Law digest: 6/13/11

Listen to this article

COURT OF APPEALS

Constitutional Law, Waiver of counsel: Because the defendant was not informed of the range of allowable punishments for the charges against him, including applicable enhanced penalties, his waiver of counsel was invalid. Lopez v. State, No. 24, Sept. Term 2008. RecordFax No. 11-0525-20.

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

Criminal Procedure, Probable cause: Where police officers did not have probable cause to believe that defendant was in possession of controlled substances or drug paraphernalia found in a lockbox in an apartment he was visiting, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Belote v. State, No. 2633, Sept.Term 2009. RecordFax No. 11-0524-04.

Torts, Local Government Tort Claims Act: The city housing authority was entitled to summary judgment in a lead paint poisoning case where plaintiff failed to satisfy the notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act and plaintiff did not establish good cause so as to warrant waiver of the notice requirement. Mitchell v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, No. 2293, Sept. Term, 2009. RecordFax No. 11-0525-00.

FOURTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Civil Procedure, Removal: Action brought by West Virginia Attorney General pursuant to consumer protection statutes, alleging that defendant pharmacy allegedly overcharged consumers for generic drugs, was not a “class action” subject to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act. West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated, No. 11-1251. RecordFax No. 11-0520-60.

Criminal Procedure, Search & seizure: Where evidence offered in affidavit in support of search warrant was so deficient as to preclude reasonable belief in existence of probable cause, the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule did not apply. United States v. Doyle, No. 09-4603. RecordFax No. 11-0523-60.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MARYLAND

Commercial Law, Telephone Consumer Protection Act: Allegations that defendants made anonymous prerecorded telephone calls to many Maryland residents were sufficient to state a claim for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. State v. Universal Elections, Civil Action No. CCB–10–3183. RecordFax No. 11-0525-40.

Labor & Employment, Disability benefits: The Retirement Board did not abuse its discretion in denying former professional football player’s request for reclassification of his disability benefits where he failed to establish that, because of “changed circumstances,” he satisfied the conditions of eligibility for a different category of benefits. Boyd v. Bell, Civil No. JFM–10–0360. RecordFax No. 11-0524-40.