DESHAUNE DARNELL DARLING v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Shaw Geter, April 27, 2017,
Car Stop – A car that pulls over and then takes off as the officer gets out of her squad car has not been “seized” under the Fourth Amendment.

In the field of “no kidding…”: Guzman’s wrists were bound behind his back with duct tape, and he had three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. He was identified by his fingerprints. A subsequent medical examination revealed that the… manner of death was homicide.”

In the summer of 2011, Guzman, a confidential informant for the Delaware State police, made several controlled drug buys from appellant. Based on those buys, a search warrant was issued and executed for Darling’s home in Dover, Delaware.
Darling was arrested, released on bond, but then “disappeared” and failed to appear for trial.
Three years later, Guzman left his house and was not seen again. Weeks later, his decomposed and buried body was found in Dorchester County. His wrists were duct taped behind his back and he had three gunshot wounds in the back of his head.
Police suspected Darling and set up surveillance on his home and two vehicles: a van and a Lexus. Police had information that Darling had two outstanding warrants.
Darling was seen leaving in the van and was stopped by police after he was paced exceeding the speed limit two times. When the officer got out of the van to approach Darling, the van took off and was eventually stopped after a 20-minute chase during which Darling ran stop signals, drove 20-30 mph over the speed limit, and damaged cars. Darling was arrested with CDS on his person.
A warrant was obtained for the van, in which a handgun and other items were found. Also located in the van were two ski masks (one contained Darling’s DNA) and a cell phone service receipt (later tied to a number used to call a co-conspirator and cell towers placed it in the area of the murder).
After Darling’s arrest, a canine was walked around the Lexus (parked on a public street outside of Darling’s house). When the canine alerted, a search warrant was obtained. Officers conducting the search noted the “strong odor of cleaning material” and founds spots of dried blood. DNA analysis showed the blood was likely Guzman’s.
At trial, a co-conspirator testified that Darling asked her to seduce Guzman and lure him out. When she did, two men wearing ski masks got out of a Lexus and grabbed Guzman, hit him, duct taped him, and put him in the car. She recognized one of the masked men as Darling.
Video footage from a gas station later showed Darling pumping gas and leaning toward the trunk as if listening to noise from inside it.
After Darling’s arrest, a letter was sent to Darling’s fiancee from jail. In the letter, Darling admitted that he knew Guzman had given information about him to police. At trial, a handwriting expert compared the letter to a writing sample and testified that she was “virtually certain” that the letter was written by Darling.
Darling was tried and convicted of first degree murder and related charges after a jury trial.
Darling then appealed, arguing that the initial car stop was illegal and that it was illegal to have a drug-sniffing dog perform a scan of his car while it was parked on a public street.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court disagreed. Even if the pacing and outstanding warrants weren’t enough to stop the car (which they were), Darling wasn’t actually stopped by police until after the car chase (which gave more than enough cause to stop him). Darling also had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the odors coming from his car while it was parked on a public street.
Car Stop- An officer must have reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense in order to stop a car.
Car Stop- In order for there to be a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, an officer must either use force to stop someone or they must submit to the officer’s show of authority.
Car Stop- A temporary halt of a car by the police that then drives off does not amount to a seizure.
From the Case: Police were justified in stopping the car based on information confirmed that morning that the driver had a warrant
From the Case: Police were also justified in stopping the car based on pacing it and observing that it exceeded the speed limit
Evidence – Handwriting – An expert’s testimony that she was “Virtually certain” that the handwriting in a letter matched the defendant’s handwriting was enough to authenticate the letter. Absolute certainty was not required to get the letter into evidence.
Authentication – Rules of Evidence – The authenticity of a writing/statement can by shown by (among other ways):
(1) Testimony of a witness with knowledge that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be.
(2) A non-expert opinion based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by the court or an expert witness with specimens that have been authenticated.
(4) Circumstantial evidence, such as appearance, contents, location, or other distinctive characteristics.
Hearsay – Hearsay is a statement (something said/written/done to say something), outside of trial, offered into evidence in order to prove that what the person “said” (or wrote or did) was true.
For example: A letter addressed to “John Doe, 123 N. Main St.” is hearsay if it is used to prove that the writer believed that John Doe lived at 123 N. Main St. Suppose that a search warrant was conducted at 123 N. Main St. and mail addressed to John Doe was found there. That mail would not be hearsay if it was only used to show that WHOEVER lived at 123 N. Main St. collected mail addressed to “John Doe.”
The same could be said if a search warrant was conducted at 456 S. Elm St. and mail addressed to John Doe was found there. It is not hearsay if used to show that whoever lives at the address is collecting John Doe’s mail. It IS hearsay if used to show that all the people sending mail think that John Doe lives at 123 N. Main St.
Hearsay – Hearsay is generally not allowed in a trial because 1) it is unreliable and 2) the Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to confront witnesses against him
From the case: A receipt for a cellular phone found in a car was not hearsay because it was used as circumstantial evidence that the defendant had a receipt with that phone number in his car (and thus had an association with the number).
The receipt was not used to show that the phone was bought from that particular store for that particular price (which would have been hearsay).