Duggins v. State
| Decision Date | 12 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 426,426 |
| Citation | 7 Md.App. 486,256 A.2d 354 |
| Parties | Gary Lee DUGGINS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Michael Trainer, Silver Spring, for appellant.
H. Edgar Lentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Arthur A. Marshall, Jr. and James E. Kenkel, State's Attys. and Asst. State's Attys. for Prince George's County, respectively, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
On December 3, 1968, appellant Gary Lee Duggins was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of possessing counterfeiting paraphernalia in violation of Maryland Code, Article 66 1/2, Section 77(a)(2) and was sentenced in imprisonment for a term of five years.
The principal question raised on this appeal is whether the State met its burden of proving the legality of appellant's arrest. We hold that it did not; consequently, evidence seized incident to that arrest was improperly admitted in evidence at trial over appellant's objection.
The record discloses that on October 2, 1968, two agents of the United States Secret Service arrested appellant in Prince George's County, Maryland and, upon searching him incident thereto, seized two blank cards, later identified as paraphernalia used in counterfeiting documents issued by the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles. Upon appellant's objection to the introduction in evidence of the seized documents, a hearing was held out of the presence of the jury, at which time the federal agents testified in effect that the arrest was made pursuant to a federal arrest warrant which charged appellant with having forged a United States Savings Bond in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495; that the warrant had been obtained from a United States Commissioner on the same day as the arrest; that it was in their possession at the time they arrested appellant; and that appellant was so advised. The agents further testified that in effecting appellant's arrest they had the assistance of a deputy sheriff of Prince George's County, who had also been advised of the existence of the federal warrant.
The appellant challenged the legality of the warrant and demanded its production so that the court, in assessing the constitutional validity of the arrest, could pass on the legality of the warrant. The State declined to produce the warrant, taking the position that the testimony of the federal agents that they had a valid warrant in their possession at the time of the arrest was sufficient evidence of itself to demonstrate the validity of the arrest. The trial court agreed with the State's position.
Under the facts of this case, the constitutional validity of the seizure of the incriminating evidence from appellant's person manifestly depended upon the constitutional validity of his arrest. And where, as here, the constitutional validity of that arrest was properly challenged by the appellant, evidence to show the basis upon which the arresting officers acted in making the arrest must affirmatively be shown by the State if it is to carry its burden of proving the legality of the arrest. See Mullaney v. State, 5 Md.App. 248, 253, 246 A.2d 291. The State relied solely upon the warrant to justify the arrest, and since appellant challenged its legality and called for its production, we think the State was required to do more than simply make a testimonial showing that the warrant actually existed at the time of the arrest.
In Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797, the Supreme Court made the observation that if the State relied upon a search warrant to justify a search, but failed to produce it in evidence, 'there is no way of knowing the conditions under which it was issued, or determining whether it was based upon probable cause' (footnote 15 at page 550, 88 S.Ct. at page 1792). And it has been held that under the so-called 'best evidence rule,' the contents and existence of a search warrant may, where challenged, be proved only by the introduction of the warrant itself, unless it is shown that the warrant is unavailable for some reason other than the fault of the prosecution. See Cain v. State, 113 Ga.App. 477, 148 S.E.2d 508; Brown v. State, 227 Miss. 823, 87 So.2d 84. In People v. Wohlleben, 261 Cal.App.2d 461, 67 Cal.Rptr. 826, the rule was applied to an arrest warrant. In that case, the defendant was arrested after the officer who had stopped her for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andresen v. State
...of Judge Barrick, moreover, analyzes and recites extensively from the warrant applications. Under the circumstances, Duggins v. State, 7 Md.App. 486, 256 A.2d 354 (where the State declined to produce a warrant, choosing instead to rely exclusively upon the testimony of arresting officers to......
-
Goodwin v. State
...it's fairly standard to produce the warrant that's the basis for a stop. I think it's required under what is, Your Honor, I think it was Duggins v. State ."5 The court overruled the objection. The State did not produce a copy of the warrant at the suppression hearing, nor did appellant chal......
-
Carter v. State
...of the outstanding warrant defense counsel objected: Your Honor, the State has an additional problem in, the case is Duggins v. State, it's 7 Md.App. 486, 256 A.2d 354, it's a 1969 case. And the blurb is where defendant's counsel challenged the legality of a federal arrest warrant on [the] ......
-
Thompson v. State, 2021
...a condition of fact that would have been appropriately determined by the trial judge during a suppression hearing In Duggins v. State, 7 Md.App. 486, 256 A.2d 354 (1969), the appellant challenged the legality of the arrest warrant on which his arrest was based and demanded its production so......