JONATHAN WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Filed October 1, 2009
188 Md. App. 78 (2009)
Opinion at http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2009/2749s07.pdf
Short version: “[P]robable cause may be found even if a trained, experienced police officer is not able to see whether the object transferred by one person to another was contraband.”

Summary: Probable cause existed where officer admitted as expert testified he was observing via surveillance camera and saw what he believed to be a hand to hand in a known open air drug market. This despite the fact that: he didn’t see the drugs, didn’t see the money, defendant’s back was to the camera, the suspected buyer wasn’t stopped, and the defendant was arrested an hour later.

In a hand-to-hand drug case, one of the most difficult things in establishing probable cause is determining what it was that the officer saw. Was he selling loose cigarettes? Borrowing a lighter? Returning the $10 he borrowed from the day before? Was it just a handshake between friends?

So sayeth expert Det. Green: “If it was candy, Your Honor, there wouldn’t be a need to conceal what you’re passing along.”

So sayeth the Court: “Detective Green did not need absolute certainty in regard to the objects that were exchanged here in order to obtain probable cause.” “[E]ven though there might have been innocent explanations for appellant’s conduct, it is not necessary that all innocent explanations for a person’s actions be absent before those actions can provide probable cause for an arrest.” (Quoting the DC Court of Appeals for that last part… sorry, no link available)

“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer at the time of the arrest, or of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing a criminal offense.” (quoting Haley v State)

To determine whether probable cause exists, the appellate court considers the totality of the circumstances, in light of the facts found to be credible by the trial judge, factoring in the variables of:
– the information leading to police action
– the environment
– the police purpose
– and the suspect’s conduct.

Factors in determining probable cause include:
– experience and special knowledge of police officers (“considerable credit can be given to the expertise of law enforcement officers in conducting
investigations into illegal drug activity”)
– the geographical location (“dangerous area”, “high crime area,” “presence in alley at unusual time” in high drug/burglary area, “open air drug market,” etc)

Here, the Court of Special Appeals considered the following:
– Degree of expertise: The detective testified that he “observed thousands and thousands of street distribution methods [no idea what that means], and had made over 5,000 arrests for illegal drug transactions [that one I understand].”
– Environment/Purpose: Specific purpose was to monitor a City block that was “well known for its illicit drug trafficking activity.”
– Articulation of observations: “He watched appellant and the other male have a brief conversation, taking particular note of their hand gestures, their manner of
gripping, and the fact that they each took particular caution to conceal the small object being passed from one to the other.” Suspected buyer then left the area, consistent with buyer in a drug transaction.

And there you have it. Williams v State. Don’t need to see the drugs. Boom goes the dynamite.