Walker v. State
206 Md. App. 13
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Walker was indicted in Howard County Circuit Court for sexual abuse of a minor and attempted sexual abuse of a minor.
- The circuit court denied Walker’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his desk on March 18, 2010, before a later search warrant was obtained.
- Detectives, with school principal Mr. M.’s consent, searched Walker’s desk in a common open area of the school; the desk was not locked and labeled for general use.
- A box in the desk contained letters, notes, and drawings from C.B. to Walker (including intimate and affectionate content) which were later introduced at trial.
- Walker contended the desk contained personal items and that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights; the court held no reasonable expectation of privacy in the desk.
- At a bench trial, the State presented numerous letters and hoarded notes from Walker to C.B.; the court found these, taken as a whole, exploited the child under Md. Code (2002) § 3-602.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual abuse | Walker argues letters were non-sexual and insufficient for 3-602. | State can prove exploitation by totality of circumstances, not requiring explicit sexual acts. | Evidence sufficient to convict for sexual abuse of a minor |
| Warrantless desk search and privacy expectation | Desk was Walker’s private space; search violated Fourth Amendment. | Principal consent and desk’s open, shared area negated reasonable privacy. | No reasonable expectation of privacy; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1968) (privacy in shared office can be protected; standing to challenge warrantless searches)
- O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1987) (workplace privacy depends on context; public employer searches require balancing.)
- Brackins v. State, 84 Md.App. 157 (Md. 1990) (exploitations definitions; privacy of child in custody context)
- Tate v. State, 182 Md.App. 114 (Md. 2008) (no specific mens rea for sexual abuse of a minor; broad interpretation of exploitation)
- Tate I, 176 Md.App. 365 (Md. 2007) (sexual abuse does not require specific intent; acts can constitute exploitation)
- Crispino v. State, 417 Md. 31 (Md. 2010) (exploitation defined broadly; statute’s scope to protect children)
- Cooksey v. State, 359 Md. 1 (Md. 2000) (discussion of 'sexual molestation or exploitation' vs. 'sexual contact')