Shuman v. State

GILBERT, Chief Judge. “A search is not to be made legal by what it turns up. In law it is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success.” 1 Át a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Vaya Condios Shuman was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. For the reasons hereinafter expressed, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court because Shuman’s motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted. ³²¹ The Facts Shuman and his apparently estranged girlfriend, Rhonda Fowlkes, were in Shuman’s apartment when an argument erupted between the two. During the course of the fracas, Fowlkes called the Baltimore City Police, informing them that Shuman had threatened her.

Shortly thereafter, officers arrived at the scene. The first to arrive at Shuman’s apartment was Officer Michael Cichowicz. Noticing that the door to Shuman’s apartment was ajar and hearing what he believed to be a heated domestic dispute, Cichowicz entered the apartment without knocking or announcing himself. Rhonda immediately told the officer that Shuman had threatened her with a revolver, and that Shuman had gone into the bedroom to put the gun in a guitar case.

Before Cichowicz could reach the bedroom, Shuman emerged from that room and entered the living room. Shuman and Cichowicz disagree as to what happened after Shuman entered the living room, but irrespective of which version is believed, Shuman’s freedom of movement in and about his apartment was restrained by other newly arriving officers. 2 Once Shuman was detained, Cichowicz went into the bedroom, searching for the guitar case. He located the case on top of a bed but was unable to open it because it was locked. Cichowicz confronted Shuman and requested the keys to the case.

Shuman complied with Cichowicz’s request for the keys and handed them to the officer. Cichowicz re-entered the bedroom, opened the locked case, removed a guitar from the case, and observed a closed compartment within the case. Upon opening the compartment, Cichowicz ³²² found $216.00 in cash and a quantity of cocaine. 3 Shuman was then arrested. Prior to trial, Shuman moved to suppress the cash and cocaine seized from the guitar case.

The State maintained that the search and seizure was proper under the Fourth Amendment because the search took place under exigent circumstances, thereby negating the need for a warrant. Agreeing with the State, the trial judge denied the motion to suppress, and Shuman was then tried before the court and convicted. This appeal ensued. The Law Shuman maintains that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress the drugs found inside the locked guitar case.

It is well established in this country that a person has a high expectation of privacy in his or her home. Absent probable cause to arrest for a felony and exigent circumstances, “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 , 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1380 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Requiring the State or federal government, as the case may be, to have probable cause to arrest for a felony protects the individual from arbitrary or malicious action and imposes a limitation upon invasion of the home, except in cases of serious crimes. See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750, n. 12 , 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2098, n. 12 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984).

There are, however, circumstances where a search of a house is reasonable absent a search warrant or probable cause. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. -, -, 109 S.Ct. 1402 , -, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 , 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3167 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340-41 , 105 S.Ct. 733, 742 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985); ³²³ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Those circumstances require a balancing of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990); see also Skinner, 489 U.S. at -, 109 S.Ct. at -; United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 588 , 103 S.Ct. 2573, 2579 , 77 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 , 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).

In the case sub judice, Shuman was not under arrest at the time of the search, nor did he, as the trial court correctly concluded, consent to the search of the guitar case. Furthermore, the record is absolutely devoid of any evidence whatsoever