Roundtree v. State

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant was found guilty in a non-jury trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to three years in prison. In this appeal it is contended that the introduction into evidence of the concealed weapon found during a search of appellant at the time of his arrest was improper because the police lacked probable cause to effect appellant’s warrantless arrest, thus rendering the arrest and accompanying search illegal. The State’s only witness was Officer Roger Carroll who testified that as he and his partner were leaving police headquarters in an unmarked car, they received a broadcast over their police radio of a holdup several blocks away in which the- holdup suspect was described as a “colored male, 18 to 20 years, approximately 135 pounds, and approximately 5'8" to 5T0" in height.

He was wearing dark clothing, a dark jacket and white pants and white tennis shoes * * Within a few minutes the officers arrived in the vicinity of the holdup and observed the appellant walk into a clothing store. According to the witness, appellant “was wearing dark green trousers and a brown leather coat and white tennis shoes.” The officers entered the store and found appellant looking at some clothing. They immediately arrested appellant, “frisked him” and found a revolver in his pants pocket. A reading of the transcript of the proceedings below indicates that appellant was 27 years old and his weight was considerably in excess of 135 lbs.

Thus, we have the police looking for a colored male, 18 to 22 years old, wear ⁵³ ing a dark jacket, white pants and white tennis shoes, weighing 135 lbs., arresting a 27 year old colored male, wearing a brown jacket, green pants, white tennis shoes and weighing considerably in excess of 135 lbs. The only similarity between the described suspect and the appellant was his color, his height, 5'8" to 5'10", and his white tennis shoes. The officer, when asked on cross-examination whether he would “now feel that the defendant fits the description that was broadcast on the lookout report?” replied: “No, Sir.” Later the officer qualified his answer by saying appellant did fit the description except “in weight only.” The officer further testified that it was subsequently ascertained that appellant “was not involved in the holdup.” As this Court stated in Cleveland v. State, 8 Md. App. 204 , 218-219: “The general rule is that a warrantless arrest by a police officer is valid where he has probable cause to believe at