Lucich v. State

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants were indicted and convicted by a jury on criminal informations charging them with maintaining a disorderly house and maintaining a bawdy house in Baltimore County. On appeal from the judgments entered they challenge the rulings of the court on motion to quash a search warrant and return property seized thereunder, and on admission of evidence obtained as a result of the search. They also challenge a ruling admitting in evidence certain laundry tickets found by ⁵¹⁴ the police at Lucich’s home, and the ruling of the court denying a motion for new trial.

Lucich is the owner and operator of a tourist cabin inn with 29 cabins, known as Lord Baltimore Tourist Court, located on Pulaski Highway. Brofa was employed as room clerk. The search warrant was issued by Judge Murray upon the sworn statement of Officer Story, who stated that on information received he went to the premises and rented a cabin under another name on May 31,1949, where he remained from 8:50 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. of the next morning. His detailed statement may be summarized as follows: During the period of observation, he saw nine different automobiles, each bearing Maryland license tags, and each containing a man and a woman, drive in.

Each couple was shown to one of the six adjoining cabins, where they remained for an hour or two and then departed. Three of the cabins were thus occupied twice in succession during the period. In at least two of the cabins he saw an attendant change the bed linen after the cabin was vacated. Section 306, Article 27 of the Code “authorizing the issuance of a search warrant provides that the probable cause must be determined by the judge who issues it.

Wood v. State, 185 Md. 280, 286 , 44 A. 2d 859 . As this court pointed out in Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1 , at page 10, 11 A. 2d 635 , what acts constitute probable cause seem incapable of definition. It is less than certainty or proof, but more than suspicion or possibility. The. facts alleged to show probable cause are sufficient if they are such as to warrant a prudent and cautious man in believing that the offense has been committed. * * Smith v. State, 191 Md. 329 , 62 A. 2d 287, 291 , 5 A. L. R. 2d 386.

In Wood v. State, 185 Md. 280, 286 , 44 A. 2d 859, 862 , we held, in a case which on the facts was “near the border”, that statements that patrons “who entered the restaurant during the morning hours * * * did not stay long enough for a meal”, did not show probable cause that a lottery was being conducted on the premises. “For aught that the application shows, restaurants — or ⁵¹⁵ this particular restaurant — may sell soft drinks, tobacco, candy or other things.” But in Bratburd v. State, 193 Md. 352 , 66 A. 2d 792, 795 , we said that the attempted explanation, that the slips detected might have been samples of wall-paper, was “abstractly imaginable and physically