Bittner v. Huth

• Decision Date: 21 June 2005
• Docket Number: No. 2395,2395
• Citation: 876 A.2d 157,162 Md. App. 745
• Parties: Juanita BITTNER, et al. v. Gary HUTH, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

876 A.2d 157

162 Md. App. 745

Juanita BITTNER, et al. v. Gary HUTH, et al.

No. 2395, September Term, 2003.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 21, 2005.

Virginia W. Barnhart (Pope & Hughes, P.A., on the brief), Towson, MD, for Appellant.

Paul Mayhew (Edward J. Gilliss, County Atty., on the brief), Towson, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: MURPHY, C.J., JAMES R. EYLER, and PAUL E. ALPERT, (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Charles Bittner, his wife Juanita, and their daughter Julie Bittner, appellants, sued Baltimore County and several (named and unnamed) Baltimore County police officers,¹ appellees. According to appellants, who reside at 6561 St. Helena Avenue in Baltimore City, several Baltimore County police officers committed an unlawful trespass upon the Bittner residence on October 7, 2002, when the officers made (1) a warrantless entry of the residence to arrest Mr. and Mrs. Bittner's son, Steven Bittner, and (2) a second warrantless entry after the officers had left the premises with Steven in custody.² Appellees argued that, even though almost all of the events at issue occurred in Baltimore City,³ appellants should be required to litigate their claims in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The circuit court agreed with appellees' venue argument, and this appeal followed, in which appellants present three questions for our review:

I. Did the trial court improperly transfer venue to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County?

II. Did the lower court improperly dismiss the Bittners' trespass to land claim?

III. Did the lower court improperly make factual findings and improperly consider arguments and papers offered by appellees in connection with their reply motion?

For the reasons that follow, we answer "yes" to questions I and II. We shall therefore remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The Ruling at Issue

Subsequent to a December 29, 2003 motions hearing, the circuit court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order that included the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

In the case at bar, Steven Bittner committed a misdemeanor in the presence of Baltimore County Police Officers and fled to his home. The Officers followed him, entered the house, arrested him and shortly thereafter searched the Bittner home. (The Court infers that the search was shortly after Steven Bittner and the other men were arrested and removed from the house based on paragraphs 8-10 of the Bittner affidavit.) The Baltimore County Officers in this case had at least the same degree of good faith and reasonable belief in the appropriateness of their actions as the Deputies in Ford [v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office, 149 Md.App. 107, 814 A.2d 127 (2002)]. They were in pursuit of someone they witnessed commit a crime and, accordingly, had a privilege against trespass to enter the Bittner home. The plaintiffs argue that even if the first entry by the Defendant Officers was justified, the second was not. On the information before this Court as to the second entry into the home, there is nothing to establish, or even suggest, that the Officers' good faith and reasonable belief as to the propriety of their actions did not extend to the second entry of the home shortly after the first. Accordingly the second trespass was also privileged as against a trespass action.

For these reasons, the Court finds that an action for trespass to land will not support venue in Baltimore City. (The Court is not dismissing the trespass claim for procedural reasons and because the allegations of the complaint can also be construed as a trespass to personal property which this Court has not had reason to address. This decision is without prejudice. The defendants may move to dismiss in the transferee jurisdiction.) Therefore, venue does not lie in Baltimore City pursuant to section 6-203(b)(4) of the Courts and Judicial Procedure Article. Rather it lies in Baltimore County pursuant to section 6-201.

* * *

There are seven named defendants, all of whom are Baltimore County Police Officers and then unnamed Baltimore County Police Officers. Presumably all would find a Baltimore County venue convenient since that is where they work, as would the officials of Baltimore County itself, the municipal defendant. Additionally there is the likelihood of numerous other Baltimore County witnesses based on the other allegations. Plaintiff Juanita Bittner alleges that she was transported to Baltimore County and searched, imprisoned, handcuffed, and denied necessary medical attention there. She alleges she was further imprisoned at the office of the Baltimore County Commissioner and released from there without money or transportation with only bedroom slippers to wear. Juanita Bittner further alleges that she had to engage counsel to defend herself against charges in Baltimore County. She alleges that she negotiated with Baltimore County for it to drop charges against her in exchange for her agreement not to pursue a civil action against it. She alleges that Baltimore County was responsible for publication of the events in a local Baltimore County newspaper, the Dundalk Eagle. (The Court takes judicial notice that most of the area known as Dundalk is located in Baltimore County.)

The plaintiffs allege that the obstruction charge was dismissed by a Baltimore County prosecutor and that they filed a complaint with Baltimore County. They further allege that Julie and Juanita were confronted by Baltimore County Police Officers with knowledge of the complaint pending against the County and that the Officers acted in retaliation because of that complaint.

* * * It is quite obvious from the plaintiffs' allegations that there are numerous persons in Baltimore County government, or who were simply located in Baltimore County, who are potential witnesses to the actions alleged by the plaintiffs. The list includes prosecutors, clerks, the Commissioner, and citizens. It is beyond peradventure that the events subsequent to the entry into, and search of the Baltimore City home of the Bittners has produced the potential for numerous Baltimore County witnesses and witnesses who are custodians of the Baltimore County records documenting the events involving the plaintiffs there. Because all these events took place in Baltimore County and many Baltimore County government employees or agents were involved, it can be presumed that a Baltimore County venue would be convenient for these witnesses. Accordingly this Court finds that "the convenience of the witnesses" factor weighs heavily in favor of a Baltimore County venue. The court also finds that transfer to Baltimore County is in the interest of justice. As outlined above, most of the contacts in the events giving rise to the plaintiffs' several claims occurred in Baltimore County and the actors are all exclusively Baltimore County Police Officers or agents. Baltimore County and its citizens, therefore have a keen interest in addressing the alleged misconduct of its Officers and Baltimore County courts and jurors are the proper ones to be tasked with determining the extent of their improprieties, if any. As alleged, the misconduct by Baltimore County agents, including police officers, prosecutors, the Commissioner, clerks and possibly county attorneys, is prevalent and extreme. The multitude of injustices alleged in Baltimore County government should be addressed in that forum.

Because of the multitude of contacts with Baltimore County, and the nature and extent of alleged misconduct by Baltimore County agents, Baltimore County's "local interest" in having this matter heard locally is far more pronounced than was the interest of the defendant health care provider in Cobrand [v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc.], see 149 Md. App. [431] at 441. Accordingly this Court concludes that a transfer of this action to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County is in the interest of justice. For these reasons, the Court finds that statutory venue lies in Baltimore County and alternatively, that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice, dictate that this Court should exercise its discretion, Cobrand, 149 Md.App. at 444 to transfer this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. It will be so ordered.

Venue of a Trespass to Land Action

A trespass is defined as an intentional or negligent intrusion upon or to the possessory interest in property of another. Patapsco Loan Co. v. Hobbs, 129 Md. 9, 15-16, 98 A. 239 (1916) (citations omitted). "Every unauthorized entry upon the land of another is a trespass, and whether the owner suffers substantial injury or not, [the owner] at least sustains a legal injury, which entitles [the owner] to a verdict for some damages; though they may, under some circumstances, be so small as to be merely nominal." Tyler v. Cedar Island Club, Inc., 143 Md. 214, 219, 122 A. 38 (1923) (quoting B. & O. R.R. Co. v. Boyd, 67 Md. 32, 40, 10 A. 315 (1887)).

In the case at bar, appellants allege that two separate trespasses occurred: (1) one before Steven Bittner was arrested, and (2) one that occurred when the officers entered the residence a second time. The trial court found the initial trespass was justified under the "Fresh Pursuit" statute, Md.Code. Ann.Crim. Proc. 2-301 which, in pertinent part, provides:

(c) A law enforcement officer may engage in fresh pursuit of a person who:

(2) has committed a misdemeanor in the presence of the law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction in which the law enforcement officer has the power of arrest.

(d) A law enforcement officer who is engaged in fresh pursuit of a person may:

(1) arrest the person anywhere in the State and hold the person in custody ...

In finding that the police were privileged to enter appellant's residence, the trial court relied on Ford v. Baltimore Sheriff's Office, 149 Md.App....