Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts

Decision Date24 April 2020
Docket NumberNo. 51, Sept. Term, 2019,Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019,51, Sept. Term, 2019
Citation227 A.3d 186,468 Md. 265
Parties BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. v. Ivan POTTS Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Estate of William James, By Its Personal Representative, Menyonde Lewis
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by Justin S. Conroy, Chief Solicitor, Police Legal Affairs (Andre M. Davis, City Solicitor, Daniel C. Beck, Chief, Office of Police Legal Affairs, Kara K. Lynch, Chief Solicitor, Police Legal Affairs, Alexa E. Ackerman and Natalie R. Amato, Assistant Solicitors, Police Legal Affairs, Rachel Simmonsen and Michael Redmond, Co-Directors, Appellate Practice Group, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellants (Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019).

Argued by Nicolas Y. Riley, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; Paul H. Zukerberg (Zukerberg & Halperin, PLLC, Washington, DC), on brief, for Appellee (Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019).

Amici Curiae Public Justice Center, ACLU of Maryland, the Youth, Education and Justice Clinic at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and the Baltimore Action Legal Team, in Support of Appellee (Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019): Dena Elizabeth Robinson, Murnaghan Appellate Advocacy Fellow, Public Justice Center, One North Charles Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21201.

Amici Curiae Victims of the Baltimore City Police Department in Support of Appellee (Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019): Andrew D. Freeman, Esquire, Jean M. Zachariasiewicz, Esquire, Chelsea J. Crawford, Esquire, Abigail A. Graber, Esquire, Neel K. Lalchandani, Esquire, Anthony J. May, Esquire, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700, Baltimore, MD 21202.

Argued by Justin S. Conroy, Chief Solicitor, Police Legal Affairs (Andre M. Davis, City Solicitor, Daniel C. Beck, Chief, Office of Police Legal Affairs, Kara K. Lynch, Chief Solicitor, Police Legal Affairs, Alexa E. Ackerman and Natalie R. Amato, Assistant Solicitors, Police Legal Affairs, Rachel Simmonsen and Michael Redmond, Co-Directors, Appellate Practice Group, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant (No. 51, Sept. Term, 2019).

Argued by Mandy L. Miliman (Howard A. Miliman, D'Alessandro & Miliman, P.A., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee (No. 51, Sept. Term, 2019).

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Wilner, Alan M. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Watts, J.

In the instant cases, we must decide whether certain actions by law enforcement officers were within the scope of their employment.1 The officers involved were members of the Baltimore City Police Department ("the Department")’s now-defunct Gun Trace Task Force. A few years ago, in a shocking and unfortunate scandal, it was discovered that members of the Department's Gun Trace Task Force had engaged in what has been described as "a wide-ranging, years-long racketeering conspiracy," which resulted in the officers being prosecuted and convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The instant cases do not involve the facts underlying the federal prosecutions. Rather, the cases arise out of two instances of police misconduct, in which the officers conducted stops and made arrests without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause, that were not charged in the federal conspiracy.

Under the Local Government Tort Claims Act ("the LGTCA"), Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol.) ("CJ") §§ 5-301 to 5-304, generally, "a local government [is] liable for any judgment against its employee for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions committed by the employee within the scope of employment with the local government." CJ § 5-303(b)(1). The LGTCA does not define "scope of employment," but Maryland case law provides an explanation of the term. In Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247, 255, 587 A.2d 467, 470 (1991), this Court explained that there is a two-pronged "general test" for whether an employee acted within the scope of employment ("the Sawyer test"). The first prong of the Sawyer test is whether the employee's actions "were in furtherance of the employer's business[,]" and the second prong is whether the employer "authorized" the employee's actions. Id. at 255, 587 A.2d at 470.

In Potts, the officers stopped Ivan Potts, Appellee, without reasonable articulable suspicion as he was walking, beat him, searched him, and found no contraband. Having found no contraband, the officers planted a handgun on Potts, arrested him, and falsely stated in police reports that he had possessed the handgun. The officers did not steal or take anything of value from Potts. At Potts's trial, the officers falsely testified that they had recovered the handgun from him. Potts was convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, the first five of which to be served without the possibility of parole, and he was incarcerated at various Maryland State prison facilities until his conviction was vacated. From the time of Potts's arrest to his release, he was in custody approximately nineteen months. In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Potts sued the officers and the Department, Appellant, and later the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore ("the City"), Appellant.2

In James, officers stopped William James's vehicle without reasonable articulable suspicion and demanded that James provide the name of a person who possessed drugs or a gun. When James was unable to do so, the officers falsely alleged that a handgun, that they had provided, belonged to James and arrested him. The officers did not steal or take anything of value from James. James was in custody awaiting trial for more than seven months. After his release from custody, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, James sued the officers, the Department, and the City, Petitioner. During the proceedings in the circuit court, James died in an incident that was unrelated to the civil case. James's estate, Respondent, replaced him as the plaintiff.

In both cases, the plaintiffs and the officers agreed to a settlement of the lawsuits in the amount of $32,000 for the plaintiffs. As part of the settlements, the officers assigned to Potts and James's estate the right to indemnification from the City under CJ § 5-303(b)(1) and the collective bargaining agreement between the Department and its officers’ union.3 Potts and James's estate filed supplemental complaints in their respective cases, seeking payment of the settlements by the City. In both cases, in connection with motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a "Stipulated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("the stipulation").

In Potts, while motions for summary judgment were pending in federal court, the parties filed a joint motion to certify a question of law to this Court, which the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted. In James, the circuit court granted James's estate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the officers acted within the scope of employment and that the City was required to compensate James's estate. The City appealed, and petitioned for a writ of certiorari while the case was pending in the Court of Special Appeals. The certified question of law in Potts and the question presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari in James are identical, and state:

Whether, ... in light of the undisputed facts in the record, the three former Baltimore City Police officers [who are] named in this action are entitled to indemnity for the judgments [that were] entered against them herein; that is, whether, as matter of law[,] on the undisputed facts, the judgment [that was] sought to be enforced by [the p]laintiff is based on "tortious acts or omissions [that were] committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]."

(Quoting CJ § 5-303(b)(1) ) (some alterations in original) (emphasis omitted). This Court accepted the certified question of law in Potts, and granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in James. See Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. Estate of James by Lewis, 466 Md. 309, 219 A.3d 526 (2019).

Before us, the City and the Department contend that the officers’ actions were outside the scope of employment as their actions were outrageous, personally motivated, and willfully criminal. Potts and James's estate respond that the officers acted within the scope of employment as there is no evidence that the officers personally benefitted from their actions—i.e. , the officers’ actions were designed to further the interests of the Department, not the officers.

We conclude that the stipulations in Potts and James establish that the officers’ conduct in each case satisfies the test for conduct within the scope of employment that this Court set forth in Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-57, 587 A.2d at 470-71. The officers’ conduct in Potts and James is analogous to conduct in cases in which Maryland appellate courts have determined that government employees acted within the scope of employment. As such, we hold that, in Potts and James, the officers acted within the scope of employment, and, under CJ § 5-303(b)(1), the City is responsible for compensating Potts and James's estate for the officers’ actions by paying the settlements that Potts, James's estate, and the officers reached.

Evaluating the first prong of the Sawyer test, we conclude that the officers’ actions were in furtherance of the Department's business as their actions were at least partially motivated by "a purpose to serve the" Department, and because there is no indication that the officers were "acting to protect [their] own interests[.]" Sawyer, 322 Md. at 255-57, 587 A.2d at 470-71 (citations omitted). Our conclusion is supported by the well-established principle in Maryland case law that, generally, an officer's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Washington v. Balt. Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • May 6, 2020
    ...conduct, because that conduct occurred within the scope of their employment. Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts , Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019 & No. 51, Sept. Term, 2019, 227 A.3d 186, 209-19 (Md. Apr. 24, 2020). Of course, the BPD may raise its sovereign immunity defense again at a later st......
  • Balt. City Police Dep't v. Esteppe
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 27, 2020
    ...the scope of an officer's employment. The Court of Appeals recently rejected that argument in Baltimore City Police Department v. Potts , 468 Md. 265, 274, 305-06, 227 A.3d 186 (2020).1 The Department also contends that even if serious criminal conduct can fall within the scope of an office......
  • Norris v. PNC Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 16, 2022
    ...... “Mortgage”) from “National City Mortgage Co. dba Accubanc Mortgage.” ECF 1-2 at ...at 91-100). Thereafter, she called. the police, as well as Safeguard and PNC. Id . at 14,. 42 (Tr. ...v. Norris, et al. , No. 03-C-18-000338 (Balt. Cty. Cir. Ct.). As part of these. proceedings, a ...City Police. Dep't v. Potts , 468 Md. 265, 306, 277 A.3d 186, 210. (2020). . ......
  • Washington v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • December 19, 2022
    ...... Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 420234003. . .           ... recent years, the Baltimore Police Department has experienced. a series of unsettling ... Justice, Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the Balt. City. Police Dep't at 8 (Aug. 10, 2016), available ... City, Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts, 468 Md. 265, 271, 276, 278, 227 A.3d 186, 190, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT