Sykes v. Wicomico County (Maryland U.S.D.C.) (Not approved for publication)

Filed March 30, 2007 --Opinion by Judge Catherine Blake

Tyrone Sykes sued the defendants, Officers Phillips and Alessandrini for violations of federal and state law arising out of a scuffle during his arrest for criminal trespass in Salisbury, Maryland. In a Maryland district court trial, Sykes was found not guilty of the criminal trespass charge, after the judge found no probable cause for his arrest. The judge noted that under the common law one could resist reasonably in an unlawful arrest. In federal court Sykes alleged violations that included assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Sykes claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the defendants illegally searched his person after arresting him without a warrant. The court denied summary judgment on that claim because of a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers had probable cause for the arrest. The court rejected summary judgment for the defendants based on qualified immunity because as stated by Syke’s version of the events, an arrest for trespass, and subsequent search, by the police without express authorization or prior agreement, and where the plaintiff articulates a plausibly legitimate reason for being on the premises, which has been acknowledged by the officer, is a constitutional violation.

Finding that the notice provisions of the Maryland Tort Claims Act do not implicate individual state employees, the court held that Sykes’s possible failure to comply with the MTCA would not bar his claim.

The defendants claimed that they were entitled to statutory immunity for the state law claims but the court rejected that as a basis for summary judgment because on the facts taken in the light most favorable to Sykes there was evidence sufficient for a jury to find actual malice, which would preclude qualified immunity. Analyzing the claims of excessive force during an arrest under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard and again taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court found a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether defendants used excessive force.

With respect to the assault and battery claims, the court noted that police officials are not responsible in inflicting injury on a person being arrested, unless the officer acts with malice or gross negligence. Because there was a genuine dispute as to whether the police officers lacked probable cause in arresting Sykes for trespass, and taking the facts in the light most favorable to Sykes, the judge denied summary judgment on that basis because a jury could find malice in the defendants’ actions. On a similar reasoning, the court found summary judgment inappropriate as to the false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution allegations.

The Opinion and Order are available in PDF.

Pope v. Barbre (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Decided January 25, 2007--Opinion by Judge Sally D. Adkins.

Pope suffered paralyzing injuries when Mark Barbre, appellee and Queen Anne's County Deputy Sheriff, shot him in the neck following a traffic stop. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment on Pope's claims against Barbre, and dismissed his claims against the State of Maryland and Queen Anne's County, because Pope mistakenly notified Queen Anne's County of his claim under the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA), rather than notifying the State Treasurer or one of two specified designees. Pope challenges those rulings, arguing that he complied with the mandatory notice requirements of Md. Code (1984, 2004 Repl. Vol.), section 12-106(b) of the State Government Article (SG), and that such notice is not a prerequisite to his claim against Barbre individually.

Held:

1. The "substantial compliance" doctrine under the Maryland Tort Claims Act can be expanded to encompass such defective notice. Pope had provided notice of his claim to the Queen Anne's County Commissioner. However, the Court concluded that the Queen Anne's County Commissioner was not a "Treasurer’s designee" for purposes of accepting notice of tort claims under the MTCA. Furthermore, service on the County does not constitute substantial compliance with §12-106(b) of the MTCA.

2. Notice under the MTCA is not necessary to sue an individual State officer in his individual capacity for torts allegedly committed with malice or gross negligence, or outside the scope of employment. The Court found that:

When, as in this case, the claimant pursues tort remedies against an individual classified as State personnel, based on acts allegedly committed with malice or gross negligence, a requirement of notice to the State would not serve the investigation and settlement purposes underlying section 12-106(b). Nor would notice to individual State personnel serve such purposes. Thus, the State Treasurer does not require early notice of a claim against an individual officer alleging a malicious or grossly negligent tort.

A copy of the opinion is available in PDF.