Williamson v. State

BATTAGLIA, J. Petitioner, Derek Maurice Williamson, seeks review of the denial of a motion to suppress statements he made after he was detained during the execution of a search warrant at a house that Williamson occupied and just had left. We hold that the court properly denied Williamson’s motion because the police had the authority to return Williamson to the house and detain him while the search was conducted. I. Introduction On November 20, 2001, 1 Baltimore County police detectives obtained a search and seizure warrant for 8016 Wynbrook Road, Baltimore County, Maryland, and the persons of Susan Michelle Hubbard 2 and Derek Maurice Williamson. The application for the warrant and attached affidavit stated that police had “received two anonymous narcotics complaints stating that Susan Hubbard and her boyfriend ‘Derek’ were selling ‘crack’ cocaine at 8016 Wynbrook Rd.

Baltimore, Maryland, 21224;” the affidavit also stated that police had initiated an investigation in which two informants had participated in ⁴⁹² three separate “controlled purchases of cocaine” from Ms. Hubbard between August and November 2001. The search warrant was executed on November 21, 2001, when Detective Timothy Bryant Ward, several other police detectives, and a uniformed officer arrived at 8016 Wynbrook Road and set up surveillance for twenty to thirty minutes. Detective Ward recounted the events which then transpired: [STATE]: And when was it that you actually executed the warrant? What caused you to say now is the time to execute? [DETECTIVE WARD]: The target of our investigation, Derek Williamson, was leaving the address to what we believe was the time he went to work.

We wanted to get him detained before we—before he left the location. [STATE]: And what time of day was this? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Like afternoon, early afternoon. [STATE]: The location 8016 Wynbrook Road, can you describe what kind of residence—is it a residence? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes. It’s a row home. [STATE]: A row home? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, sir. [STATE]: And did he exit the front or the back door? [DETECTIVE WARD]: The front door. [STATE]: And when you indicated—you said you wanted to detain him, how did you effectuate that? [DETECTIVE WARD]: How did we— [STATE]: How*d you do that? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Actually, it was, two of my partners identified themselves with “Police,” told them why we were there and that we were going to handcuff him. The Defendant, Williamson, was just handcuffed for our safety until we made entrance into the location of the home. [STATE]: How far from the front door? ⁴⁹³ [DETECTIVE WARD]: Twenty, 20, 30 feet. No more than 30 feet. [STATE]: You—had he reached his car yet? [DETECTIVE WARD]: If I’m not mistaken, he was just maybe putting the key in to open the door, or the, his hand on the, on the door handle. [STATE]: And how long did this all take from stopping him at the car and leading him to the front door of the house? [DETECTIVE WARD]: He was stopped at the car, and then we made entrance into the location, at which time Susan Hubbard was also detained for safety.

We made our rounds through the house to make sure that it was clear. So it was probably no more than 15 minutes after he was first stopped at the car. [STATE]: And the entry into the house, how was that effected? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Front door was open, the screen door was open. We knocked, identified ourselves as “Police Officer” and entered the location. Detective Ward also testified as to why Williamson was searched inside the house and not at the car and what occurred after entering the house: [STATE]: Okay.

And why wasn’t he searched at his car instead of being brought into the house to be searched? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Why wasn’t he searched at his car? [STATE]: Right. Pursuant to the search warrant. [DETECTIVE WARD]: Cause we hadn’t read the search warrant, [or] Miranda statement ... to the parties that were named in the warrant. [STATE]: And is that your practice, to do that before you actually begin the search? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, sir, it is. [STATE]: [W]hen was the first time the Defendant was Mirandized? ⁴⁹⁴ [DETECTIVE WARD]: Inside the house before we read the search warrant. Or, I’m sorry, after we read the search warrant. [STATE]: And were you present when the search and seizure warrant was read? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, I was. [STATE]: And did they have any questions about that? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Not at that time. [STATE]: Did they appear to you that they understood English? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, it did. [STATE]: Prior to the, or during the course of the execution on the warrant, did you have an opportunity to have any kind of verbal conversation with Mr. Williamson? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, sir, I did. [STATE]: And what was that? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I basically pulled him to the side, and I, and I said to him, you know, why we’re here. We’re not patrol detectives.

The, which time he stated he did. I said, is there any drugs in the home? At which time, if memory serves me correct, he told me that there was a coffee can upstairs in the dresser, in the bedroom. [STATE]: And did you retrieve that coffee can? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes. Yes, sir I did. [STATE]: And did you find narcotics in there? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, sir. [STATE]: Did you subsequently have more contact with him prior to any transportation to the Precinct? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Again, I’m not a hundred percent sure.

Maybe. I know that I had pulled him aside initially, and we had spoken and we may have had a few more previous conversations but, basically, the search went on, and we recovered the rest of what was recovered at the home. ⁴⁹⁵ On cross-examination, Detective Ward iterated that he believed Williamson resided at the house because the police had seen him there several times during their surveillance and because a confidential police informant had told them that Williamson lived there with Hubbard: [COUNSEL FOR WILLIAM SON]: To your knowledge, there was no evidence that Mr. Williamson resided in that house; isn’t that correct? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I wouldn’t say that. [COUNSEL FOR WILLIAM SON]: What evidence did you have that Mr. Williamson resided in that house? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I had seen him leave on several occasions before during surveillance, pre-surveillance of that search warrant, and I had information from my Reliable Informant that he was, indeed, living there with Susan Hubbard. During the search, which took approximately forty minutes, the police discovered three plastic baggies containing cocaine, including the baggie in the coffee can identified by Williamson, three hundred dollars, three straws containing residue, a pen cap containing residue, a clear bag containing a razor with residue, a black digital Tanita scale, and a plastic baggie containing numerous small unused blue plastic baggies. After completing the search, the police escorted Williamson to the North Point Police Station, where further interrogation occurred: [STATE]: Was he transported to the Precinct? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, sir, he was. [STATE]: At the Precinct did you have an opportunity to speak to him again? [DETECTIVE WARD]: Yes, I did. [STATE]: And did you specifically advise him of his rights per Miranda ? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I specifically did, yes, sir. [STATE]: And what questions did you ask him? ⁴⁹⁶ [DETECTIVE WARD]: I asked him, basically, if he lived at that location, and he stated to me that he did live there. [STATE]: Mm-hmm. [DETECTIVE WARD]: I asked him how long that he lived there and, if memory serves me right—minute please—I asked him how long had he lived there and, and in his handwriting he wrote 18 months. [STATE]: And what else did you ask? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I then asked him the bedroom upstairs, the master bedroom, who sleeps there?

To which Mr. Williamson stated in writing, Me and Susan. [STATE]: And what else did you ask? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I then asked Mr. Williamson, the safe in the bedroom closet, who does it belong to? Mr. Williamson stated in writing, “It’s mine.” [STATE]: What else did you ask? [DETECTIVE WARD]: I asked Mr. Williamson, the drugs in the safe, who do they belong to? He again stated in writing, “Me.” I then asked Mr. Williamson who weighs and packages the drugs? Mr. Williamson replied, in his handwriting, “I do.” I then finally asked Mr. Williamson, does Susan Hubbard sell cocaine for you?

To which Mr. Williamson replied in writing, Yes. She sells drugs to help provide for the family, as well as the bills. Williamson was indicted on one count of possession of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, in violation of Article 27, Section 287 of the Maryland Code, 3 one count of possession ⁴⁹⁷ with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, in violation of Article 27, Section 286 of the Maryland Code, 4 and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Article 27, Section 287A of the Maryland Code. 5 Prior to trial, Williamson moved to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia recovered during the execution of the search warrant and the statements he made to police at the scene after he was detained and at the police station. Williamson argued that the application for the search warrant did not establish probable cause for its issuance and that his detention during the search was an illegal arrest because the police actions exceeded the scope of the warrant, so that any of his statements would be inadmissible as the fruits of the illegal detention.

Conversely, the State argued that the warrant did not lack probable cause, and even if probable cause was lacking, the police were acting under a good faith belief that the warrant ⁴⁹⁸ was sufficient. The State also contended that the police officer’s actions did not constitute “a full-fledged arrest,” but merely a temporary stop to search Williamson at the location specified in the warrant and that Williamson’s statements should not be suppressed because they were not the fruits of an illegal detention. Judge Alexander R. Wright, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied Williamson’s motion to suppress his statements as fruits of an illegal detention and determined that the police were entitled to return Williamson to the house and detain him during the search. Williamson subsequently was convicted of possession of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, and possession with an intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 6 Williamson noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, contending that Judge Wright erred in denying his motion to suppress.

Williamson argued that the search warrant was issued without probable cause and even if it were valid, the police were required to search him at the car and release him after the search revealed no drugs or paraphernalia. Williamson also argued that the police could not detain him during the search of the house. 7 In an unreported opinion, the intermediate appellate court affirmed, finding no merit in Williamson’s arguments: ⁴⁹⁹ Appellant’s argument overlooks the fact that the application, which was based in part on three “controlled purchases” at the residence, contained overwhelming probable cause for the search of 8016 Wynbrook Road. There is simply no merit in the argument that [Williamson] “was not in possession of any property described in the search warrant” because the State’s case against [Williamson] involved constructive possession. As to the issue of whether appellant could be returned to the premises, in Cotton v. State, 386 Md. 249, 258-59 , 872 A.2d 87 (2005), the Court of Appeals stated: [I]n executing a search warrant ... for a premises ... where the police are likely to encounter people who may well be dangerous, they are entitled, for their own safety and that of others persons, to take command of the situation and, except for persons who clearly are unconnected with any criminal activity and who clearly present no potential danger, essentially immobilize everyone until, acting with reasonable expedition, they know what they are confronting....

It would be decidedly unreasonable to expect the police simply to give a friendly greeting to the folks there and proceed to search the house without another thought as to who those people are or what they may do. We therefore reject [Williamson’s] argument that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because he was ushered back into the residence. Williamson v. State, No. 826, September Term 2004, slip op. at 5-6 (filed August 17, 2006) (emphasis in original). We granted Williamson’s petition for writ of certiorari, which presented one question which we have rephrased: 8 ⁵⁰⁰ When the police are present at a residence to execute a search warrant, is it reasonable during the search to detain an occupant who just had left the house?

Williamson v. State, 396 Md. 9 , 912 A.2d 646 (2006). We hold that an occupant who just left the house and was twenty to thirty feet away, can be returned and detained by police during the execution of a search warrant.

II

Discussion In reviewing a Circuit Court’s grant or denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, we ordinarily consider only the information contained in the record of the suppression hearing, and not the trial record. Whiting v. State, 389 Md. 334, 345 , 885 A.2d 785, 791 (2005); State v. Nieves, 383 Md. 573, 581 , 861 A.2d 62, 67 (2004); Laney v. State, 379 Md. 522, 533 , 842 A.2d 773, 779 (2004); State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 607 , 826 A.2d 486, 493 (2003); State v. Rucker, 374 Md. 199, 207 , 821 A.2d 439, 443-44 (2003); Carter v. State, 367 Md. 447, 457 , 788 A.2d 646, 651 (2002). Where, as here, the motion is denied, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party on the motion. Whiting, 389 Md. at 345 , 885 A.2d at 791 ; Nieves, 383 Md. at 581 , 861 A.2d at 67 ; Laney, 379 Md. at 533 , 842 A.2d at 779 ; Green, 375 Md. at 607 , 826 A.2d at 493 ; Rucker, 374 Md. at 207 , 821 A.2d at 444 ; Carter, 367 Md. at 457 , 788 A.2d at 651-52 . “Although we extend great deference to the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we review independently the application of the law to those facts to determine if the evidence at issue was obtained in violation of law and, accordingly, should be suppressed.” Whiting, 389 Md. at 345 , 885 A.2d at 791 ; Nieves, 383 Md. at 581-82 , 861 A.2d at 67 ; Laney, 379 Md. at 533-34 , 842 A.2d at 779-80 ; Rucker, 374 Md. at 207 , 821 A.2d at 444 ; Carter, 367 Md. at 457 , 788 A.2d at 651 . ⁵⁰¹ Williamson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements made at the scene and at the police station after he was detained during the execution of the search warrant for the house.

Williamson concedes that the officers had the right to stop and search him pursuant to the search warrant issued for his person but contends that the search warrant for his person is a “red herring” because the police did not search him when he was at the car. Williamson argues that the police were not entitled to take him back into the house and detain him during the search under Cotton v. State, 386 Md. at 249 , 872 A.2d at 87 , because there was no evidence that he resided at the location, and because he was in the process of leaving the house. The State, conversely, argues that the trial court did not err in denying Williamson’s motion to suppress. The State argues that the police had the right to stop Williamson, bring him back inside the house, and detain him while the search of the house was conducted, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 , 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981).

The State contends that the fact that Williamson was leaving the house and was twenty to thirty feet away when the police stopped him at his car does not affect the validity of the detention. The lawfulness of a detention of a person by police is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 9 made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 , 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1772 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89, 95 (1996); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1873 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 898 (1968). The Fourth Amendment, however, is not “a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only against unreason ⁵⁰² able searches and seizures.” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1573 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605, 613 (1985) (emphasis in original).

Therefore, “[t]he touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security’.” Byndloss v. State, 391 Md. 462, 480 , 893 A.2d 1119, 1130 (2006), quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct. at 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 904 . “Generally, any seizure of a person, whether by arrest or detention, must be supported by probable cause.” Stanford v. State, 353 Md. 527, 532 , 727 A.2d 938, 941 (1999), citing Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. at 700 , 101 S.Ct. at 2593 , 69 L.Ed.2d at 348 . In Michigan v. Summers, the Court articulated one basis for the detention of an occupant of a dwelling which is being searched: “a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” 452 U.S. at 705 , 101 S.Ct. at 2595 , 69 L.Ed.2d at 351 . In that case, police, armed with a valid search warrant, stopped Summers as he descended the front porch steps of a house that was going to be searched and took him back into the house, detained him during the search and after discovering narcotics in the. house, arrested and searched him, seizing drugs in his coat pocket. In addressing Summers’s contention that probable cause was lacking for his detention, the Court emphasized the fact that the detention was “only an incremental intrusion of personal liberty,” and that the search warrant provided “an objective justification for the detention”: Of prime importance in assessing the intrusion is the fact that the police had obtained a warrant to search respondent’s house for contraband.

A neutral and detached magistrate had found probable cause to believe that the law was being violated in that house and had authorized a substantial invasion of the privacy of the persons who resided there. The detention of one of the individuals while the premises were searched, although admittedly a significant restraint on his liberty, was surely less intrusive than the search ⁵⁰³ itself. Indeed, we may safely assume that most citizens— unless they intend flight to avoid arrest—would elect to remain in order to observe the search of their possessions. Furthermore, the type of detention imposed here is not likely to be exploited by the officer or unduly prolonged in order to gain more information, because the information the officers seek normally will be obtained through the search and not through the detention.

We have already noted that the detention represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant. The existence of a search warrant, however, also provides an objective justification for the detention. A judicial officer has determined that police have probable cause to believe that someone in the home is committing a crime. Thus a neutral magistrate rather than an officer in the field has made the critical determination that the police should be given a special authorization to thrust themselves into the privacy of a home.

Summers, 452 U.S. at 701-03 , 101 S.Ct. at 2593-94 , 69 L.Ed.2d at 349-50 (citations and footnotes omitted). , Further, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court, enunciated three law enforcement interests, any of which could justify detention during the execution of the search warrant: “preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; “minimizing the risk of harm to the officers” inherent in “the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics [which] is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence”; and “the orderly completion of the search [that] may be facilitated if the occupants of the premises are present,” such that the detained occupant’s “self-interest may induce them to open