Williams v. State

1

ARTIIS RICARDO WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2058-2019

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

January 24, 2022

Circuit Court for Harford County Case No.: C-12-CR-18-000561.

Kehoe Leahy, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Leahy J.

Appellant Artiis Ricardo Williams, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Harford County and charged with various drug related offenses. After his motion to suppress was heard and denied, Mr. Williams was tried by a jury and convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of 28 or more grams of heroin, and several lesser included and related offenses. He was sentenced to a total of 40 years, with all but 25 years suspended, to be followed by five years' supervised probation upon release. On this timely appeal, Mr. Williams raises two issues for our review:

"1. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress drugs and other items recovered during a search of the car that Mr. Williams was driving?

2. Did the trial court err in admitting testimony that Mr. Williams was the registered owner of the car?"

We conclude that the circuit court properly denied the motion to suppress because the deputies complied with the standardized written inventory policy for the Harford County Sheriff's Office. We also conclude that any error in admitting Deputy Adams's challenged testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On September 7, 2018, the license plate reader ("LPR") in Deputy Will Adams's patrol car alerted on Mr Williams's black Chrysler 300. A warrant check confirmed that Mr. Williams was wanted on an outstanding warrant. Police then stopped Mr. Williams's vehicle. After confirming that Mr. Williams was wanted on an active warrant, Mr. Williams was ordered out of the vehicle and placed under arrest. Because the car was not legally parked, the police requested a tow and initiated an inventory search of Mr. William's car, where they discovered CDS in the overhead sunglass compartment that ultimately tested positive for cocaine and a mixture of heroin and fentanyl.

Motion to Suppress

Prior to his trial, Mr. Williams moved to suppress the items found by the police during the inventory of his car, arguing that the evidence was seized absent probable cause in violation of Mr. Williams's constitutional rights. Three witnesses testified at the suppression hearing held on December 10, 2018: (1) Deputy Sheriff Will Adams of the Harford County Sheriff's Office; (2) Deputy Sheriff Amanda Smith of the Harford County Sheriff's Office; and (3) Mr. Williams.

Deputy Adams

Deputy Adams testified first. On September 7, 2018 he was on patrol in the Edgewood area of Harford County, near Harford Square. His vehicle was equipped with an LPR that scans nearby license plates and reports "any discrepancies or any warrants that may be on file or everything from emissions violations to homicide warrants." Sometime after 10:00 a.m., the LPR alerted to a vehicle passing by that was "associated with Artiis Williams." Deputy Adams related that he was familiar with Mr. Williams and his vehicle, a black Chrysler 300, because he had seen Mr Williams driving that vehicle on numerous prior occasions and knew that Mr. Williams was "involved in the drug trade" in the area.

Deputy Adams contacted police dispatch and confirmed that an outstanding warrant was on file for Mr. Williams. After he radioed for assistance, Deputy Smith stopped Mr. Williams on nearby Hanson Road. When Deputy Adams arrived at the scene of the stop, he noticed that the vehicle was stopped in "the travel portion of the roadway there to the right near the curb." Mr. Williams was removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest based on the outstanding warrant.

After the deputies handcuffed Mr. Williams, they searched his person and recovered "somewhere close to" $3, 000 in cash as well as numerous plastic bags. Deputy Adams testified, without raising an objection, that these bags were "predominantly used in the drug trade for packaging of drugs." Mr. Williams told the deputies that the large amount of cash "was for back to school shopping."

Deputy Adams described the location of Mr. Williams's vehicle:

Q. Now, after you conducted the search of [Mr. Williams], where was his car at that point?

A. It was on Hanson Road in the travel portion of the roadway. The only way to get around that motor vehicle would be to go down through --there is a turn lane right there. You would have to go out of the lane of travel to go there.

Q. How many other people were in the car?

A. There was no one else there.

Q. What shoulders are there on Hanson Road?

A. In that area there is none.

Q. Now, did you speak to [Mr. Williams] concerning the car?

A. That's correct, I did. At some point I did inquire who was coming. He could not give me any definitive answer exactly who is coming. I did inquire who is coming. I believe I asked him who they were, how old they were, stuff like that.

Q. And after you spoke to him, what decision did you make?

A. I made the decision that at this point we were wasting too much time. There was cars going around us and there were other people in the area rubbernecking. At that point I just decided that I was going to impound the vehicle. So, I requested a tow truck.

A copy of the Harford County Sheriff's Office tow policy was admitted into evidence during Deputy Adams's testimony, without objection. Referring to that policy, he explained that when individuals operating a vehicle are placed under arrest, "the vehicle has to be legally parked or in a legal manner in order to leave it there. If it cannot remain legally parked, at that point the deputy has to make disposition of the vehicle which is, in fact, impound it." Deputy Adams agreed that this provision was denoted on page 4-3800 of the policy, which provides:

A person who is arrested while operating a motor vehicle may secure his/her vehicle and allow it to remain legally parked if:

1. The vehicle is not being held for evidence, processing, or other investigative purposes.

2. The operator is aware of his/her actions and agrees to assume full responsibility for the vehicle.

3. The operator can make arrangements to have the vehicle removed within a reasonable time period.

If the vehicle is owned by someone other than the operator, the deputy shall attempt to contact the owner and advise the owner of the vehicle's location.

According to Deputy Adams, Mr. Williams's vehicle was not legally parked and that was the basis for his decision to order a tow. After that decision was made, Deputy Smith conducted an inventory search. Deputy Adams related, "that's pursuant to our policy to [e]nsure that any valuables or any hazards to the tow truck driver are detected prior to" towing the vehicle.

Shortly after Deputy Smith began the inventory search, she found "a large quantity of narcotics located in the sunglass holder." At that point, the decision was made to seize the vehicle and obtain a search warrant. Asked to elaborate, Deputy Adams explained:

We couldn't leave [the car] where it was. I mean, there was just too much going on. It was tying up traffic and causing too much of a problem and then a large amount of folks were coming out at that point. So, at that point the vehicle was in essence towed to the Southern Precinct and parked on that lot and left on the back precinct lot under camera supervision and no additional search was made until a search warrant was completed.

Deputy Adams agreed that Defendant's Exhibit #2 was the tow sheet he completed regarding this incident. He further explained that, although some inventory records were completed, "we elevated to a search warrant" in this case. He stated that he was familiar with a form known as an "SO-258" and that that was an inventory record. He did not, however, have any inventory records with him at the hearing. He explained that, although he did not have them with him, "SO-258s were filled out and a large number [sic]of property that was actually turned over to [Mr. Williams's ] mom was indicated on those 258 forms, but several 258 forms were filled out."^[1]

Video recordings

Deputy Adams confirmed that both his car and Deputy Smith's car were equipped with in-car video cameras. Video recordings from Deputy Adams' camera (Car #281) and Deputy Smith's camera (Car #127), were admitted without objection.^[2] Deputy Adams narrated as each video from the stop was played back during the hearing. Notably, the deputy testified as follows:

Q. Again, looking at the video, where along the side of the road is there anywhere to park that car?

A. There is none.

Q. In fact, the car is in the right travel portion?

A. The travel portion, yes.

The transcript from the in-car video cameras captured the conversation between Mr. Williams and the deputies about his car:

MR. WILLIAMS: So can I have someone -- can I have somebody retrieve my vehicle?

[DEPUTY SMITH]: (Indiscernible.)

MR. WILLIAMS: Can I have someone get my car?

[DEPUTY ADAMS]: Where they at?

MR. WILLIAMS: They right over here.

[DEPUTY ADAMS]: Anything in the car?

MR. WILLIAMS: No.

[DEPUTY ADAMS]: Can we look at it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Man, there's nothing in my car.

[DEPUTY ADAMS]: All right.

[DEPUTY SMITH]: I'm going to have him check it out anyway; is that cool?

[DEPUTY ADAMS]: Well, we're just going to tow it.

[DEPUTY SMITH]: Tow it?

[DEPUTY ADAMS]: Yep, we'll just tow it.

After this, Mr. Williams spoke to an unidentified individual who was in a car that slowed to drive around the police cars blocking the road. He asked that individual if they would "call my...