Garrison v. State

494 A.2d 193, 303 Md. 385
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedFebruary 24, 1986
Docket94, September Term, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 494 A.2d 193 (Garrison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garrison v. State, 494 A.2d 193, 303 Md. 385 (Md. 1986).

Opinion

JAMES C. MORTON, Jr., Judge.

This case presents the question whether a search warrant particularly describing one apartment authorizes a search of an adjacent apartment and a seizure of goods therein, when police executing the warrant mistakenly believed that *387 the search which they conducted was of the premises covered by the warrant.

On May 21, 1982, Detective Albert Marcus of the Baltimore City Police Department applied for a warrant to search the dwelling of Lawrence Meril McWebb. Detective Marcus alleged in an affidavit in support of a search warrant that he had met with a “proven Confidential Reliable Informant” who told him that McWebb was selling marijuana out of his third floor apartment at 2036 Park Avenue, in Baltimore City. Marcus alleged that he took the following actions to verify McWebb’s address:

“Upon receiving the above information from the proven confidential reliable informant your Affiant Detective Marcus went to the premises known as 2036 Park Avenue and found it exactly as the Informant had described as a three story brick dwelling with the numerials [sic] 2-0-3-6 affixed to the front of the premises. Further your Affiant made a check with the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and discovered that the premises of 2036 Park Avenue third floor was in the name of Lawrence McWebb. Your Affiant Marcus then checked with the Baltimore Police Department and discovered that there wal a subject by the name of Lawrence Merial [sic] McWebb, black male date of birth 12/20/31 with an address of 2036 Park Avenue third floor who had been arrested in the past with a B. of I. number of 108-147. According to arrest records the subject McWebb is described as being a black male 5'11" tall weighing 150 pounds. This was exactly as described by Informant.”

When Marcus applied for the search warrant, he apparently believed that only one apartment occupied the entire third floor. The search warrant which was issued authorized the police to search for marijuana and related materials “on the person” and “on the premises” of “Lawrence Meril McWebb,” at “2036 Park Avenue third floor apartment described as being a three story brick dwelling with the numerals 2-0-3-6 affixed to the front of same.” Pursuant to the warrant, several Baltimore City police officers, in- *388 eluding Marcus, Detective Russell Shea, and Sergeant Joseph Schanken searched the entire third floor of 2036 Park Avenue. 1 As a result of the search, the officers seized evidence from two separate apartments on the third floor, McWebb’s and Harold Garrison’s, the defendant in this case.

Garrison was subsequently charged with violations of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act, including Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol., 1984 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, § 286, possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Garrison moved to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment, arguing at a hearing on the motion “that the officers, not having a warrant for [his] apartment, had no right to go into that apartment and, furthermore, that they knew or should have known that ... the apartment ... was a separate apartment.” Schanken, Shea and Marcus offered testimony regarding the manner in which the search was carried out. Garrison and McWebb offered testimony that substantially conflicted with the police account. Judge Thomas, presiding in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, made the following findings of fact and denied the motion:

“One, that on May 21st, 1982, the police executed a search and seizure warrant for premises 2036 Park5 Avenue, third floor apartment. Two, the police had reliable information to believe the Defendant McWebb resided in a third floor apartment, did not know of another apartment on the third floor. Now, while [there] was evidence that there were a number of apartments in the building, police were unaware where these apartments were located or the character of the building.
“Three, the Defendant McWebb was detained outside of 2036 Park Avenue. With the keys furnished by him, the police gained entrance through a locked front door to the building, next to the door were seven mail boxes with bells, or indicating were bells under each mailbox, but no names were reflected on any of the mail boxes. Further, *389 McWebb’s name was not visible on any of the mail boxes or any area adjacent thereto.
“Next, the police were directed to the third floor by McWebb without any notice or knowledge of the layout of that area. Five, that entrance to the third floor was gained through a common marked door which gave no indication that there was more than one apartment located on said floor. There was no one to alert anyone to indicate that there were more than one apartment.
“Next, that upon opening said door, police found the Defendant Garrison standing there in his night clothes. Next, seven, upon entrance to the third floor, police saw an open door to the left later identified as McWebb’s apartment, and also an open door to the right later identified as Garrison’s apartment. In fact, no door was visible at the time the police entered and the police were unaware at that time that there were two apartments.
“Eight, that from that position of the hallway area leading to the two apartments, the police saw and based on their expertise located on top of the dresser in an open room to the right, a quantity of marijuana. Entrance was made into that room later identified as the apartment of the Defendant Garrison where a police or the police found over the front door or the door leading to that area articles of men’s clothing.
“No numbers were observed by police upon entering the apartment which would alert them to a separate apartment. 2 The room was searched, and in the apartment of the Defendant Garrison was recovered a quantity of heroin and approximately four thousand dollars in cash.
“Nine, also significant or significantly at the time, neither Defendant Garrison nor Defendant McWebb indicated that there were two separate apartments on the *390 third floor. Ten, that a copy of the search and seizure warrant was given to the Defendant McWebb. The inventory listed all the evidence seized from both apartments without indicating which pieces of evidence were found in each location. Eleven, it is clear that there was a common door which could be opened at the time of the search affording access between the two apartments.
“The evidence indicates that while each apartment or the occupant of each apartment could have privacy by locking this door, nevertheless, there was free access judging from all the evidence at the time the police arrived there between the two apartments, and that the Defendants so intended based on the evidence that has been submitted before me.
******
“Now, with respect to the search and seizure warrant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parker v. State
936 A.2d 862 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
State v. Buddhu
782 A.2d 169 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
Maryland v. Garrison
480 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Sadie v. State
488 So. 2d 1368 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
494 A.2d 193, 303 Md. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrison-v-state-md-1986.