criminal laws of this State, provided that any such search warrant shall name or describe, with reasonable particularity, the individual, building, apartment, premise, place or thing to be searched * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) The requirement of the Code is that the warrant describe an individual to be searched with reasonable particularity. If this is done, the warrant is not a general warrant condemned by the Constitution. In Wilson v. State, 200 Md. 187, 88 A.2d 564, the Court refused to hold invalid a search warrant authorizing the search of "a white man * * * described as being about five feet, nine inches in height, about 180 pounds in weight and about forty years of age, * * * whom affiant * * * had previously heard called Whitey, * * * who will be identified by the affiant". In Giordano v. State, 203 Md. 174, 100 A.2d 31, 34, it was assumed, without deciding, that a warrant which authorized a search of an automobile and of a described individual to be found in it, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State
...have a fair opportunity to defend against it and that the court understand the issue before it") (citation omitted); Dow v. State , 207 Md. 80, 85, 113 A.2d 423 (1955) ("This Court has consistently held that if a warrant is essentially valid, or is valid as to one command and not as to anot......
-
Tucker v. State
...present. Allen v. State, 178 Md. 269, 13 A.2d 352 (1940); Saunders v. State, 199 Md. 568, 87 A.2d 618 (1952); Dow v. State, 207 Md. 80, 113 A.2d 423, 49 A.L.R.2d 1205 (1955). The sufficiency of the description in the case at bar is obvious when measured against the circumstances of two of o......
- State v. Cottrell, 975--III
-
Salmon v. State
...provide, and invalid general words therein are separable from the valid provisions, and may be treated as mere surplusage. Dow v. State, 207 Md. 80, 84, 113 A.2d 423; Gattus v. State, supra, 204 Md. at page 596, 105 A.2d 661. Cf. Crossland v. State, Okl. Cr., 266 P.2d 649. In any event, it ......
-
Just the Facts, Ma’am: Removing the Drama from Dna Dragnets
...of Person to be Searched, 43 A.L.R.5th 1 § 8(a) (1996). See, e.g., State v. Frazier, 665 A.2d 142 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995); Dow v. State, 113 A.2d 423 (Md. 1955); Giordano v. State, 100 A.2d 31 (Md. 1953); Saum v. State, 88 A.2d 562 (Md. 1952); State v. Malave, 316 A.2d 706 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ap......