MAURICE MACK v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Wilner, June 5, 2018,
4th Amendment – An anonymous phone call that a car was being used for drug dealing did not justify officers immediately blocking it in without further evidence
Facts:
Baltimore police were dispatched a call from KGA for two African-American men, one wearing a blue jacket or coat and the other a gray jacket, selling drugs from a silver Honda Accord in the 5500 block of Ready Avenue.
The caller did not leave a name or callback information.
Knowing the 5500 block of Ready Ave. to be a “high drug, crime area,” an officer pulled up to the silver Accord and parked directly in front of it. Meanwhile, another officer pulled directly behind the Accord and “effectively blocked the Honda from being moved.”
As one of the officers approached, he observed Maurice Mack wearing a gray jacket along with another male. Both appeared to be dipping their shoulders down to the lower part of the seat. Concerned that they might be stowing or retrieving a weapon, the officer ordered both men from the car and conducted a frisk.
Located sticking out from Mack’s underwear was a bag containing suspected CDS. In the vehicle was located a handgun.
Prior to trial, Mack challenged the seizure and subsequent search, but this was denied and he was convicted after a statement of facts was read to the court.
Mack then appealed, arguing that he was illegally stopped as soon as the officers parked him in and that the anonymous tip wasn’t enough to stop him at that point.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop when they boxed in the parked car.
Police Encounters – There are three different types of police encounters:
– Voluntary (“Accosting”). No suspicion required.
– Investigative Stop (“Terry Stop”). Requires reasonable suspicion.
– Arrest. Requires probable cause.
Seizure – A stop (“seizure”) has occurred where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or otherwise ignore the officer’s request
Car Stops – There is no legal difference between “physically stopping a vehicle that is in motion and immobilizing a vehicle that already is parked.” Both are considered seizures requiring reasonable suspicion.
From the Case: “Due to the blocking of his car, [Mack] was not free to leave and terminate the encounter.” Therefore, police “seized” him when they blocked his car from moving.
Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion (RAS) – RAS is the objective evidence that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a crime has just occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur.
RAS – RAS depends on what the officer knows and the “degree of reliability” of that information
Anonymous Tips – An anonymous tip is treated as less reliable than information provided by a citizen. The identity of the tipster is unknown, so they can’t be held accountable if they lie and their reliability can’t easily be gauged.
Anonymous Tips – Without more, an anonymous tip stating only that an individual has drugs or is armed with a gun is NOT enough to stop a suspect.
Example from the Supreme Court: Not enough RAS for a stop where an anonymous caller reported that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. No recording of the call was made. Nothing more was known about the caller (including how he knew about the crime). No characteristics of an armed person were observed by police.
Anonymous Tips – However, if an anonymous tip shows that it IS reliable, either by explaining HOW the tipster knows the information or by predicting future behavior, it adds to the reliability of the suspicion.
Anonymous Tips – An anonymous tip might also be considered more reliable if the informant “places his anonymity at risk”
Example from the Supreme Court: An anonymous call gave reasonable suspicion where it was a 911 call stating that a silver Ford pickup truck with a given license plate had run her off the road and was last seen five minutes earlier heading southbound on a particular road.
Difference between the Supreme Court cases: Probably the most important difference is that the 911 caller with the hit and run explained that she was an eyewitness to a crime (explaining how she knew about it). Added to that, an officer observed the vehicle traveling along the trajectory explained by the caller (confirmed information based on path of travel, not just a parked car). Finally, the 911 call could be traced back and takes away some of the anonymity. The Court explained that the 911 call could “be recorded, which provides victims with an opportunity to identify the false tipster’s voice and subject him to prosecution,” and that “they permit law enforcement to verify important information about the caller,” including the caller’s phone number and geographic location.
911 Calls – One factor that can add to RAS is that “a reasonable officer could conclude that a false tipster would think twice before using” a 911 system that records his phone number, geographic location, and voice/contents of the call.
From the Case: “It would behoove the State, when relying on an anonymous 911 tip, to produce the recording (or explain its absence) and give the suppression court the ability to listen to the conversation – all the information supplied by the caller and not just what the police dispatcher relayed to the patrol officers – in order to make a more informed judgment regarding its reliability. That was not done here.”
From the Case: “The subjects of the call were found where the caller said they were, but what was lacking was any way of concluding that the caller knew they were or would be selling drugs at that location, and there was no corroboration of that prior to immobilizing the car. The seizure therefore was not based on a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of appellant.” Therefore, the evidence should have been suppressed.