Wade v. Warden

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief, the petitioner makes eight contentions, several of which are substantially the same. Judge Prendergast considered six of them, in addition to one not in the written petition but presumably raised at the hearing, but did not deal explicitly with the allegations of illegal arrest and illegal search and seizure. In the lower court the petitioner did not produce any facts to substantiate either of these latter contentions.

If it be assumed that petitioner’s allegation of illegal arrest is true, the fact that his arrest was illegal would of itself afford him no ground for post conviction relief. Ogle v. Warden, 236 Md. 425 ; Jackson v. Warden, 235 Md. 689 ; Duff v. Warden, 234 Md. 646 . However, the findings of fact by Judge Prendergast reveal that the contention was not true. The petitioner was apprehended in Chicago ten days after the commission of the crime when agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested him on a warrant charging unlawful flight from prosecution.

While the mere fact that an arrest was illegal affords no grounds for post conviction relief, an illegal arrest plus the use of evidence obtained through the arrest may afford such grounds. Shefton v.