Fitez v. State, 213
| Decision Date | 12 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 213,213 |
| Parties | Harry Richard FITEZ, etc. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Jerome F. Connell, Glen Burnie, on brief, for appellant.
Gilbert Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Julian B. Stevens, State's Atty., and Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., Asst. State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Harry Richard Fitez, the appellant, was convicted of violating the lottery and gambling laws in a court trial before Judge E. Mackall Childs in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. He was sentenced to one year and fined $1,000. On appeal Fitez contends that as a result of a violation of Maryland Rule 707 all evidence taken under the improperly executed search warrant should be excluded.
The evidence showed that on February 2, 1968, Corporal Frank Mazzone, of the Maryland State Police Intelligence Unit, executed a search warrant on certain premises in Anne Arundel County. After entering the premises, Corporal Mazzone informed the appellant of the search and seizure warrant, read the warrant to the appellant, and gave him his Miranda warnings.
The search of the premises yielded the following items: a paper with 65 code names and numbers, corresponding to another slip containing horse and lottery slips; two yellow sheets with 346 wagers on horses running on that day representing $1,044. in bets; three unconventional lottery slips containing 271 wagers representing bets of $197.75; one talley sheet, a National Armstrong Daily newspaper; a telephone; and an envelope with race track tickets in it.
Before leaving the premises, Corporal Mazzone made a handwritten inventory of the articles seized in the presence of the appellant and gave him a copy of the inventory signed by both Mazzone and appellant. The handwritten inventory said simply, 'several sheets of paper on which appear various lottery wagers and horse wagers.' In court, a typed inventory listed the items in greater detail, specifically the number of wagers and the total amount of money involved. Mazzone testified that it took several hours to compile this information; however, the betting sheets described were the same ones as seized. Mazzone testified there was no opportunity to make the tallies at the time of the seizure. Ultimately, both the general and the specific inventories were entered in evidence. By timely motion and objection, appellant preserved the contention that the typed inventory was objectionable alleging the detailed inventory differed materially from the handwritten inventory given appellant at the time of the seizure.
Maryland Rule 707 (effective September 1, 1967) has not been previously interpreted by any Maryland decision. In its relevant parts, Rule 707 a and b say 'Search Warrants
Maryland Rule 707 is similar to Rule 41(d) of The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which has been previously interpreted by federal courts. In its relevant parts, Rule 41(d) says:
'Search and Seizure
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Special Investigation No. 228, In re, 318
...in consequence of any illegal search or seizure" and was not limited to violations of constitutional dimension. And cf. Fitez v. State, 9 Md.App. 137, 262 A.2d 765 (1970), and Mills v. State, 12 Md.App. 449, 279 A.2d 473 (1971), cert. den., 406 U.S. 967, 92 S.Ct. 2411, 32 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972)......
-
Williams v. State
...behind Rule 4-601 is to identify the property admitted as the same property as that which was seized. See Fitez v. State, 9 Md.App. 137, 141-42, 262 A.2d 765, 767-68 (1970). Although the failure to comply with the return requirement does not render the search invalid, under the circumstance......
-
Mills v. State
...under Rule 707 c is no basis for excluding evidence seized under otherwise validly issued and executed warrants. In Fitez v. State, 9 Md.App. 137, 262 A.2d 765, we held that the purpose and policies behind Maryland Rule 707 a and b (inventory and service of copy) were properly served by vie......
-
State v. Montoya
...the inventory and return requirements. Those requirements are first to provide defense counsel access to the warrant, Fitez v. State, 9 Md.App. 137, 262 A.2d 765 (1970); and second, to protect the searched party from having his seized property stolen or misplaced by the police. State v. Cor......