Seldon v. State
Citation | 824 A.2d 999,151 Md. App. 204 |
Decision Date | 29 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 597,597 |
Parties | Ronald L. SELDON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., GREENE, BISHOP and JOHN J., JR., (Ret'd, specially assigned), JJ.
In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Ronald L. Seldon, appellant, was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute more than 448 grams of cocaine and related violations of the Maryland Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. Appellant concedes that the evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses on July 13, 2000, but argues that the circuit court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress that evidence. Appellant now presents two questions for our review:
I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEARCH OF HIS VEHICLE THAT OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 29, 1999?
II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEARCH OF HIS VEHICLE THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 13, 2000?
For the reasons that follow, we shall answer "yes" to each question, and we shall therefore reverse the judgments of the circuit court.
On October 26, 1999, appellant drove his vehicle to Pohanka Mazda, an automobile dealership in Salisbury, Maryland.1 On October 29, 1999, an employee of the dealership contacted the Wicomico County Police Department to report that something "suspicious" had been discovered in a vehicle that had been brought in for service. Detective Carson Wentland of the Wicomico County Police Department received the call. Before proceeding to the dealership, he contacted the Maryland State Police and requested assistance. Maryland State Police Sergeant Michael Lewis was dispatched to the dealership. When Sergeant Lewis and Detective Wentland arrived, they were directed to appellant's vehicle by Bruce Willey, the mechanic who had made the repairs, and John Fiscus, a supervisor. At the time the officers arrived, appellant's vehicle had been repaired and was ready to be picked up.
Sergeant Lewis directed Mr. Willey to drive the vehicle into the service bay area. Once the vehicle was in the service bay, Mr. Willey pointed to the section of the vehicle where he had discovered the suspicious item. Sergeant Lewis then entered the vehicle, pushed back the front seat, lifted the carpet, and observed a secret compartment.2 He lifted the lid of the compartment and looked inside, but found nothing. Upon further examination of the vehicle, Sergeant Lewis discovered a second secret compartment which was located in the gas tank. This compartment, which was electrically and hydraulically powered, could not be opened by hand. Sergeant Lewis attempted to open the compartment by using his "alligator grips," but his attempt was unsuccessful. He then used a screwdriver to pry open the compartment "slightly," and was able to determine that there was no contraband in the compartment. Sergeant Lewis reported his findings to the Wicomico County Narcotics Task Force, and was told by a member of that organization that appellant was a suspected drug dealer in the area. Because no contraband was found in appellant's vehicle, the officers took no further action on this occasion.
On July 13, 2000, Sergeant Lewis spotted appellant's vehicle traveling eastbound on Route 50 near Annapolis, Maryland, and stopped the vehicle because it was traveling at the speed of 71 m.p.h in a posted 55 m.p.h. zone. Appellant was the sole occupant of the vehicle. Sergeant Lewis approached the passenger side of the vehicle and, through an open window, asked for appellant's license and registration. According to his suppression hearing testimony, at this point Sergeant Lewis noticed: (1) a strong odor of air freshener coming from the interior of the vehicle; (2) law enforcement decals affixed on the vehicle's windshield; (3) the "definitive odor of cocaine;" and (4) a large "wad" of money that came protruding out of appellant's pocket as appellant reached for his driver's license.3 Sergeant Lewis also testified that appellant seemed to be "extremely nervous," that appellant's "carotid pulse was pounding," and that all of these observations were consistent with illegal drug activity.
When Sergeant Lewis examined appellant's license and registration, he realized that appellant was under investigation by the Wicomico County Narcotics Task Force, and recognized appellant's vehicle as the vehicle searched nine months before at Pohanka Mazda. Sergeant Lewis returned to his vehicle and placed a call to determine the status of appellant's license. After being informed that the license was valid, Sergeant Lewis called Sergeant Michael Kenhart of the Wicomico County Narcotics Task Force. During this conversation, Sergeant Lewis stated that he had stopped appellant for a traffic violation and that he "had enough to do him," but wanted to know whether the arrest of appellant might adversely affect any Task Force investigation. Sergeant Kenhart responded that appellant was still under investigation, and he would call back with an answer. A few minutes later, Sergeant Kenhart called back, and told Sergeant Lewis that the Task Force had no objection to appellant's arrest. At this point, Sergeant Lewis called for backup and requested a canine unit,4 and activated a video and audio recording system that provided the suppression hearing court with the ability to review the stop from that point forward.
Sergeant Lewis again approached appellant's vehicle, and asked appellant to step out. Sergeant Lewis then asked appellant for permission to search the vehicle. Appellant refused that request. Sergeant Lewis continued to converse with and question appellant until the backup unit arrived. Once the backup unit arrived, Sergeant Lewis patted down appellant to search for any weapons.5 Sergeant Lewis then proceeded to search the vehicle. Almost immediately, he located the two steel compartments that he had previously searched at the dealership.6 The compartment located underneath the front passenger seat was empty. A search of the second compartment turned up what appeared to be one package of cocaine and two packages of marijuana, each of which was covered by a fabric softener secured by saran wrap and clear packaging tape.7 Appellant was arrested and charged accordingly.
After a hearing on appellant's Motion to Suppress, the circuit court filed a Memorandum and Order that included the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Two separate searches occurred as previously outlined. The Court will therefore separately examine the constitutionality of each search.
July 13, 2000
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harding
...See also United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (smell of mash whiskey); Seldon v. State, 151 Md.App. 204, 232, 824 A.2d 999 (odor of cocaine, if believed, would have established probable cause), cert. denied, 377 Md. 114, 832 A.2d 206 (2003); Mul......
-
Barocio v. State
...In the identification of contraband, the sense of smell can be vital to trained investigators. See Seldon v. State, 151 Md.App. 204, 216-18, 824 A.2d 999 (Md.Ct. Spec.App. May 29, 2003) ("Knowledge gained from the sense of smell alone may be of such character as to give rise to probable cau......
-
Padilla v. State
...370 Md. 648, 805 A.2d 1086 (illustrating traffic stop principles, although not involving a drug detection canine); Seldon v. State, 151 Md.App. 204, 824 A.2d 999 (2003) (same); Charity v. State, 132 Md.App. 598, 753 A.2d 556 (2000) (same); Munafo v. State, 105 Md. App. 662, 660 A.2d 1068 (1......
-
Wilson v. State
...See also United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (smell of mash whiskey); Seldon v. State, 151 Md.App. 204, 232, 824 A.2d 999 (odor of cocaine, if believed, would have established probable cause), cert. denied, 377 Md. 114, 832 A.2d 206 (2003); Mul......
-
Table of Cases
...(11th Cir. 2006) 136, 213 Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) 164 Seip v. State, 835 A.2d 187 (Md. App. 2003) 73 Seldon v. State, 824 A.2d 999 (Md. App. 2003) 72 Sell v. State, 496 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. App. 1986) 30 Sepulvida, Commonwealth v., 855 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2004) 125 Shackelford, P......
-
Chapter 3. Arrest
...cause and legitimate basis to arrest suspect). “Presence” means crimes perceived through direct sight as well as smell, Seldon v. State, 824 A.2d 999 (Md. App.) (“knowledge gained from the sense of smell of cocaine alone may be of such character as to give rise to probable cause for a belie......