Edwards v. State

ALPERT, Judge. Maryland District Rule 728 a requires that “[a] defendant who is detained pursuant to an arrest shall be taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay and in no event later than 24 hours after arrest.” In determining an appropriate sanction for violation of this rule, after thoughtful consideration of several alternatives, the Court of Appeals held that the rule was mandatory and adopted a per se exclusionary rule as to statements obtained in derogation of the rule. Wade Iglehart Johnson v. State, 282 Md. 314 , 384 A.2d 709 (1978). 1 The Court joined those jurisdictions that theorized that “the exclusionary rule is perhaps the most effective and practical means of curbing lawless police con ⁵²⁰ duct when it impinges upon fundamental legal and constitutional rights of a criminal defendant.” Id. at 326 , 384 A.2d 709 . Appellant asks us to proceed infinitely further by ordering the dismissal of an indictment as punishment for non-conformity with the rule.

Logic and law preclude us from reaching such a result. Appellant, Richard Roosevelt Edwards, while serving a 25-year sentence at the Patuxent Institute, was charged with assault with intent to murder and related offenses 2 by a five count indictment filed in the Circuit Court for Howard County. It is undisputed that although a statement of charges was served on the appellant, he was never taken before a commissioner pursuant to Maryland District Rule 723 a. Appellant moved to dismiss on the ground that he was denied his rights under Maryland District Rule 723.

The prosecutor, conceding that had a statement been taken it would be subject to suppression, argued against dismissal as a sanction. The trial judge (Fischer, J.) agreed and denied the motion. Appellant was tried by the court, convicted of battery and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment consecutive to the sentence then being served. Having noted a timely appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.

Noting that Maryland District Rule 723 a is mandatory and that the Court of Appeals had adopted a per se exclusionary rule for violators, Johnson, supra, appellant argues that “the sanction of the exclusionary rule becomes meaningless where, as here, no evidence is obtained as a result of the violation of the rulé.” As a first line of defense, the State maintains that appellant was not “detained pursuant to an arrest” because he was already detained pursuant to a conviction and therefore as the rule was not applicable, it could not be violated. Citing Johnson, supra, and Md.Code ⁵²¹ Cts. & Jud.Proc.Ann. § 10-912, supra at n. 1, appellee alternatively contends that dismissal has never been the sanction for violation of the rule. As originally drafted, Maryland District Rule 723 was similar to Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The purpose of both the State and Federal rules “is to insure that an accused will be promptly afforded the full panoply of safeguards provided at the initial appearance.” Johnson, supra at 321 , 384 A.2d 709 .

Maryland had fashioned a per se exclusionary rule similar to that enunciated by the Supreme Court in implementing Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957); McNabb v. United