Moats v. State
Decision Date | 31 August 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 89, Sept. Term, 2016.,89, Sept. Term, 2016. |
Citation | 168 A.3d 952,455 Md. 682 |
Parties | Timothy Alan MOATS v. STATE of Maryland |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by John N. Sharifi, Assigned Public Defender (Law Offices of John N. Sharifi, LLC, Rockville, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Daniel J. Jawor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland of Baltimore, MD) on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
We granted a writ of certiorari in this case to consider the scope of information necessary to supply probable cause for a warrant to search a cell phone. Petitioner, Timothy Alan Moats, was convicted of possession of child pornography, based in large part on photographs and a video the police found on his cell phone while executing a warrant to search it. Before trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the photographs and video. The circuit court denied the motion and, on appeal following Petitioner's conviction, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's ruling, holding that the affidavit in support of the warrant provided a substantial basis for the judge who issued the warrant to find probable cause to search the cell phone. Moats v. State , 230 Md.App. 374, 394, 148 A.3d 51 (2016). The intermediate appellate court held, in the alternative, that even if there was not a substantial basis for issuance of the warrant, the police acted in good faith reliance upon it. Id. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the warrant was supported by probable cause. We therefore have no need to address the applicability of the good faith doctrine.
The case before us stems from discoveries the police made while investigating an unrelated incident. The pertinent facts of that investigation and its connection to this case were presented through the testimony of Sergeant Robert Zimmerman of the Garrett County Sheriff's Office. Sergeant Zimmerman was the only witness to testify at the hearing on Petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of Petitioner's cell phone. Sergeant Zimmerman's undisputed testimony and the affidavit for the search warrant supplied the following information:
One night in early January 2015, Petitioner and three other teenagers were riding in Petitioner's car through parts of Garrett County. During the ride, Petitioner provided marijuana and a pill containing Suboxone
, a prescription drug used to treat opioid addiction. Petitioner crushed the pill with a lighter, snorted some of the substance using a dollar bill, and then passed it to the others. Later that night, the four teenagers arrived at a party, where it was later alleged that one member of the group, A.D.C., was sexually assaulted. Approximately two weeks later, Sergeant Zimmerman interviewed A.D.C., who recounted the events of the night in question, including Petitioner's provision of Suboxone. Sergeant Zimmerman later interviewed the others who had been in the car that night, including Petitioner.
Petitioner told Sergeant Zimmerman that he and the others had used drugs, but he denied any involvement in the sexual assault of A.D.C. Relying in part on that admission, as well as the reports and interviews with A.D.C. and the other teenagers, the police obtained a warrant to arrest Petitioner on the drug-related charges.1 Sergeant Zimmerman testified that the police arrested Petitioner on January 23, 2015, and transported him to the Garrett County jail, where he was searched and the police seized the cell phone he was carrying.2 Petitioner was released from custody on January 24, 2015. His cell phone was not returned to him. Sergeant Zimmerman retained it "[t]o obtain further information on the investigation with [A.D.C.] and the sex offense, along with the CDS case."
On January 26, 2015, two days after Petitioner's release, Sergeant Zimmerman prepared an application and affidavit for a warrant to search the cell phone. Consistent with his testimony at the suppression hearing, Sergeant Zimmerman included in the affidavit Petitioner's admission to distribution of Suboxone
and marijuana. He also recounted his interview with A.D.C., who explained in detail the car ride during which Petitioner used and distributed the Suboxone. Sergeant Zimmerman further recounted that he had interviewed the other passengers in the vehicle on the night in question and obtained from them the same information regarding the drug use. Sergeant Zimmerman also included information concerning his interview of a fifth person, R.W., who was not in the vehicle on the evening in question but later learned from A.D.C. about the drug distribution and sexual assault.
The warrant affidavit also included the circumstances of Petitioner's arrest on January 23, 2015, and the seizure of the cell phone in Petitioner's possession at the time of his arrest. The warrant affidavit further stated:
The affidavit details Sergeant Zimmerman's training and experience as a seventeen-year veteran of the Garrett County Sheriff's Office, including his work with the Garrett County Narcotics Task Force and with crimes involving Controlled Dangerous Substances.3 The affidavit also provided detail regarding the types of cell phone data to be searched:
Later that same day, a judge of the District Court sitting in Garrett County issued the warrant.
Detective Keith Parks conducted a forensic investigation of the cell phone. In the course of that search, he discovered sexually explicit photographs and a video of a young female, taken between January 16 and 21, 2015. It was eventually discovered that the female in the photographs and video was Petitioner's girlfriend, who was fifteen years old at the time those images were created. Petitioner, eighteen years old at that time, was indicted in the present case with three counts relating to child pornography and one count of second degree assault.
Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the cell phone and the evidence obtained from the search of it. He advanced several arguments, all of which were grounded in the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.4 A hearing on that motion was held on June 18, 2015.
Petitioner argued first that his arrest on January 23, 2015, was not supported by probable cause and, therefore, the cell phone and its contents must be suppressed as the tainted "fruits" of the illegal arrest.5 He further argued that, even if that arrest was lawful, the continued retention of his cell phone after his release on January 24, 2015, constituted an illegal warrantless seizure. From that premise, he further argued that the subsequent search of the cell phone, notwithstanding that it was conducted pursuant to a warrant, was the tainted fruit of the seizure of the cell phone. Petitioner also attacked the search warrant on the ground that it did not set forth probable cause to conduct the search. He asserted, in particular, that the affidavit in support of the warrant did not set forth probable cause for either the police to have arrested him for the crimes alleged in early January 2015 or to establish a "nexus" between those crimes and the contents on his cell phone.
Petitioner did not testify at the hearing on the motion, call any witnesses, or offer any evidence other than a document from "Case Search"6 reflecting his release on January 24, 2015. Following arguments from counsel, the court issued its ruling on the motion.
The circuit court rejected Petitioner's argument that his arrest was not supported by probable cause, thereby also rejecting his argument that the fruits of the arrest—the cell phone and the photos and video found on it—were tainted and must be suppressed. The circuit court also rejected Petitioner's alternative contention that Sergeant Zimmerman did not have probable cause to retain the cell phone following Petitioner's release on January 24. Finally, the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richardson v. State
...the record developed at the suppression hearing.’ " Pacheco v. State , 465 Md. 311, 319, 214 A.3d 505 (2019) (quoting Moats v. State , 455 Md. 682, 694, 168 A.3d 952 (2017) ). And the record is examined "in the light most favorable to the party who prevails on the issue that the defendant r......
-
Thompson v. State
...]" will fail. Id. at 523, 158 A.3d 1112. "The bar, fortunately, is not set that high." Id. at 524, 158 A.3d 1112.In Moats v. State , 455 Md. 682, 168 A.3d 952 (2017), the search warrant affidavit was devoid of specific facts linking the crime to the place to be searched. Nevertheless, the C......
-
State v. Zadeh
...Majority Op. at 161, 226 A.3d at 485. This rationale is fundamentally identical to a position rejected by this Court in Moats v. State , 455 Md. 682, 168 A.3d 952 (2017). There, Moats argued that "the warrant affidavit was devoid of specific facts linking the crimes and the cell phone," yet......
-
Stevenson v. State
...Hotten, Getty, Alan M. Wilner (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Barbera, C.J.Earlier today, we filed Moats v. State , 455 Md. 682, 168 A.3d 952, 2017 WL 3764567 (2017). That case and this one are "companion" cases; they were argued on the same day and generally address the same legal ......