Webster v. State

Per Curiam. A search warrant was issued by an associate judge of the Municipal Court of Baltimore City on the grounds of probable cause that the narcotics laws were being violated. The warrant commanded the police officer who swore to the application for it, with the necessary and proper assistants, to enter and search “1516 Pennsylvania Ave. 1st floor (Pool Room),” to search the person and clothing of the “named or described persons mentioned in the attached affidavit” and all other persons who may be participating in said criminal activities, and “to arrest all persons including the previously named or described who are mentioned in the attached affidavit who may be participating in said criminal activities.” The persons mentioned in the affidavit were “alias ‘Candy’ ” and McKinley Richardson. It was stated in the affidavit that the premises were “used, rented, kept or occupied” by them.

The person mentioned as “alias ‘Candy’ ” was described as acting “as a floorman or manager of the poolroom,” and the affiant stated that he had seen the individual known as “alias ‘Candy’ ” on the premises. He was not otherwise described. Under authority of the warrant, the affiant entered the premises with the necessary and proper assistants; the appellant was found therein; one of the assistants searched him in the affiant’s presence; a number of gelatin capsules each containing a white powder, “which was at the time, based on (the affiant’s knowledge) suspected of being a narcotic and, in particular, heroin” were found on his person; and he was arrested. On analysis by a United States Customs Chemist the white powder proved to be heroin.

The appellant was found guilty at a court trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of possession of heroin and sentenced to two years. ¹⁶⁵ On appeal the appellant does not claim that the affidavit was not sufficient to show probable cause. And he did not claim below, nor does he so claim on appeal, that he was not known as “Candy”. 1 He contends, however, that the person mentioned in the affidavit as “Candy” was not sufficiently described therein and in that respect the warrant was a general warrant. The thrust of his argument is that if the warrant did not properly authorize the search of “Candy”, then the search of him was unreasonable for there was nothing to