Opinion ID: 2344758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 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 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? [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? [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. 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? [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 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 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: 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] 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.