Murphy v. State

CEDRIC RYAN MURPHY v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 3290

No. 3291

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

August 4, 2020

Circuit Court for Howard County

Case Nos.: C-13-CR-18-000179 C-13-CR-18-000251

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Beachley, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Salmon, 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.

This case concerns two consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for Howard County involving appellant, Cedric Ryan Murphy ("Murphy" or "appellant"). In Case Number C-13-CR-18-000179, Murphy was indicted for armed assault, robbery, carjacking and kidnapping of Rinaldo Ayers ("Mr. Ayers"); the crimes were alleged to have occurred on June 4, 2018, near the Comfort Inn Suites Hotel in Elkridge, Maryland. Case Number C-13-CR-18-000251 concerned conduct occurring on the same date, time and place. That indictment alleged that appellant possessed various controlled dangerous substances ("CDS") with the intent to distribute.

Murphy appeared before the circuit court on both cases for a suppression hearing at which he argued that evidence seized from him and statements he made on June 4, 2018 should be suppressed. The court denied the motion.

Subsequently, appellant entered not guilty pleas in both cases but proceeded to trial before a judge based on an agreed statement of facts. The trial judge found Murphy guilty of unauthorized taking of a motor vehicle and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Murphy was sentenced to four years imprisonment for unauthorized taking of a motor vehicle and a concurrent fifteen-year term for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. In this timely appeal, appellant asks: Did the court below err by denying his motion to suppress evidence?

For the following reasons, we shall answer that question in the negative.

I.THE SUPPRESSION HEARING

A. Testimony of Officer Andrew Saffran

At around 3:45 a.m. on June 4, 2018, Patrolman First Class Andrew Saffran, of the Howard County Police Department, responded to the Comfort Inn Suites in Elkridge, Maryland, in response to a 911 call from a man who reported that his vehicle had been taken by an individual he called "C". When he arrived on the scene, Officer Saffran was "flagged down" by three people who were standing on a "grassy area" between the road and the hotel.

Officer Saffran stopped his vehicle and began speaking with one of those individuals, later identified as appellant. He asked appellant who he was and why he (the officer) had been called to the scene. Appellant replied: "[t]hat he had a . . . 'business disagreement' at the hotel . . . and had taken the other person's keys." Appellant then took the keys out of his pocket and handed them to the officer.

Appellant said, in "a rather excited and quick manner" "that he didn't mean to take the person's vehicle" and that he "just wanted to get his money. And when he didn't get his money then he took the person's car." At around this same time, Officer Saffran asked the other two individuals who were with appellant, why the 911 call had been made. They replied, ambiguously, that they "were just trying to help him find his car." Those two then left. Appellant next said that when he did not get his money from the car owner, he made a "gesture with his hands" that included putting clothing over his finger and pointing it in a manner "imitating a handgun."

Appellant also told Officer Saffran that the vehicle taken was just around the corner, and that he would show him its location. Prior to walking with appellant to the place where the car was located, Officer Saffran decided to perform a pat-down of appellant's outer clothing for weapons, as a "safety measure." While the officer was patting down Murphy, appellant denied that he had any weapons on his person and stated, "you can search me."

Officer Saffran found on appellant's person a small zippered pouch. Inside that pouch he found an assortment of tablets in small baggies that Officer Saffran believed, based on his experience, contained crack cocaine. Office Saffran confiscated the pouch and its contents at that time.

Prior to the pat-down, Corporal Edward Upton joined Officer Saffran as did Officer Jonathan Matthews. The two were also members of the Howard County Police Department. The officers and appellant then walked down a street and found the vehicle appellant had taken, which was a gold colored Pontiac sedan. The car was parked about a quarter mile away from the place where Officer Saffran had been flagged down.

Using the keys provided by appellant, Officer Saffran opened the Pontiac and quickly searched it. He then locked the car and told appellant that they would take him back to the hotel. When they arrived back at Officer Saffran's vehicle, appellant got inside. He was not restrained and was not, according to the officer's testimony, under arrest.

While en route back to the hotel to discuss the matter further with the apparent victim, Rinaldo Ayers, appellant started explaining that he and Mr. Ayers "were engaged in using CDS throughout the day." According to appellant, Mr. Ayers "owed him money from using the CDS that he had provided him." Officer Saffran added that Murphyexplained that he had provided Mr. Ayers with approximately "a hundred and twenty dollars' worth of rock and then, like 12 bags." Officer Saffran then told the suppression court that the word "rock" was "a slang term for cocaine."

Officer Saffran maintained that he had not asked appellant any questions along these lines (i.e., questions about use or sale of CDS) and that appellant "appeared excited and desperate to explain his actions to mitigate . . . his involvement with the suspected carjacking." Appellant also asked the officer to speak to the victim and ask him not to press charges.

Once back at the hotel, Officer Saffran asked appellant to exit the patrol vehicle for a "one-on-one comparison [sic] with the victim." Appellant got out of the car, stood in a well-lit area near the police vehicle, which was parked approximately thirty feet from the hotel entrance where the victim was standing with Corporal Upton. After Corporal Upton advised Officer Saffran that the victim positively identified appellant as the person who had stolen the Pontiac, appellant was placed in handcuffs and his person, as well as a backpack appellant had been wearing, were searched. From the backpack, Officer Saffran recovered various medications and narcotics, including, but not limited to, quantities of Suboxone, Clonazepam, Adderall and suspected "crack cocaine."

Officer Saffran, when cross-examined, clarified that when he first arrived on the scene, appellant "flagged" him down by walking towards his car and making eye contact. Thinking at first that appellant was the victim, the officer asked him "what was going on." Appellant "began to excitedly explain" that he "had a business disagreement and had taken the keys from the other person."

On further cross-examination, the officer was asked what type of questions he asked of appellant. Officer Saffran responded that, "at that point the only things that I said to him were the minimal encouragers such as, and then what? Something like that, to kind of just keep the conversation going."

Officer Saffran agreed that when he told appellant that he would be patting him down, he also asked him if he had any weapons on his person. Officer Saffran reiterated that appellant stated, "You can search me." The officer further testified that appellant was standing up, facing forward during the pat-down and was not under any restraint.

Officer Saffran also said on cross-examination that appellant sat in the rear of the patrol car as he rode back to the hotel, and that the doors were locked. The officer also had appellant's phone at that point. After appellant asked him to "reason with Mr. Ayers," the officer "advised him that we still needed to speak to Mr. Ayers about what had happened." When appellant agreed that there had been "some sort of drug use," the officer asked him a "clarify[ing]" question of some sort, and appellant responded by asking him to speak to Mr. Ayers to get him to not press charges.¹

When cross-examined about the one-on-one identification back at the hotel, Officer Saffran said that he believed he used the police spotlight from his vehicle or a flashlight to illuminate appellant's face. Officer Saffran stood with appellant, while Corporal Upton and Officer Matthews stood with the victim near the hotel.

Regarding the subsequent search of the backpack, the officer agreed on cross-examination that the backpack was inside the patrol vehicle but in appellant's possession, when appellant was transported back to the hotel, and that the backpack remained inside the patrol car during the show-up. After appellant was arrested outside the vehicle and both he and his backpack were searched, appellant was placed in the back seat of Officer Saffran's patrol car and transported to the police station and the backpack was placed in the front seat.

B. Suppression Hearing Testimony of Corporal Edward Upton

Corporal Upton, an 18-year veteran of the Howard County Police Department, responded to the Comfort Inn Suites after receiving information that a vehicle had been taken. When he arrived, he saw that Officer Saffran was standing on a road leading to the hotel, speaking to appellant. After he joined Officer Saffran, the two officers had a "normal conversation" with appellant about the reason for the 911 call. Appellant said that he had a "business disagreement" with another individual and explained that he took this individual's keys as a form of payment; appellant then demonstrated how he put a cloth or t-shirt over his finger and told this other individual, the victim, to...