Giles v. State

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A valid search warrant properly executed, may produce evidence sufficient to convict a person accused of crime. A defective and invalid search warrant produces confusion, waste and injustice, to an accused or to society, or to both. The Declaration of Rights of Maryland provides in Article 26: “That all warrants, without oath or affirmation, ⁵⁹⁵ to search suspected places, or to seize any person or property, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend suspected persons, without naming or describing the place, or the person in special, are illegal, and ought not to be granted.” and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” See Asner v. State, 193 Md. 68, 75 , and Salmon v. State, 2 Md. App. 513.

Implementation is found in Code, Art. 27, § 551. Upon proper sworn application and affidavit a “* * * judge or justice of the peace may forthwith issue a search warrant directed to any duly constituted policeman, constable or police officer authorizing him to search such suspected individual, building, apartment, premises, place or thing, and to seize any property found liable to seizure under the criminal laws of this State, provided that any such search warrant shall name or describe, with reasonable particularity, the individual, building, apartment, premise, place or thing to be searched, * * As the Court of Appeals said in Dow v. State, 207 Md. 80 , page 83: “What is decisive in every case is the identity of that which is to be searched. If it is a building, ⁵⁹⁶ it:must, of course, be described with such particularity that it can be identified as to location and extent.” Saunders v. State, 199 Md. 568 , and Ferguson v. State, 236 Md. 148 , illustrate the indispensible requirement that the description of the premises to be searched enable the officer with the warrant to locate the place with certainty. Lacking such description of the premises a search warrant is general and therefore illegal, and can yield1 no legal fruits.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 , made it clear that the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy is enforceable agaipst the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by the sanction of exclusion. Evelyn E., Giles appeals from her conviction in a court trial and. sentences in the Criminal Court of Baltimore under two counts of an indictment charging maintenance of a common nuisance under Code Art. 27 § 291. She was arrested in a house at 409 East 21% Street in Baltimore shortly after Officer Melvin Diggs and other members of the Baltimore City Police Department entered the premises about 11:30 P.M. on October 24, 1969, armed with a search warrant issued that day by a judge of the Municipal Court. Narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia were found and-seized during the search and were offered and received in evidence over objection at the trial.

Prior to the beginning of the trial on the merits on February 5, 1970, defense counsel filed a Motion to Suppress' and Exclude Evidence. He attacked the search warrant, asserting that the affidavit lacked sufficient information to amount to probable cause, that the affidavit did not sufficiently describe the informant to establish his reliability, and “for other good reasons to be shown.” A separate hearing on the motion was held before trial. Evidence w;as taken, and the reasons stated in the motion were fully argued. No other good reasons were shown.

In that pretrial hearing the search warrant, the application and the affidavit were put in evidence. At one point the trial judge asked, “Is the address on that warrant?”, ⁵⁹⁷ and defense counsel replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” After arguments, the trial judge indicated that the affidavits were sufficient, asked if there was anything else, and counsel stood on the unreliability of the informant. At the trial which followed, the State offered “just the face of the warrant without all the other information.” It was received in evidence over objection, for the limited purpose of proving the search of the premises. When the fruits of that search, two bags of heroin and some hypodermic syringes and needles were offered, they were received over objection based on “strictly the legality of the search and seizure of the warrant.” Appellant here asserts for the first time that the search warrant is bad on its face because it did not describe or identify the premises to be searched.

Officer Diggs made a sworn application (Police Department Form 67/188) praying that “a Search and Seizure Warrant be issued for said (f) Negro female known as Sis, 40 years of age, 5'4" in height, 120 in weight. Premises 409 E. 2V/2 St. a two story brick dwelling,” and