Minnick v. State, 253
| Decision Date | 30 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 253,253 |
| Citation | 4 Md.App. 81,241 A.2d 153 |
| Parties | Allen Ray MINNICK v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
John G. Hennegan, Towson, for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Green, Jr. and Robert A. DiCicco, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore County respectively, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.
Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by Judge John E. Raine, Jr., sitting without a jury, of receiving stolen goods, namely a 1966 GTO Pontiac belonging to Edward W. Hullings, Sr. He was sentenced to five years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. On this appeal he contends that the court erred in admitting testimony and photographs relating to the stolen car on the ground that such evidence resulted from an illegal search and seizure. 1
The evidence adduced at the trial showed that on Sunday morning, March 5, 1967 at approximately 10:00 a. m., Joseph Buckler had occasion to peek through a crack of a garage door in Baltimore City; that he saw three men inside hoisting a motor out of a white sport Corvair; that he heard them say, 'You better watch the door because you can't tell who might be walking around here'; that he then called the police and shortly thereafter Officer Charles Cluster arrived on the scene. The evidence further showed that after Buckler told Officer Cluster about his observations, Cluster knocked on the garage door to find out 'what violations they were committing, if any at all'; that three men then ran out through a small window in the rear of the garage, one of whom was later identified as the appellant; and that he pursued them with Buckler in his police car and shortly thereafter arrested the appellant.
After Cluster arrested the appellant, he returned to the garage and found one of the doors open. Without entering, Officer Cluster observed a GTO Pontiac which he knew to be on the 'hot sheet' as a stolen car. He then entered the garage and discovered six cars in all, four of which were thereafter identified as having been stolen. Approximately forty minutes had passed from the time Cluster first began his pursuit of the fleeing men from the garage to the time when he returned to the garage. Cluster testified that the garage door appeared to him to have been forced open, although there was no evidence as to how the door was opened or who opened it. There was evidence showing that police cars had responded to this location when Officer Cluster requested assistance during the early phases of his chase of the appellant.
The evidence further showed that the appellant was the lessee of the garage but had sublet it to one Williams.
Appellant contends that the officers had no right to search the garage without a search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...(3) exploring for evidence of guilt in a criminal prosecution. See Von Lusch v. State, Md.App., 387 A.2d 306 (1978); Minnick v. State, 4 Md.App. 81, 241 A.2d 153 (1968); Kleinbart v. State, 2 Md.App. 183, 234 A.2d 288 (1967). Other courts have adopted similar definitions of the term "search......
-
Brown v. State
...v. Lee, supra; Taylor v. United States, supra; Ferguson v. State, 236 Md. 148, 202 A.2d 758; Griffin v. State, supra; Minnick v. State, 4 Md.App. 81, 241 A.2d 153; Johnson v. State, 2 Md.App. 300, 234 A.2d 464; Mullaney v. State, 5 Md.App. 248, 246 A.2d 291. Simply seeing evidence in 'open ......
-
Gardner v. State
...see the goods inside the house without further opening the door. These observations, in themselves, were not improper. See Minnick v. State, 4 Md.App. 81, 241 A.2d 153; Johnson v. State, 2 Md.App. 300, 234 A.2d 464. But we think that it was not until the observations and occurrences after t......
-
Sweeting v. State
...243 Md. 438, 221 A.2d 364; Kershaw v. State, 199 Md. 135, 85 A.2d 783; Reagan v. State, 4 Md.App. 590, 244 A.2d 623; Minnick v. State, 4 Md.App. 81, 241 A.2d 153. It has been held under circumstances not dissimilar to those involved in the present case that where an officer is in a place wh......