Rollins v. State

Per Curiam. Clarence Rollins, Jr., the appellant, was convicted of violation of the narcotics laws and of being a subsequent offender under an addendum thereto. Both charges were tried together by agreement between the parties. The trial was conducted by Judge Anselm Sodaro presiding without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore.

The sentence imposed was a term of fifteen years. There was evidence from which the trial judge could have found: ⁴⁹⁷ On November 9, 1966, a Federal Narcotics Agent, Vincent Lozowicki, met an unnamed informant who advised him that Rollins was going to make a delivery of approximately 60' capsules of heroin at Ramsey and Barre Streets in Baltimore City at approximately 10:00 p.m. the same night. The informant was known to the officer and for five years had been furnishing him with information which led to the arrest and conviction of about thirty narcotics offenders. The officer also knew Rollins had been a prior offender on at least two occasions.

As a result of this information Rollins’ home was placed under surveillance by federal and city officers. About 9:40 p.m. Rollins came out of the house in the company of another man, and both entered a 1967 green and black Thunderbird. Rollins, the driver, was identified by one of the officers.

The officers conducting the surveillance followed in their vehicle while other officers with whom they were in radio con^ tact, also proceeded to the area of Ramsey and Barre Streets. When Rollins’ automobile reached the intersection of Ramsey and Barre Streets, it turned from Ramsey Street partially into Barre Street and stopped at the curb with most of the car resting in the bed of Barre Street. The passenger got out of the car and the car door was still open when the surveillance officers pulled across the path of Rollins’ Thunderbird, and both officers got out. One of the officers held up his badge in his hand and yelled “Police” to Rollins.

The other officers pulled up behind Rollins’ car. One officer observed Rollins toss an aluminum package out of the car. A second officer also observed the package come out of the car at a time when Rollins was the only person therein. The second officer picked up the package which contained 59 white gelatin capsules.

The contents of the capsules were later atialyzed and found to be heroin hydrochloride. Rollins fled the scene in his automobile striking one of the two police vehicles that had converged to block his departure. At his trial Rollins denied that he threw the package from the car and produced a third police officer who said that, although he was present, he did not actually see the package fall to the street, but that he did see the second officer pick it up. The third ⁴⁹⁸ officer was arresting the passenger at the time the package was thrown.

On appeal Rollins contends that there was error in the denial by the trial judge of his pretrial motion for discovery requesting the name of the informant. He relies on Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 , 77 S. Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 wherein the Supreme Court held that where the question is one of guilt or innocence of the accused, and the need of such information is demonstrated, the accused is entitled to know the name of the informer. However, in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300 , 87 S. Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 the Supreme Court distinguished between the need to produce such information as to a question of guilt or innocence, and the need to produce such information where the question involved is probable cause for the arrest. In the present case the informer’s information related only to the probable cause for the arrest and Roviaro v. United States, supra is not on point.

Rollins further contends the arrest was illegal in that it was made without probable cause, and, therefore, that his motion to suppress the heroin should have been granted. Assuming, without deciding, that Rollins was arrested at the time when his car was almost surrounded by police cars, and assuming that his act in throwing the heroin to the street did not constitute an abandonment, we have no problem in holding the arrest was legal. The evidence showed that an