Faulkner v. State

ADKINS, Judge. Appellant Antoine Clay Faulkner shot and killed Quincy Powers. Faulkner claims that he “had to” because Powers was about to shoot him. In a bench trial, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County convicted Faulkner of first degree murder and committing a felony with a handgun.

Faulkner now ⁶²¹ challenges the legality of his arrest, the admissibility of his confession, and the court’s rejection of his imperfect self-defense claim. Faulkner asks us to decide what type of warrant police may use when they plan to make a home arrest in non-exigent circumstances. Specifically, he asserts that, when police enter a felony suspect’s residence to execute a search warrant that does not authorize a search or seizure of the suspect himself, they may not immediately arrest the suspect, without having either an arrest warrant or exigent circumstances. We shall not reach that issue, because any illegality in Faulkner’s arrest did not require exclusion of the confession that Faulkner later gave at the police station.

Finding no error in the admission of that confession or the trial court’s refusal to credit Faulkner’s self-defense claim, we shall affirm the convictions. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Homicide And Investigation At 11:40 a.m. on December 20, 2001, Baltimore County police received calls about “shots fired” in the vicinity of a “First Stop” convenience store. When they responded, they found Quincy Powers lying dead in the street located down the hill from the First Stop. He had been shot four times—twice in the left side of his back, once in his left thigh, and once through his right shoulder, passing into his heart. 1 ⁶²² Near Powers’ body, police found one .380 caliber Remington shell casing.

Police also found four of the same shell casings in the parking lot of the First Stop, near the pay phones outside the store entrance. As part of their investigation, police took the names and addresses of people who were at the scene. One was Faulkner, who had gone home to change his clothes and hide his gun, then returned to the First Stop. Police also interviewed witnesses in the immediate area of the shooting.

Steven Douglas Larkin lived in an apartment across the street from the First Stop. His window looked out onto Radecke Avenue, where Powers was found. He told police that he heard four or five shots. He then looked out his window and saw two African American males running downhill on a dirt path that led from the First Stop toward Radecke Avenue.

One tripped over his shorts or pants, falling forward in the middle of the street. When the second one caught up, the first was in a sitting position. The second man shot the victim in the back with a silver handgun that he held in his left hand. Although both men were facing toward Larkin, he could not identify either the shooter or the victim by face because he was not wearing his glasses at the time and the shooter’s hood was over his head.

But he described the shooter’s attire as “all in black,” with a “distinctive” black fleece hooded jacket marked by a silver stripe across the back. The shooter then ran back up the hill and to the left. Elizabeth Truesdale lived in the direction that Larkin saw the shooter run, across the street from the First Stop, on the side of the store opposite Larkin. She did not see any of the shots fired, but she and her son Barry Harris did hear three or four shots in rapid succession.

She reported that, 30 to 40 seconds later, she “heard one more” shot. She went to her third floor apartment window and saw a tall black male, dressed in jeans and a black hooded velour jacket with pin stripes along the zipper, running from the First Stop past her ⁶²³ home, holding the bottom of his jacket or waistband, at his left hip area, with his left hand. Two days after the shooting, police learned from Truesdale’s son that a “young” friend had talked to him about the homicide. The friend told Harris that “Chew” had stopped by his home around the time of the shooting.

Chew asked Harris’s friend to retrieve his greenish colored lighter because he had dropped it in the First Stop parking lot. The friend told Harris that he found an orange lighter, but not a green one. Harris initially refused to identify the friend, but eventually told police that his name was “Jayrock” and showed them 5635 Utrecht Road as his address. Most importantly, Harris also identified Chew as “Antoine.” He told police that Chew had been stopped by some police in front of the Woodhill Apartments, near the scene on the day of the shooting.

He also pointed out 5665 Utrecht Road as Chew’s home. Police then reviewed their records, which showed that Antoine Faulkner had been stopped near the Woodhill Apartments and asked to wait there while police ran a check on him and completed a field investigation report card, which listed Faulkner’s name, address, description, and clothing. They also returned to the First Stop parking lot and found pieces of a “yellowish green lighter,” which had been run over or stepped on, near the pay phones where shell casings had been found on the day of the homicide. It lay beside another .380 Remington shell casing.

Police then identified and interviewed “Jayrock.” They concluded that he had no information and discovered that he was incarcerated at the time of the shooting. Having met 16 year old Maurice Jackson in the company of Barry Harris when she went to interview him, however, Detective Amy Prime investigated whether Jackson might be the “young friend” whom Harris described. On December 26, Prime took Jackson to police headquarters for questioning. Jackson admitted that he had talked to Harris about the homicide and identified a booking photo of Faulkner as ⁶²⁴ “Chew.” Jackson lived at his girlfriend’s house at 5635 Utrecht Road, down the street from Chew.

Jackson told police that he had seen Chew coming around the corner of the townhouse block where both lived, from the direction of the First Stop. Chew came to Jackson’s door around the time of the shooting. He was out of breath and speaking more quickly than usual. Chew asked Jackson to go to First Stop and get his green lighter.

Jackson went to the store. He picked up an orange lighter, which he later disposed of. He then noticed others looking down the hill. When he went over to see what was happening, he saw Powers’ body.

Police were just starting to respond. Jackson concluded that Chew either “did it” or- was involved. He told Harris about the visit and the lighter while both were still at the scene, and again after they had returned to Harris and Truesdale’s home. Later that day, Jackson encountered Chew in passing and told him that the lighter was “gone.” On Christmas Eve, Jackson again saw Chew.

Chew told Jackson that he shot Powers, but claimed that he had no other choice because Powers kept walking toward him with his hands in his pockets, saying “what’s up” in a threatening way. Harris admitted “that he had lied about Jayrock and that Maurice Jackson was the person that told him that information.” Based on this information, on December 27, the police began surveillance of the townhouse identified by Harris and public records as the Faulkner residence. Police observed Antoine Faulkner enter, leave sometime later, walk to a nearby stream with a friend, and then return home. On the afternoon of December 27, they applied for a search warrant for the Faulkner residence.

Warrant The warrant affiants were Baltimore County Homicide Detective Amy Prime and Officer Ron Taylor. They sought a search warrant, but not an arrest warrant. ⁶²⁵ In the affidavit supporting the application, Prime averred that, having “attended schools on search and seizure law, interview and interrogation and homicide investigation,” she was “well aware of laws pertaining to search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment.” As probable cause to search Faulkner’s residence for weapons, ammunition, shell casings, bloodstained clothing, and clothing matching the description of the shooter, the affiants stated: Investigation into Mr. Powers’ death revealed a witness who will testify that a black male he knows as “Chew” came to his residence on 12/20/01 and asked him to retrieve a green lighter that he had dropped at the First Stop, which is located at the crime scene.... The witness responded to the First Stop, and saw that someone had been shot. The witness saw “Chew” again on 12/23/01 or 12/24/01 at which time “Chew” told him that he had shot the boy at the First Stop.

The witness identified a photograph of Antoine Clay Faulkner as “Chew”. A check with Baltimore County police records indicate!/!] Deborah Yvonne Torain as the mother of Antoine Clay Faulkner. A check with a local utility company revealed 5665 Utrecht Road .... as Ms. Torain’s address as of 7/6/01. Detectives requested Baltimore County Career Criminal Units to conduct surveillance on this address on 12/27/01.

Detectives observed Antoine Clay Faulkner enter this residence through the rear door location and know that he is currently still inside of this address. The requested warrant was issued at 4:23 p.m. Arrest And Search At 5:40 p.m., Detective Prime and seven other officers arrived at Faulkner’s residence to execute the warrant. Deborah Torain, Faulkner’s mother, answered the door.

Prime advised her that they had a warrant to search the house and asked her who was on the premises. She replied that her mother and Antoine Faulkner were in the residence. Prime “asked that they come and sit in the living room.” ⁶²⁶ Faulkner’s mother said that her son had been in the basement just before the police knocked, and “that he had gone up the stairs and said that the police were here and to tell [them] that he was not home.” Detective Gary Childs, Prime’s partner, went up the stairs to get Faulkner and his grandmother. When Faulkner arrived downstairs, he was placed under arrest.

At 5:45 p.m., he was taken outside and transported to police headquarters. Prime then proceeded with the authorized search, which lasted for an hour and twenty minutes. During the search, Faulkner’s mother told Prime that she knew Powers because he had lived at their house for a short while. The search yielded, inter alia, a pair of black sport pants with a stripe, which police later determined were designed to match a black hooded velour jacket fitting the eyewitness descriptions of the jacket worn by the killer.

Confession When Prime and Childs returned to police headquarters, they met with Faulkner in the homicide department’s interview room, beginning at 7:51 p.m. Faulkner had been provided water and an opportunity to use the bathroom. His left hand was handcuffed to a bar attached to the wall, but the cuff was removed when the officers entered the room. They completed a Miranda rights form and a basic information sheet at 7:56 p.m.

Faulkner read aloud each written statement about his rights, writing yes and initialing each one in red ink as he completed it, to indicate that he understood. In that process, Prime noted that Faulkner was left-handed. At the end, Faulkner agreed to be interviewed; he signed a written statement to that effect at 8:01 p.m. Prime asked Faulkner how he knew Quincy Powers.

Faulkner said that he knew him only from going to school with him, but denied that he had ever lived at his house. The detectives told Faulkner that he was contradicting what his mother had told them. Faulkner replied that she “was a liar ⁶²⁷ and that she wasn’t accurate with that.” Childs called Torain, who confirmed that Powers had lived with the Faulkners. The detectives then invited Faulkner to call his mother to talk about what she had told them.

At 9:08 p.m., Childs dialed the number and Faulkner spoke with his mother. He returned to the interview room at 9:20. Faulkner also denied any involvement in the shooting. He told the detectives that he had come to the First Stop that day to buy cigarettes, but the police were already there.

The detectives then told him about the eyewitness description of the killing. They also encouraged him to tell what happened so that his own family and Powers’ family would know. Faulkner continued to answer questions and talk with the detectives, though Prime felt he was “standoffish.” By 11:35 p.m., they concluded that Faulkner “was only going to tell us certain things. He kept making the comment over and over, just do what you got to do.

He also made a comment hypothetically, if I did do this, the only person I would have to answer to would be God.” At that time, Faulkner was taken to the basement processing center. Prime began to prepare first degree murder charging documents, “so that [they] could take him for his bail hearing.” During processing, Faulkner asked Childs whether he could get the death penalty for this crime. Childs told him that “this was not a death penalty case” and mentioned a recent homicide at a local Burger King as an example of a case that would be a death penalty eligible case. Faulkner returned with Childs from processing after a half hour, at 12:01 a.m. on December 28.

Faulkner was seated on a sofa outside of Prime’s office, while Prime continued to type up the charging documents. Faulkner and Childs talked about “how young kids mess up their lives, and [Faulkner] was asking questions about the Burger King Homicide,” in which four young men had been arrested. Faulkner asked to see photographs from that crime scene, and Childs showed him some. ⁶²⁸ Sometime during the processing and wait for completion of the charging documents, Faulkner also asked Officer Nelson whether he could get a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Nelson responded that was a possible sentence for first degree murder.

As Prime got up to go into the hallway with the now completed charging documents, Officer Taylor told her that she “might want to try to speak with Antoine again because he was fidgety, acting a little funny.” She approached Faulkner, who was standing up against the wall “ready to leave to go for his bail hearing.” She gave him her business card, saying, “if you would ever like to talk to me, if you get over to the jail and you change your mind and you want to talk, you can talk to me and here is my phone number.” Faulkner replied, “I want to talk to you now.” The time was approximately 12:25 a.m. Faulkner was returned to the interview room and uncuffed. He admitted shooting Powers, but said that Powers “had approached him, that he had his hand in his pocket and he kept saying, what’s up, what’s up, and he had no choice but to shoot him.” Faulkner also told the detectives, however, that, “when Quincy Powers ran, he chased after him and shot him again.” When Prime “asked why he wanted to tell us this now instead of before, ... he said that basically he wanted to tell the truth of what happened and give his side of the story.” He agreed to tape the confession, and did so, beginning at 1:19 a.m. On the tape, Faulkner read aloud each of his Miranda rights and stated that he understood them.

He said that he was sober, both now and on the day of the shooting. He explained that he wanted to talk with Detectives Prime and Childs in order to recount “[w]hy I had to defend myself’ and “[t]o tell people the truth.” He also admitted that Powers had lived at his home “two years ago.” Faulkner described what happened the day of the shooting. I went to the store to get some loose cigarettes. I got the cigarettes and as I was coming out the store I seen Quincy ⁶²⁹ Powers and he he had his hand in his pocket and he was like ... well he was like ... what’s up, what’s up, what’s up . .. real loud.

I told him nothing was up and you know, he started walking toward me, and he was smoking a cigarette and he asked me for a light, so I started to back up. So, as he kept walking toward me I stopped backing up, start firing. Then he he ran down the hill I followed after him. When he fell in the street I fired one more shot and ran....

I knocked at Maurice door and.... 1 asked him to go get the lighter for me cause I had dropped it ... up at the store, he said yeah I’ll go get the lighter. Because Powers was approaching him with his hands in his pockets, saying “what’s up” loudly, and asking for a light even though he already had a lit cigarette, Faulkner thought that “[h]e was getting ready to shoot me.” But he saw no gun, either before or after he fired. Faulkner recalled that he was wearing a “black hoodie and blue jeans and some black boots.” He went home and changed his clothes, then “went back up to the crime scene.” A police officer “took [his] information” at that time. Earlier on the day of his arrest, Faulkner had seen a police helicopter, which he believed was following him.

That prompted Faulkner to get rid of the gun, by taking it “down the creek” and throwing “it in the water[.]” By then, he already had “put my hoodie in a bag and put it in the trash.” When asked if there was “anything else at all that you would like to say right now[,]” Faulkner replied, “If I could take that day back I just would have ran from him. I’d a played ... I’d a played softy. I’d a ran.” He added, “I’m not a killer.

I was just trying to protect myself.” The statement concluded at 1:36 a.m. Prime then added information about Faulkner’s confession to the charging documents and reprinted them. Faulkner was taken to the district court commissioner for his initial appearance. ⁶³⁰ Motion To Suppress Before trial, Faulkner moved to suppress the evidence taken in the search of his home as well as his post-arrest statements to police. During the two-day hearing on the motion, Faulkner’s public defender offered four arguments in support of the motion: • First, the warrant affidavit was so lacking in factual detail that the warrant should not have been issued.

Specifically, the affidavit included inadequate information regarding Jackson’s identity; his relationship to Faulkner; the circumstances surrounding Jackson’s conversations with Faulkner; Jackson’s credibility, both generally and with respect to his story about the green lighter and Faulkner’s confession; and the circumstances in which Jackson gave police the inculpatory information. Notably, it had no information suggesting that police had corroborated Jackson’s account. • Second, the experienced police officers who applied for and executed the warrant could not possibly have had a good faith belief that it provided an adequate basis for a finding of probable cause, given the “bare bones” nature of the information regarding Jackson’s reliability and the source of his information. • Third, the home arrest was made without an arrest warrant or a valid search warrant. • Finally, Faulkner’s confession was “a product of ... Miranda and voluntariness violations!.]” The court first ruled on the validity of the search warrant and the good faith exception. My main concern in the warrant is the term witness and how that plays out____I don’t know what to make of it.

I believe that it should be further set out as to whether the witness is a confidential informant or a concerned citizen or in accordance with [United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116 (4th Cir.1996)]. For that reason I’m going to find that the warrant is insufficient. ⁶³¹ So, the next step is whether or not [United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)] and [McDonald v. State, 347 Md. 452 , 701 A.2d 675 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1151 , 118 S.Ct. 1173 , 140 L.Ed.2d 182 (1998) ] is sufficient.... [T]here is an argument by defense counsel that the detectives set out their expertise and, therefore, because they should know better, that, in effect, is bad faith. I think that means that somebody who has knowledge and a title could never make a mistake, and that if they make a mistake, then anything they do after that is in bad faith. And I really don’t think that’s what the case law says.

I think that the Court has to look beyond the fact of their expertise.... [W]hen you first look at the warrant and you don’t consider technicalities, at least my first view of the warrant was that it had probable cause. It indicates that ... the Defendant came to his residence and asked him to get a green lighter that he dropped at First Stop. He went to First Stop and saw someone was shot, and then the Defendant told him that he had shot that boy at the First Stop. And then, of course, the Defendant was identified as that individual.

I think that is probable cause.... So, I don’t think that the warrant is so lacking in probable cause that it establishes bad faith.... Therefore, based on U.S. v. Leon and the criteria set out in that case and McDonald v. State and the criteria set out in that case, I believe that the officers made a technical error, but that there is probable cause in the warrant and that they acted in good faith, that the criteria has been established to show that they acted in good faith and the warrant is saved by the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The parties then addressed the legality of Faulkner’s arrest and the admissibility of Faulkner’s confession.

The State called Detective Prime, who testified on direct about the investigation and Jackson’s statement. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Prime why she did not get an arrest ⁶³² warrant or name Faulkner “as a person to be seized or searched.” Prime explained why she did not include Faulkner’s arrest or Jackson’s name in the warrant application: [Detective Prime]: ... [T]he reason that we didn’t have [a name in the application] ... is because we didn’t need it because it’s a felony. If we would have put his name in the warrant at the time and he was not at the location, we felt as if Maurice Jackson may be in trouble or may be in jeopardy because we hadn’t recovered any handgun used in the offense as of yet. And if by chance the Career Criminal people were wrong and [Faulkner] was not inside of that location, because it was getting dark outside, and if he would have slipped out somehow without their knowledge, then he would have had access to possibly a handgun and also a copy of the search warrant that we left at the house.

If we would have put Maurice Jackson’s name in, he could have been in jeopardy.... [Defense Counsel]: I asked you if Antoine Faulkner was named in the warrant to be searched or seized, not Maurice Jackson. I didn’t ask you— A: No, he was not, and that’s why I’m trying to explain to you. That’s why; that’s why I’m trying to explain to you he was not, that’s why. Q: So, you’re telling the Court that your search and seizure is for the house in which he lives about a homicide, but you don’t need to name the person that you plan to arrest the minute you hit the door?

A: We don’t do that on a regular basis. I mean, we can do that. I’m not saying it hasn’t been done before, but no, we did not do that in this particular instance. (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel argued that “the arrest is illegal even with a felony” because “[y]ou cannot arrest someone in their home absent a warrant unless there is exigency or it’s hot pursuit, and that’s not the case here.” But, she conceded, such a ⁶³³ warrantless arrest would not necessarily render Faulkner’s post-arrest confession “inadmissible in and of itself,” because “the issue then becomes whether or not there is probable cause for the arrest.” There was no probable cause, counsel argued, because “we’ve got a kid saying two things without any reason why we should believe him,” which was the same weakness that tainted the search warrant.

The State countered that, given the court’s ruling that the search warrant was “valid based upon good faith[,]” the police were “legitimately inside the residence” and therefore needed only “probable cause to arrest” Faulkner. That was provided by Jackson’s statement to police, which created “a reasonable basis” for the police “to believe that a crime ha[d] been committed and that the Defendant committed it.” The court ruled that it was not going to get into an argument over the warrant admitting into the house or the arrest warrant because ultimately both parties agree that if there is probable cause that that ends it, and I’m going to find that there is probable cause. My thoughts on listening to [Detective Prime’s] testimony was why wasn’t half of that in the warrant, and then 1 would never have had any problem with the warrant at all. And the reason why I think there is probable cause is, one, they have the identification of an African American male running from the scene.

That leads them to Ms. Truesdale which then leads them to Harris, who although admittedly gave them false information about who told him about Chew, but that led them to Jackson.... So, there is a link here, and they discovered as a result of their conversations with ... Harris the lighter. Now, you know, it’s green, yellow green.

I mean, this is probable cause. This is not reasonable doubt. Then they talk to Jackson who says he went up there and found a yellow lighter which confirms what Harris told him. ⁶³⁴ They had found this yellowish greenish lighter. He was looking for a greenish lighter....

And then he told them that Chew admitted to the shooting; he had to do it. That Chew is the one who sent him up for the lighter. We found the lighter, and they showed him a photo of Faulkner because Faulkner was stopped out in front of this area where everybody lives by the police and that was verified. So, that’s how they got the photo____That would have been nice to be in the warrant.

But for probable cause here, I know all that now. And it’s a nice neat connection, piece by piece puzzle that leads to Faulkner. There are some issues, obviously, and reasonable doubt about how long the lighter might have been there, if it was planted, it was broken, no fingerprints, whether Jackson is telling the truth, but at this point for probable cause, I think the police had a reasonable right to rely upon that evidence and that clearly to me is sufficient probable cause for arrest. So, the arrest is not an illegal arrest.

The last suppression issue concerned the voluntariness of Faulkner’s post-arrest confession. Detective Prime testified about the Miranda warnings and waivers. The court found that there had been no coercion, no improper promises, and no inaccurate statements regarding possible penalties. Listing the recognized factors bearing on voluntariness of a confession, the court concluded that Faulkner “knowingly, intelligently waived and understood” his rights, and that “the confession was freely and voluntarily given[.]” Trial A bench trial was held over three days.

Faulkner asserted an “imperfect” self-defense claim, seeking to prove that he had the actual, if unreasonable, belief that Powers was an imminent threat and that lethal force was necessary under the circumstances. ⁶³⁵ Faulkner described Powers as his former “best friend,” and as close as a “brother[.]” Before October 2000, Powers had been staying in the Faulkner home with Faulkner, his parents, grandmother, and niece, “[b]ecause he had nowhere [else] to stay” after his father kicked him out for using and selling drugs. Eventually, Faulkner became afraid of Powers. He knew that Powers had a .38 automatic handgun. Faulkner asked his mother to tell Powers that both of them had to leave the house, apparently hoping to avoid Powers blaming him.

In October, Faulkner’s mother asked Powers to leave. Powers became angry at Faulkner. Powers began calling Faulkner to tell him that he was watching him. On one occasion, he told Powers to stand at his back door, then described over the phone what Powers was wearing, even though Faulkner could not see him.

On another occasion, Faulkner turned Powers away at the door, telling him that his mother allowed only one friend at a time and someone else was already there. Powers cursed and spat at the door. After that, Powers moved out of the area, and Faulkner’s family moved to another home. Although Faulkner did not see Powers, he heard that Powers had cut someone with a razor during a fight, and that he had shot at people.

Faulkner got a gun because he felt “[f]rightened” that Powers “was going to hurt [him] or [his] family.” On direct examination, Faulkner testified that what he told police on the tape was true. When he made his usual morning visit to the First Stop for loose cigarettes, he had his gun “[f]or protection.” [Faulkner]: I left my house. I went to the First Stop Convenience Store. I got the cigarettes, and as I was coming, Quincy Powers he was on the phone, and our eyes locked and he dropped the phone and he went around the corner and I followed. [Defense Counsel]: I’m sorry, you what?

A: I followed; I was going home. ⁶³⁶ Q: You followed him or you went around the corner? A: I went around the corner. I had to go around the corner to go home. I got around the corner and he was coming back towards me.

And he was like, what’s up. He was saying what’s up, what’s up real loudly. Q: Can you say what’s up the way he did it to you? A: What’s up, what’s up.

Q: How many times did he say it? A: Four or five times. Q: What did you do when he said what’s up, what’s up? A: I told him there was nothing up and I started backing up.

Q: Why did you start backing up? A: Because he was getting ready to try and kill me. Q: Why did you think that? A: Because he was saying what’s up.

Q: What does what’s up mean to you? A: He was getting ready to do something. Q: Have you ever heard anyone else say what’s up .... [i]n that tone? A: Yes.

Q: What happened when the other people said it in that tone? A: They started fighting.... Q: So, when someone says what’s up, what’s up, ... what did you think that meant at that time? A: He wanted to do something to me.

Q: So you started backing up? A: Yes. Q: And then what happened? A: He had a cigarette in his right hand, and he switched hands with the cigarette and he put his right hand into his coat pocket like this.

And I immediately did the same thing. I took my gun off safety, and he started to walk ⁶³⁷ towards me faster, and I pulled it out and started firing. I closed my eyes and when I opened my eyes he was running. Q: Do you remember if he said anything else to you when he was walking towards you with his hand in his pocket with the cigarette?

A: He asked me for a light. Q: What did you think when he asked you for a light. A: He was trying to get close. Q: Why did you think that; why didn’t you think he wanted a light?

A: Because he already had a light; his cigarette was already lit. Q: So, you took your gun out? A: Yes, I pulled out my gun before he pulled out his gun. It was him or me.

I didn’t want to do it, but I had no choice. It was him or me. Q: Then what happened? A: I pulled out the gun and I closed my eyes and when I opened my eyes he was running....

I didn’t think I hit him, so I started chasing him. He ran, I ran, and he stumbled and his right hand went back toward his coat pocket because he took his hand out when he started running. As he stumbled, ho put his right hand back into his coat pocket and I fired again.... Q: Did he get all the way back up?

A: No.... He was on one knee. Q: Where were his hands; could you see them? A: Yeah, 1 remember seeing—he helped himself up and his right hand had moved back toward the pocket and T fired again....

Q: Why did you fire again at that point? A: Because he was getting ready to grab his gun. Q: Did you see a gun that day? A: No. Q: But you thought he had one? ⁶³⁸ A: Yeah, he had one.

Q: Why do you say he had one? A: Because when you’re approaching somebody and you’re saying what’s up, what’s up like that, and you put your hand inside your coat pocket, that’s indicating that you’re going to come at me with something. That’s what that means. I didn’t want to.

I should have ... started to run. I started to run. Q: Is what you told Detective Childs true? A: Yes.

On cross-examination, Faulkner conceded that when he saw Powers on the phone, he could have run away. Although he initially backed up when Powers approached him, he stopped backing up before he fired the first shots. Faulkner opened his eyes after shooting twice, and saw Powers running away from him. He shot at Powers’ back as he was running away, at least once more.

Faulkner then chased after Powers because, given that Powers was wearing two pair of pants, two sweatshirts, and a jacket, he did not know if he hit him. With his gun drawn, Faulkner chased Powers the length of the building, down the hill on the dirt path, and into the street-a distance of approximately 85 yards. Powers’ pants fell down and he fell onto his knees in the street. Powers was getting up as Faulkner reached him.

Faulkner pointed the gun at Powers and pulled the trigger. Faulkner admitted that he never saw a gun or other weapon. Although he claimed that he did not shoot Powers while he was turned away, he could not explain the medical examiner’s determination that neither of Powers’ frontal wounds was an entrance wound. The trial court found Faulkner guilty of first degree murder.

It rejected his imperfect self-defense claim, finding that Faulkner “became the aggressor even if he at one point was in fear.” Faulkner “pursued [Powers] because he didn’t think he was shooting him” with his first shots. He became the aggressor when he chased Powers, then shot Powers in the ⁶³⁹ back while he was trying to get back up. As for Faulkner’s concern that Powers “was pulling a gun at that point,” the court observed that, “if he had not ... pursued him, that point never would have occurred.” Moreover, “by pursuing to shoot him again,” for “85 yards or thereabouts down a hill,” and shooting “a man down in the street,” Faulkner “used ... grossly excessive force and more force than would be reasonable to defend himself.” Finally, the court found, Faulkner wanted to make sure “to shoot him, which leads you to premeditation.” DISCUSSION Faulkner raises two issues for our consideration: I. Did the “technically defective” search warranty erroneously found ... to be “saved by the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule[,]” become the artifice for an illegal arrest of [Faulkner] within his home and taint the custodial interrogation which, in turn, led to an inadmissible recorded statement being coaxed from [Faulkner]?

II

In the non-jury trial below, did [the trial court] erroneously reject [Faulkner’s] imperfect self-defense and erroneously convict [Faulkner] of first degree murder and commission of a felony with a handgun? We answer both questions no. I. The Confession Faulkner contends that his arrest and confession were tainted by the invalid search warrant because the police applied it in an improper manner to circumvent the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In his view, the Fourth Amendment prevents police from using a search warrant as an “artifice” to make a warrantless home arrest of a suspect without exigent circumstances, and the circuit court erred in admitting his confession, which was ⁶⁴⁰ the “poisoned fruit” of the invalid warrant and the illegal arrest.

We need not decide whether Faulkner’s arrest was illegal in order to resolve this appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we shall hold that, even if the arrest here was illegal due to the inadequacy of the particular search warrant that police used, Faulkner’s confession was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In addition, we shall reject Faulkner’s probable cause and voluntariness challenges. Standard Of Review In considering the circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we are limited to the record of the suppression hearing.

See State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486 (2003). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, the State. See id. We accept the suppression court’s first-level factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and give due regard to the court’s opportunity to assess the