Prioleau v. State

• Decision Date: 09 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. 40, September Term, 2008.,40, September Term, 2008.
• Citation: 984 A.2d 851,411 Md. 629
• Parties: Maurice Darryl PRIOLEAU v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

984 A.2d 851

411 Md. 629

Maurice Darryl PRIOLEAU v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 40, September Term, 2008.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

December 9, 2009.

David P. Kennedy, Asst. Public Defender(Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender), on brief, for Petitioner.

Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen.), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ELDRIDGE, JOHN C.(Retired, Specially Assigned), RAKER, IRMA S.(Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

MURPHY, J.

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a jury convicted Maurice Darryl Prioleau, Petitioner, of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and several related violations of the Maryland Controlled Dangerous Substances Act.The State's evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses on March 28, 2005.Petitioner noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the judgments in Prioleau v. State,179 Md.App. 19, 943 A.2d 696(2008).Petitioner then requested that this Court issue a writ of certiorari to address the following question:

Was the question "What's up, Maurice?" the functional equivalent of interrogation under all the circumstances of this case, where the question was posed by a police officer standing in the doorway of a stash house the suspect had been seen using, and was directed toward a handcuffed suspect who had just been arrested by another officer nearby and brought back to the stash house?

That request was granted.405 Md. 290, 950 A.2d 828(2008).For the reasons that follow, we hold that the words at issue did not constitute the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Background

Detective Timothy Stach was the only witness who testified at the suppression hearing.¹The Court of Special Appeals provided the following summary of the Detective's testimony:

On March 28, 2005, Baltimore City Police DetectiveTimothy Stach and his partner Officer Jenkins were conducting a covert surveillance of the 1600 block of Regester Street.Det. Stach testified that, at about 6:00 p.m., he observed an Acura automobile pull to the curb.An individual, whom the detective recognized as Maurice Prioleau, [Petitioner], got out of the Acura and jogged to 1614 Regester Street.

Det. Stach watched as [Petitioner] took out a clear plastic bag and tossed it onto the front steps of the house at that address.Det. Stach was using 10 by 50 binoculars at the time and could see small vials inside the plastic bag.The detective opined at the hearing as an expert in the packaging, distribution, and identification of controlled dangerous substances that the bag contained cocaine.

Det. Stach saw [Petitioner] walk around the corner at the end of the block.The detective then saw a man, later identified as Keith Evans, walk up to the house at 1614 Regester Street to retrieve the bag.Det. Stach watched Evans distribute the contents of the bag to several individuals who had followed him.Those individuals walked away after the transactions.Evans continued to pace Regester Street, distributing items from the bag to individuals who approached him.

[Petitioner] appeared and walked with Evans south on Regester Street toward Federal Street.[Petitioner] turned onto Federal Street, while Evans continued to distribute the contents of the bag to additional individuals along Regester Street.

Det. Stach recalled that, at about 4:20 p.m., [Petitioner] returned.He entered 1610 Regester Street, and, after one minute, emerged with another bag of suspected cocaine.[Petitioner] gave the bag to Evans, who resumed his routine of strolling back and forth on Regester Street, engaging in "hand-to-hand transactions" with individuals who approached.

Det. Stach alerted Officer David Crites, who was at the police station, that he believed he was witnessing "narcotics activity," and [Petitioner] and Evans were "working in tandem."Officer Crites responded to the scene, driving a marked police vehicle.Officer Crites saw Evans walking northbound toward the house at 1608 Regester Street and handing off the bag to an unknown person at that address.Officer Crites arrested Evans.

Det. Stach and Officer Jenkins emerged from their undercover observation position and joined Officer Crites.Det. Stach instructed Officer Crites to "go get [Petitioner]."

Det. Stach then escorted Evans into the house at 1610 Regester Street.The detective testified that there were numerous torn clear plastic bags on the floor, indicating drug activity in the house.

Meanwhile, Officer Crites located [Petitioner], arrested him, and placed him in the cruiser.Officer Crites then drove to the front of 1610 Regester Street and removed [Petitioner] from the vehicle.[Petitioner] was reluctant to move, so Officer Crites employed a "wrist lock" and walked [Petitioner] up to the entrance of the house.

As Officer Crites appeared at the front door of 1610 Regester Street with [Petitioner], Det. Stach was standing there.He said to [Petitioner]: "What's up, Maurice?"[Petitioner] then said: "I'm not going in that house.I've never been in that house."Det. Stach testified that his words to [Petitioner] were "not a question on anything that has to do with illegal activity."He stated, moreover, that [Petitioner] appeared very agitated and nervous when he"blurted out" those words.Det. Stach acknowledged that [Petitioner] was under arrest by the time he was brought to the house....

Inside 1610 Regester Street, the police recovered a handgun with live rounds in it and three plastic bags containing 25 clear vials of cocaine, all of which had been stashed above the ceiling tiles.The police searched [Petitioner] incident to his arrest and recovered $210.00 [from Petitioner's person].

179 Md.App. at 22-24, 943 A.2d at 698-99(footnotes omitted).

The record shows that the following transpired during Detective Stach's direct examination:

[STATE'S ATTORNEY:] And when
                         you observed [Petitioner]
                         being brought up to the
                         house, could you explain his
                         demeanor and his tone
                         when he was making the
                         statements to you
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] Oh, he was
                           very agitated, nervous
                           and he, again, he blurted
                           out, as I said, "Hi
                           Maurice," to him, "I'm
                           not going in that house
                           I was never in that
                           house."
                

The following transpired during Detective Stach's cross-examination:

[PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              when [Petitioner]
                              was brought back
                              by Officer Crites
                              was he free to
                              leave at that time
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] No, he was
                           under arrest
                

[PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] He
                              was under arrest
                              at that time?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] Yes, at my
                           direction.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              did you read [Petitioner]
                              his Miranda
                              rights at
                              that time?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] No, I did not.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              are you aware of
                              whether Officer
                              Crites did?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] No, I do not
                           believe so. I don't
                           know. [Petitioner] was
                           never questioned.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] Well,
                              you asked him what
                              was up, didn't you?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] That's not a
                           question on anything
                           that has to deal with illegal
                           activity.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] I'm
                              not asking you
                              that[.]
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] I did ask him
                           what was up.
                             *  *  *
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              after [Petitioner]
                              blurted out [that]
                              he didn't want to
                              go into the house, I
                              assume that's
                              when the arrest
                              and control technique
                              was used; is
                              that correct?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] He was escorted
                           in. I asked [Officer
                           Crites] to bring
                           him in. We needed him
                           in the house. I didn't
                           want one officer outside,
                           one officer inside and
                           then me looking around
                           the house with three
                           suspects, three Defendants
                           [in there with
                           me].
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] Detective,
                              I asked you[,]
                              was that before or after
                              he blurted it, the
                              statement out.
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] He was put
                           into the house after he
                           blurted out the statement,
                           he was brought
                           into the house.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              it's my understanding
                              from your
                              testimony that nobody
                              asked [Petitioner]
                              any questions
                              except you?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] I said,
                           "What's up, Maurice?"
                           That's a question,
                           yes, ma'am.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              that's when he
                              blurted the statement
                              out?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] That's when
                           he stated, "I'm not going
                           in that house. I haven't
                           been in that
                           house." Yes, ma'am.
                [PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] And
                              after that, were
                              there any other
                              questions that
                              were asked of him?
                [DETECTIVE STACH:] Not by me.
                

The following transpired at the conclusion of Detective Stach's testimony:

[PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:] Your
                              Honor, I'm just going
                              to submit.
                              Thank you very
                              much.
                THE COURT: Okay.
                [STATE'S ATTORNEY:] Your Honor,
                         I just simply argue that the
                         statement that was made
                         wasn't really ... in response
                         to an interrogation, therefore
                         Miranda didn't really apply
                         at that time. It was a

...