Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 27 May 2010
• Citation: 995 A.2d 1030,192 Md. App. 653
• Parties: Jeffrey Maurice THOMPSON v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

995 A.2d 1030

192 Md. App. 653

Jeffrey Maurice THOMPSON v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 2151, September Term, 2008.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

May 27, 2010.

Michael R. Braudes (Elizabeth L. Julian, Acting Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Gray E. O'Connor (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: MEREDITH, WRIGHT, and JAMES A. KENNEY, III, (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ.

WRIGHT, J.

Appellant, Jeffrey Maurice Thompson, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, and charged with the illegal possession of a regulated firearm, possession of oxycodone, possession of hydrocodone, and related offenses. Following the denial of appellant's motion to suppress evidence, the parties agreed to proceed by way of a not guilty plea on an agreed statement of facts. The court found appellant guilty of illegal possession of a regulated firearm and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges. Appellant was then sentenced to five years without the possibility of parole. Appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress?

2. Should this case be remanded for further proceedings in light of Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009)?

For the following reasons, we answer these questions in the negative and therefore shall affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Officer Brown, of the Baltimore County Police Department, testified that he had been a patrol officer for approximately four years, working for the last three years out of Wilkens Precinct.¹ On March 26, 2008, at around 2:50 a.m., Officer Brown noticed a green Lexus vehicle in the area of Route 40 and Old Frederick Road in Baltimore County. After running a check on the vehicle's license tag which was from Maryland, Officer Brown could not find a registration for the vehicle with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration ("M.V.A."). Based on that information, Officer Brown stopped the vehicle in the area of Harlem Lane and Region Puff Road. Appellant was driving the vehicle.²

Officer Brown asked appellant for his license and registration. Although appellant provided his name, he was nervous while responding to Officer Brown's questions and was unable to provide a driver's license or other state identification. Officer Brown advised appellant that his vehicle was stopped because it did not have a registration with the M.V.A., and appellant replied that he believed the vehicle was properly registered.

Appellant eventually produced some insurance documents purporting to be proof of insurance, but those documents included different vehicle identification numbers ("VINs"). Officer Brown testified as follows:

PROSECUTOR: When he, when he provided you with that information and with the other information that you were gathering at the time is it sic, did it come into your knowledge that there was a problem with the car?

OFF. BROWN: Yes ma'am.

PROSECUTOR: And what was that?

OFF. BROWN: Off of the various documents that he supplied one was a Maryland temporary registration. Actually he had two different temporary registrations that he provided. Those documents had different V.I.N. numbers associated with the vehicle. And that's not, usually that's not typical of any type of vehicle. Its one V.I.N. number that's identified as that vehicle along with the documents associated with the vehicle.

PROSECUTOR: In your experience as a police officer when you have a car that you're getting two different V.I.N. numbers—

OFF. BROWN: Yes ma'am.

PROSECUTOR:—what is that indicative of to you?

OFF. BROWN: Fraud. And actually it was three different V.I.N. numbers associated. But yes. Its sic indicative of fraud. Someone attempting to basically not apply or not you know, abide by the rules and regulations of the Transportation Article of Maryland.

PROSECUTOR: And did you ever, were you ever able to confirm the defendants identify sic prior to arresting him?

OFF. BROWN: No ma'am.

PROSECUTOR: Okay. What if, what steps did you take to try and do that?

OFF. BROWN: Through dispatch what we do is we run M.V.A. checks again. Try to, we run N.C.I.C. checks. That's the National Criminal Information Database. We take various steps. And I've, I did take various steps that night to determine who the defendant was, who the motorist was. And I was not satisfied to, who he was.

PROSECUTOR: So, what did you do as a result?

OFF. BROWN: Effected arrest.

Officer Brown then searched the vehicle and recovered a digital pocket scale from the glove compartment; U.S. currency, both in a compartment on the driver's side and in a pair of black jeans in the backseat; and, prescription pills inside the center console. At this point, Officer Brown determined that the vehicle "needed to be stored. The driver was under arrest. The passenger was not at the scene any longer. In addition to sic we still had the problem on the VIN's. There was sic three different VIN's to, and the documentation was not satisfactory." Officer Brown testified that the vehicle would be sent to a towing company located off Old Frederick Road. Officer Brown then testified concerning the policy of the Baltimore County Police Department in such instances:

The vehicles that are stored will come into our control. Basically you have to conduct an inventory search to protect motorists from different, basically if they have any items of importance or value in case you need to document that in case something would happen at the storage yard. And basically just to know exactly, also safety reasons what exactly is in the vehicle. What, what are you relinquishing.

Officer Brown continued that he was familiar with the Baltimore County Police Department's policy and standard operating procedures on inventory searches, and a portion of the Department's Field Manual was admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing. That field manual included a section covering vehicle property inventory searches. Although the record is not entirely clear where Officer Brown conducted his inventory search, Officer Brown testified that he searched all containers inside the vehicle and recovered appellant's license in the front zipper compartment of a book bag located in the vehicle's trunk. Officer Brown also found "a loaded black high point nine millimeter pistol containing four nine millimeter rounds" inside the same book bag. Officer Brown testified that this gun was a regulated firearm.

On cross-examination, Officer Brown clarified that appellant gave him two registrations and a proof of insurance and that these documents contained various VINs. The actual VIN on the car itself was JT8BF28G8W5022214. Officer Brown then testified that appellant gave him a document, identified as Defendant's Exhibit Number 1, that included appellant's name and a VIN for the Lexus ending in the numbers 4405. Appellant also provided Officer Brown with a document identified as a "registration certificate" with the VIN listed as JT8BF28G2W5047223.

In addition, Officer Brown did not recall whether he checked appellant's driver's license information on his computer, but he did testify that he checked it with dispatch. Officer Brown gave dispatch appellant's name and date of birth but did not recall what dispatch advised concerning that information. Officer Brown testified that, if they advised that appellant did not have a license, he would have possibly remembered.³

On further cross-examination, Officer Brown testified that appellant was arrested for "failure to provide sufficient identification." Officer Brown could not recall whether appellant gave him an expired college identification. Officer Brown testified that such a college identification was not a Maryland State identification, or any other state identification, and that it was not sufficient proof of appellant's identity.⁴ He also testified that a birth certificate would not be sufficient proof, and he could not recall if appellant actually offered to provide a birth certificate at the time of the stop.

Appellant then testified on his own behalf at the suppression hearing. Appellant confirmed that Officer Brown advised him that he was stopped because his license tags did not appear in the M.V.A. system. Appellant agreed that he did not provide license and registration when asked. However, appellant claimed he gave Officer Brown an expired identification card from Howard Community College. He also provided his name and believed he may have provided his date of birth. Appellant also testified that he tried to give Officer Brown his birth certificate and social security card, but Officer Brown told him "that he didn't want a look at it or take it." Appellant also confirmed that he gave Officer Brown various documents with respect to the vehicle.

At the conclusion of this evidence, appellant's defense counsel agreed there was "probable cause to stop the car to investigate for a traffic stop. I mean, for a, to see why the tags aren't registered. But I do not believe that the officer had probable cause to arrest Mr. Thompson." Appellant's counsel asserted that failure to provide sufficient identification was not against the law and there was no other driving offense that would have supported appellant's arrest. Counsel further suggested that appellant did provide information concerning his identity. Counsel also addressed the fact that the vehicle was unregistered, but maintained that that was not an arrestable offense either.

The State responded that appellant was unable to confirm his identity, that it was approximately 3:00 a.m., and that appellant presented three different VINs for the vehicle. Under the totality of these circumstances, the State maintained that the arrest of appellant was supported by probable cause.

The suppression court agreed with the State. The court noted that this...