suggesting a possible constitutional right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to resist an unlawful arrest
How later courts described this case
- suggesting a possible constitutional right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to resist an unlawful arrest
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Watkins v. State, 288 Md. 597 (1980)
For a discussion of the continuing viability of the common law principle articulated in Sugarman, see Rodgers v. State, 280 Md. 406, 373 A.2d 944 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 928 (1977); Annot., 44 A.L.R. 3d 1078 (1972).
Distinguished
Distinguished by Jefferson v. State, 228 Md. 331 (1962)
173 Md. 52, 58, is readily distinguishable on the facts, for there the attempted bribery of an officer making an illegal arrest was held not to constitute an admission, and was obviously prejudicial.
The opinion
Urner, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion as follows, in which Bond,, C. J., concurred.
I have been unable to agree with the conclusion that the defendant’s second arrest was without legal justification. In my judgment his statements and offers, while accompanying the officer after his first arrest, and his significant conduct, were equivalent to an admissipn that
*62
he was committing the misdemeanor of which he was evidently suspected, and were sufficient to bring his rearrest, by the same officer, within the principle of the decisions in
Heyward, v. State,
161 Md. 685, 693 , 158 A. 897 , and
Blager v. State,
162 Md. 664 , 161 A. 1 . The torn lottery ticket secreted in the cell which the defendant occupied, and the other similar tickets found along the course of his flight from the officer’s original custody, as well as those discovered in his automobile, were, I think, under the circumstances, properly admitted in evidence.
Callahan v. State,
163 Md. 298 , 162 A. 856 .