2842/09 - Maryland Courts

If [appellant] reinitiated or continued discussion of the offense,
which this court believes he did, then the police may question a suspect
without regard to lapse of time between the election to remain silent and
the reinitiated interrogation. See[] Raras v. State, 140 Md. App. 132, 153
(2001); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 458 (1994). Moreover, as
in the Raras case, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that at the start
of the reinitiated interview, [appellant] was presented with and signed an
Advice of Miranda Rights form waiving his Miranda rights. There is no
credible evidence before the Court that [appellant=s] statement was in any
way coerced, or that his election to remain silent was in any way
overborne by police conduct. [Appellant] in fact acknowledged that he
voluntarily signed the Maryland State Police Advice of Miranda Rights
form.
Standard of Review
In Lee v. State, 418 Md. 136 (2011), the Court of Appeals set forth the standard to be
applied when reviewing a trial court=s disposition of a motion to suppress evidence:
In undertaking our review of the suppression court=s ruling, we
confine ourselves to what occurred at the suppression hearing. We view
the evidence and inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom in a
light most favorable to the prevailing party on the motion, here, the State.
We defer to the motions court=s factual findings and uphold them unless
they are shown to be clearly erroneous. We, however, make our own
independent constitutional appraisal, by reviewing the relevant law and
applying it to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Id. at 148-49 (citations and quotations omitted).
Analysis
Appellant=s argument centers on the admissibility of the statements that he made during the
first interview with Sgt. Becker and Cpl. Mann. After appellant argues that these statements
should have been suppressed, appellant contends that, A[i]f the original waiver of the right to
remain silent was improper, then the subsequent interview and [recorded] statement taken in the
16