Williams v. State

1

Phillip Williams v. State of Maryland

No. 2198-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

July 30, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 122165012

Graeff, Arthur, Wright, Alexander, Jr. (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Arthur, J.

A jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found appellant Phillip Williams guilty of possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person, possession of ammunition by a disqualified person, and wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on his person. Williams noted this appeal, raising two questions for our review:

I. Where the police testified that Williams was standing in a high crime area and tapped his waistband and adjusted his jacket, did the police lack reasonable articulable suspicion for an investigatory stop?

II. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to dismiss the charged firearms offenses as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent caselaw?

We hold that the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop, and we therefore reverse the judgments. We further hold that Williams waived the Second Amendment arguments raised in his motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we remand the case for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

At around noon on May 16, 2022, a Baltimore City Police officer was monitoring the video feed from a CitiWatch surveillance camera in a control room in west Baltimore. He observed a group of men loitering on a street corner. One of the men, later identified as Williams, occasionally made hand gestures in the area of his waist, which indicated to the officer that Williams may have been concealing a handgun. A team of undercover police officers went to the scene, where they seized Williams and recovered a handgun on his person.

The State charged Williams with possession of a regulated firearm after having previously been convicted of a disqualifying offense, in violation of § 5-133(c) of the Public Safety Article ("PS") of the Maryland Code (2003, 2022 Repl. Vol.); knowing possession of a regulated firearm after having been convicted of a disqualifying offense, in violation of PS § 5-133(b); possessing, owning, carrying, or transporting a firearm after having previously been convicted of a disqualifying offense, in violation of § 5-622 of the Criminal Law Article ("CR") of the Maryland Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.); wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on his person, in violation of CR § 4-203; and unlawful possession of ammunition, in violation of PS § 5-133.1.

Williams, through counsel, filed an omnibus motion to suppress evidence under Maryland Rule 4-252. He supplemented the motion with a more specific motion to suppress property seized and statements made during the encounter.

Suppression Hearing

At the hearing on Williams's motion to suppress, Officer Aaron Jackson of the Baltimore City Police Department testified that at approximately noon on Monday, May 16, 2022, he was assigned to a control room, where he monitored a video feed from CitiWatch cameras. Officer Jackson focused his attention on a video depicting the southeast corner of the intersection of West Baltimore and North Gilmor Streets, which, he said, had "a history of violence," with "many homicides" and "[s]everal handgun violations."^[1] Officer Jackson observed a person, later identified as Williams, make several hand gestures near his waist, which indicated to Officer Jackson that Williams had a handgun concealed in his waistband. When asked whether he was "looking at anybody else" on the video, Officer Jackson replied that he was not, "[b]ecause [his] full focus" was on Williams, who was making "repeated security checks on his person."

Officer Jackson sought the advice of Detective Nolan Arnold, who viewed some of the recorded video and concurred with Officer Jackson's assessment.^[2] Detective Arnold belonged to the Western "District Action Team ("DAT")," which operated an unmarked police vehicle used to apprehend persons, such as Williams, who were suspected of illegally possessing firearms.

The DAT traveled to the intersection of West Baltimore and North Gilmor Streets, where Detective Arnold observed the man who had been seen on the video and was believed to be armed.

Detective Arnold testified that he "made the tactical decision to drive up to the corner," where he "exited [his] vehicle." He approached a man standing near Williams and, when he was close enough, turned toward Williams and surprised him. The detective seized Williams, pinning his arms so that he could not reach for his weapon. At that moment, Williams declared that he had a gun. Detective Arnold searched him, recovered a handgun, and placed Williams under arrest.

In addition to the testimony of the police officers, the State introduced two videorecordings, corroborating the officers' version of events. State's Exhibit 1 was a compilation of CitiWatch camera videos recorded on the day of the arrest, depicting Williams and several other men, loitering on the street corner. During the playback, Officer Jackson occasionally narrated instances where, in his opinion, Williams was engaging in "security checks." State's Exhibit 2 was a recording of Detective Arnold's body-worn camera video, depicting the moments leading up to and culminating in Williams's arrest.

Williams elected not to testify, and the defense called no other witnesses. After hearing argument by the parties, the court made findings of fact and drew conclusions of law.

The court found that Officer Jackson and Detective Arnold were "credible" witnesses. Accordingly, the court made factual findings consistent with the officers' testimony, as summarized previously.

The court, relying upon the lay opinion testimony of the officers,^[3] denied the motion to suppress because, it said, "there was reasonable, articulable suspicion that [Williams] was in the possession of a weapon, and it was for the officers' safety that they grabbed him and patted him down." The court described its decision as a "very, very close call."

Motion to Dismiss

Five days before trial, and more than six months after the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark Second Amendment case of New York State Rifle &Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Williams, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. In that motion, Williams contended that the gun control statutes that he was accused of violating and Maryland's handgun licensing scheme infringe upon his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

On the morning of the first day of trial, the circuit court held a hearing on Williams's motion to dismiss. The State initially pointed out that the motion to dismiss was filed late. On the merits, the State asserted that the court should deny the motion.

The court sought defense counsel's views, stating that it would "disregard for a moment" the untimeliness of the motion. Once defense counsel had completed his argument, the court stated that it would "ignore[e] the untimeliness of the motion" and would not rule on that ground. On the merits of Williams's motion, the court concluded that Bruen did not invalidate the statutes at issue, which are directed towards denying firearms to convicted felons.

Trial

The trial commenced immediately thereafter. At trial, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that Williams possessed the handgun and ammunition at issue and that he wore the handgun on his person.

The court submitted counts one, four, and five to the jury. Those counts charged Williams with possession of a regulated firearm after having previously been convicted of a disqualifying offense, in violation of PS § 5-133(c); wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on his person, in violation of CR § 4-203; and unlawful possession of ammunition, in violation of PS § 5-133.1.

The jury found Williams guilty of possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person, possession of ammunition by a disqualified person, and wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on his person. The court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment (the first five years without the possibility of parole) for unlawful possession of the firearm. The court also sentenced him to concurrent terms of three years for wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on his person and one year for possession of ammunition.

This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

The review of a circuit court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence "is 'limited to the record developed at the suppression hearing.'" Richardson v. State, 481 Md. 423, 444 (2022) (quoting Pacheco v. State, 465 Md. 311, 319 (2019)). A circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. Id. Accordingly, we "assess the record 'in the light most favorable to the party who prevails on the issue that the defendant raises in the motion to suppress[,]'" id. at 445 (quoting Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373, 386 (2017)), accepting the motions court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Id. We review questions of law without deference. Id. "'The ultimate determination of whether there was a constitutional violation, however, is an independent determination that is made by the appellate court alone, applying the law to the facts found in each particular case.'" State v. Carter, 472 Md. 36, 55 (2021) (quoting Belote v. State, 411 Md. 104, 120 (2009)).

Governing Legal Principles

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against...