subject: Maryland Anne Arundel County Sexual Offense Suppress Evidence Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] Thomas ZIMMERMAN vThomas ZIMMERMAN v. STATE of Maryland
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
January 13, 1989
Thomas Zimmerman contacted the Anne Arundel County Police Department and informed them that while at home he was stabbed by Clarence Sears. The assailant fled. In response to the telephone call, Officer Brian Daniels went to Zimmerman's home. While en route to Zimmerman's residence, Daniels learned that another police officer had apprehended Sears.
Nevertheless, Daniels, when he arrived at Zimmerman's home, conducted a visual sweep of the house in order to ensure that there were no other persons present. While searching the home, Daniels saw a poster of a nude male holding his own erection. Additionally, Daniels observed several volumes of diaries. He looked through the diaries for the alleged purpose of finding clues as to what had happened. He said that he wanted to discover whether Zimmerman was a homosexual who suffered from AIDS. In the diaries Daniels found several entries relating to sexual encounters between Zimmerman and young males. The confiscated diaries were used to demonstrate the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant. Execution of the warrant revealed photographs of men and boys in various poses displaying their genitalia. The Zimmerman's ex-wife identified two of the boys in the pictures as her nephews. The nephews were contacted and, because of what both they and Zimmerman's ex-wife recounted, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with the sexual offenses of which he was convicted.
Issue:
Did the hearing court err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized in the execution of the search warrant?
Discussion:
The Court observes that the police officers who, in the instant case, read through Zimmerman's diaries did so without a warrant. The search of the house was likewise warrantless. Officer Daniels's explanation that because he saw a poster of a nude male grasping an erection he believed Zimmerman might have AIDS, and, therefore, he read through the diaries to find the names and addresses of doctors is imaginative but incredible. This particularly is true in light of the fact that the officer made no attempt whatsoever to contact any doctor. His words whisper one thing while his actions shout another.
The Court finds that once the AIDS explanation is rejected, it may not be successfully asserted that the search of the Zimmerman house was justified by any emergency threatening life or limb. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to ensure that no matter how culpable an accused may appear to be his guilt must be proven through a fair trial in accord with due process. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an aspect of the exclusionary rule, a judicially imposed sanction for violations of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires courts to suppress evidence which is the product of unlawful governmental activity.
In the instant case, the police unlawfully searched through, and confiscated, Zimmerman's diaries. Based on the items acquired during the search, they were able to obtain a search warrant. The warrant is tainted because of the officers' illegal activity. Additionally, the pictures obtained, as well as the names and addresses of persons involved with Zimmerman in illicit activity, were the fruits of the poisonous tree, and as such they are inadmissible as evidence. We have pointed out that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine extends the scope of the exclusionary rule to bar not only evidence directly seized but also evidence indirectly obtained as a result of an unlawful search. The testimony of Zimmerman's nephews was indirectly procured from an illegal search. Hence, it too is inadmissible.
Conclusion:
The court reversed the circuit court's judgment that convicted defendant of two counts of child sexual abuse and two counts of third degree sexual offense. The court ordered that costs were to be paid by the county
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Maryland Anne Arundel County Sexual Offense Suppress Evidence Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
