Murray v. State

³⁷⁷ Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this prosecution for a violation of the narcotic drugs statute, the questions on appeal relate to the legality of the arrest of the defendant (Joseph Murray) and the immediate search of his person for narcotics, the exclusion of medical testimony concerning the incurability of narcotics addiction, and the legality of the punishment of the defendant as a third offender. In the evening of July 4, 1963, an officer of the narcotics squad of Baltimore City received information from an informer (Ronald McCloud) that the defendant was engaged in the sale of heroin in the vicinity of Riggs Avenue and Calhoun and Winchester Streets. The officer to whom the information was given had known the defendant for ten years and knew that he was a prior narcotics violator.

From time to time other persons had also given information to the narcotics squad concerning the activities of the defendant, the last of such information having been received six months previously. Several hours after the information was received from the informer, three narcotics officers proceeded to the area designated by him. There they observed the defendant walking along Calhoun Street. He fled when he saw the officers, but was apprehended after a short pursuit.

An immediate search of his person disclosed four glassine bags of heroin. The officers believed the informer to be a reliable person because on another occasion three years before he had supplied information concerning a narcotics violator which proved to be accurate. He had not given the police any other information in the meantime because he had been in prison. When he was called as a witness at the trial, the informer denied having given the police any information concerning the defendant.

The officers, however, in seeking out the defendant, stated that they were relying on the other knowledge they had as well as on the information supplied by the informer. (i) The defendant, asserting that his arrest was without probable cause, contends that the coincidental search of his person and seizure of the heroin were unlawful. The claim is that ³⁷⁸ there was a lack of probable cause because the police officers could not reasonably have considered the statements of the informer to be trustworthy. He relies on the fact that the informer denied having given any information concerning the defendant and had supplied information on only one other occasion three years before as tending to prove the unreliability of the informer and therefore a lack of probable cause for the arrest.

The defendant, citing Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963) , both of which decided questions concerning probable cause for arrest and a coincidental search and seizure on information supplied by an informer, argues that the search and seizure in this case were not lawful within Draper and were illegal within Wong Sun . The contentions are without merit. Whether the search and seizure were lawful depends, of course, on whether or not the arresting officers had reasonable grounds or probable cause “to believe at the time of the arrest that a felony had been committed and that the person arrested had committed the offense.” Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413, 421 , 158 A. 2d 80 (1960), and cases cited therein. See also Edwardsen v. State, 231 Md. 332 , 190 A. 2d 84 (1963).

Recently, in Young v. State, 234 Md. 125, 129 , 198 A. 2d 91 (1964) , we had occasion to reiterate that reasonable grounds or probable cause “exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer, or of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious man believing that a felony had been committed.” In Draper , where the information received from a reliable informer (who had given reliable information on prior occasions) proved to be accurate as to the description of the narcotics offender, his whereabouts and his possession of heroin, it was held that probable cause for arrest existed. In Wong Sun , where the information relied on was from an untested source and merely invited the officers to roam along a street in search of a laundry where a narcotics offender was said to be present and where the officers, upon finding the laundry, made no attempt to ascertain if the person who answered the door and who ³⁷⁹ was subsequently arrested was the person referred to by the informer, it was held that there was a lack of probable cause. In the case at bar, we think the totality of the facts and circumstances to the effect that the defendant was known to the police as a narcotics violator; that