Marshall v. State Of Md..
| Citation | 2 A.3d 360,415 Md. 399 |
| Decision Date | 23 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 127, Sept. Term, 2009.,127, Sept. Term, 2009. |
| Parties | Hugh Shaka MARSHALL v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
415 Md. 399
2 A.3d 360
Hugh Shaka MARSHALL
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 127, Sept. Term, 2009.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Aug. 23, 2010.
Brian M. Saccenti, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Jeremy M. McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
HARRELL, J.
Our house is a very, very, very fine house,
With two [cops] in the yard;
Life used to be so hard,
Now everything is [seized] 'cause of you. 1
In the present case, we consider whether the Circuit Court for Prince George's County suppressed erroneously evidence seized, pursuant to an assumptively improper search warrant issued by a judge of that Court, from the residence of the Petitioner, Hugh Shaka Marshall. Assuming the search warrant in this case as to the residence was issued improperly, and contrary to the conclusion reached by the Circuit Court,
the evidence recovered from the residence may be admissible nevertheless under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
On 12 June 2008, in connection with his investigation of a person, later identified as Marshall, for suspected drug and related offenses, Detective Aiken of the Prince George's County Police Department's Narcotic Enforcement Division submitted to a judge of the Circuit Court an application for a search warrant. In the application, Detective Aiken sought authorization to search a residence, located at 3500 Jeff Road in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and a white 2005 Cadillac sedan displaying Maryland license plates 6BXM71. 2 In conjunction with the warrant application, Detective Aiken filed an affidavit regarding his investigation.
In his affidavit, Detective Aiken stated that he was contacted in April 2008 by a confidential informant 3 who reported that “a black male known as ‘Shaka’ ... was involved in the illegal distribution of controlled dangerous substances, especially Marijuana, from his vehicle, a White 2005 Cadillac sedan displaying Maryland registration plates 6BXM71[,] in various locations located in Upper Marlboro.” The informant reported also that “Shaka” used his vehicle to store and sell his supplies of drugs.
As a result of this information, Detective Aiken arranged for the confidential informant to engage in a controlled drug buy
from “Shaka” on 25 April 2008. Detective Aiken took the informant to “a predetermined location in Upper Marlboro” with instructions to purchase a quantity of marijuana from “Shaka” with money provided to the informant by police. After setting up surveillance of the anticipated area of the controlled buy, Detective Aiken observed the informant meet a black man driving the white Cadillac described by the informant in his initial report. The driver of the white Cadillac exited the car, “conducted a hand to hand transaction” with the informant, retrieved a small plastic bag filled with a leafy substance from inside the car, and gave the bag to the informant. After receiving the bag, the informant left
the area of the transaction “without coming in contact with any other individual” and returned to Detective Aiken, whereupon the informant informed Detective Aiken that the driver of the white Cadillac was “Shaka” and gave the Detective the plastic bag containing the leafy substance. A field test conducted that day confirmed that the substance in the bag was marijuana.
Following the controlled buy, Aiken joined Prince George's County Detective McCreary to assist with McCreary's ongoing surveillance of “Shaka” and the white Cadillac. After observing several short meetings between “Shaka” and other individuals, the detectives followed the white Cadillac as “Shaka” drove it away from the scene of the controlled buy directly to the residence located at 3500 Jeff Road. At the residence, the detectives observed “Shaka” park the car in the driveway. At this point, the police left the area for the evening. When Aiken returned to the residence the following morning, the white Cadillac remained parked in the driveway. Detective Aiken conducted an electronic search of the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration Database, which indicated that the registered owner of the white Cadillac was Ginette Minerva Smith, whose address was listed in the database as 3500 Jeff Road. In addition, the database search revealed that Hugh Shaka Marshall lived at the same address.
The police continued their surveillance of 3500 Jeff Road into May 2008, but were able to confirm only that the white
Cadillac was parked often in the driveway there. In order to complete his investigation, Detective Aiken arranged for the informant to carry out another controlled buy from “Shaka,” now identified as Hugh Shaka Marshall, on or about 20 May 2008. As in the first transaction, Marshall sold the informant a bag containing a substance which later tested positive for marijuana. During the time surrounding the second controlled buy, Aiken observed Marshall driving the white Cadillac “multiple times in various location with in [sic] the Upper Marlboro area.”
Based on the above-stated information, Detective Aiken filed a search warrant application and affidavit with a judge of the Circuit Court, seeking authorization to search the white Cadillac and the residence located at 3500 Jeff Road. In addition to describing his first-hand observations of Marshall's activity, the Detective's affidavit emphasized his experience and training in narcotics investigations and his resulting familiarity “with the actions, traits, habits, and terminology utilized by individuals involved in the drug culture.” In part, he attempted to justify the request to search the residence with conclusions drawn from this asserted familiarity, stating:
7) That it is common for drug dealers to secrete contraband, proceeds of drug sales, and records of drug transactions in secure locations within their residences and/or their businesses....
8) That persons involved in drug trafficking conceal in their residences and businesses caches of drugs, large amounts of currency, financial instructions, precious metals, jewelry, and other items of financial transactions relating to ... narcotics trafficking activities.
15) That based on training and experience, your affiants [sic] [ 4 ] know that
drug traffickers commonly have in their
possession, that is on their person, at their residence and/or their businesses, firearms....
Upon review of Detective Aiken's application and affidavit, the judge issued, on 12 June 2008, the requested search warrant. The following day, the police executed the warrant, recovering drugs and related paraphernalia from the residence. Although he attempted to drive away from the scene in another vehicle, Marshall was arrested. During a search conducted incident to Marshall's arrest, police discovered two handguns 5 and additional drugs in the vehicle and on Marshall's person.
On 16 September 2008, Marshall was charged in the Circuit Court with two counts of possession of controlled dangerous substances (“CDS”); two counts of possession of CDS with intent to distribute; two counts of possession of CDS with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school; two counts of wearing and carrying a handgun; two counts of transporting a handgun; one count of possession of drug paraphernalia; and one count of obliterating the identification number on a firearm. Marshall filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant. In his motion, he claimed, inter alia, that (1) there was no substantial basis for the judge issuing the search warrant to find probable cause to approve the search of the residence, and (2) the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3420, 82 L.Ed.2d 677, 698 (1984), did not save the seizure.
In a written order issued on 5 February 2009, the trial court denied Marshall's motion with respect to the evidence seized from the vehicle, but granted the motion with respect to the evidence seized from the residence. The suppression court reasoned that there was no substantial basis for the issuing judge to find probable cause to search the residence, and concluded that the good faith exception did not apply “insofar as the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause vis-a-vis the home as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.”
Upon the State's appeal, the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding in an unreported opinion that the trial court should have denied entirely Marshall's motion to suppress. The intermediate appellate court found applicable the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, noting several similar cases in which the court applied the exception where police officers based their applications for search warrants on inferences drawn from sparse direct evidence. As such, the court concluded that Detective Aiken possessed a sufficient basis to support his reasonable, if erroneous, belief that the facts and inferences he presented in his affidavit in support of the warrant established probable cause to search Marshall's residence.
Upon Marshall's petition for writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joppy v. State
...‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’ "); Marshall v. State , 415 Md. 399, 408–12, 2 A.3d 360 (2010) ("Cases in which courts have refused to apply the good faith exception demonstrate that the safe harbor of the except......
-
Stevenson v. State
...standard for establishing a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause by a judge issuing a search warrant." Marshall v. State , 415 Md. 399, 410, 2 A.3d 360 (2010). The Leon Court recognized, however, that there are certain circumstances under which police will be unable reasonably ......
-
Whittington v. State
...that the district court judge did not have a substantial basis to find probable cause to issue the warrant.20 See Marshall v. State , 415 Md. 399, 402, 2 A.3d 360 (2010) (assuming that the search warrant was issued improperly and analyzing only the application of the good faith exception).B......
-
State v. Copes, 84, Sept. Term, 2016
...to that rule in the particular case—is a question of law that we decide without deference to the lower court. Marshall v. State , 415 Md. 399, 408, 2 A.3d 360 (2010) ; see also McDonald v. State , 347 Md. 452, 470 n.10, 701 A.2d 675 (1997) (ultimate question whether good faith exception to ......