State of Maryland v. Todd E. immel

Rockville, Maryland criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with solicitation of a law enforcement officer posing as a minor to engage in sexual activities.



Detective Lindsay Greene of the Montgomery County Police Department, Special Investigations Division and Intelligence Unit, set up an undercover profile on social media sites she identified as "Scout" and "MeetMe," posing as a fifteen-year-old girl named "Nikki." Detective Greene testified, without objection, that "Scout is a social networking application. Generally, it's used to network. It's used to facilitate sexual encounters, casual or otherwise." Further, over objection, the detective testified that "in my experience as a Police Officer, and in working in my capacity as a Detective, it has also been used to facilitate sexual encounters with minors as well." She further testified that "MeetMe" was a similar application and that "Scout" and "MeetMe" shared profiles of users with each other.[2]



Detective Greene testified that she created a fictional profile of a "light skinned female," listing the age as eighteen years old, and then providing a location area of Rockville, Maryland. She explained that she used the age of eighteen because Scout will not allow minors to create profiles. She included three photographs of an unidentified female in creating the fictional profile for the alias she named "Nikki."



On January 18, 2023, the profile for "Nikki" received a message from a person later identified as Appellant. Appellant included photographs of himself, noted his age as fifty, and provided his general address in Mt. Airy, Maryland. Detective Greene responded.



During the ensuing conversations, Appellant inquired as to "Nikki's" age, and



Detective Greene answered that "Nikki" was fifteen. Because the social media site prohibited contact with a minor, "Nikki's" account was then disabled by the site. Before that occurred, Appellant provided his Instagram profile so that he and "Nikki" could continue their conversations over Instagram. At this point in their conversations, there were no explicit discussions about sex, but there were mutual discussions about having a "casual encounter."



Detective Greene then created a new profile for "Nikki" on Instagram and sent Appellant a friend request and the conversations continued.[3] Appellant also provided several more photographs of himself, and Detective Greene provided two photographs of the fictional profile, "Nikki." In her first few messages to Appellant, "Nikki" informed Appellant "as soon as I told you I'm 15, my account [on Scout] got deleted[.]" At one point, Appellant replied that it was "best not to say age anymore."



Over the course of January 18th and 19th, 2023, the conversations between the two became graphic and sexual in nature. At numerous times during that conversation, the profile for "Nikki" clearly indicated she was a fifteen-year-old girl. And, "Nikki" spoke about being a sophomore in high school, her homework, and speaking with her mother. In fact, at one point, Appellant stated he was worried "Nikki" was a "cop," stating, "I hope, saying cop thing didn't piss you off. You're 15, I'm 50. You can understand my situation." Appellant then asked to meet "Nikki" in person. "Nikki" replied that she had school and that "maybe I can probably skip class Friday."



On January 19, 2023, the conversations began early in the morning and Appellant proposed they have sex in his car. "Nikki" suggested they meet at a CVS drugstore parking lot on Rockville Pike, located near "Nikki's" school.[4] Detective Greene testified that "Nikki" told Appellant that she would need to "get back to class and catch the bus home after[.]" Appellant stated he would be there and that he would be driving a green Kia.



Detective Greene and other detectives then set up surveillance near the CVS in question. At a certain point, a Kia being driven by a person matching Appellant's description and social media profile arrived. As the vehicle parked near an IHOP located in the same shopping center as the CVS, Appellant and "Nikki" exchanged additional messages to coordinate the meeting and confirm the color of Appellant's Kia. After a short delay, Appellant messaged, "[s]omething seems wrong[,]" and that "I need more info now or leaving[.]"



Ultimately, Detective Greene and other officers blocked in Appellant's vehicle and placed him under arrest. Appellant had condoms in his jacket pocket. When the police searched the vehicle incident to arrest, Detective Greene saw a cell phone in plain view. To verify that this was the phone Appellant used during their conversations, the detective called from the number associated with "Nikki," and Appellant's cell phone displayed a notification from "Nikki."



* * *



Legal issue Can prejudicial evidence be admitted in a solicitation case if it supports an inference about the defendant's intent?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. The case examines whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a collapsible baton and brass knuckles recovered from the defendant's car, debating the relevance and potential prejudicial impact concerning charges of soliciting sexual activities from an undercover officer posing as a minor.



CRIMINAL LAW. CLOSING ARGUMENTS. The case evaluates whether the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, which inferred a consciousness of guilt related to missing user data from the defendant's phone, was appropriately based on evidence presented at trial or constituted arguing facts not in evidence.



Key Phrases Solicitation of a law enforcement officer. Social networking application. Relevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence. Probative value. Consciousness of guilt.

Affirmed