Watkins v. State

WATKINS a/k/a CALVIN Watkins Vincent OF MARYLAND

v. STATE Term, 1979.] September [No. 3, 1980.

Decided October argued The cause was before Smith, Digges, Eldridge, JJ., J., Cole and and before reargued Davidson, Murphy, C. and and Smith, Digges, Eldridge, Cole, Davidson JJ. Rodowsky,

Argued reargued by and A. Kroop Gerald for appellant. by Handel, Argued Deborah K. Assistant Gen- Attorney eral, Sachs, General, with were Stephen Attorney whom H. Anselmi, and Attorney General, Michael A. Assistant on the brief, Anselmi, appellee. for Michael Reargued A. General, Attorney Assistant appellee.

Digges, J., opinion delivered the of the Court. Eldridge, JJ., J., Cole and dissenting dissent. filed a Davidson, Cole, infra, Eldridge opinion page at Davidson, which and JJ., join. us, petitioner criminal cause now before Calvin challenges pretrial

Watkins sup- denial of his motion to press evidence police activity obtained as a result of which he right asserts violated his under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution to be from secure unreasonable and searches seizures. Since we conclude that the complained of impermissible conduct was an petitioner’s intrusion personal security, into the shall we affirm the judgment Special the Court of Appeals upholding conviction illegal possession for the of a controlled dangerous substance. facts, pertinent agreed by the be parties, can February approximately at

succinctly stated. On an received official McEntee Police John p.m., 4:40 Officer go him to the 2100 block directing radio transmission City unidentified to assist an Barclay in Baltimore Street suspects reported "in of two patrolman pursuit who was foot proceeded As Officer McEntee . ...” be armed cruiser, he overheard another in his marked location that he reporting on foot policeman from the transmission vicinity suspects in the sight lost of the two had this Barclay At the time of Streets. intersection 21st McEntee, being one block within Officer second broadcast intersection, 30 to his cruiser observed of that slowed Barclay, among whom throughout the 2000 block of people standing person and an unidentified petitioner were the com- approached, petitioner’s car with him. As "run, did flee yelled response Watkins panion police” and alley. McEntee through Officer running into and calling out immediately alighted from his vehicle and while for a stop, gave for to chase distance several times the runner where, upon overtaking petitioner, of some three blocks point, At that attempted grab to him from behind. in the mouth turned Officer McEntee Watkins and struck hand, struggle that followed of his and the with the back prone subduing petitioner with the culminated Watkins ground. posture, While that when position on leg, McEntee attempted right lower Officer to reach his soft, of the area and identified patted the exterior sock weapon. be Petitioner was object it not to pliable within assaulting the officer and placed then under arrest for from his sock produced followed more intensive search which of what containing glassine packets paper bag a brown heroin. was later determined be out, of the armed it Mr. not one

As turned Watkins was was, how- foot He suspects patrolman. who had evaded the ever, tried, in the Criminal Court convicted and sentenced J.) (Arabian, heroin illegal possession Baltimore for the hearing pretrial suppression transcript 1. We note from the of the record, point during contained in the that at one Officer McEntee. fleeing persons be testimony, reported that the radio broadcast stated "two black males.” quantity sufficient to indicate an intent distribute that drug. The only pretrial conviction was obtained after a suppress denied, motion to and exclude the heroin was ruling appeal Special Watkins claimed on his to the Court of Appeals court, constituted reversible error. That in an Liss, opinion by written Judge determining after 'Ttjhese facts, officer, articulated were suffi- cient to raise a rational inference that the appellant may ”, have been activity’ 'connected with criminal concluded justification "that there was legal [Terry2] for the stop,” and affirmed State, his conviction and sentence. Watkins v. (1979). 442, 446, App. Md. 400 A.2d granted We certiorari.

In urging that this Court judgment, reverse the petitioner why advances two reasons the heroin was impermissibly seized, which, asserts, either of he would dic- tate that it could against First, not be used as evidence him. argues possess Watkins that Officer McEntee did not suffi- cient articulable facts which authorized the investigatory petitioner. And, second, he contends even assuming that the officer had the requisite predicate for Watkins, detaining it is unreasonable under the fourth amendment to the United States physi- Constitution to use cal force to effectuate stop. Petitioner rationalizes that if either true, of these contentions is then his assault of the justified,3 officer was and his arrest for this crime was invalid, which in turn makes the article seized inadmissible in evidence since it was "fruit of poisonous E.g., tree.” Wong States, Sun v. United 83 S. Ct. 9 L. Ed. 2d 441

We begin analysis our of the contentions raised petitioner with an examination principles of the established (1968). 1, Terry Ohio, 1868, 2. v. 88 S. Ct. L. Ed. 2d 889 3. Petitioner relies for this conclusion on the common law doctrine that illegally may any escape, "one arrested use reasonable means to effect his using reasonably necessary.” even to the extent of such force is 326 (1937). Sugarman State, 52, 57, 324, However, v. 173 Md. 195 A. since possessed authority we conclude that Officer McEntee to make an investigatory stop petitioner, of the we do not further consider matter. this continuing viability For a articulated in principle discussion of the of the common law 406, Sugarman, State, Rodgers see 280 Md. 373 A.2d 944 denied, (1977); Annot., cert. 434 U.S. 928 44 A.L.R. 3d 1078 the in landmark States the United of Supreme Court by the L. Ed. S. Ct. Ohio, U. S. Terry case constitutional the bedrock (1968), which articulates 2d 889 in this case.4 issues of the determinative largely law (1978), this A.2d State, Md. Anderson by the law announced applicable the Court summarized case: in that Supreme Court very question of

Terry dealt with the narrow always policeman whether it is unreasonable for him to a limited search person subject to seize a no cause to weapons there is when question Answering him. that arrest rejected preliminarily the Court negative, investigatory detentions were notion such governed by fourth Federal amendment The Court observed that "whenever Constitution.

police officer an individual accosts and restrains per- he has away, his freedom to walk 'seized’ of the outer surfaces of exploration son” and that person’s is a intrusion clothing "serious sanctity . . . and . . . not to be person of the is "the inquiry The central lightly.” undertaken of the in all the circumstances reasonableness governmental of a citizen’s particular invasion personal security.” In whether determining justified inception, intrusion at its "the specific must point be able to which, together articulable facts taken with facts, reasonably rational from those inferences that intrusion.” The reasonableness of an warrant objective against intrusion is assessed stan- to be — dard whether "the facts available to officer at the moment the seizure or the search 'warrant petitioner originally petition 4. claimed for writ certiorari Special assuming Appeals that the intended to contention, that Officer McEntee Court of m erred this him. the merit of rather than arrest Whatever facts, agreed argument, by the is foreclosed statement upon by Maryland g, places parties pursuant to the Rule 828 which stopping petitioner, subsequent arrest at as related a time the text.

602 caution in the belief that

man of reasonable State, [Anderson v. appropriate.” action taken was omitted).] (citations 704-5, A.2d at 283 supra at Terry specifically did not rule on the Though the court seizure, Terry investigative of an v. propriety constitutional (J. 16, Ohio, 19 n. but see id. at 32-33 supra, 392 U.S. at Terry concurring opinion), subsequent decisions Harlan’s constitutionality of such have left no doubt as to Texas, detentions, circumstances. See Brown v. given proper (1979); 2637, 2d 357 47, 50, Ct. 61 L. Ed. 99 S. 443 U.S. 873, 878, 45 L. Ed. 422 U.S. Brignoni-Ponce, United States v. 607, Terry is 2d 95 S. Ct. 2574 real thrust "[T]he there reasonable directed at instances which just or has committed a that someone is about to commit State, 706, 282 Md. at 387 A.2d supra, crime.” Anderson v. Thus, "necessarily at 284. it is the manifest need for swift on-the-spot action observations of predicated beat,” Ohio, 20, 392 U.S. at supra, officer on the the officer "some reasonably creating in the mind of United suspicion,” States quantum of individualized 543, 3074, Martinez-Fuerte, 560, L. Ed. 428 U.S. 96 S. Ct. Prouse, 648, (1976); 99 Ct. 2d 1116 Delaware v. S. against 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 that must be balanced security free from arbi right personal "the individual’s United States v. trary interference law officers.” Texas, at 878. See Brown v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, U.S. 50-51; Prouse, supra, at Delaware v. supra, U.S. U.S. at 654-55. Terry opinion, Supreme

Neither nor the Court case, any precision out with spell decisions since that analyzed determining to be whether the factors facts knowledge specific officer had and articulable justificatory than of the detention of individual on less that have probable cause. The federal and state courts Terry, however, commonly looked to several applied have attempting criteria in whether the resolve Court, This suspicion. requisite had the reasonable State, instance, Md. at 707 n. supra, Anderson the character of the at n. concluded that 387 A.2d area, the temporal to the spacial proximity crime, situs of and the appearance and conduct of the suspect were relevant in adjudging suspicion. reasonable (8th Similarly, in Wright, United States v. 565 F.2d 486 Cir. 1977), denied, (1978), cert. 435 factually U.S. 974 a case akin bar, to the one at the court relied following on the circumstances in determining that the conduct was valid: a dispatch radio reporting robbery just that a had been committed, the proximity suspect reported to the crime, and suspicious conduct of the defendant upon awareness of the police presence. Accord, Id. at 489. (D.C. States, Franklin v. 20, United 1978), 382 A.2d 22 cert. denied, (1979); Project, U.S. 948 Eighth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: United Supreme States Court and 1977-78, Courts of Appeals 317, (1978); 67 Geo. L.J. 354-55 Note, Terry Revisited: Update Critical on Recent Stop-And-Frisk 877, Developments, 1977 Wis. L. Rev. (the six variables most often appearance, identified are conduct, record, environment, criminal police purpose, and information). source of listed,

Of the factors usually conduct of a defendant plays a key role in evaluating propriety Terry of a stop since, as with petitioner’s flight us, in the case now before such conduct is what frequently focuses an officer’s attention on a particular suspect. Accordingly, we now mention the influence flight which has had in other decisions on question Terry of whether York, authorized. 40, Peters v. New 392 U.S. 88 S. Ct. 1889, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 companion Terry, case to Supreme Court stated that deliberately furtive actions and flight at the nearing strong are indicia of mens rea. Id. at 66.While there are a minimal number of cases which hold that flight, more, without see, authorizes a stop, 1978) (Colo. (enbanc) e.g., People Waits, v. 391, 580 P.2d (abrupt evasive maneuver upon confronting police car alone sufficient to raise reasonable activity), of criminal the vast majority of decisions indicate disagreement. These latter rulings great accord weight to a suspect’s flight from police, but require that this conduct be corroborated other there were finding circumstances before

suspicious See, stop. e.g., for the United States grounds reasonable (5th 1980); 494, 498 Embry, Cir. United States v. Jones, 619F.2d (3d 1976), denied, cert. 430 U.S. 948 Cir. 546 F.2d 552 (5th (1977); 534 F.2d 1142 Cir. Vasquez, United States v. (1976); 1976), denied, U.S. ex rel. cert. 429 U.S. 962 (3d 1972), Rundle, 461 F.2d 860 Cir. cert. Richardson v. States, denied, (1973); v. United Franklin (Ala. 1978); State, App. 2d Cr. supra; Luker v. 358 So. Battle, 365 Mass. 313 N.E.2d 554 Commonwealth (1974); Tebedo, App. Mich. 265 N.W.2d 406 People v. (1978); Jeffries, 454 Pa. 311 A.2d 914 Commonwealth (1964) (1973); State, 1,Md. 197 A.2d 841 cf. Braxton v. cause to (flight pertains as it to the existence of arrest). we with the of courts that view agree As flight suspect upon seeing police of a unequivocal activity, now necessarily alone indicative of criminal we if there are examine the record here to determine the sufficient to create corroborating circumstances necessary petitioner. suspicion stop reasonable for the specific knowledge McEntee had Officer Facts of which by at the time he police personal perception either radio or police were: a fellow attempted petitioner the armed; the pursuing suspects reported was two to be just a few moments suspects patrolman had eluded the foot city they in which before Officer McEntee entered the block seen; the the officer heard upon entering had last been block "run, yell and observed petitioner’s companion police,” alley; response and that in to several Watkins run into an halt, attempt continued to to evade petitioner calls to factors, totality these officer. We conclude minimal time and stric- occurring they space as did within a ture, police officer create in the mind of a cautious could well afoot; activity was that criminal reasonable petitioner consequently investigatory stop Terry guided We are this warranted under the decision.5 statement, way By cannot be other intimate that there 5. this we no by perceived that will authorize of events an officer combinations stop investigation require being case will The facts of each reasonable. Supreme analysis This is what the similar to that made here. their own by rapidly unfolding determination of "the complexity dangerous city [where] and often on streets situations escalating responses, are in need of an set of flexible graduated they in relation to the amount of information possess.” Terry Ohio, "The supra, 392 U.S. at 10. Fourth Amendment require policeman does not who lacks the precise necessary level information cause to simply shrug arrest to his shoulders and allow a crime to Williams, escape.” occur or a criminal to Adams v.

143, 145, Ct. 92 S. 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 view, In our the situation that confronted Officer McEntee was of the genre specifically Supreme Terry, addressed Court in necessitating contemplated approved the "swift action” Accord, State, that decision. supra, Anderson v. 282 Md. 705-06, at 387 A.2d at 284. In the words of the drafters of the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure:

]W|here a may crime have been committed and a suspect important or disappear, witness is about to it deprive seems irrational the officer of the opportunity to "freeze” the situation for a short time, may so that inquiry he make and arrive at a considered judgment about further action to be deny taken. To power such a be to would pay high price in effective policing and police’s respect for the good sense of the rules that govern |ALI, them. A Model Code of Pre-Arraignment 110.2, § Procedure at 272 1975).] (Commentary

The petitioner nevertheless, argues, that when evidence is challenged on fourth grounds amendment at a suppression hearing, the burden is on the State to establish the sources and reliability of the information which the seizing acted, including, case, in as this police radio they Terry: Court ready "[T]here envisioned would be done when said in is 'no determining by balancing test for reasonableness other than the need seize) against [or to search entails.’ [or the invasion which the search seizure I ” Ohio, Terry 1, supra, (quoting v. n. 536-37, 392 U.S. at 21 Camara v. Court, 523, 1727, Municipal 387 U.S. 87 S. Ct. L. Ed. 18 2d 930 1967.

606 that the rules argument implicitly assumes This broadcasts. developed reliability of information the of sources governing probable requirement the cause by the Court under Supreme apply with clause of the fourth amendment of warrant suspicion mere and effect to the reasonable the same force intrusion to the less restrictive required effectuate standard however, reasoning, ignores the Terry stop.6 of a Petitioner’s itself, very not was careful in the Court fact that in clause contained warrant fourth ruling on its base amendment, amendment’s more flexible but on that Ohio, Terry v. 392 U.S. at clause. supra, reasonableness See Court, Moreover, Supreme its 20. we believe Williams, supra, subsequent decision of Adams v. has approved reliability a lesser showing of sources of and frisks investigatory stops protective for information arrests, types than is for and other of authorized required officer, acting on an seizures. Adams searches and nearby car had tip that a man seated informant’s waist, possession gun narcotics in his and at his approached gun suspect. the man and from the grabbed reliability showing no informant’s Though there States, seemingly required Spinelli would be v. United (1969) 410, 584, S. Ct. 21 L. Ed. U.S. 2d 108, 1509, Aguilar Texas, Ct. L. Ed. 84 S. 2d (1964), "Thus, Supreme Court stated: while [our] tip may decisions indicate that this informant’s unverified have narcotics or been insufficient for a arrest search warrant, enough the information carried indicia of reliability justify stop officer’s forcible of Williams.” (citations Williams, Adams supra, 407 U.S. at 147 omitted). Therefore, it "[r]easonable would seem that significantly objective degree 'involves a lower cause evidentiary justification than does ” of H.B., 759, arrest.’ N.J. A.2d State Interest brief, petitioner’s argument Although 6. not clear from if the based Whiteley Warden, Supreme on the Court in doctrine established Ed. 2d 306 reliance is U.S. 91 S. Ct. 28 L. such misplaced, probable for a challenge Whiteley lack founded on the involved a arrest, evidentiary necessary requirements cause to Terry. under authorized 607 (1977) 763 (quoting Survey from of the 1973 Supreme Court (1974). Term, 465, Rutgers See, 27 L. 579 Rev. e.g., United (7th 1976) 358, States v. Zapata, 535 F.2d 359 Cir. (per curiam); LaVallee, United Mungo States ex rel. 522 F.2d (2d 211, 1975), 214 Cir. grounds, vacated on other 428 U.S. (1976); Hernandez, 614,

907 United States v. 486 F.2d Cir.) (7th curiam), denied, 616-17 (per cert. 415 U.S. 959 (1973); State, 3, Franklin 425, 143 Ga. App. S.E.2d denied, (1978); cert. Ogata, U.S. 950 State v. 514, 1222, (1977); 58 Ha. 572 P.2d State v. Jernigan, 377 (La. 1222, 1979); So. 2d 1224-25 Lange, State v. 255 N.W.2d (N.D. 1977). 59, 62-63 Robinson, But see United States v. (9th 1298,

536 F.2d 1976); Benson, Cir. State v. (1977) curiam). Nebr. 251 N.W.2d (per view, In our present case there are at least two leading factors to the conclusion that ample there existed "indicia of reliability” justify petitioner.

First, there is the corroboration of the transmission inherent in the location where was initially Watkins observed and his subsequent flight police approached. when the See United (Miss. States v. Zapata, supra; State, Green v. 348 So. 2d 428 1977); cf. Draper States, v. United 79 S. Ct. 329, 3 L. Ed. second, 2d 327 weighty more consideration, is manifest from the nature of the broadcast itself; transmission did not purport convey merely a vague suspicion of activity, criminal but significantly reported patrolman that a foot was at that moment hot pursuit of two armed suspects. The inference transmissions, to be drawn from these that the foot patrolman in pursuit had actual knowledge of criminal activity, could reasonably create in the mind of Officer high McEntee a level just that a crime had occurred. Absent an indication have manufactured the broadcast to circumvent the requirements ofthe fourth amendment, which record, we do not find in this we believe that the composition of this transmission supplies its own reliability.” view, "indicia of It is our that for purposes of investigative stops protective searches, flexibility inherent in the reasonableness clause of the arbitrary no requires

fourth amendment rule concerning proof of informational sources be basis police of applied to communications. The reasonableness a necessarily judged, part, by in police officer’sactions must be the content and nature of the transmission which he as is relies. We are not alone in this conclusion demonstrated People in Appeals of York Court of the New opinion by the 375, DeBour, 210, N.Y.2d 386 352 N.E.2d 562 v. N.Y.S.2d (1976), where it is stated: degree significant

'There difference of between is a gun a report only person a that a has person not report and another that possession the just he used it for only gun but that has has course, report a crime.’ Of where the commission of has the to weapon that the used person indicates if weapon threaten or will use the menace or and stopped personal . . . then the questioning for may a more intensive public safety well mandate intrusion, from (quoting People [id. at 573 police 243, 318 Green, 193, 360N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d 35 N.Y.2d 464, People Taggert, See also (1967); State N.Y.2d N.E.2d (1975) Lesnick, 940, 530 P.2d 84 Wash. 2d (en banc)).]

Here, we no have doubt that Officer McEntee was entitled rely inference, certainly on the to the reasonable under cir- cumstances, that the foot had direct patrolman knowledge activity suspects the of the two armed illegal part of on conclude attempting capture. Consequently, he was to we reliability of the there sufficient indicia of existed justify Officer McEntee’s reliance on the broadcast to it, police information obtained and that the from transmission, combined of events which sequence with place took in his he block presence when entered of Barclay Street, predicate justification created the petitioner. argument attempt

The final advanced in his petitioner physical vitiate force to his conviction is that the use of to investigatory stop impermissible effectuate an under the fourth amendment. contention We believe this neither recognizes nor prevailing states constitutional law reality practical requirements type this of of investigation. To embrace a rule such as that advocated petitioner unnecessarily would vitality undermine the of field, police investigation recognized approved in the necessary ingredient Terry. police practice petitioner, teachings light Terry, not rejoins unsurprisingly anticipates this conclusion and with 1) three-point analysis. points He out: submit suspects police questioning when on approached 2) street, person stop may fact that a refuses to provide the additional necessary inference obtain 3) probable suspect, cause to arrest and where exist, cause arrest does then the officer "simply has insufficient justify information to an intrusion as serious as a physical Even if seizure.” we assume that the vast of suspects voluntarily to police submit questioning, Pitcher, see The Law and Practice of Field Interrogation, 58 J. Grim. L.C. & 465 P.S. it simply does not follow that the use of force to the few do who constitutionally not submit is impermissible. Furthermore, were the rule such permitted that it to suspects ignore a request to stop, seriously we doubt that the exercise of the consequent right away to walk would add much to the probable cause determination. fundamentally, More how- ever, we believe petitioner misconceives the nature Terry and its progeny Terry a because a stop is forcible — detention person seizure of the under the fourth Ohio, Terry amendment. supra, 16-19; 392 U.S. at see Williams, Adams v. supra, 407 Although U.S. at 146. it is not as serious an personal security intrusion into the of the suspect arrest, as an a police "whenever an accosts individual and restrains away, his freedom to walk he has Ohio, 'seized’ that person.” Terry v. supra, 392 U.S. at added). Moreover, (emphasis Supreme Terry- Court noted the distinction between a person seizure of the of police actions officer that not play do call into the fourth be "Obviously, not all intercourse personal

amendment: of persons. citizens involves 'seizures’ policemen tween force or show officer, by physical Only means of when liberty of a citizen way has restrained authority, in some n. Id. at 19 may that a has occurred.” we conclude 'seizure’ added). no court that has cited (emphasis petitioner not physical force is available adopted position has none. has revealed Terry for a and our own search stop, issue, all have Indeed, have addressed the of the courts that term used the Supreme Court concluded when See, e.g., it United States stop,” it meant what said. "forcible (9th 1977), cert. denied sub F.2d 522 Cir. Thompson, States, (1978); nom., U.S. 914 United v. United Reeve (9th 1977); Coades, Cir. United 549 F.2d 1303 States v. (D.C. 1976); Purry, Cir. Edwards States v. 545 F.2d (D.C. 1977); Dever, States, Comm. v. 364 A.2d 1209 United above, light Super. 364 A.2d Pa. an use reasonable force to effectuate we conclude that the impermissible suspect is investigative detention of fourth amendment the United States seizure under the Constitution. specific and determined that there existed

Having articulable facts which found reasonable force activity, of criminal and that use reasonable the fourth stop permissible a valid under effectuate amendment, and sentence of affirm the conviction we petitioner this case.

Judgment Special of the Court of Appeals affirmed. by paid petitioner. Costs to be Cole, J., dissenting: today

The officer receives Court holds that when has armed a broadcast that a fellow officer "lost” two vicinity in one suspects pursuit he in a certain and was vicinity in runs thirty fifty black man out of blacks "run, says police,” stopping officer is companion when suspicion that a crime justified harboring "high in level of had just occurred,” forcibly stop runner. can This I holding protection believe in conflict with the direct guarantees afforded the fourth amendment which all governmental citizens freedom from unreasonable I, therefore, security. with personal interference their respectfully dissent. It is clear to me from examination of the record of officer) (the testimony, stopping Officer McEntee’s that he what, looking

had no idea for whom he nor did he know was any, if crime had been or was about to He be committed. had armed, no information as how whether suspects were bats, knives, with guns, or He baseball sticks stones. did black, white, suspects know whether the were both Indian, Mexican, Chinese or a of such combination groupings; suspects juveniles, nor whether the were teen- adults; agers they or nor whether or were both male both each; short, tall, female or they thin, one nor whether were fat, build; or medium nor if the were clothed in suspects tuxedoes or jogging absolutely description. suits. He had no

Nevertheless, ran, ghetto-like because the defendant response "run, Pavlovian to the police,” command this Court holds that Officer McEntee had reasonable pursue, apprehend ultimately search the defendant though "pat an initial down” had he indicated that unarmed. majority

The seems myopic to take rather view of the facts. It suspects cites fact that "the had eluded the foot patrolman2 just a few moments before Officer McEntee 1. repeatedly On direct examination McEntee Officer admitted that the broadcasting gave description suspects. him no whatsoever of the On people cross-examination when asked about the who in the street were when responded he arrived the area he males, Were there two is that

Q black what came over the radio? males, running. A There were two black because he was 2. The indicates that the unidentified officer was foot patrolman nothing testimony but in the of Officer McEntee substantiates this or indicates that suspects he knew what mode of travel the were being pursued. majority apparently relies on the statement Attorney presenting agreed State’s when statement of facts. they seen.” had last been city block in which

entered the driving I However, "[A]s was McEntee testified Officer St., Barclay pursuit officer north in the 2000 block Barclay. and At in the area of 21st suspects said he lost the to observe time, my began vehicle down and I slowed this in the the houses and and in the street people other on when the in the block Thus, Officer McEntee alleys ....” to 21st and he could see suspects; ofthe sight lost other officer as lapse time was no Barclay St. There gives it defendant significant is because This suggests. running to elude the go from the act no time in which with calmly standing a friend to the act of pursuing officer (such sweating or exertion as exhibiting physical no hard) saw him in what when Officer McEntee breathing in no unusual appearing Officer McEntee described manner. L. Ed. 2d Ohio, 1, 88 S. Ct.

In a lesser standard approved Supreme Court by police a of citizen justify cause to than However, it clear Supreme Court made officer. In justifying particular intrusion specific point must be able to officer which, with together articulable facts taken facts, reasonably rational from those inferences [392 U.S. at 21.] warrant that intrusion. years had observed Terry, experience of 30 the officer He followed of time. period a considerable

suspects over physically he them before to interview attempted them and they were him that indicated to seized them. Their actions making suspects thus hold-up, to commit about community. officer had a well-founded danger to the viz., stop, conducting the safety concern for justifying articulable facts” "point specific could intrusion. we judice, sub facts with the case contrast those

When we only by the supported decision find Officer McEntee’s Certainly running. this defendant’s and the radio broadcast require produce Court should the at suppression State to hearing giving suspicion. evidence rise to reasonable suggests

The in footnote 6 that Watkins’ reliance Warden, 560, 91 S. 1031, 28 on Whiteley 401 U.S. Ct. L. Ed. (1971), misplaced Whiteley

2d 306 because dealt with probable cause rather than justify reasonable However, action. there nois basic difference between concepts a different result in two that dictates the case of a a based on radio broadcast. Whiteley, acting tip,

In on signed a the sheriff a complaint charging the person defendant and another with breaking entering and complaint business establishment. The was justice peace made before a and a warrant was issued. put

The sheriff out pick up statewide broadcast to the two persons named The complaint. radio transmission was picked by up Albany County Sheriffs office and communicated to Department. the Laramie Police The mes- sage contained descriptions names and of suspects, the two type driven, of car probably being and the amount of money broadcast, taken. On the date of the a Laramie policeman arrested the his companion defendant and reliance on the information in the radio broadcast. The Supreme Court held that the probable sheriff did not have and, therefore, cause to arrest he delegate could not this Thus, function to another officer. the arrest illegal. was The language of the significant. Court is not, course,

We do question that the Laramie police were entitled to act on the strength Certainly radio bulletin. officers called to aid other executing officers in arrest warrants are entitled to assume that officers requesting aid offered magistrate requisite the information to support independent judicial assessment of Where, however, contrary cause. turns true, out to be an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge the decision of the instigating rely officer to on fellow officers make the arrest. sum, complaint on which the warrant support finding clearly could not

issued here The issuing magistrate. probable cause possessed any arresting not himself officer was the informer’s tending to corroborate factual data Whiteley crime. Daley committed the tip that violated Therefore, petitioner’s arrest the Fourth rights under constitutional Amendments; secured as the evidence Fourteenth been from should have excluded an incident thereto Ohio, Mapp his trial. Warden,

[Whiteley 568.] at supra, U.S. Whiteley applied principle announced (9th Robinson, 536 F.2d 1298 Terry in United States v. case 1976). on message a radio to be an received Cir. There officer Cutlass, 1976 Oldsmobile possible lookout for a stolen solely on that plate CKC 434. Based Nevada license vehicle, stopped and described the officer saw the message, Cir.) in 19th Appeals Court of it. The United States searched the District Court said: reversing have officer not have to The fact that an does good supplying of the evidence personal knowledge obey to he can a direction stop cause a before a does not mean that person detain a or vehicle trial produce not evidence at Government need detention showing legitimate to good cause stop challenged. legality of the is when the effective law argument The Government’s stops made in us to validate requires enforcement from fellow law enforcement response to calls officers, any trial that factual proof without at a call, made was support foundation existed by Whiteley [citations v. Warden firmly rejected omitted], cause, rather Whiteley involved suspicion, perceive no than founded but we between the two doctrines substantive difference 1300.] [Id. result. at a different would warrant State, (1977); App. 3, 237 See Franklin v. 143 Ga. S.E.2d State, 248, 376 (1977); Price Md. v. App. A.2d State (1977); Benson, Lange, Neb. 251 N.W.2d State (N.D. 1977). 255 N.W.2d 59 State, majority

The cites 282 Md. Anderson position. A.2d 281 for its Anderson the support suspected particular crime, the defendant defendant, robbery. company The who with was another man, matched vague description suspects being sought. He inwas suspect area the was reported to fre- quent behavior, and his walking away looking over at police, shoulder suspicious. was We found that there were not sufficient articulable facts constitute reasonable suspicion. Officer McEntee’s pursuit a man without knowing whether or crime had been committed and having any without description upon which to base a judgment hardly rational conforms to Terry3 either or Anderson. majority suggests Wright, that United States v. (8th 1977),

F.2d 486 Cir. it which was determined that a valid, case, present akin factually that the court relied report robbery, on a recent crime, suspect’s proximity reported to the and the suspicious defendant’s conduct awareness presence. However, officer’s does not mention report following that the radio contained information by noted the court. investigatory stop,

As the moment the actual following the "articulable facts” were available to p.m., the officers: at a approximately 10:00 radio them, on dispatch had informed while routine auto applied Terry investigative 3. Cases have to seizures have a followed Brignoni-Ponce, 873, similar vein. In United v. States 422 U.S. 95 S. Ct. illegal Ed. L. 2d 607 Court where the considered the flow very significant governmental of aliens into the United a States be interest, justify the stopping Court still found this fact insufficient the occupied Spanish near the by people border of a vehicle descent. though stop intrusion, Court held that even car was a minor personal significant. Prouse, freedom was more See v. also Delaware 648, 200, 99 1391, 59 York, (1979); Dunaway U.S. S. 99 Ct. L. 2d Ed. New 2248, 60 (1979); Texas, U.S. S. Ct. L. Ed. 2d 824 Brown 99 S. Ct. Ed. 61 L. 2d 357 nearby just station had been gas that a

patrol, males, black one 5'11" and robbed two adult taller, possessing long-barreled other little an they running last seen handgun; were station; easterly gas direction from later, the officers eight six to minutes estimated Bell, black, standing Wright observed and both in a away patrol parking car about 150 feet from racially city part mixed of the area located in station; although eight gas within blocks could well-lighted, the officers not tell area other; taller than the whether one of them was evening, one of them was although it was a warm jacket; wearing long Wright leather and Bell car, if as police faced each other looked at a Lincoln Continental conferring, then entered curb; approached the officers nearby at the parked car, pulled away in their Continental Lincoln curb, curb, to the stopped, up from the backed down again, proceeded forward and stopped, pulled by the stopped cut off and being the road before car; activity driving such forward-backward necessary to move from the curb into was not road. Terry, supra, prescribed the standard

Applying whole, facts, as a considered we hold that such Erbes, as reasonable warranted Hofmann and guided by training their cautious officers stop. experience, making investigatory [Id. at 489], (8th 1976), Collins, Cir. 532 F.2d 79

In United States being driven gold over 1969 Cadillac initial of a white from the a few minutes male three miles and a black permissible where robbery was held be scene of a bank informing him report a radio arresting officer had received just and that the had been robbed particular that a bank brown, light left in a Negro three males who suspects were late model Cadillac. Hall, Oregon

The Appeals, App. Court of in State 32 Or. (1978) report 573 P.2d 332 held that a radio of bank robbery male, committed a few earlier a white minutes approximately 20 years age, having brown shoulder hair, beard, length standing 5'10", a full between 5'9" and weighing jacket pounds wearing a red and Levi’s gave a receiving officer reasonable to a white stop male, length beard, 5'9" with dark shoulder hair and a full wearing gray jacket. Levi’s and a person The who was weighed stopped pounds than suspected person, more wearing jacket, a different colored but particularities in insignificant light were considered of all the other If consistencies. the Court here were disregard to any of case, the information that was available in this there surely would not even be a case in the first instance.

If as Supreme Terry Court said in is reasonableness the standard which we the public against balance interest right security the citizen’s personal police to free from intrusion, in then this case the actions Officer McEntee totally were public unreasonable. In interest was — — prevention hold-up of crime of violence and the officer was able to specific articulate facts that afforded him case, right to judgment. make a considered In the instant the facts are all non-specific. only Not McEntee not does Officer know of a any crime but he has no in single basis fact to out person one as opposed to perpetrator another as the of a Court, effect, says crime. The flight enough. defendant’s Well, suppose run four had or the crowd had dispersed entire flight? Whom would he choose to and on stop what basis? to principle does violence that there must be "a reasonable suspicion that someone is about commit or just has committed a crime.” this case there is absolutely no activity. evidence criminal The Court’s deci- today chimera, sion has the potential becoming a true especially economically depressed areas of the State are, least, police-community say where relations strained. any The Court gives police license to the individual who runs when the happen upon the scene.

To justify stop, only explain need that some he had lost broadcast

unidentified fellow officer In holding characters. suspicious-looking of pursuit two being the level of rises to meager that such information (as Terry) sufficient required articulable facts intrusion, reasonably warrant understanding of profound lack demonstrates imprimatur its on majority places ghetto life. The realities with to interfere which bound course conduct choose avoid liberty law-abiding citizens who police. with unwarranted confrontations have authorized me to state Eldridge and Davidson Judges join opinion. they in this MARYLAND v. STATE OF ANNA MAE JONES Term, September [No. 1980.] Decided October 1980.

Case Details

Case Name: Watkins v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date Published: Oct 3, 1980

Citation: 420 A.2d 270

Docket Number: [No. 68, September Term, 1979.]

Court Abbreviation: Md.