67 A.3d 572
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Frobouck was convicted of manufacturing marijuana in a Maryland circuit court.
- A suppression motion challenged police entry and seizure at a property leased by Mapes, held as the landlord.
- Mapes entered the property on August 13, 2010 after discovering a lock and observing suspicious activity, allegedly due to lease issues.
- Police entered with Mapes’s consent, which was reportedly based on Mapes’s claim of possession and expired lease; Deputy Bragunier and Agent Glines participated.
- The trial court denied suppression, ruling Mapes had apparent authority to consent and that the entry was reasonable.
- The trial proceeded with hearsay objections during police testimony about why officers went to the scene; the court admitted some statements as non-hearsay for non-substantive purposes, and the verdict followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression denial proper? | Frobouck contends lack of valid consent or authority invalidates search. | State arguesMapes’s apparent authority and reasonable reliance validate entry. | Affirmed; suppression denial sustained. |
| Were the challenged hearsay statements properly admitted? | Frobouck argues statements were prejudicial hearsay affecting guilt. | State maintains statements explained police actions, not offered for truth. | Hearsay admission harmless; no impact on verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collins, 367 Md. 700 (Md. 2002) (standard deference to suppression findings and independent constitutional review)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable absent exceptions)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonableness standard for searches and seizures)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (apparent authority under reasonable belief standard)
- Moore v. Andreno, 505 F.3d 203 (2d Cir. 2007) (apparent authority requires reasonable belief; mistake of law not enough)
- Zemo v. State, 101 Md.App. 303 (Md. Ct. App. 1994) (avoidance of improper use of investigation history to prove guilt)
- Dunnuck v. State, 367 Md. 198 (Md. 2001) (recognition that exigent circumstances may arise from observed crime)
- Rowlett, 159 Md.App. 386 (Md. Ct. App. 2004) (common vs apparent authority to consent)