Paige v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2105, Sept. Term, 2014.,2105, Sept. Term, 2014. |
| Parties | Labria PAIGE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Claire Caplan (Paul DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Todd W. Hesel (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: WRIGHT, GRAEFF, and CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Appellant, Labria Paige, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, of theft under $1,000.00 in connection with a shoplifting case. After she was sentenced to 18 months, with all but six months suspended, appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:
For the following reasons, we shall affirm.
On April 14, 2013, Thea Salley, a loss prevention agent with the Macy's Department store located in the Columbia Mall, testified that appellant and two juveniles were stopped by Macy's loss prevention agents as they exited the store carrying concealed merchandise. Because appellant fought with the loss prevention agents in the Macy's parking lot, the agents handcuffed her, for her safety as well as their own.
Appellant and the two juveniles were then escorted to the Macy's loss prevention office, located in an area of the store that otherwise was not accessible to the general public. Salley testified that the dimensions of the office was equal to half the size of the well in the courtroom, or approximately 20 feet by 20 feet. The room was well lit, and there were no police insignia located anywhere within the room. Further, there was one door to the office, and that door was closed during Salley's interview with appellant.
Salley stated that, as a loss prevention officer, she worked for Macy's, a retail store that is "not affiliated with any government organization." Salley testified that her office was "not a police department," and that loss prevention officers are not "endowed with arrest powers," nor are they "police officers themselves." According to Salley, during her six years at Macy's, she was never "affiliated with any law enforcement agency" and never worked for the Howard County Police Department or any other police department.
When appellant and her two companions initially arrived in the office, they were met by Salley and three other Macy's loss prevention officers. At that time, while Salley was attempting to get everything "sorted out," appellant admitted that the two juveniles were under her care and that, according to Salley, "she was taking all the blame for anything that they—that the two juveniles did." Salley also testified:
Ms. Paige was frightened that the two juvenile teenagers that was with her, she was frightened that she would be in trouble by the parents of the children because they was under her custody. She was—they were hanging out with her is what she said and she wanted all the blame to go on herself because she didn't want the parents of the children to try to, you know, harm her or—and/or threaten her. So, she repeatedly said,
At a later point, Salley called the Howard County Police, informed them of the theft, and asked them to respond to the store. Salley testified that the police ordinarily were called anytime there was a shoplifting case where the value of the goods exceeded $50.00. Salley agreed that she called the police so that appellant would ultimately be charged in connection with the theft. She also stated that she had called Howard County Police about sixteen times in the past month and that equaled the average number of calls Macy's would make on a monthly basis.
Officer Kristian Bush, of the Howard County Police Department, arrived at approximately 2:10 p.m.2 Thereafter, at around 2:48 p.m., and after appellant's handcuffs had been removed, appellant signed a Macy's statement of admission form, a Macy's trespass notification form, and a Macy's civil demand notice.
Salley agreed that Officer Bush was present when these forms were signed. At the time, Officer Bush was standing near the door, up against a wall. Salley confirmed that Officer Bush did not handle the Macy's forms, and that she handed the forms over to appellant. In addition, Officer Bush never handcuffed appellant, nor did he ever threaten her. And, according to Salley, Officer Bush never spoke to appellant about the Macy's forms and never told her that she needed to talk in order to avoid arrest. Salley further testified that she did not tell Officer Bush about appellant's earlier oral admission of guilt. After appellant signed the Macy's forms, she was temporarily transferred to the custody of Officer Bush, who released her shortly thereafter.3
In addition to Salley, Officer Bush also testified at the motions hearing, but he provided very limited details about the interview with appellant. He confirmed that he met with Salley on the day in question and went to the loss prevention office. However, when asked if he saw Salley direct anyone to sign any papers in his presence, the officer replied that he was "not sure," and "I didn't notice that." Officer Bush then concluded his brief testimony by stating: "I believe the—the three suspects that were in custody signed papers, and I'm not sure of the papers."
After testimony concluded, defense counsel moved to suppress any statements appellant made after Officer Bush arrived in the Macy's loss prevention office. Counsel's argument was that the presence of the police officer, as well as the other circumstances surrounding the interview, established that appellant was in custody when she signed the written admissions of guilt and that those statements should be suppressed. The State responded that any statements appellant made were not made to State agents because the Macy's employees were not working as agents of the police. Further, the State contended that Officer Bush was merely present and did nothing to either further the interview or to suggest that appellant was in custody.
In denying the motion to suppress, the circuit court found that, after Macy's employees observed an apparent shoplifting, they took appellant "into their custody based on a—what they observed." Appellant was handcuffed by Macy's personnel and then taken to the loss prevention office at the store. The court further found that there was no dispute that appellant gave an oral admission of guilt, and that statement was made before the police officer, Officer Bush, arrived.
The circuit court then found that, after Officer Bush arrived, he did not take appellant into police custody, he did not handcuff her, he was not aware of the prior oral admission, and he did not make "any inquiries of the defendant concerning any statement or—or the signing of any documents by the defendant." The court also found that, although Officer Bush was present in the loss prevention office when appellant signed the written admissions, he did not "seem to be taking any sort of an active role" in the investigation. In fact, the court found that Officer Bush "wasn't entirely aware of exactly what the paperwork was" and that "their decision to present the paperwork to the defendant was not at Officer Bush's suggestion or direction."
The circuit court then concluded as follows:
On April 14, 2013, at around 1:30 p.m., Salley was working as a loss prevention officer at the Macy's inside the Columbia Mall. While observing the broadcasts from the approximately 97 closed circuit televisions located throughout the store, Salley saw a man roaming around in the women's department. Testifying that this was "kind of unusual," she watched the man approach three female individuals, which included appellant, a 14–year–old, and a 16–year–old. One of these three was carrying a large Downtown Locker Room bag, and another was carrying a black handbag.4 All three were making "random selections" of merchandise from the racks without looking at either the price tag or the sizes of the respective items. They would drape this merchandise over their arms, concealing the contents of the bags. Salley identified appellant, in court, as one of these three individuals.
Salley watched as appellant selected a leather jacket, a yellow shirt, and some leggings, and then threw them over her arm. Then, appellant and the other two juveniles went to the fitting rooms. There, all three of them went inside a single stall. Testifying that the stall was a "small room,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...triggered only by State action, and specifically, that of law enforcement officials. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; Paige v. State , 226 Md. App. 93, 107–08, 126 A.3d 793 (2015) ; Reynolds , 88 Md. App. at 204, 594 A.2d 609. "This is due to the Supreme Court's recognition that ‘[a]ny interview......
-
Ware v. State, 1178
...and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, being the party that prevailed on the motion. Paige v. State, 226 Md. App. 93, 106 (2015) (citations omitted). "We review the motions court's factual findings for clear error, but we make our own independent constitutional a......
-
Vernon v. State
...(2011). The issue whether a confession is voluntary presents a mixed question of law and fact, subject to de novo review. Paige v. State, 226 Md. App. 93, 106 (2015). Accord Jones v. State, 173 Md. App. 430, 441-42 (2007). "On review, we will not disturb the motion court's first-level factu......
-
Black v. State
...facts." "We review a circuit court's decisions to admit or exclude evidence applying an abuse of discretion standard." Paige v. State, 226 Md. App. 93, 124 (2015) (quoting Norwood v. State, 222 Md. App. 620, 642 (2015)). As indicated, "[a]n abuse of discretion occurs where no reasonable per......