Morgan v. State

• Decision Date: 16 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 324,324
• Citation: 234 A.2d 762,2 Md.App. 440
• Parties: Elmer Joseph MORGAN, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 440

2 Md.App. 440

234 A.2d 762

Elmer Joseph MORGAN, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 324.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 16, 1967.

Raymond E. Pryor, Baltimore, for appellant.

Bernard A. Silbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Frank A. DeCosta, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr. and James B. Dudley, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted on December 20, 1966 by the court sitting without a jury of possessing a narcotic drug and was sentenced to three years in the Maryland House of Correction. He contends on this appeal that his arrest without a warrant was unlawful and that the narcotic paraphernalia taken from him by police following his arrest was improperly admitted in evidence at the trial.

The arrest was made under these circumstances: At approximately 1:30 a.m. on November 8, 1966, Officers Sinnett and Covert of the Baltimore City Police Department drove in their marked police cruiser to the Kayo gas station, Officer Sinnett intending to use the men's room at the station. He was told by the station attendant that two men were occupying the facility and had been in it together for approximately twenty minutes. The room contained but one toilet and a sink. The officers waited for some additional brief period of time, following which the men, one of whom was the appellant, emerged and began walking down the street 'holding themselves.' Sinnett testified that the men appeared dazed, walked in an unsteady manner and that appellant was 'flexing his arms and rubbing his left arm * * *.' Sinnett further testified that he knew appellant as an associate of convicted narcotic addicts and suspected that he had taken 'a needle in the men's room.' The officer, therefore, went immediately into the men's room and observed five or six drops of blood on the floor, which, to his touch, were fresh. He then drove his police vehicle alongside of appellant and his companion as they were walking along the street and, while still in his car, told them to stop, saying 'hey, you just took a needle up there in the Kayo station.' Appellant, who appeared to Sinnett to be 'in a stupor,' denied the accusation, stating 'go ahead and search me.' As the officers were emerging from their car, appellant began removing articles from his pocket, which he placed on the hood of the police car. Officer Covert picked up a pair of gloves which appellant had placed on the hood and upon looking inside, observed narcotic paraphernalia, including a dropper, syringe, needle and small bottle cap.

On the record before us, we hold that when the officers drove alongside of the appellant and his companion and stated aloud their belief that the men had taken narcotics at the gas station, they were not, by reason of such police activity, thereby arrested and placed in police custody. On the contrary, it is well established that when one is approached by a police officer and merely questioned as to his identity and actions, this is only an accosting and not an arrest. See Duffy v. State, 243 Md. 425, 221 A.2d 653; Shipley v. State, 243 Md. 262, 220 A.2d 585; McChan v. State, 238 Md. 149, 207 A.2d 632; David v. State,...