State v. Chuckie Donaldson

MEREDITH, J. In this appeal, the State, appellant, challenges the ruling of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County suppressing evidence discovered during a traffic stop of Chuckie Donaldson, appellee. The State concedes that the officer who performed the search lacked probable cause to search appellee, but argues that, because appellee was on parole at the time of the search, appellee had a diminished expectation of privacy, and there ¹³⁶ fore, the search was lawful despite the lack of probable cause. Appellee asserts that, because the officer was unaware that appellee was on parole when the officer performed the search, appellee’s status as a parolee did not justify the warrantless search. QUESTION PRESENTED The State filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, § 12-302(c), and presents a single question for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: Did the circuit court err in granting appellee’s motion to suppress? 1 Because appellee’s parole status was not known to the police officer at the time of the search, we conclude that the search cannot be justified as a parolee search, and we affirm the circuit court’s grant of the motion to suppress. 2 BACKGROUND On the evening of August 27, 2012, Detective Edward Wisniewski of the Baltimore County Police Department was conducting surveillance of the Beltway Motel in Baltimore County when he observed an unidentified, disheveled man pacing back and forth outside the motel.

After watching the man for several minutes, the detective saw a Buick driven by appellee pull into the parking lot. The detective observed the unidentified man enter the passenger side of the Buick and then exit a minute later. The disheveled man then entered the side entrance of the motel, and the Buick drove away. Based on Detective Wisniewski’s training and experience, ¹³⁷ Detective Wisniewski believed that he had just observed a drug transaction.

He followed the Buick out of the parking lot and requested that a marked police vehicle conduct a traffic stop. After appellee’s vehicle had been pulled over for failure to use a turn signal, Detective Wisniewski ordered appellee out of the vehicle. The officer searched appellee and found a single blue pill in a pants pocket. Although the detective did not know what the pill was at the time he discovered it, the pill was later identified as oxycodone, a painkiller for which appellee had a prescription.

Because the detective suspected the blue pill was an illegal substance, however, he arrested appellee and searched appellee’s vehicle. Inside the vehicle, police found a small plastic bag containing eleven gel capsules filled with brown powder, as well as a cell phone that belonged to appellee. After the phone rang several times, the officer flipped open the phone, and observed a text message from a contact named “Steve” that stated “7 for $60,” which the officer interpreted as an apparent reference to a drug transaction. Appellee was charged with multiple drug offenses, including possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (based on the eleven gel capsules found in the car).

Appellee subsequently moved to suppress the drugs found on his person and in his car, as well as the incriminating text message found on his phone. At the suppression hearing, Detective Wisniewski testified that the area of the motel was a common place for drug activity. He stated that, when appellee’s vehicle was being pulled over, the detective observed appellee “jockeying around” suspiciously in the driver’s seat. The detective also testified that, after the police stopped appellee’s vehicle for allegedly making a turn without using a turn signal, appellee consented to a search of his person and his car.

Detective Wisniewski testified that he observed a suspicious blue pill in an open pocket of appellee’s cargo pants prior to conducting the consensual searches of appellee’s person and vehicle. Appellee testified, however, that he never consented to a search. The circuit court found appellee’s ¹³⁸ testimony on this issue more credible, and determined that he had not consented to a search. The circuit court also rejected the State’s contention that the small blue pill in appellee’s pants pocket had been found in plain view by peering into a pocket.

The State presented evidence at the suppression hearing indicating that appellee was on parole at the time of the search, but the State conceded that the officer performing the search was not aware of that fact prior to the search and arrest. In addition to the plain view and consent arguments proffered by the State to justify the search and arrest, the State argued that, because appellee was on parole, he had a reduced expectation of privacy. As a result, the State argued, the search was lawful because Detective Wisniewski needed only a reasonable and articulable suspicion that appellee was engaged in criminal activity in order to conduct a search of a parolee. Appellee responded that, because the officers searching appellee were unaware that he was on parole, the search could not be justified on that basis.

The circuit court agreed with appellee and suppressed the evidence, stating: “I don’t see how [appellee’s parole status] plays into this case on the facts that we have.” On June 13, 2014, the State filed a timely notice of an interlocutory appeal, and the record was transmitted on September 15, 2014. STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing the grant of a motion to suppress, we extend “great deference” to the factual findings and credibility determinations of the circuit court, and review those findings only for clear error. Brown v. State, 397 Md. 89, 98 , 916 A.2d 245 (2007). Further, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed on the motion.

Holt v. State, 435 Md. 443, 457 , 78 A.3d 415 (2013). We review the circuit court’s legal conclusions de novo and “exercise our independent judgment as to whether an officer’s encounter with a criminal defendant was lawful.” Brown, 397 Md. at 98 , 916 A.2d 245 . See also Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 401 , 813 A.2d 231 (2002) (“In determining whether a constitutional ¹³⁹ right has been violated, we make an independent, de novo, constitutional appraisal by applying the law to the facts presented in a particular case.”). DISCUSSION The State asserts that the circuit court erred in two respects: first, by concluding that appellee’s parole status was not relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis; and second, by concluding that Detective Wisniewski did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that appellee was engaged in illegal drug activity.

The State does not contest the circuit court’s factual finding that Detective Wisniewski did not observe the blue pill in plain view, nor does the State argue that the court erred in finding that appellee did not consent to a search. The State also does not challenge the circuit court’s conclusion that Detective Wisniewski lacked probable cause to search appellee and his car; the State conceded at oral argument that it is not suggesting we should find that there was probable cause for the search. The State’s principal argument is that a person on parole lacks a sufficient expectation of privacy to assert a claim that the police have violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting a warrantless search without probable cause. The State observes in its brief: “[A] person on parole or probation has an ‘austerely diminished’ privacy interest as compared with ordinary citizens.” (Citing Feaster v. State, 206 Md.App. 202, 217 , 47 A.3d 1051 (2011)).

The State points out that we held in Feaster that searches of parolees are permissible even if the searching officer lacks probable cause to conduct a search. Feaster, 206 Md.App. at 219 , 47 A.3d 1051 (holding that searches of parolees are lawful when officer has “a reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime will be found”). Accord United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) (holding that a warrantless search of a probationer’s home is lawful when supported by “reasonable suspicion” that the probationer is engaged in criminal activity). See also Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 , 126 S.Ct. 2193 , 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006) (if the parolee has agreed to ¹⁴⁰ suspicionless searches as a condition of parole, the Fourth Amendment “does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee”).

Based on these authorities, the State asserts: “Because Donaldson was a parolee at the time of the incident, his reasonable expectations of privacy were diminished, and reasonable suspicion was all the detective needed to search Donaldson’s person and vehicle.” The State focuses upon our discussion in Feaster as dispositive of appellee’s claim that he was subjected to an unreasonable warrantless search. In Feaster, 206 Md.App. at 217-24 , 47 A.3d 1051 , we explained that the Supreme Court had applied a balancing test in Knights and Samson to conclude that a police officer may search a parolee if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the parolee is engaged in criminal activity. Because there was no issue regarding the officer’s knowledge that the suspect was on parole in those cases, the discussion of the balancing test in those cases gave no weight to the officer’s knowledge. The State asserts, therefore, that the officer’s knowledge of the appellee’s parole status is “irrelevant,” and the State’s interest in regulating parolees outweighs appellee’s privacy interest regardless of the detective’s awareness that he was a parolee.

A similar argument regarding a probationer’s diminished expectation of privacy was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Hill, 776 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.2015). The court indicated in Hill that, despite the probationer’s diminished expectation of privacy, the government’s interest in supervision did not excuse compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. 776 F.3d at 248 , citing United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787, 790 (4th Cir.1978). Consequently, the court held in Hill that “law enforcement officers generally may not search the home of an individual on supervised release who is not subject to a warrantless search condition unless they have a warrant supported by probable cause.” Id. at 349 (footnote omitted). ¹⁴¹ None of the cases cited by the State addressed a search that was conducted at a time when the police officer had no knowledge that the suspect was on parole. Consequently, even though Feaster, Knights, and Samson all address the quantum of suspicion necessary to conduct a lawful search of a known parolee, those cases do not hold that an otherwise unconstitutional search is authorized and beyond challenge on a motion to suppress if the police discover after the arrest that the suspect was on parole.

It appears that no appellate opinion in Maryland