Opinion ID: 1954604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probable CauseThe Crime of Hindering

Text: All of the actions filed against DiPino and the City depend, to some extent, on the averment that DiPino had no probable cause to believe that, by virtue of his remarks to Frederick King on May 11-12, 1991, Davis had committed the crime of hindering. The judgments entered by the circuit court in favor of those defendants were based on the court's finding that DiPino did have such probable cause, and, as noted, it was in light of that finding that the court found it unnecessary to consider and rule upon any of the immunity defenses. If, as the Court of Special Appeals concluded, that finding was legally incorrect, those judgments that have no alternative foundation in the record cannot stand. Further proceedings would be required as to them. The probable cause question is therefore central to much of this case. Probable cause, we have held, is a nontechnical conception of a reasonable ground for belief of guilt. Collins v. State, 322 Md. 675, 679, 589 A.2d 479, 481 (1991); Doering v. State, 313 Md. 384, 403, 545 A.2d 1281, 1291 (1988). It is defined in terms of facts and circumstances `sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.' Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111, 95 S.Ct. 854, 862, 43 L.Ed.2d 54, 64 (1975), quoting, in part, from Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Collins v. State, supra, 322 Md. at 679, 589 A.2d at 481; State v. Smith, 305 Md. 489, 515 n. 10, 505 A.2d 511, 524 n. 10 (1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1186, 106 S.Ct. 2925, 91 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986). To determine whether an officer had probable cause, under that conception, the reviewing court necessarily must relate the information known to the officer to the elements of the offense that the officer believed was being or had been committed. The officer, of course, must undertake the same analysis in determining, in the first instance, whether the person may lawfully be arrested. That analysis requires a proper understanding of the elements of the offense, in this instance hindering. We defined those elements in Cover v. State, supra, 297 Md. 398, 466 A.2d 1276. We noted there that, although the crime of hindering a police officer in the performance of the officer's duties was a statutory one in many States, it remained a common law crime in Maryland. Quoting from Lidstone, THE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION: (2) OBSTRUCTING FREEDOM? [1983] Crim. L.Rev. 29, we observed that the offense comprised three different categories of conduct: (1) positive direct obstruction, in which the officer acts directly against the defendant or the defendant's property and is physically resisted; (2) passive direct obstruction, where the officer seeks to make the defendant act directly and the defendant refuses or fails to act as required; and (3) positive indirect obstruction, where the police are not acting directly against the [defendant] but are acting indirectly against other citizens who are, or may be, about to commit offenses against the criminal law, and the [defendant] does an act which obstructs them in their general duty to prevent or detect crime, intending to frustrate the police operation. Id. at 405-06, 466 A.2d at 1280 (emphasis added). In Cover, as here, the conduct at issue fell into the third category. Late at night, an undercover police officer, sitting in his car on a parking lot, was watching a man whom he thought might be preparing to break into a restaurant. The defendant, who, in the past, had often observed, accosted, and annoyed undercover officers, drove on to the parking lot, parked her car next to that of the officer, and turned off her lights. At some point, she started her car and turned on her headlights, as if preparing to leave. The officer went over to her, identified himself, explained that he was engaged in surveillance, and asked her to leave by a certain readily accessible route and not to exit by another route that might compromise his surveillance. She initially began to leave the area in the manner requested by the officer but then turned around and left by the other route. She drove slowly by the subject of the surveillance but apparently said nothing to him. At some point, a block away, she began honking her horn. When the officer searched for the suspect, he was gone. The defendant was charged and convicted of hindering. We reversed. We determined that the offense of hindering comprises four elements: (1) A police officer engaged in the performance of a duty; (2) An act, or perhaps an omission, by the accused which obstructs or hinders the officer in the performance of that duty; (3) Knowledge by the accused of facts comprising element (1); and (4) Intent to obstruct or hinder the officer by the act or omission constituting element (2). Id. at 413, 466 A.2d at 1284. The difficult questions, we observed, arise in determining what constitutes a duty and what acts or omissions constitute obstructing or hindering the performance of the duty. With respect to the third category of the offensepassive indirect obstructionwe noted some division of authority as to whether there could be a hindering of an officer's performance of duty in the absence of evidence that the person or persons who were made aware of the officer's presence or status were then engaged in or were about to become engaged in criminal activity. For purposes of that case, we assumed, without deciding, that an officer's duty, in a surveillance situation, includes the surveillance of lawful, as well as unlawful, activity, i.e., that it was not necessary, to constitute an unlawful hindrance or obstruction, that the person being observed be then engaged in criminal activity. We also assumed, for purposes of that case, that the offense included an act that deprived the officer of the opportunity of seeing whether, in normal circumstances, the person being observed would commit a criminal act. Even under that broad reach of the offense, however, we concluded that Cover's conduct did not constitute hindering. Whatever Cover's intent may have been, it was merely speculative that her conduct had the effect of actually warning the suspect of the police presence. There was no evidence that the suspect heard the horn honking or, if he did, that he would have taken it as a warning. Accordingly, we held that [c]ontrary to the implication of the State's argument, where the alleged hindering is as indirect as that presented here, we cannot conclude that the crime may be based solely on intent, without regard to whether there has in fact been some degree of hindrance. Id. at 416, 466 A.2d at 1285. Also illustrative is In re Antoine H., 319 Md. 101, 108, 570 A.2d 1239, 1242 (1990). The police went to the home of one Howard to serve an arrest warrant. The respondents, two juveniles, were in the home when the police arrived. For about 10 minutes, they refused to open the door for the police and, when the police eventually gained access, they falsely denied that Howard was present. Howard, in fact, was hiding in the house. The respondents' recalcitrance and deception was alleged to constitute a hindrance and obstruction and formed the basis of a petition to declare the respondents juvenile delinquents. Reversing a finding of delinquency, we noted that the police, in fact, discovered Howard on the premises and effected the arrest, and, from that, we concluded that the respondents' conduct did not actually hinder the police. DiPino based her assertion of hindrance on (1) the hypothesis that everyone then in the vicinity was a potential target, and that Davis's remark would make it more difficult for her to arrange drug transactions with any of those persons, and (2) the dirty looks she received from a group of bikers. The second ground may be quickly dismissed. Communications that are both intended and effective to place an officer, then in the performance of an official duty, in immediate jeopardy may very well form the basis of a charge of hindering. Even assuming that Officers DiPino and Brumbley were, in fact, in the performance of some official duty, however, there was utterly no evidence of either such an intent or such an effect in this case. No overt threats or hostile moves were made against the officers; none were encouraged by Davis; nor is there any basis in this record for a belief that Davis's remark to King, if overheard by others, would likely encourage any hostile action toward the officers. There is no indication from the setting that the officers were in harm's way. They were in a well-lit public area, and DiPino said that she was aware that there were other police officers in the vicinity. Once the remark was made, they got into their car and left, uneventfully. The assertion in DiPino's application for a Statement of Charges that she was placed in extreme danger is entirely without foundation. As noted, the Court of Special Appeals in this case focused not on whether DiPino and Brumbley were in fact engaged in the performance of a police duty but on whether DiPino reasonably could have suspected that Davis knew, when he made his remark, that they were so engaged. It decline[d] to fashion a rule that one who knows a person is a police officer is automatically charged with knowledge that the police officer is acting in the performance of duty, regardless of what the officer is doingwhether the officer is in church, at the doctor's office, in a restaurant, at the movies, or lounging on the beach. Davis v. DiPino, supra, 121 Md. App. at 56, 708 A.2d at 371. We share that reluctance. As we pointed out in Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247, 258-59, 587 A.2d 467, 472 (1991), a police officer may be `on duty' 24 hours a day in the sense that he may be on call and may under certain circumstances have an obligation to act in a law enforcement capacity even when on his own time. That does not, however, lead to the conclusion that the officer is always acting in furtherance of the State's business of law enforcement and that all conduct is incidental to police work. Davis simply saw two women, whom he suspected were police officers, on the street, apparently having just left a bar and preparing to get into their car. They were not talking with anyone, and they were not doing anything that might suggest to Davis or anyone else that they were engaged in police activity. In terms of their observed and observable conduct at the time, it was wholly unreasonable for DiPino to conclude, or even suspect, that Davis was aware that she and Brumbley were then and there engaged in the performance of an official duty. Apart from Davis's knowledge, there is no evidence that DiPino and Brumbley were, in fact, engaged in the performance of police duties when the remark was made. DiPino's complaint is that Davis interfered with her ability to engage in future sting operations with people whom she did not know and had no current reason to believe would participate in such ventures. The underpinning of her complaint is that one or more of those unknown people might be inclined to sell drugs but, because they were informed that she was a police officer, would refrain from dealing with her, thereby inhibiting her ability to detect criminal behavior. As we observed in Cover, there is some division of authority over whether the mere disclosure of an officer's identity to currently law-abiding people who might, in the future, be otherwise inclined to commit a violation constitutes a hindering of the officer in the performance of a duty, but even those cases sustaining a conviction do not extend the crime as far as DiPino would have us do. A number of cases arose from speed traps, in which the defendant warned approaching motorists of the existence of the trap, and the views expressed in those cases are of interest. In Bastable v. Little [1907] 1 K.B. 59, two constables had marked a certain section of road and stationed themselves in order to time passing cars to detect speeders. The defendant warned approaching motorists, both orally and by signs, of the trap. All three justices of the King's Bench Division concluded that no crime had been committed. Two JusticesAlverstone and Darling rested their decision on the lack of evidence that any of the motorists warned had, in fact, been speeding and thus on the premise that the warning had not prevented the officers from detecting any crime. Justice Ridley concluded that, to constitute unlawful hindering, there must be either a physical interference or threats, neither of which were shown to be present. In Betts v. Stevens, [1910] 1 K.B. 1, which also involved warnings given to motorists approaching a speed trap, the evidence indicated that some of the motorists were, indeed, speeding as they approached the trap, and that the warning caused them to slow down and thus avoid detection and proof of their unlawful conduct. Justices Alverstone and Darling distinguished that situation from the one in Bastable and affirmed a conviction for hindering. Chief Justice Alverstone made clear the distinction: [N]othing that I now say must be construed to mean that the mere giving of a warning to a passing car that the driver must look out as there is a police trap ahead will amount to an obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty in the absence of evidence that the car was going at an illegal speed at the time the warning was given; but where it is found, as in this case, that the cars were already breaking the law at the time of the warning, and that the act of the person giving the warning prevented the police from getting the only evidence which would be required for the purposes of the case, there I think the warning does amount to obstruction. Id. at 7. Justice Darling applied essentially the same distinction but as he had articulated it in Bastable: [I]t is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime may be suspended while there is danger of detection. Id. at 8. In Warrensville Hts. v. Wason, 50 Ohio App.2d 21, 361 N.E.2d 546 (1976), also a speed trap case, the Ohio court took a similar approach, noting, at 549: It follows that one of the elements of obstruction is the presence of an illegal act which generates the policeman's duty to enforce the law. An additional element is interference with intent to impede the performance of that duty. In the present case it is conceded that the defendant did not warn persons who were violating the law. The drivers whom he signaled were not shown to be speeding. The officer was not proceeding, did not intend to proceed and did not have a basis for proceeding, against the persons warned. See also City of Akron v. Matteson, 299 N.E.2d 315 (Ohio Mun.1972). That same approach has been taken in other contexts. In State v. Jelliffe, 5 Ohio Misc.2d 20, 449 N.E.2d 810 (1982), the defendant, attending a rock concert, spotted someone in street clothes whom he recognized as a police officer. He was arrested when he told another person, in a voice loud enough to be heard by the officer, that the officer was a cop. Entering a verdict of not guilty, the court noted: [T]here is no allegation that defendant's conduct actually prevented the arrest of any persons who were then violating the law. While it may have made detection of violations more difficult, it is equally possible that it may have inhibited the commission of crimes in the first place. Surely that is one goal of law enforcement. Id. at 811. In State v. CLR, 40 Wash.App. 839, 700 P.2d 1195 (1985), a vice squad officer in a pickup truck approached a woman on the street. While talking to the officer through the driver's window, the woman agreed to engage in an act of prostitution. As the woman went around the truck and opened the passenger door, the defendant, standing across the street and observing the scene, but unable to hear the conversation, shouted he's vice. The woman closed the door and started to walk away. Reversing the defendant's conviction for hindering, the court found that the officer was not hindered or delayed in making an arrest in that case. Although acknowledging that the officer's future undercover work may have been made more difficult by the exposure of his identity, the court nonetheless held the evidence insufficient, noting that other [c]ourts have found that similar obstruction statutes do not apply where there was no obvious, contemporaneous, illegal activity when the warning was given. Id. at 1197. Cases sustaining a conviction based on revealing the identity of an undercover officer usually have involved either a more direct interference or an expansive view of an officer's duty. In People v. Robles, 48 Cal.App. 4th Supp. 1, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 369 (Cal.Super.1996), for example, a defendant who observed an undercover officer in the actual process of negotiating a drug sale with a street vendor, shouted to the seller, Get away from that guy! The guy's a cop. When the vendor did not immediately depart, the defendant walked up to him and said, I told you to get away from that guy. The guy's a cop. The seller then left without completing the sale. There being no dispute that the defendant knew that the officer was, in fact, a police officer, the court sustained a conviction for hindering, holding that the defendant's conduct prevent[ed] the officer from obtaining evidence of a crime he might otherwise have obtained. Id. at 2, 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 369. An English and a Canadian case turned on an expansive view of the officer's duty under the relevant statute. In Hinchliffe v. Sheldon, [1955] 3 A.E.R. 406, the defendant was the son of a tavern owner who arrived at the tavern, which was also his home, after 11:00 p.m., when, under the law, the tavern was supposed to be closed. He came upon some police officers outside the tavern. The son announced his presence and also warned that officers were outside. One of the officers knocked on the door, but the son again warned of the police. Eight minutes later, the police were admitted and, although they found a number of people inside, they found no evidence that the tavern had remained open for business after 11:00. The son was arrested and convicted of hindering. Affirming the conviction, Lord Goddard, for the Queen's Bench Division, concluded that officers were authorized by the licensing statute to enter a licensed premises at any time for the purpose of preventing or detecting the commission of any offense against the statute, and that [i]f they are detained from going in, that does obstruct them in the execution of their duty, because it gives the licensee, if he is committing an offence, the opportunity to get everything out of the way. Id. at 408. Police raids, he said, should be done as quickly as possible without previous warnings being given, otherwise there might as well not be a raid. Id. In the Canadian case Regina v. Westlie, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 417 two plainclothes police officers were patrolling a skid row area of Vancouver looking for beggars who, under the law, were regarded as vagrants. They had recently made an arrest that had been observed by the defendant, and they confided in the defendant that they were officers and were looking for beggars. The defendant went along with them as they patrolled the area, warning people that the two were officers. No vagrants were sighted, and the defendant was arrested and convicted for hindering. In affirming the conviction, the judges of the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the defense raised in Bastable, supra, that there could be no crime of hindering in the absence of evidence that criminal activityspecifically vagrancy was occurring. They concluded, instead, that it was not necessary under the governing statute that an officer be engaged in the performance of a specific duty of detecting vagrancy at the time of the alleged offense. Judge Robertson noted that, if the sole duty of the officer at the time was to detect and arrest beggars, he might be inclined to accept the defendant's argument, but he concluded that officers had a more general statutory duty to preserve the peace and prevent the commission of any crime and that, had the officer, during his patrol, seen any criminal activity or anyone for whom there was an outstanding warrant, it would have been his duty to take action. That general duty, he concluded, was completely frustrated by the defendant's conduct. Judge Braca observed that, if the defendant had been doing no more than trying to prevent people from committing crimes, he too might find a lawful excuse, but he found that the defendant's intent was not to de t er crime but rather to de f er itto encourage the beggars not to beg until the officers left the area. These cases are distinguishable on a number of grounds, the most significant of which is that the officers involved were, in fact, engaged in a specific police operation when the defendant disclosed their identity, thereby frustrating their ability to carry out their assignment. In Hinchliffe, they were surveilling and attempting to enter a tavern after hours to see if it was in unlawful operation, which they had a statutory right to do. In Westlie, they were on patrol in a skid row area looking for vagrants (or other criminal activity). Here, there was no evidence that DiPino and Brumbley were engaged in any police activity when Davis made his remark. They were not surveilling either an area or a particular group of people, but had, instead, completed an assignment and were on their way back to the police station. Neither Hinchliffe nor Westlie support the view that all of the people present within the officer's territorial jurisdiction are potential lawbreakers and that disclosure of the officer's identity to any of them may constitute a hindering. Whether an officer's duty be viewed broadly, as in Westlie, or more narrowly, there must at least be some evidence that the officer was performing a police duty when his or her identity was disclosed, and here there was none. For all of these reasons, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that DiPino had no probable cause to believe that Davis had committed the crime of hindering by virtue of his remark to King. That conclusion has a number of consequences. It requires that we consider, as the Court of Special Appeals did, whether there is any other basis for sustaining the judgments in favor of DiPino and the City. We need not consider, because the issues have not been raised in either petition for certiorari, whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in affirming (1) the dismissal of the claims against Commissioner Turner, and (2) the judgments in favor of DiPino and the City on the false imprisonment and abuse of process claims. Although the issues are not directly before us, as they were not decided by the trial court, we shall address the immunity defenses that might be available to DiPino and the City and the question of whether DiPino's conducteffecting Davis's arrest because of the remark he made to King violated his right of free speech under the First Amendment and Article 40. Those issues were addressed by the Court of Special Appeals, and it is important, on remand, that the trial court be guided by our view of them.