« Noting central place of Texas in (incomplete) consensus disfavoring increased use of incarceration | Main | "The American Death Penalty Decline" »

February 14, 2017

"Maryland prosecutor sentenced for hotel sex acts in front of glass door in Ocean City"

The title of this post is the headline of this Washington Post article, which sort of has a Valentine's Day theme.  I recommend the article if full in order to get the "full monty" details, but here are highlights from the start of the article and its update:

It’s Valentine’s Day, and the top prosecutor in Cecil County, Md., having already celebrated his love with his wife in full view of numerous others, will stand before a judge today and receive a criminal sentence for such public displays of affection.

Edward “Ellis” Rollins III (R) was arrested in June for indecent exposure and disorderly conduct, for having sex, standing naked and other related acts at the sliding glass door of his tenth-floor Ocean City, Md., hotel room, while four tourists, a security officer and two Ocean City police officers watched.  He was convicted by a Worcester County, Md., jury after a two-day trial in December. Rollins, 61, likely will not face jail time for the two misdemeanor convictions.... He did remove himself from consideration for a circuit court judgeship, which he was scheduled to interview for with the governor shortly after his arrest, on a bench where both his father and grandfather served.

Rollins did not return phone and email messages Monday, and his attorney, Cullen Burke, also did not return a call.  At trial, Rollins did not testify, but his lawyer did not deny that Rollins and his wife enjoyed various carnal relations next to the sliding glass door of their hotel room.  Burke described Rollins and his wife, Holly Rollins, as “still newlyweds” after six years of marriage, according to the Cecil Whig, and Holly Rollins testified she had no idea anyone was watching from the adjacent condominiums. Burke said there was 172 feet between the two buildings and that the Rollins’ hotel room “was a speck” in the vision of the tourists’ apartment.

But the four Pennsylvania women who spotted the activity, on two different days, felt it was much more visible than a speck. They returned to Ocean City and testified in detail about Rollins’ actions. It really wasn’t the sex so much as Rollins’ naked dancing and posing at the sliding glass door that truly offended the visitors, according to the media reports of their testimony. “You’re just sickening,” one woman turned and said to Rollins during her testimony. “I have nightmares because of you. I argue with my husband because it’s all I can talk about.”

UPDATE, 2:02 p.m.: Worcester County Circuit Judge Brian Shockley imposed a $1,000 fine and a 90-day jail sentence with all time suspended for Ellis Rollins, along with 100 hours of community service, 18 months of supervised probation and mental health treatment.  Worcester County State’s Attorney said he asked for a two-year sentence with 18 months suspended, which would have meant Rollins would have spent six months in the Worcester jail, but Shockley did not take that recommendation.

February 14, 2017 at 05:28 PM | Permalink


“You’re just sickening,” one woman turned and said to Rollins during her testimony. “I have nightmares because of you. I argue with my husband because it’s all I can talk about.”

Hmmmm, how about averting one's eyes?

Posted by: federalist | Feb 14, 2017 6:29:00 PM

I don't understand. We have an expert in the Maryland Criminal Code. Why is he not having the witnesses prosecuted? The statute below also grants recourse to get relief in torts. Where is his defense lawyer? Is the defense lawyer an agent of the other side. I did not say, the prosecutor, because the defendant is a prosecutor. Some of the defense lawyers here should try to explain this anomaly.

Then, as a zealous defense lawyer, I would demand e-discovery on everybody, including the judge. Anyone ever look at a porn site must be disqualified as a witness, a prosecutor, a judge. That is because they are violating the Equal Protection Clause and Fifth Amendment Due Process right of the defendant. This is a trick tactic, because we already 100% of people have looked at a porn site. British researchers once tried to study the downloading of porn. The design of their study required a matched control group. They had to drop the study because they were not able to find a single control subject, not even among the research team.

I am going to bet the traumatized lady is a feminist. She is also likely to be a mental patient. Her medical record should have been subpoenaed and read aloud in court, and displayed with Power Point on a giant screen.

Are all the lawyers in this country just about the stupidest bunch of any group, including Life Skills students whose curriculum consists of learning to brush their teeth and to put pants on with the zipper in the front? You lawyers are all stupider than kids with Intellectual Disability.


§ 3-902 (2008). Visual surveillance with prurient intent
(a) Definitions. --
(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) "Camera" includes any electronic device that can be used surreptitiously to observe an individual.
(3) "Female breast" means a portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.
(4) "Private area of an individual" means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.
(5) (i) "Private place" means a room in which a person can reasonably be expected to fully or partially disrobe and has a reasonable expectation of privacy, in:
1. an office, business, or store;
2. a recreational facility;
3. a restaurant or tavern;
4. a hotel, motel, or other lodging facility;
5. a theater or sports arena;
6. a school or other educational institution;
7. a bank or other financial institution;
8. any part of a day care home used for the care and custody of a child; or 9. another place of public use or accommodation.
(ii) "Private place" includes a tanning room, dressing room, bedroom, or restroom.
(6) (i) "Visual surveillance" means the deliberate, surreptitious observation of an individual by any means.
(ii) "Visual surveillance" includes surveillance by:
1. direct sight;
2. the use of mirrors; or
3. the use of cameras.
(iii) "Visual surveillance" does not include a casual, momentary, or unintentional observation of an individual.
(b) Scope of section. -- This section does not apply to a person who without prurient intent:
(1) conducts filming by or for the print or broadcast media;
(2) conducts or procures another to conduct visual surveillance
of an individual to protect property or public safety or prevent crime; or
(3) conducts visual surveillance and:
(i) holds a license issued under Title 13 or Title 19 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article; and
(ii) is acting within the scope of the person's occupation.
(c) Prohibited. -- A person may not with prurient intent conduct or procure another to conduct visual surveillance of:
(1) an individual in a private place without the consent of that individual; or
(2) the private area of an individual by use of a camera without the consent of the individual under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether the individual is in a public or private place.

(d) Penalty. -- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.

(e) Civil action. --
(1) An individual who was under visual surveillance in violation of
this section has a civil cause of action against any person who conducted or procured another to conduct the visual surveillance.
(2) In an action under this subsection, the court may award actual damages and
reasonable attorney's fees.

(f) Other remedies. -- This section does not affect any legal or equitable right or remedy otherwise provided by law.

(g) Effect of section. -- This section does not affect the application of § 3-901 of this subtitle.

Posted by: David Behar | Feb 14, 2017 6:58:35 PM

The 4 tourists who witnessed this were "so sickened" by what they viewed, yet they didn't just "walk away", they hung around to watch. That's the real perversion in this story.

Posted by: kat | Feb 15, 2017 1:16:19 PM

Re: David Baer 👹

I recognized the style long LONG before the end ‼️😂
I do not agree about the intelligence level of layers , albeit there exist a few who define exponential cognitive decay 👹

I believe he had some excellent ideas 😇

Posted by: Docile the Kind Soul® (OH) | Feb 17, 2017 3:07:22 AM

Docile. If you take the educational testing results of future lawyers, they have high IQ's, know a lot, and are very articulate, with good social skills. Then they attend 1L, and pass. They emerge From 1L stupider than drooling Life Skills Class students. It is a sad, very human tragedy.

Indeed, if some of those Life Skills Class students were to be named to the Supreme Court, there would be an immediate upgrade in the quality of the decisions and in the clarity of the opinions.

Posted by: David Behar | Feb 17, 2017 6:31:46 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB