CHRISTOPHER NOBLE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Graeff, July 25, 2018,
Overdose – Evidence obtained after a call for overdose cannot be used against the overdose victim as the basis for a violation of probation, regardless of whether medical assistance is sought by the victim or a bystander on the victim’s behalf
Strongly disagree. It is the legislature’s job to use words to create law. If those words are completely unambiguous, it does not “become ambiguous” just because it’s “not clear why” the legislature did it. Ridiculous outcomes should be avoided, but this was not a ridiculous outcome. Hold the legislature to saying what they mean. Do not bend the law to “fix” what you see as a problem. Relatively innocuous outcome here, but that’s not always the case…
Facts:
Christopher Noble was placed on probation for PWID in 2014.
On April 29, 2016, Noble’s girlfriend called 911 to report that Noble was unresponsive and possible in cardiac arrest. Paramedics responded to the scene and found Noble in the bathroom suffering from an opiate overdose. After paramedics administered Naloxone, he regained consciousness. Noble admitted to police that he had taken several Percocet, for which he did not have a prescription.
The Division of Parole and Probation (DPP) filed for a violation of probation on the basis of Noble’s illegal drug possession and use, among other issues.
Noble claimed immunity on the basis of Maryland’s Good Samaritan law, which acts to protect “a person who seeks, provides, or assists with the provision of medical assistance… for a violation of a condition of pretrial release, probation, or parole if the evidence of the violation was obtained solely as a result of the person seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of medical assistance.”
The VOP Court held that since Noble’s girlfriend sought assistance, not Noble, that he was not protected. Noble was found in violation of probation and sentenced to 18-months of incarceration.
Noble appealed, arguing that he should have been immune from a violation of probation.
Held: The Court held that, with regard to violation of probation, Maryland’s Good Samaritan Law applies to overdose victims as well as those who call on their behalf.
Good Samaritan Law – Maryland law provides “limited immunity from legal consequences to encourage people to seek medical assistance for persons experiencing an overdose”
From the Case: The Good Samaritan Law “provides immunity only for certain crimes, i.e., possession of controlled dangerous substances and drug paraphernalia and certain crimes relating to underage possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The statute would not, however, give immunity for evidence of other crimes, including drug distribution or violent crimes.” The sponsor of the bill noted that “the bill was not to be viewed as a ‘get-out-of-jail free card’ or as encouraging drug or alcohol abuse, but as way of ensuring overdose victims are brought to safety without the person seeking help fearing the consequences of arrest or criminal prosecution.”
Good Samaritan Law – This limited immunity applies ONLY to arrest or prosecution for:
– CDS Possession
– CDS Paraphernalia
– Controlled Paraphernalia
– Underage alcohol possession
– Obtaining alcohol for underage
– Allowing underage alcohol consumption
– Violation of Parole/Probation/Release
Good Samaritan Law – A person is immune from arrest or prosecution for the above-listed crimes only if a person:
– in good faith
– seeks, provides, or assists with the provision of medical assistance (or receives assistance)
– for a person reasonably believed to be experiencing a medical emergency after ingesting or using alcohol or drugs
– AND the evidence for the criminal arrest, charge, or prosecution was obtained SOLELY as a result of the person’s seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of medical assistance
From the Case: “Here, evidence of drug use was obtained solely as a result of appellant’s girlfriend calling 911, and therefore, appellant was entitled to immunity”