Md. Court of Appeals rules police were justified in detainin

Md. Court of Appeals rules police were justified in detaining man
Brendan Kearney

Police were justified in detaining a man who knocked on the door of a known drug house while the officers were executing a search warrant for the residence, the state's top court has held.

Citing the 1981 Supreme Court case Michigan v. Summers - and a case the Court of Appeals heard in 2005 - the court affirmed lower court decisions stating that Randy Paul Brown Jr. was not "clearly unconnected with any criminal activity" when he visited the Glen Burnie home at 1 a.m. on Dec. 4, 2003.

Thus, the officers did not abridge his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the marijuana Brown had tucked in his waistband and stashed in his car was correctly entered into evidence during his trial for possession with intent to distribute.

"We shall hold that the seizure of petitioner was reasonable; it was justified by the officers' need to determine petitioner's identity and connection to the residence and to protect the officers' safety," Judge Irma S. Raker wrote.

Knock, knock

Brown claimed that after he knocked on the door, Detective Daniel Devoe opened the door of the house, dragged him inside, asked him questions and searched him without probable cause. Brown argued that because he was not an "occupant" - the language of the Michigan v. Summers decision - he should have been beyond the warrant's scope and officers' reach.

On appeal, the state contended that the term has not historically been restricted to "resident," and that the police had an actionable suspicion that Brown was up to no good. Kathryn Grill Graeff, chief of the criminal appeals division in the attorney general's office, did not return calls for comment.

Assistant Public Defender Brian M. Saccenti, who represented Brown in the case, offered no comment on the court's interpretation of "occupant" or the possibility of further appeal.

In Michigan v. Summers, the owner of a house in Detroit was walking down his front steps with heroin in his coat pocket when the officers arrived. The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant "implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted."

In a 2005 Maryland case, Cotton v. State, a man was standing in a front yard near an open-air drug market in Caroline County when police executed a warrant for the site. He was found to have marijuana on his person, and was convicted of possession. The Court of Appeals held that the detention was lawful.

In Brown's case, Judges Lynne A. Battaglia and Clayton Greene Jr. joined in the judgment only; Chief Judge Robert M. Bell dissented, saying merely that he adhered to the dissent in Cotton.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Randy Paul Brown Jr. v. State of Maryland, CA No. 51. Sept. Term 2006. Reported. Opinion by Raker, J. Filed February 7, 2007.

Issue:

Were police justified in detaining a man who knocked on the door of a known drug house during the execution of a warrant for that site?

Holding:

Yes; judgment affirmed. Such detention is reasonable as part of the officers' need to determine the person's connection to the warrant target site and to ensure the officers' safety.

Counsel:

Brian M. Saccenti for petitioner; Kathryn Grill Graeff for respondent.

Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.