GEORGE SPELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Graeff, November 28, 2018,
Possession – A suspect could be convicted of CDS possession where he had a key to the stash location, the CDS in the stash matched CDS recovered off of his person, and he was less than a block away from the stash.
Facts:
In 2017, BPD Officers Anthony Casabona and Norman Jones were in the 1500 block of E. Madison St. in the Eastern District when they observed George Spell sitting in a car parked in the block with the engine running.
Knowing from a previous CDS arrest that Spell didn’t have a driver’s license, they engaged with him and he confirmed that he did not have a driver’s license, but was just “chilling.”
The officers asked Spell if he had anything illegal, and Spell gave “full consent” to search.
Located in Spell’s front pocket were 10 vials of suspected cocaine. 9 of the vials had yellow tops and 1 had a white top.
Spell was then handcuffed and his vehicle searched. Located in the car was a utility-room key similar to one that he had on him during his last CDS arrest.
The officers then received information from a CI that Spell had a handgun and was using the same “stash” location as his last arrest (the utility rooms in the apartment buildings in the block).
The key opened several utility rooms in the apartment complex. Located in one of them was a handgun, gel-caps of heroin, and 30 vials with yellow-tops containing suspected cocaine.
Spell was charged with the handgun and CDS.
Spell was convicted and appealed, arguing that the stop and search were illegal and that there was insufficient proof connecting him to the drugs and gun found in the utility closet.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that the stop and search were legal and that there was enough evidence linking him to the items in the closet.
Traffic Arrest – Police may make a warrantless arrest, even where the crime is committed outside of his/her presence, for driving or attempting to drive without a license.
From the Case: “The police had probable cause to believe that Spell was driving without a license. The police had reason to believe from a prior encounter in February 2017 that Spell may not have had a license on June 15, 2017, which Spell confirmed to be a fact. When Officer Jones asked: “what are you doing driving that car. You know you don’t have a license,” Spell stated: “I know, but I ain’t doing nothing but chilling man.” And there is no question that Spell’s actions, sitting in the vehicle with the engine running, constituted driving. Under these circumstances, the circuit court properly found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Spell.”
Search Incident to Arrest – After an individual is placed under arrest, police may search the person of the suspect and the area within the suspect’s IMMEDIATE control (where they are, not where they were).
Search Incident to Arrest – A search incident to arrest must be “essentially contemporaneous” with the arrest.
From the Case: “Here, the body camera footage shows that appellant was arrested within seconds of the search. Accordingly, the circuit court properly concluded that the search of appellant’s person was a valid search incident to arrest.”
Practice Note: To avoid issues in court, it is better to conduct the formal arrest first and then search incident to arrest. Remember that an arrest just involves taking the suspect into custody; it doesn’t mean that the suspect must be sent to CBIF. Where otherwise allowed, you can arrest a suspect and then decide to release with a citation or warning, as the situation requires.
Possession – Possession can be either actual (physical control over an item) or constructive (has “some restraining or direct influence” over the item). For charging purposes, the form of possession doesn’t matter.
Constructive Possession – In deciding whether a suspect has constructive possession, courts will consider:
– How close was the suspect to the item?
– Did the suspect have access to it?
– Was the item in plain view?
– Was there evidence that the suspect was sharing use of the item?
– Did the suspect own/control the location where the item was found?
From the Case: “We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Spell possessed the contraband in the utility room. Spell was found across the street from the building in which a utility room containing drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm, much of it in plain view, was located. Spell had a key to the utility room, and he had yellow-topped vials of cocaine that were consistent with those
found in the utility room. The jury reasonably could infer that the yellow-topped vials on Spell’s person came from the utility room and that appellant exercised dominion and control over the contraband in that room.” The Court also noted that Spell being across the street made him close enough to the “stash” for the jury to weigh his proximity against him.