LABRIA PAIGE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Wright, Nov. 30, 2015,
Miranda – Mere presence of police officer on scene is not the equivalent of being in police custody for Miranda purposes

(ed note – Always disappointed when Moylan’s on a panel but doesn’t write for the court, though this was a fairly straightforward opinion.)

Statements – A confession may be admitted against an accused only if it was:
– voluntary under Maryland non-constitutional law
– voluntary under the 14th amendment and MD Declaration of Rights
– and in conformance with Miranda
(ed note- interesting that, while Miranda is a prophylactic measure to protect the 5th and (to a degree) 6th Amendments, neither are mentioned themselves)

Miranda – The central question is whether or not an individual licensed by the government is licensed to act as a police officer. Contrast Pratt v. State, 9 Md. App. 220 (1970)(special police have police powers, count as state actors) with Waters v. State, 320 Md. 52 (1990)(armed security guards do not have police powers, do not count as state actors)

Lay Opinion – Video Footage – Security officer that operated cameras on date in question could testify as to contents and opinions based thereon

Lay Opinion – A lay witness may testify to opinion or inferences which are:
– rationally based on their perception
– Personal knowledge
– “[T]he experience necessary to comprehend his perceptions.”
– and a rational connection between the perception and the opinion
– helpful to a clear understanding of their testimony or determination of a fact in issue

Lay Opinion – Video narration – Where testimony is based on personal knowledge, explained facts on the video, is based on experience, there is a rational connection between the facts and opinion, and is helpful to the fact finder, not abuse of discretion to allow
(ed note – this will become increasingly relevant as body cameras become the norm for criminal trials)