Elliott v. State
10 A.3d 761
| Md. | 2010Background
- Elliott was arrested April 12, 2006 in Prince George's County based on information from a confidential informant (CI).
- CI had a history of providing reliable information; described Elliott and provided vehicle details and a license plate, guiding surveillance and location changes.
- Police detained/arrested Elliott and another individual with SWAT/ weapons drawn; trunk smelled of marijuana after the car keys were obtained from Elliott.
- 20 pounds of marijuana were found in a suitcase in the trunk at the police station; no drugs found on Elliott or the other man.
- Elliott moved to suppress the evidence and to compel disclosure of the CI’s identity; circuit court denied suppression and the CI-disclosure motion.
- Court of Special Appeals held Elliott was arrested without probable cause and that inevitable discovery would apply, raised sua sponte; affirmed denial of suppression and CI-disclosure denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the inevitable discovery doctrine be decided sua sponte? | Elliott: sua sponte inevitable discovery was improper and prejudicial. | State: inevitable discovery may be considered if record supports it. | Sua sponte inevitable discovery is improper; cannot rely on it to uphold suppression. |
| Was the confidential informant's identity properly undisclosed given Elliott's defenses? | Elliott: CI identity material to entrapment and lack of knowledge defenses; disclosure required. | State: privilege protects CI; disclosure not required. | The CI identity must be disclosed; balance requires disclosure given Elliott's defenses. |
| Was Elliott's initial detention an arrest lacking probable cause? | Elliott argues the stop was not an arrest and lacked probable cause to arrest without a warrant. | State maintained the stop was a detention supported by reasonable suspicion, leading to arrest after probable cause found by canine search. | Elliott was arrested without probable cause at initial detention; however, the subsequent search be supported by probable cause, validating evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belote v. State, 411 Md. 104 (2009) (establishes standard for appellate review of suppression findings)
- Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486 (2007) (defines de facto arrest from detention and factors for use of force)
- Dixon v. State, 133 Md.App. 654 (2000) (informant reliability and probable cause under totality of the circumstances)
- Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386 (2002) (inevitable discovery requires concrete historical facts, not speculation)
- Stokes v. State, 289 Md. 155 (1980) (limits on inevitable discovery where not supported by record or procedures)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (balancing test for informant disclosure based on defense impact)
- Edwards v. State, 350 Md. 433 (1998) (informant disclosure when probable cause is a significant issue)
- Bell v. State, 334 Md. 178 (1994) (avoidance of unfair prejudice when appellate bases shift theory on appeal)
- Cotton v. State, 386 Md. 249 (2005) (limits on legislative-style reframing of arguments on appeal)