Maryland case law › Burch v. State

Burch v. State

98 Md. App. 646 (1994) · Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special AppealsDisposition: AffirmedWilner, Chief Judge✓ Good law
HoldingBurch was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after the Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied her motion to suppress cocaine found in an unlocked safe in her apartment.

WILNER, Chief Judge. Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, for which she was sentenced to three years in prison. Her sole complaint in this appeal is that the court erred in denying her motion to suppress certain evidence taken from an unlocked safe found in her apartment. We shall affirm.

On December 7, 1992, police officers Sewell and Burton presented an application for a search warrant to Judge James T. Smith. Based on information supplied by two informants and on a controlled buy, they averred that there was probable cause to believe that there were items subject to seizure in Apartment F at 1644 Old Eastern Avenue. Among the items they claimed were located in the apartment and were subject to seizure were cocaine, documents relating to the distribution of illicit drugs, United States currency, documents reflecting names, addresses, and telephone numbers of suppliers and customers, financial records and documents evidencing the concealment and expenditure of money, photographs of co-conspirators, assets, and controlled substances, paraphernalia, firearms, and indications of occupancy. Initially, the application had a peculiar provision stating: “Further, to search all locked and unlocked containers, all locked and unlocked suitcases and any other container capable of concealing any type of Controlled Dangerous Substance, which are in violation of, or evidence of the violation of, the Laws of Maryland pertaining to Controlled Dangerous Substances.... ” That same language also appeared in the warrant submitted to Judge Smith.

Before signing the warrant, Judge Smith struck that language from both the application and the war 648 rant. The warrant did, however, authorize the search of the apartment for all of the property specified in the application and, if such property was found, the seizure of it. Officer Cordwell participated in the execution of the warrant. As he entered the apartment, he saw appellant in a bedroom at the end of a hall appearing to hide something under some clothes.

Cordwell proceeded directly to the bedroom, secured appellant, and observed a towel with a white substance

This is a preview of Burch v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.