Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2386, Sept. Term, 2019,2386, Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Parties | Anthony J. RICHARDSON v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Submitted by: Michael T. Torres (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Submitted by: Derek Simmonsen (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Friedman, Shaw Geter, Alexander Wright (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The Appellant, Anthony J. Richardson, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, and charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree assault, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, illegal possession of a regulated firearm by a person under the age of 21, and related offenses. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, appellant entered a conditional plea, with right to appeal, to conspiracy to commit robbery and wearing and carrying a handgun. See Md. Code Ann. § 12-302(e) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP"). After appellant was sentenced to four years, all but one year suspended (to be served on home detention) for conspiracy to commit robbery, and a consecutive three years, all suspended, for wearing and carrying, he timely appealed, presenting the following question for our review:
Did the circuit court err in denying the motion to suppress?
For the following reasons, we shall affirm.
On September 28, 2018, Corporal Myron Young, the school resource officer ("SRO") for Crossland High School, located in Temple Hills, Prince George's County, Maryland, responded to a call for a fight in the rear parking lot of the school. Approximately 30 or more students were involved in the fight, including appellant, who was "throwing punches" with other students when Corporal Young intervened. Corporal Young grabbed one of the young men who were punching appellant from behind. He also testified that he was familiar with most of the students at Crossland High, and he did not recognize appellant.
After the officer intervened, appellant began to get up off the ground. As he did so, a backpack strapped across his body fell to the ground. Both appellant and Corporal Young reached for the bag at the same time. Corporal Young testified that he thought it suspicious that appellant would reach for the bag during the middle of a fight.
Corporal Young picked up the bag first and noticed that the "bag had a decent amount of weight to it," and that he "suspected that there was most likely a weapon in the bag." At that point, appellant "ran off" at "[f]ull speed towards the service road that would lead out to Allentown Road." After appellant left the area, Corporal Young opened the bag, saw a firearm inside, and notified other officers in the area. He also recovered a cell phone and a school ID for appellant associated with another school that was not Crossland High.
On cross-examination, Corporal Young testified that, in his statement memorializing the event, he wrote that "there was an individual from behind that was attempting to jump" appellant. Corporal Young agreed that he and appellant reached for the bag at the same time and that he "snatched" it up first. He also agreed that he searched it within a minute of obtaining control over the backpack.
Corporal Young also maintained that he knew appellant was an "outsider" because he did not recognize him. Agreeing there had been no reports about appellant, the officer confirmed that it had been his intention to take him back to the SRO office to search his person had he not fled the scene. He further testified that "I didn't find the weapon until he was gone as well."
Following this testimony, the motions court heard argument from appellant that the seizure and search of appellant's backpack was not supported by probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion. Appellant also argued that he did not voluntarily abandon the backpack and that Corporal Young "for no reason grabs the bag, snatches it in his own words, and then immediately searches it with no specific reasonable articulable suspicion, let alone probable cause to do so." Appellant concluded that Corporal Young should have gotten a search warrant before opening the backpack that was left behind at the scene.
The State responded that, when Corporal Young approached the area, he saw appellant fighting with another person. At that point, appellant could have been arrested for the scuffle and his backpack could be seized incident to that arrest. Further, when Corporal Young picked up the backpack, he noticed a weight and thought there might be a weapon in the bag, thus, a search also was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion. Noting that Corporal Young was a licensed SRO, the State argued that the officer could have "detained everybody involved in that fight," including appellant, but that appellant fled. Accordingly, the State continued, "[w]hen he fled, I argue that he abandoned voluntarily the property that was seized by the officer, and at that point, the officer is within his rights to search that property to try and return it to its rightful owner."
Pertinent to one of the issues on appeal, the court also heard argument about the search of a cell phone, pursuant to a search warrant, that was found inside the backpack. Pertinent to our discussion, the search and seizure warrant, identified at the hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 1, provides as follows:
As indicated in the first paragraph of the warrant, the application and affidavit expressly were incorporated by reference. That application and affidavit first avers that there is probable cause to believe there is property subject to seizure "and more particularly in violation of Annotated Code of Maryland CR-3.405 (b)1." See Md. Code § 3-405 (b) (1) of the Criminal Law ("Crim. Law") Article (carjacking).2 It then provided a summary of the underlying facts of the robbery and the warrantless seizure of a backpack dropped by the appellant on the grounds of Crossland High School. The application and affidavit then provided details related to the search of the items contained inside the backpack, as follows:
The application and affidavit then provided the following justification for the search of the cell phone:
Appellant argued that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gambrill v. Bd. of Educ. of Dorchester Cnty.
... ... Count I alleged violations of S.s state constitutional right to a "thorough and efficient" education. Count II alleged violations of S.s state constitutional right to due process. Count III ... ...
-
Richardson v. State
...AppealThe Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of Richardson's motion to suppress. Richardson v. State , 252 Md. App. 363, 259 A.3d 156 (2021). The court held that Richardson abandoned the backpack, as Richardson did not retain "any reasonable expectation of privacy ......
-
Gambrill v. Bd. of Educ. of Dorchester Cnty.
... ... Count 1 alleged violations of S.s State constitutional right to a "thorough and efficient" education. Count 2 alleged violations of S.s State constitutional right to due process. Count 3 ... ...
-
Abney v. United States
...reasonably have believed that such a warrant was neither insufficiently particular nor overbroad. See, e.g. , Richardson v. State , 252 Md.App. 363, 259 A.3d 156, 172-74 (2021) (even if warrant to search cell phone was defective, because among other things it lacked explicit temporal limits......