Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2744 September Term, 2009 _______________________________________ BRUCE WAYNE GILMORE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Eyler, James R., Meredith, Salmon, James P. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Meredith, J.

Filed: April 25, 2012

Bruce Wayne Gilmore, appellant, was charged in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County with possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana. Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his person prior to his arrest. After the motion was denied, the case proceeded by way of a bench trial on an agreed statement of facts. Appellant was found guilty of possession of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The charges for possession of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana were initially placed on the STET docket, and later nolle prossed. Appellant was sentenced to eight years' incarceration, all but four of which were suspended, subject to five years' supervised probation. The sole question presented for our consideration is whether the circuit court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Because the detention of appellant which led to the search was based upon the police officer's mistake of law as to whether the observed conduct was prohibited, we shall reverse. Factual Background Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress cocaine and marijuana seized from his person after an unlawful detention that was purportedly based upon a parking infraction. Our review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is limited to the record of the suppression hearing, and we do not consider the trial record. Brown v. State , 397 Md. 89, 98 (2007); Myers v. State , 395 Md. 261, 274 (2006); State v. Green , 375 Md. 595, 607 (2003)(citing Dashiell v. State , 374 Md. 85, 93 (2003)). "Although we extend great deference to the hearing judge's findings of fact, we review, independently, the application of the law to those facts to determine if the evidence at issue was obtained in violation of the law and, accordingly, should be suppressed." Laney v. State , 379 Md. 522, 533-34 (2004)(citations omitted). In addition, we review the evidence

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, the State. Brown , 397 Md. at 98; Myers, 395 Md. at 274; Green , 375 Md. at 607; Cartnail v. State , 359 Md. 272, 282 (2002). At the suppression hearing, Corporal Derrick Neumer of the Prince George's County Police Department, testified that, on February 7, 2008, he was working on a special assignment team "saturating high drug trafficking areas." He observed appellant backing his vehicle into a parking space at a liquor store known as the 51 Club. According to Corporal Neumer, appellant parked his car so that it was centered over one of the lines of a parking space, and, as a consequence, his vehicle occupied two parking spaces. After appellant and a passenger from his vehicle entered the liquor store, Corporal Neumer observed other vehicles attempting to park, but they were unable to park in the spots occupied by appellant's vehicle because of the manner in which appellant's vehicle straddled a line. Corporal Neumer waited approximately 10 minutes for appellant to exit the liquor store and return to his vehicle. He then confronted appellant and asked him "why he parked his car like that in a parking lot." Appellant responded that "he didn't realize he parked his car that way." Corporal Neumer advised appellant that other people were trying to visit the liquor store, but were unable to use one of the parking spaces, and that appellant "was in violation." He asked appellant for his driver's license and registration, which appellant handed over. While Corporal Neumer ran a registration and license check, he observed that appellant, who was five to ten feet in front of him, "appeared to be very nervous," and "kept moving back and forth . . . placing both hands in his pockets." Out of concern for officer safety, Corporal Neumer instructed appellant not to place his hands in his pockets. Thereafter, appellant "bladed his body," so as to turn or twist his torso away from Corporal 2



Download Gilmore v. State.pdf

Maryland Law