In re D.C.

IN RE D.C.

No. 385

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2017

March 20, 2018

Circuit Court for Worcester County

Sitting as a Juvenile Court

Case No.: 23-J-16-0118

UNREPORTED

Wright, Reed, Eyler, James R., Senior Judge, Specially Assigned, JJ.

Opinion by Reed, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

The Circuit Court for Worcester County sitting as a juvenile court found D.C., Appellant, in possession of less than ten grams of marijuana and carrying a concealed dangerous weapon. The juvenile court placed D.C. on supervised probation with special conditions. Appellant noted this appeal and presents two questions for review:

1. Did the juvenile court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress tangible evidence found on his person?

2. Did the juvenile court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress his statements?

For the reasons stated below, we answer these questions in the negative and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2016, Patrol Officer Brian Hirshman of the Berlin Police Department was on patrol with his partner when they observed two cars in the parking lot of a gas station. Officer Hirshman testified that he observed a woman quickly exit one car and quickly enter the front passenger seat of the second car, a Mitsubishi Eclipse. Officer Hirshman believed this conduct to be indicative of a drug-related transaction, and proceeded to follow the Eclipse as it exited the gas station parking lot. Upon observing that the Eclipse's driver-side brake light was inoperable, Officer Hirshman initiated a traffic stop and immediately called for a K-9 unit to assist him. There were four occupants in the vehicle, including D.C., who was seated in the back.

Once the K-9 unit arrived, an open-air scan of the vehicle resulted in an alert indicating the presence of drugs. Officer Hirshman then ordered the occupants to exit thevehicle and proceeded to conduct a search of the vehicle's interior. In the center console, he found three cigar ends containing what he suspected to be marijuana. In a makeup bag, which he found inside of a backpack found in the rear of the vehicle, he found: two bags containing more suspected marijuana, two glass smoking pipes, two additional cigars, a glass jar, a tin, and a digital scale. All of the items contained residue of a substance that Officer Hirshman believed to be marijuana.

Based on his findings from searching the vehicle, Officer Hirshman conducted a search of each of the four occupants. As he was conducting his search of D.C., D.C. stated that he had marijuana on his person. The search of D.C.'s person revealed 1.76 grams of marijuana and a pair of metal knuckles. Following the search of D.C., one of the officers asked the driver of the vehicle if the items found in the vehicle were hers. Though the question was not directed at him, D.C. stated that everything was his. D.C. was placed under arrest and escorted to the Berlin Police Department.

D.C. was charged with possession of less than ten grams of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and carrying a concealed dangerous weapon. During the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court heard arguments on defense counsel's motions to suppress (1) the metal knuckles and 1.76 grams of marijuana found on D.C.'s person; and (2) D.C.'s statement regarding the items that were found in the vehicle. The juvenile court denied both motions. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the court granted defense counsel's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the paraphernalia charge, butfound D.C. involved in possession of less than ten grams of marijuana and carrying a concealed dangerous weapon.

D.C. was placed on supervised probation with special conditions. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevails on the motion, and we accept the suppression court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Bowling v. State, 227 Md. App. 460, 466-67, 134 A.3d 388, cert. denied, 448 Md. 724, 141 A.3d 135 (2016). In determining whether a constitutional right has been violated, however, "we make an independent, de novo, constitutional appraisal by applying the law to facts presented in a particular case." Johnson v. State, 232 Md. App 241, 256, 157 A.3d 338 (quoting Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 401, 813 A.2d 231 (2002), cert. granted, 454 Md. 678, 165 A.3d 473 (2017).

DISCUSSION

I. Probable Cause and Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence

A. Parties' Contentions

Appellant's chief issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court should have suppressed evidence of marijuana and metal knuckles that were on Appellant's person. Appellant contends that, because he was a passenger, the K-9 alert to the vehicle and subsequent discovery of marijuana and other drug-related paraphernalia in the car did notgive rise to probable cause for Officer Hirshman to believe he was involved in criminal activity so as to justify his detention and a search incident to arrest. Moreover, Appellant contends even if a Terry frisk were permissible, no additional search or seizure would have been justified based upon Officer Hirshman's findings during the search of the vehicle because none of the items found, namely the less than 10 grams of marijuana, should have given rise to probable cause to arrest or search. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968); See also MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW § 5-601 (2017) (making possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana a civil offense punishable by a fine).

The State responds that the K-9 alert to the presence of drugs in the vehicle generated probable cause to search the vehicle. The State contends that the discovery of marijuana and a digital scale in the vehicle, among other drug-related paraphernalia, then provided Officer Hirshman with probable cause to believe that any or all of the car's occupants were involved in a drug-related criminal act. The State further contends that this provided cause to lawfully detain and search the occupants incident to arrest. Alternatively, the State asserts that the K-9 alert generated reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of all of the occupants of the vehicle. The State argues that this suspicion was sufficient to justify a Terry frisk for weapons and therefore, the resulting search was lawful when, during the frisk, Appellant told Officer Hirshman that he had marijuana on his person and that the other items found in the vehicle were his. Moreover, the State argues that marijuana paraphernalia located in the vehicle's center console, as well as the backpack containing marijuana, were both within D.C.'s reach. As such, the Stateconcludes that the trial court acted appropriately in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the evidence.

B. Analysis

In order to properly address evidence derived from the search of Appellant's person, we must first consider the legality of the sequence of events leading up to the search of Appellant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that a warrant be secured prior to conducting a search. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466 (1999). An exception to the warrant requirement is the "automobile exception," known as the "Carroll Doctrine." State v. Harding, 166 Md. App. 230, 241, 887 A.2d 1108 (2005). This doctrine states that "[i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment...permits police to search the vehicle without more." Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 (1999) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996)). Maryland appellate courts, when dealing with facts concerning the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle, have consistently held that a positive alert from a trained dog indicating the presence of odors gives rise to probable cause to conduct a warrantless Carroll doctrine search of a vehicle. Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554, 586-87 (2001); Pyon v. State, 222 Md. App. 412, 439 (2015).This Court recently held in Bowling v. State that the decriminalization of possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana in Maryland does not change this established precedent. Bowling v. State, 227 Md. App. 460, 476 (2016).

Upon consideration of the above, this Court disagrees with Appellant's argument that probable cause to detain and search Appellant did not exist. The traffic stop effectuated by Officer Hirshman for a broken taillight was valid under Maryland law. MD. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 22-101(a)(1)(ii) (stating that no person may drive a vehicle that is not equipped with lamps and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment). There is no dispute between the parties that the K-9 unit that subsequently responded validly alerted officers to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. As we noted above, such an alert on its own was enough to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle under the Carroll doctrine. Further, we find that the nature of the items discovered in the car, in particular the marijuana and the digital scale, easily give rise to probable cause for a search incident to an arrest. We will explain.

In Daniels v. State, 172 Md. App. 75, 89 (2006), this Court explained probable cause as follows: "probable cause is a flexible,...