Waugh v. State

P®r Curiam. The Appellant, Warren Eoulton Waugh, was convicted of violating the narcotics laws by Judge J. Harold Grady, sitting without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and sentenced to two years in the Maryland House of Correction. The record indicates that on January 17, 1967, members of the Baltimore City Police Department’s Narcotics Squad, armed with a search and seizure warrant, proceeded to 1905 Harlem Avenue. They broke open the door and entered the premises without prior announcement, believing, according to the testimony, that by doing so they would prevent the possible destruction of evidence.

At the time of their entry the Appellant was lying on a couch and attempted to run away as they entered. He was thereupon stopped by one of the officers and shown the warrant. A search of the premises was conducted and the officers recovered a plastic vial containing six glassine bags of white powder and six white tablets, all of which were found under a cushion of the sofa on which the Appellant had been lying. Similar glassine bags containing a residue of white powder were found on the mantle of the fireplace.

The Appellant was then placed under arrest and advised of his rights. The record indicates that nothing was seized from the Appellant’s person but fresh needle marks were observed on his arms. The Appellant testified in his own behalf and, while admitting that he was a user of narcotics, denied that he had attempted to run and likewise denied knowing that narcotics were under the cushion on which he was sleeping. The Appellant first contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the unannounced breaking and entering into the premises.

We disagree. In Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518 , the Court of Appeals had before it a nearly identical factual situation. There Judge Hammond (presently Chief Judge) reviewed the history of the gen ³⁸² eral rule proscribing unannounced searches of dwellings and then clearly and succinctly delineated the exceptions as follows (pp. 522-523) : “However, the rule often has been made subject to qualifications and exceptions even in states with statutes, so that by judicial decision announcement and demand are not a requisite where the facts make it evident the officers’ purpose is known or where they would frustrate the arrest, increase the peril of the arresting officer or permit the destruction of