Pratt v. State
Decision Date | 19 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 326,326 |
Parties | Bernard Lorenzo PRATT v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
James C. Chapin, Hyattsville, for appellant.
Francis X. Pugh, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Arthur A. Marshall and Donald P. McLaughlin, State's Attorney and Asst. State's Atty. for Prince George's County, respectively, and Gilbert Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, apply to a custodial interrogation of an accused conducted by a person employed by a mercantile establishment and commissioned by the Governor of this State to act as a policeman. We find that they do. Thus Miranda again requires reversal of a judgment because a statement was obtained from an accused and introduced in evidence without compliance with the Miranda standards. The judgment here was the conviction of Bernard Lorenzo Pratt (appellant) of grand larceny by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and a sentence of two years imposed thereon. 1
The holding in Miranda was concisely set out at page 444, 86 S.Ct. at page 1612:
It is patent, and the State so concedes, that the procedural safeguards specifically spelled out by Miranda, see Robinson v. State, 1 Md.App. 522, 231 A.2d 920, were not here demonstrated. Hale v. State, 5 Md.App. 326, 247 A.2d 409. And it is clear that the statement of the appellant introduced through the testimony of McKinley was obtained by the initiation of questioning by McKinley after appellant had been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in a significant way. 2 Myers v. State, 3 Md.App. 534, 240 A.2d 288. It cannot be said to have been a volunteered statement within the meaning of Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602. And see Carwell v. State, 2 Md.App. 45, 232 A.2d 903. Further, it is immaterial whether the statement be considered inculpatory, which we think it was, or exculpatory; 3 the prosecution may not use either in violation of Miranda.
The only question is whether McKinley was a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of Miranda. In Minor v. State, 6 Md.App. 82, 87, 250 A.2d 113, 116, we said that the prohibitions set forth in Miranda 'apply to law enforcement officers representing the State and not to persuasion by private persons.' See also Carder v. State, 5 Md.App. 531, 539, 248 A.2d 495. Here the State adduced that McKinley 'was sworn as a State officer by the State of Maryland, by the governor of Maryland as a police officer to protect the property of Montgomery Wards.' Md. Code, Art. 23, §§ 342-348, under the subtitle 'Police' was in effect at the time appellant was taken in custody. Sections 342 and 348 provided, in relevant part, that any corporation operating a mercantile establishment in Maryland may apply to the Governor to commission such persons as the corporation may designate 'to act as policemen' for the protection of the property of such corporation, and for the preservation of peace and good order in their respective premises. 4 Section 343 provided that the Governor, upon such application, may appoint such persons to be policemen, transmitting a commission issued to a person so appointed to such clerk's office in the State as the corporation designates. The powers and authority of a policeman so appointed were set forth in § 344. Upon taking and subscribing to the oath prescribed by 'the fourth section of the first article of the Constitution' 5 before the clerk of the court to which the commission was sent, such policeman shall, after the recording of the oath, possess and exercise, in the counties and cities in which the property of the corporation for which he was appointed is situated, 'all the authority and powers held and exercised by constables at common law 6 and under the statutes of this State, 7 and also all the authority and powers conferred by law on policemen in the City of Baltimore.' Such policeman so appointed shall when on duty wear in plain view a metallic shield with the word 'police' inscribed thereon, except when on detective duty, § 345. Unless the appointment was revoked and annulled by the Governor, which he could do at his pleasure, § 343, the power and authority of such policeman continued until the corporation at whose instance he was appointed gave a notice in writing that his services are no longer required, which notice shall be filed in the clerk's office where his commission was recorded and noted by the clerk upon the margin of the record where the commission and oath were recorded; 'thereupon the power of such policeman shall cease and be determined,' § 347. The compensation of such policeman shall be paid by the party upon whose recommendation he was appointed, § 346.
It is firmly established that a person appointed as a policeman under the authority of Code, Art. 23, § 343 is an officer of the State with power to arrest 'for the protection of the property of the corporation requesting his appointment, and for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butler v. State
...Molony, William E. Nolan & Hon. Patrick L. Woodward, Maryland Law of Confessions § 10:7 at 466 (2014–2015 ed.)); Pratt v. State , 9 Md. App. 220, 263 A.2d 247, (1970) (holding that a security officer who testified he was a sworn and appointed law enforcement officer was a law enforcement of......
-
United States v. Lima
...of Columbia under D.C.Code 1973, § 4-115.3 Lucas v. United States, D.C.App., 411 A.2d 360 (1980); accord, Pratt v. State, 9 Md.App. 220, 263 A.2d 247 (Ct.Spec.App. 1970); People v. Eastway, 67 Mich.App. 464, 241 N.W.2d 249 (1976); People v. Smith, 82 Misc.2d 204, 368 N.Y.S.2d 954 (Crim.Ct. ......
-
Paige v. State
...when or whether the Miranda advisements are necessary when it is alleged an encounter involves a non-State actor. In Pratt v. State, 9 Md.App. 220, 263 A.2d 247 (1970), William C. McKinley worked as a security officer for Montgomery Ward, Incorporated, in Prince George's County. In fulfilli......
-
State v. Murillo, 12757
...1772, 12 L.Ed.2d 754 (1964) (amusement park security guard deputized as a sheriff was a law enforcement officer); Pratt v. State, 9 Md.App. 220, 263 A.2d 247, 250 (1970) (store detective's commission as a state officer required giving Miranda warnings); cf.Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 50......