Preview:

Wesley Whiting, a/k/a Jeffrey Wilson, a/k/a L ynell Whiting v. State of M aryland, No. 4, September Term, 2005. CRIMINAL LAW - FOURTH AMENDMENT - SEARCH OF PREMISES : Petitioner challenged the denial of a motion to suppress evidence found during two searches of a vac ant h ouse own ed by the C ity of Baltimore where he had been "squatting" in the upstairs rear bedro om. The Court of Appea ls held that pe titioner did possess a subjective expectation of privacy in the upstairs rear bedroom of the vacant ho use, but bec ause he d id not lawfully ow n, lease, contro l, occupy, or righ tfully possess the bedroom or the hou se, did not possess an objective expectation of privacy in the bedroom or the house. The Court of Appea ls therefore h eld that petition er did not ha ve standing to challenge the two searches of the house and upheld the trial court's denial of petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 4 September Term, 2005

WESLEY WHITING A/K/A JEFFREY WILSON A/K/A LYNELL WHITING

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinion by Battaglia, J. Bell , C.J. join s in th e jud gme nt on ly.

Filed:

November 8, 2005

Petitioner Wesley Whiting, also known as Jeffrey Wilson and Lynell Whiting, seeks review of a judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the Circuit Court's dismissal of Whiting's motion to suppress evidence as the fruit of alleged illegal searches of 810 East Preston Street, Baltimore, Maryland, a house owned by the City in which Whiting was a "squat ter." On April 7, 2005, this Court granted Whiting's Petition for Writ of C ertiorari to address the question that Whiting has presented to us for review: Did the lower C ourt err by ruling that Petitioner d id not have standing to challeng e the legality of the search of the house where h e was resid ing witho ut a property inte rest? Whiting v. State , 386 M d. 180, 872 A.2d 47 (2005). W e hold that, alth ough W hiting did possess a subjective expectation of privacy in the second floor rear bedroom of 810 East Preston Street, his expectation of privacy was not objectively reasonable, and as a result, he did not have standing under the Fourth Amendment to challenge the searches. 1 I. Background On April 7, 2001, Baltimore City Police Officers responded to 1136 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore to try to find William Jerome Moore, Jr., a Correctional Officer who had failed to report to work for two days. Upon arriving at the home, the officers discovered Moore's body. An autopsy show ed that Moore's d eath was caused by blunt force trauma.

The question presented in the Petition for Certiora ri is phrased in the singular w ith respect to "search," although there were two searches that occurre d, one on A pril 27, 2001 and one on May 4, 2001. The transcript of the suppression hearing reflects consideration of standing with respect to both searches, although the Court of Special Appeals appears to have evaluated Whiting's standing only with regard to the May 4, 2001 search. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari refers to two searches. Our holding disposes of the standing question w ith respect to both the April 27, 2001 and May 4, 2001 searches.

1

During the investigation, detectives were able to identify Moore's cellular phone number, despite failing to recov er the ph one. The cellular phone records were subpoenaed from the phone company and reflected use after Moore's death. On April 26, 2001, after having traced calls made from the cellular phone, detectives located and spoke with a witness who had received a call from Whiting and believed that Whiting had called from a number resembling Moore's pho ne number. A nother witness also made a photographic identification of Whiting as the individual in possession of Moore's cellular phone, and an acquaintance of Whiting reported that Whiting lived at 810 East Preston Street in Baltimore, where, in fact, he had been arrested on April 21, 2001, on unrelated charges. T he investiga tion eventu ally culminated in the execution of two search warrants on April 27, and May 4, 2001 at 810 East Preston Street where police recovered various items of personal property, some of which contain ed bloo d. On April 30, 2001, W hiting was served w ith an arrest warrant for the murder of Moore. He was later indicted for one count of first degree murder in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Section 407 of Article 27,2 one coun t of first degre e assault

2

Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Section 407 of Article 27, states: All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or lying in wait, or by any kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing shall be murder in the first degree.

Section 407 has been rec odified without substan tive change as M aryland Code (2002 ), Section 2-201 of the C riminal L aw A rticle. -2-

in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Section 12A-1 of Article 27,3 one count of second degree assault in violation of Ma ryland Code (1957, 19 96 Repl. Vol.), Section 12A of Article 27,4 one count of robbery in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996

3

Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Rep. Vol., 2001 Supp.), Section 12A-1 of Article 27,

states: (a) Serious physical injury; use of a firearm.

Download Whiting v. State.pdf

Maryland Law