Olson v. State
208 Md. App. 309
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Appellant Philip Thane Olson was convicted in 2010 of resisting arrest, failure to obey police orders, disorderly conduct, keeping a disorderly house, and disturbing the peace arising from incidents on Feb 14, Mar 6, and May 12, 2009.
- The convictions for keeping a disorderly house on Feb 14 and May 12 were challenged as not supported by sufficient evidence, and the related jury instructions were challenged as plain error or incorrect.
- The Feb 14 incident involved loud music/noise from Olson’s apartment above the Straitiffs’ unit, leading to an initial police visit and a citation for disorderly house.
- The May 12 incident involved an extended nighttime disturbance; after repeated attempts to abate the noise and determine compliance, police entered Olson’s apartment without a warrant and arrested him following a confrontation.
- The trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on the Feb 14 keeping-a-disorderly-house charge but denied it as to the May 12 counts, and the court concluded that resisting arrest could be supported by the evidence of approaching officers with raised fists as they entered.
- On appeal, the court held the resisting-arrest conviction was supported by the evidence and that the resisting-arrest entry/arrest were reasonable under community caretaking/exigent circumstances, while vacating the keeping-a-disorderly-house convictions for two counts as legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of resisting arrest evidence | Olson argues no arrest occurred when he charged the officers before any physical contact. | State argues the arrest was completed when Olson charged after warnings and that probable cause existed. | Yes; evidence supported resisting arrest. |
| Jury instruction plain error on resisting arrest | Instructions omitted force element; plain error review should apply. | Invited error/waiver; no plain error affecting outcome. | Plain error not warranted; invited error doctrine applied. |
| Sufficiency of keeping a disorderly house (Feb 14 and May 12) | Noise alone presumed insufficient; need habituality and public nuisance across multiple acts or people. | Noise can constitute a disorderly house; nuisance can be based on public use of premises. | Yes; convictions for keeping a disorderly house vacated due to insufficiency of proof showing habitual/multiple-parties nuisance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rich v. State, 205 Md. App. 227 (Md. App. 2012) (plain-error and elements of resisting arrest guidance)
- Dunnuck v. State, 367 Md. 198 (Md. 2001) (entries into home and exigent circumstances framework)
- Rohrig v. United States, 98 F.3d 1506 (6th Cir. 1996) (community caretaking and exigent circumstances in noise nuisance)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrant requirement and reasonableness for home entries)
- Alexander v. State, 124 Md. App. 258 (Md. App. 1998) (community caretaking doctrine applied to homes)