Preview:

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1543 September Term, 2002

EARL WARREN SEIP v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Eyler, James R., Adkins, Moylan, Charles E., Jr., (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Filed: November 4, 2003

We are asked to decide whether the suppression court erred in holding that a police officer in fresh pursuit of a motorist who violated the speed limit within the officer's jurisdiction may stop that motorist outside the officer's jurisdiction. suppression court's holding because we find no We affirm the error in its

findings that the doctrine of fresh pursuit is not abrogated by Md. Code (1957, 2001 Repl. Vol.), section 2-102(b)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"). FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS At approximately 1:30 AM on February 27, 2001, Earl Warren Seip, III, appellant, was observed exceeding the 55 mile per hour posted speed limit on Route 90 by PFC Ray Austin, Ocean City Police Department. Seip was within the Ocean City corporate limits when Austin initiated a traffic

Austin first detected he was speeding.

stop by activating his emergency equipment as Seip drove westbound over the Big Assawoman Bay Bridge. He followed Seip across the

bridge, waiting, due to safety concerns, to reach the far side before pulling him over. Austin's stop of Seip, consequently, Seip

occurred outside the Ocean City limits in Worcester County.

was arrested for driving while impaired, in violation of Md. Code (1977, 2002 Repl. Vol.), section 21-902(b) of the Transportation Article. Seip moved to suppress the evidence against him, alleging the stop violated Md. Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Article 27, section 594B(l)(2)(ii)(now Md. Code (2001) CP section 2-102(b)(3)), because

it was made outside Austin's jurisdiction. opinion, the to suppress.

In a cogent six-page

court rejected Seip's argument and denied his motion

Seip entered a not guilty plea on agreed statement of facts. The court found Seip guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to one year in the Worcester County

Detention Center, with all but 30 days suspended, and 36 months of supervised probation. A fine of $500.00 was imposed, and he was assessed court costs of $166.00. this Court. DISCUSSION I. Standard Of Review The Court of Appeals recently explained the standard of review used by appellate courts in reviewing motions to suppress evidence in Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85 (2003). "Our review of a Circuit Court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment is limited, ordinarily, to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing and not the record of the trial. When there is a denial of a motion to suppress, we are further limited to considering facts in the light most favorable to the State as the prevailing party on the motion. In considering the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, we extend great deference to the fact-finding of the suppression hearing judge with respect to the weighing and determining [of] first-level facts. When conflicting evidence is presented, we accept the facts as found by the hearing judge unless it is shown that his 2 Seip timely filed an appeal to

findings are clearly erroneous. Even so, as to the ultimate conclusion of whether an action taken was proper, we must make our own independent constitutional appraisal by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the case." Id. at 93-94 (quoting State v. Collins, 367 Md. 700, 706-07 (2002))(citations omitted). II. Fresh Pursuit The common law doctrine of fresh pursuit allows an officer to pursue and arrest a person outside of the officer's jurisdiction, without a warrant, for misdemeanors committed in the officer's presence within a reasonable time after commission of the crime. See Gattus v. State, 204 Md. 589, 600-01 (1954); Torres v. State, 147 Md. App. 83, 98 (2002). section 2-301. The doctrine has been codified in CP

CP

Download Seip v. State.pdf

Maryland Law