Gamble v. State

GILBERT, Chief Judge. If this case were being reported by True Detective or some other crime journal, it would probably be titled: “Gamble’s Gamble.” It is a tale about a police officer who forgot on which side of the law he was supposed to be. Officer Oscar James Gamble yielded to the temptation of “pocketing” $10,000 discovered in a “drug bust” and ended up in the dock. The Facts On the parking lot of a Prince George’s County motel, Gamble arrested three individuals suspected of illegally transporting narcotics.

One of the arrestees, Thompson, ¹¹⁵ led Gamble to a motel room, where the latter was to obtain a key in order to unlock the trunk of Thompson’s car so that it could be searched. Upon entering the motel room Gamble observed other persons there, and he noticed drug paraphernalia present. The occupants of the room were arrested. A search conducted by Gamble, his partner, Officer Sanders, and Sgt.

Harris, who had responded to Gamble’s radio request for assistance, uncovered weapons, drugs, and cash. Harris then instructed Gamble to return to the station house to obtain a van for the purpose of transporting the several arrestees. After Gamble set out on his assigned task, Thompson told Harris that Gamble had taken $10,000 in cash from the motel room. Harris then ordered Gamble to return to the motel area where he was asked to display the evidence he had removed from the motel room.

Gamble displayed a gun and some cash totaling between $300 and $400. Harris repeated to Gamble the accusation Thompson had made. Gamble emphatically and graphically, by the use of a bovine expletive, denied having taken the money. Harris then directed Gamble to return to headquarters.

As soon as Gamble departed from the motel area, Officer Sanders informed Harris that Gamble had failed to show Harris the gym bag that Sanders had loaned to Gamble that day. Harris, upon receiving that information, followed Gamble to the station house. There he observed Gamble take two bags inside. When Gamble came out of the building, he went to his police cruiser.

Although Harris could not see exactly what Gamble was doing at the automobile, the CB antenna on the police vehicle was observed moving up and down. From that particular motion Harris inferred that someone opened and closed the trunk of the car. Harris immediately reported his observations to two of his superiors, Sgt. Elliot and Lt.

Evans. Elliot then confronted Gamble with the theft accusation and asked if Gamble would mind opening the trunk of the cruiser. Gam ¹¹⁶ ble replied, “No,” and opened the trunk. In the trunk Elliot found two bags; one contained $10,000.00.

Gamble was promptly placed under arrest. He was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial (Rea, J.) in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of misconduct in office and one count of theft of property valued in excess of $300. Two concurrent one year sentences, both of which were suspended, were imposed on Gamble, and he was placed on three years of probation. The Issues Gamble advances a twain of issues as to why he believes the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed.

He asserts: I. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his police cruiser.

II

The evidence presented was insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction of theft. I. The Search Gamble contends that the evidence used against him at trial, namely the $10,000 found in the gym bag in the trunk of his cruiser, was inadmissible because it was the fruit of an illegal search. We, however, have an entirely different view. The police needed no warrant to search Gamble’s cruiser since it was police property, and no warrant is required to search one’s own property.

See generally O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 , 107 S.Ct. 1492 , 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987). The policy that allowed officers to use cruisers for personal purposes clearly made the vehicles subject to police inspection, at any time, without the user’s permission. Nevertheless, Gamble still possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in the closed, zippered gym bag. That privacy expectation was waived, however, when ¹¹⁷ Gamble consented to the search of the trunk of the automobile.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,