Curtis v. State

1

RICHARD CURTIS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1642-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

November 17, 2022

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 120344040

Berger, Friedman, Adkins, Sally D. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Berger, J.

This case arises from the entry of a conditional guilty plea entered by appellant Richard Curtis ("Curtis") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in December 2021. Prior to his plea, Curtis sought to compel the disclosure of the identities of two confidential informants who alerted police to the likelihood Curtis could be found possessing and selling cocaine and carrying a firearm, prompting an investigation and Curtis' eventual arrest during a traffic stop. The court ultimately denied Curtis' motion. Curtis pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm with a felony conviction preserving his right to appeal the denial of any pretrial motions. Curtis exercised that right and timely appealed to this Court. He presents one questions for our review, which we have rephrased, as follows: ^[1]

I. Whether the circuit court erred by denying the motion to compel the identification of the confidential informants.

For the reasons explained herein, we affirm the circuit court's denial of Curtis' motion to compel the disclosure of the identities of the confidential informants.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We address the preliminary facts leading to this appeal below. We will discuss additional facts as necessary in our analysis.

The genesis of the State's investigation of Curtis

Between the third week of October and the first week of November 2020, Baltimore City Police Detective Christopher Amsel ("Amsel") received information from two confidential informants that an individual named "Rich" -- later identified as Curtis -frequented the 300 block of North Eutaw Street, where he was known to distribute cocaine. The informants said "Rich" drove a black Honda Accord ("the Honda") with heavy window tinting and dark colored rims. The informants claimed to have seen handguns, including "a handgun loaded with a high-capacity extended magazine," in the vehicle. Amsel began monitoring the area to identify "Rich," eventually locating the Honda through the use of closed-circuit television "CitiWatch" cameras in the area.

By searching state Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") records, Amsel learned the Honda was registered to Curtis, and that he did not possess a valid driver's license due to his driving privileges being suspended. When Amsel shared Curtis' MVA photo with the informants, they confirmed he was the "Rich" of whom they had previously spoken. Further searches of law enforcement databases revealed Curtis was prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition due to a 2009 narcotics conviction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for possession with intent to distribute. Amsel continued to monitor Curtis' activities in the area as part of the investigation during the following weeks.

Curtis' arrest and the events of November 6, 2020

On November 6, 2020, at roughly 7:30 p.m., Amsel and his partner spotted Curtis' and the Honda in the 300 block of North Eutaw and began monitoring his activities via CitiWatch. The detectives noted the car lacked a license plate affixed to the front of the vehicle and had heavy tinting on the windshield and the driver's side front and rear windows. Upon seeing Curtis enter the car and drive from where he had parked, Amsel notified and instructed an "arrest team" to follow Curtis and conduct a traffic stop, which occurred in a nearby gas station. At least two police vehicles parked in a way that prevented Curtis from driving off for fear he may try to flee. Officers approached and demanded Curtis exit the vehicle due to the prior information from sources stating Curtis may be concealing a weapon. In addition, the vehicle had dark tints making it difficult to see inside the passenger compartment. Curtis did not immediately comply with the officers, resulting in repeated shouted demands for him to exit the vehicle. Officers stated they saw Curtis quickly reach downward with his right hand moving out of sight, prompting fears he may be concealing evidence or reaching for a weapon. After demanding Curtis "show [officers] his hands," officers used a window breaking tool to enter the vehicle and forcibly remove Curtis.

Once officers detained Curtis, they entered the Honda to turn it off, at which point officers "observed in plain view" a black handgun magazine with at least one round of ammunition sitting in the front driver's side door pocket. Additionally, officers "observed in plain view" a clear plastic bag containing glass vials of suspected cocaine sitting in the center console. Further search of the vehicle produced: (1) one .40 caliber, 22-round magazine containing 21 rounds found in the driver's side door; (2) 29 glass vials of suspected cocaine in the center console; (3) two jugs of suspected eutylone in the center console;^[2] (4) mail in the name of Richard Curtis; (5) a bag containing 32 vials of suspected cocaine from the passenger floorboard; (6) one Polymer80, .40-calber handgun without a serial number and loaded with 14 rounds, including one in the chamber from under the front passenger seat; (7) an additional 11 vials of suspected cocaine; and (8) a digital scale. After placing Curtis under arrest, a search of his person recovered: (1) nine vials of suspected cocaine; and (2) a pill bottle containing 43 pills suspected to be oxycodone. Curtis also confirmed that he was aware that his driver's license was suspended. Officers then transported him to the Central Booking Intake Facility to be formally charged.

The hearing on the motion to compel disclosure of the informants' identities

Prior to trial, Curtis moved to compel the State to disclose the identities of the "confidential sources" who told police Curtis was selling drugs out of his vehicle and was known to carry a weapon. Curtis asked the Court to conduct in camera proceedings where the informants could be questioned by defense counsel or by the court posing defense counsel's questions to determine if the sources were witnesses to the events leading to Curtis' arrest, and to challenge the credibility of the officers who would testify against Curtis during pretrial motions' hearings and at the potential trial.

At the hearing for Curtis' motion to compel disclosure of the informants, Amsel testified that his prior conversations with the confidential sources occurred between the third week of October and the first week of November 2020. During this testimony, Amsel stated that he did not communicate with the informants on the day of Curtis' arrest. Curtis confronted Amsel with a discrepancy between his recall of communications with the informants and how such communications were described in the Statement of Probable Cause authored Amsel. Curtis highlighted how the statement read that such communications with the informants regarding the individual alleged to be Curtis had occurred "[b]etween the third week of October 2020 and the first week of November 2020, including 06 November 2020[.]" (emphasis added). Amsel explained that the error was "me misspeaking." Amsel said he "mistyped" the Statement of Probable Cause and did not intend to imply he had conversations with the informants on the day of Curtis' arrest.

Instead, the Statement of Probable Cause was trying to convey that his investigation of Curtis germinated from the conversations with informants beginning in the third week of October, but that those conversations concluded with Curtis' arrest on November 6, 2020.^[3] When cross-examined by the State, Amsel definitively stated he had "no doubt I did not speak to [either informant] that day." Upon further cross-examination, Amsel again stated he did not speak to either informant on November 6, 2020 regarding Curtis' whereabouts, explaining that what prompted the traffic stop that day was the observable "traffic violations."

Curtis seized upon this disparity, arguing that the informants' identities were needed since they were "the only witness[es], that could either amplify the State's testimony or contradict the State's testimony." Curtis asserted that without the informants, he could not attempt to impeach Amsel's testimony nor challenge the Statement of Probable Cause, and instead was "just stuck with the officer's testimony." Having heard Curtis' argument about this discrepancy, the circuit court proceeded to accept as true Amsel's testimony that he did not speak to the informants on the day of the arrest. Finding Amsel's testimony credible, the court ruled that the incongruity between Amsel's testimony and the Statement of Probable Cause was a "typo," and that "typos happen in life."^[4] When questioned about the officers converging on Curtis' vehicle during the traffic stop and swiftly removing him from it resulting in the smashing of his window, Amsel explained that information from the confidential sources regarding Curtis' alleged likelihood to carry a weapon in the car prompted a need "to separate him from the vehicle while any further investigation was conducted." When Curtis pressed about how the informants may have known there may be guns in the car, Amsel stated that the informants had seen the gun, and that they "potentially" had to have been inside the vehicle to know about the firearm. Curtis asserted this would make the informants potential witnesses to the events of November 6, 2020, particularly if, in accordance with the Statement of Probable Cause, Amsel had conferred with the sources on the day of Curtis' arrest. Again, upon cross-examination, Amsel stated the informants provided...