Peters v. State, 120 A.3d 839

Background

On Jan. 27, 2012 Vaughn Johnson was shot; a witness (Janee Gross) saw two masked men run from the scene into either 5931 or 5933 Radecke Ave. apartment buildings.
Police formed an inner perimeter, called SWAT, and conducted a systematic apartment-by-apartment search of buildings 5931 and 5933.
At ~2:00 a.m. SWAT reached 5933 Apartment J; occupants (including Tyreze Braxton and Mark Peters) answered, were handcuffed, and the team cleared the unit.
During the clearance officers observed a bulky black object in a bathroom vent; Sergeant Davis removed it and recovered a ski mask containing two handguns.
No warrant was obtained prior to entry/search of Apartment J; a warrant application later relied on discovery of the guns in the vent.
Trial court denied Peters’s motion to suppress (exigent circumstances and inevitable discovery), jury convicted him of multiple offenses; appellate court reversed the convictions based on Fourth Amendment error and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Peters' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Warrantless entry/search of Apartment J — was it justified by exigent circumstances/probable cause?	No — police lacked probable cause to believe suspects were in Apartment J; systematic searches of many units cannot substitute for unit-specific probable cause.	Yes — hot pursuit/exigency justified entry and search of the unit.	Reversed: police lacked probable cause to search this particular apartment; exigency does not cure absence of unit-specific probable cause.
Admissibility — inevitable discovery / plain view as alternative bases to admit guns and mask seized during illegal entry	No — State did not show by competent evidence that lawful means were actively being pursued such that discovery was inevitable; the warrant was based on tainted information.	Yes — evidence inevitably would have been found; alternatively items were in plain view.	Reversed: inevitable discovery not established; plain view inapplicable because initial entry was unlawful.
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted armed robbery conviction	(Preservation issue) Peters argued lack of intent to steal; appellate review limited because no specific JMOL argument was preserved.	Evidence showed Peters brandished guns after questioning about drugs, victim reasonably believed robbery was attempted.	Affirmed as to sufficiency: evidence (including circumstantial) supported intent to rob; claim not preserved but, on merits, sufficient.
Speedy trial / Hicks 180-day claim	Peters argued delay (≈19 months) violated Hicks rule and Sixth Amendment speedy trial right.	State invoked administrative continuances, DNA testing delays, prosecutor unavailability; reasons weighed neutral/justified.	Affirmed as to speedy trial: administrative court did not abuse discretion on Hicks continuances; Barker factors balanced against relief.

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry presumptively unreasonable)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigency is narrow exception to warrant requirement)
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (probable cause required to enter third party's home to search for suspect)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (established inevitable discovery doctrine)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule and fruits of unlawful searches)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain view seizure principles)
Nilson v. State, 272 Md. 179 (warrantless entry into particular apartment sustained where circumstantial evidence eliminated other units)
Dent v. State, 33 Md. App. 547 (no probable cause to enter particular apartment; subsequent warrant tainted)
United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2d 1569 (9th Cir. en banc) (exigent circumstances require probable cause as to particular unit; reasonable suspicion insufficient)
Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F.2d 197 (4th Cir.) (condemned wholesale ‘‘turn-up’’ raids without probable cause for specific residences)