Fields v. State, 0656

• Decision Date: 02 February 2012
• Docket Number: 2009.,No. 0656,Sept. Term,0656
• Citation: 36 A.3d 1026,203 Md.App. 132
• Parties: Devin Jermaine FIELDS v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

203 Md.App. 132

36 A.3d 1026

Devin Jermaine FIELDS

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 0656

Sept. Term

2009.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 2, 2012.

Bradford Peabody (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Todd W. Hesel (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: KEHOE, HOTTEN, J. FREDERICK SHARER (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

KEHOE, J.

In Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981), the Supreme Court held that police officers executing a search warrant acted reasonably in temporarily detaining the occupant of the premises while the search was conducted. The principal issue in this case is whether the Michigan v. Summers analysis applies when police officers detain a non-occupant who approaches the premises while the search is underway.

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Devin Jermaine Fields was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a violation of Md.Code Ann., Crim. Law § 5–602 (2002, 2007 Supp.). In his appeal to this Court, Fields presents two issues, which we have reworded:

1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Fields's motion to suppress.

2. Whether the administrative judge abused his discretion by denying a motion to continue the trial.

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

Fields does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We therefore confine our discussion to the record as it pertains to the issues before us. See Singfield v. State, 172 Md.App. 168, 170, 913 A.2d 671 (2006).

This case involves events that took place on May 15, 2008 in Pikesville, when Baltimore County police executed a search warrant at 7402 Rockridge Road. The police arrested Fields at that address while executing the warrant. As a result of evidence seized from his person after the arrest, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Fields with simple possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. As noted above, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the possession with intent to distribute count. The trial court sentenced Fields to ten years' incarceration without the possibility of parole.

The Suppression Hearing

Fields filed a pre-trial omnibus motion pursuant to Md. Rule 4–252, including a motion to suppress evidence. The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion on March 10, 2009, at which two members of the Baltimore County Police Department and Fields himself testified.

Detective John Keeney testified that the Department had obtained a search warrant for a single family house located at 7402 Rockridge Road in Pikesville to search for evidence of illicit drug activity. (The validity of the warrant is not at issue.) Keeney and another officer were assigned to a “pre-raid surveillance” of the house. From a vantage point about three blocks away, he had an unobstructed view of its front door. It was 8:00 p.m. and was still “daylight.” Keeney first spotted Fields when the latter “arrive[d] at the location, went inside, stayed briefly and then exited the location, spoke with another male subject, got into the driver's seat of a black Infiniti and then left.”

About a half-hour later, the police entered the house without incident through an unlocked screen door. Once inside, the officers “secured everybody in the residence” while Keeney stood watch near the front door. At this point, the Infiniti returned. According to Keeney, Fields got out of the car and started toward the house. Keeney and other officers approached Fields to ascertain his identity and to ask him why he was there. Keeney identified Fields as the same person who had earlier visited the house.

Sergeant Mike Thayer also testified. He stated that, while participating in the execution of the search warrant, he saw Fields open the gate to a fence that enclosed the yard and start to walk towards the front door. By the time Fields was about halfway to the house, Thayer and Keeney went down to “greet him ... to identify him.” Thayer elaborated on the encounter:

[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. And when you approached the Defendant to meet up with him, what happens at that point?

A. I asked him if he had any identification on him. I then proceeded to ask him if he had any guns drugs or weapons on his person.

Q. Okay.

A. He advised me no. At that point I asked him for consent to search his person, which he says, yes, okay, you can search me.

Q. Okay. And when you ask that question, about how far is Defendant from you at this point?

A. Probably within three to four feet of each other.

Q. Okay. And what, what was the tone of voice you were using when you asked him?

A. Approximately about what I am right now.

Q. All right. And had you done anything to physically restrain him at that point?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Ha[d] you even touched him at that point?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. How were you dressed that evening?

A. In plainclothes.

Q. And you indicated that he did, in fact, consent to the search; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Did, in terms of getting him to consent, did you promise him anything?

A. No, sir.

Thayer recalled that the initial encounter with Fields was cordial. After the officers asked him for identification, Fields produced his “Maryland Identification Card.” While Fields was handing over his identification, Thayer was asking him “other questions—you know, about guns, drugs or weapons, and then can I search him, and he said, yes, I could.” Keeney took the card, ran a license check, and Thayer commenced the search. Up to this point, no officer had touched Fields in any manner and had not told him that he had to stay. Acting on Fields's consent, Thayer found a clear bag of cocaine in Fields's left pocket and placed him under arrest. He also recovered “$600 in U.S. currency.” After the officers brought Fields inside the house, he volunteered “that he left to pick up cocaine to come back to party with the people that were [at] the location.” None of the officers had questioned Fields before he made this statement.

The third witness at the suppression hearing was Fields himself. His account contradicted that provided by the police officers. Fields offered, for example, that a policeman grabbed him and reached into his pocket after he had refused their request to search.

The motions court denied Fields's motion to suppress, ruling in part as follows:

THE COURT: I make the ... following findings based on the testimony. On or about ... May 15th, 2008 Defendant was observed by then Officer Keeney during pre-raid surveillance of 7402 Rockridge Road, which is located in Pikesville, Baltimore County, Maryland. The Defendant was observed driving a black Infiniti. He arrived at 7402 Rockridge Drive or Road. This was a home that was suspected of drug activity or a home where suspected drug activity took place. That's why it was under pre-raid surveillance. The Defendant exited his vehicle. He entered the home, stayed a brief time and returned to his vehicle, left the property.

* * *

When the Defendant returned in his black Infiniti he opened the gate to the property.... Defendant entered through the gate, walked towards the steps to the entrance and, as he did so, he encountered Sergeant Thayer. Officer Keeney and Sergeant [Thayer] was also out in the yard. None of these officers were dressed in police clothes. However, they were wearing their weapons.

The testimony of Sergeant Thayer I find credible. He testified that he asked the Defendant for identification. The Defendant retrieved, a Maryland Identification Card. That card was then given to Officer Keeney. Sergeant Thayer testified that he then immediately, or simultaneously was asking for the identification, asked the Defendant whether he had any drugs, weapons or guns. The Defendant's response was no. Sergeant Thayer then asked Defendant for permission to search him, for consent to search.

The Defendant has testified that his response to that question from Sergeant Thayer was, [“]Search me for what,[”] and that he told the police officers that they could not search him. However, I find [that] the testimony of Sergeant Thayer and Officer Keeney is more credible. I do find that the Defendant consented to the search.... I find he was initially cordial in his response to the officers and cooperative, that he did voluntarily give his consent for the search and, as a result of that voluntary consent ... there was a packet of cocaine found along with $600 in cash [in a pocket of Field's pants].

The motions court also found that Fields, while not provided with Miranda warnings, volunteered “that he had left the house earlier to pick up some cocaine and come back and party[.]” The court concluded that the “police were within their rights and their authority to question the Defendant for I.D. and to act for their own safety. More importantly, the Defendant voluntarily consented to the search....”

Discussion

I. The Motion to Suppress

We review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress based solely on the record developed at the suppression hearing, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See Smith v. State, 414 Md. 357, 361, 995 A.2d 685 (2010); Massey v. State, 173 Md.App. 94, 100, 917 A.2d 1175 (2007). Fields challenges the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds. First, he asserts that he was illegally detained by the officers as he approached the house. Whether a detention or a search is reasonable is a mixed question of law and fact, Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 525–26 n. 9, 924 A.2d 1129 (2007), which we review de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Johnson, 367 Md. 418, 424, 788 A.2d 628 (2002). Second, he contends that he did not consent to the search of his person. A...