State v. Carter

• Citation: 244 A.3d 1041,472 Md. 36
• Decision Date: 29 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. 74, Sept. Term, 2019,74, Sept. Term, 2019
• Parties: STATE of Maryland v. Kennard CARTER
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

472 Md. 36

244 A.3d 1041

STATE of Maryland

v.Kennard CARTER

No. 74, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

January 29, 2021

Argued by Jer Welter, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Renée McDonald Hutchins, Assigned Public Defender (University of the District of Columbia Law, Washington, DC; Paul DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Amicus Curiae Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association in Support of the Respondent: Robin K. Henley, Esq., Henley & Henley, Annapolis, MD, Erica J. Suter, Esq., Law Offices Erica J. Suter, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, Megan E. Coleman, Esq., MarcusBonsib, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, Nancy S. Forster, Esq., Forster & LeCompte, Towson, MD, Rachel Marblestone Kamins, Esq., Office of the Public Defender, Appellate Division, Baltimore, MD, Steven M. Klepper, Esq., Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD, John R. Grimm, Esq., Mark D. Davis, Esq., Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP, Washington, DC.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, and Biran, JJ.

Biran, J.

Several million passengers ride Baltimore Light Rail ("Light Rail") trains each year. There is no turnstile to pass through before boarding a Light Rail train. Nor does anyone check passengers for proof of fare payment before they get on a train. Thus, it is possible for a person to board a Light Rail train without paying the required fare. However, Maryland Transit Administration ("MTA") police officers routinely check whether passengers on Light Rail trains who are required to pay the fare have done so. One of the methods that MTA police officers have used to make this determination is a "fare sweep." In a fare sweep, after a train has arrived at a station, MTA officers simultaneously board each car of the stationary train and announce that all passengers must show their tickets or passes. If a passenger does not produce proof of fare payment, the officer at that point directs the passenger to leave the train and to speak with another officer who is waiting on the platform. Once all non-paying passengers have stepped off the train, the train departs the station. On the platform, officers then obtain identification from the non-paying passengers, conduct warrant checks on those passengers, and issue a $50 citation to each passenger for the criminal offense of fare evasion. If a non-paying passenger is not the subject of an outstanding warrant, the passenger is then free to leave.

On the evening of October 2, 2017, MTA police officers conducted a fare sweep aboard a Light Rail train after the train arrived at the Mount Royal station in Baltimore City. After an officer announced that she was checking all riders for tickets, Respondent Kennard Carter approached the officer and told her that he did not have a ticket. The officer then directed Carter to step off the train. After Carter did so, an officer on the platform obtained identifying information from Carter and ran a warrant check on him, which revealed the existence of a warrant for Carter's arrest. In the course of attempting to arrest Carter on that warrant, officers saw that Carter had a gun. Carter subsequently was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on firearms and other charges.

Carter moved to suppress the gun and other evidence allegedly found by officers after Carter left the Light Rail train, arguing that the fare sweep constituted a seizure without reasonable suspicion to believe that he had evaded payment of the fare. The circuit court denied Carter's suppression motion, finding that the officers did not seize Carter prior to his admission that he lacked a ticket. Alternatively, the circuit court ruled that, if officers unlawfully seized Carter, the discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the taint of the Fourth Amendment violation. A jury subsequently found Carter guilty of several offenses.

On appeal, Carter renewed his argument that the fare sweep constituted a warrantless seizure not based on reasonable suspicion. Both Carter and the State also addressed for the first time whether the fare sweep was constitutional under the "special needs" doctrine, one of the recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The answer to that question turned, as a threshold matter, on whether or not the primary purpose of an MTA fare sweep is to further the State's generalized interest in criminal law enforcement – a point that the circuit court had not considered during the suppression hearing. The State also argued on appeal that Carter impliedly consented to a seizure necessary to determine whether he had paid his fare. Finally, the State renewed its argument that the discovery of the warrant for Carter's arrest attenuated the taint of any Fourth Amendment violation.

The Court of Special Appeals held that: (1) the fare sweep effected a warrantless seizure of Carter; (2) Carter did not impliedly consent to the seizure; (3) the seizure was not constitutional under the special needs doctrine; and (4) the discovery of the warrant did not attenuate the taint of the unlawful seizure. Thus, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the circuit court should have granted Carter's suppression motion, and the court reversed Carter's convictions.

We largely agree with the Court of Special Appeals’ resolution of the parties’ contentions. However, we disagree with the intermediate appellate court that the record is sufficiently developed to assess whether or not the special needs doctrine renders Light Rail fare sweeps constitutional. Nevertheless, because it was the State's burden to establish the constitutionality of Carter's seizure at the suppression hearing in this case and the State failed to do so, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

IBackground

A. The Light Rail

MTA operates the Light Rail, an above-ground modern streetcar-like train system transporting passengers in the city of Baltimore and surrounding counties.¹ The Light Rail services over seven million passenger trips annually.² As the Light Rail neared completion in 1991, the Maryland Department of Transportation ("MDOT") advocated that the General Assembly make the Light Rail a "barrier-free" mass transit system, explaining that barrier-free systems can cost 20-30 times less than systems that contain barriers to entry. See Md. Dept. of Transp., Office of the Sec'y, MDOT Written Testimony to Sen. Jud. Proc. Cmte. (Mar. 19, 1991), 1991 HB 716 Bill File, H.B. 716, 405th Sess. (Md. 1991). In a barrier-free rail system, passengers purchase their fares in advance of boarding the train, and do not pass through a ticket checkpoint or a barrier verifying payment prior to boarding. The General Assembly adopted MDOT's recommendation that the Light Rail operate as a barrier-free system, and made it a misdemeanor for a passenger to fail to "pay the applicable fare" or fail to "[e]xhibit proof of payment." See 1991 Md. Laws, ch. 222. A police officer or an authorized agent of MTA may issue a citation to a passenger who fails to show proof of payment of the applicable fare upon request. Md. Code, Transp. § 7-704.1(d)(1) (2020 Repl. Vol.). Passengers may purchase Light Rail tickets or passes using ticket vending machines located at each station, as well as at MTA's retail locations or on MTA's website.

B. Carter's Prosecution

1. The Fare Sweep and Carter's Arrest

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at approximately 8:05 p.m., Corporal Latoya Russell and Officer Zachary Tobin, along with other MTA police officers, were waiting on the platform of the Mount Royal Light Rail station in Baltimore City to conduct a fare sweep of the next Light Rail train to arrive at that station.³ Carter was a passenger on that train.

The train pulled in shortly before 8:06 p.m. Within seconds of the train's arrival, Corporal Russell and other officers boarded the two train cars. Officer Tobin and other officers remained on the platform. Once on the train, Corporal Russell announced the fare sweep, informing all passengers that she was checking tickets and advising them to have their tickets out.

In response to Corporal Russell's announcement, Carter approached Corporal Russell and told her that he did not have a ticket. At Corporal Russell's direction, Carter stepped off the train and reported to officers on the platform at approximately 8:07:23 p.m. The train left the station at 8:07:30 p.m. Officer Tobin instructed Carter to sit on a bench on the platform and asked him for identification. Carter was unable to provide identification, but gave Officer Tobin his name, date of birth, and social security number. A check of that information revealed an open warrant for Carter's arrest.

Based on the result of the warrant check, Officer Tobin began to place Carter in handcuffs. Carter resisted Officer Tobin's attempt to handcuff him and tried to flee. Carter then struggled on the platform with Officer Tobin and other officers. During the struggle, Officer Tobin saw that Carter had a handgun in his waistband. Carter attempted to retrieve the gun, which fell onto the train track during the struggle. After Officer Tobin was able to subdue Carter, the officers recovered the gun from the tracks and then searched Carter incident to his arrest, allegedly discovering cocaine on Carter's person.

2. The Suppression Hearing and Trial

Carter was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on five counts: (1) possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence; (2) possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a disqualifying crime; (3) wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun on his person; (4) possession of cocaine; and (5) resisting arrest.

After Carter moved to suppress the gun and drugs that the officers allegedly discovered in the course of arresting him, the circuit court held a suppression hearing. As part of its evidentiary presentation, the State...