Blair v. Austin
| Decision Date | 02 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 35, Sept. Term, 2019,35, Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF Jeffrey BLAIR BY Personal Representative Tiauna BLAIR v. David AUSTIN |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Benjamin Rosenberg (Jamar R. Brown, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP of Baltimore, MD; William N. Butler and Harrison E. Greene, III, Butler, Melfa & Taylor of Towson, MD and Raphael J. Santini, Raphael J. Santini, P.A. of Baltimore, MD) on brief for Petitioner.
Argued by Andre M. Davis, City Solicitor (Sara E. Gross, Chief Solicitor, Rachel A. Simmons and Michael P. Redmond, Co-Directors, Baltimore City Department of Law of Baltimore, MD) on brief for Respondent.
Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Lynne A. Battaglia (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Hotten, J., which Barbera, C.J., and McDonald, J., join.
A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City awarded damages to the Estate of Jeffrey Blair ("the Estate")1 after finding that Baltimore City Police Officer David Austin ("Officer Austin") used excessive force during his encounter with Jeffrey Blair ("Mr. Blair"). The Court of Special Appeals reversed and held that Officer Austin acted as a reasonable officer would under the circumstances, based on the Court's independent evaluation of video evidence. The Estate, through its Personal Representative, Tiauna Blair ("Ms. Blair"), seeks review of the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. We granted certiorari to address the following question:
Did [the Court of Special Appeals] err when, based solely on [its] interpretation of the video evidence that the jury considered in reaching its verdict, it overturned the jury's factual finding that [Officer Austin] exceeded the level of force that an objectively reasonable officer in his situation would have used?
For reasons expressed below, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Factual Background
On February 22, 2015 at approximately 12:00 p.m., Officer Austin, while on routine patrol duty, stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Baltimore City. He observed Mr. Blair driving on the wrong side of the road, entering the intersection, and making a right turn against the red light. Officer Austin activated his lights and siren, cleared the intersection, and pursued Mr. Blair, who initially failed to stop his vehicle as directed. Mr. Blair drove at a speed between 20 and 25 miles per hour, making several turns and running another red light, before pulling over. Although Mr. Blair failed to stop his vehicle as directed and briefly drove on the wrong side of the road, he did not force other drivers off the road, cause a collision, or otherwise place Officer Austin or pedestrians at risk during the slow pursuit.
After driving about a mile, a surveillance video camera without audio capacity, mounted above the street level on the 1000 block of Fremont Avenue, showed Mr. Blair's vehicle and Officer Austin's patrol vehicle advance toward the camera and stop on the right side of the road. Officer Austin observed Mr. Blair lean over toward his passenger seat before exiting his vehicle. Although the video does not reveal Mr. Blair's actions inside his vehicle, the video shows Mr. Blair, relatively large in stature, originally emerge from his vehicle and move toward Officer Austin's patrol car. The surveillance video does not reflect whether Mr. Blair was armed. In response, Officer Austin exited his vehicle, briefly attempted to shield himself with his door, and then removed himself from behind the door, initially without his weapon drawn. Thereafter, Officer Austin advised Mr. Blair to return to his vehicle. Instead, Mr. Blair rapidly increased his pace toward Officer Austin, but there was no indication whether Mr. Blair was armed.
Although Officer Austin testified that Mr. Blair attempted to grab Officer Austin's firearm and then appeared to go into his pants’ pocket as if to grab a weapon, Officer Austin also testified that he withdrew his firearm before he thought Mr. Blair may have been reaching for a weapon. The surveillance video appears to have an obstructed view that does not clearly reflect any movements consistent with Mr. Blair reaching into his pants’ pocket, or the presence of a weapon in Mr. Blair's possession; however, no weapon was recovered on the scene. Additionally, no evidence indicated that Mr. Blair verbally threatened Officer Austin. The video reveals that minimal time elapsed between when Officer Austin withdrew his firearm and when Mr. Blair fell to the ground after being shot several times. Subsequent testimony revealed that Officer Austin fired four shots at Mr. Blair.
After Mr. Blair fell to the ground, Officer Austin called for additional law enforcement officers and a medic to treat Mr. Blair. While Mr. Blair lay on the ground, Officer Austin maintained a distance from him, testifying that he did so because he believed Mr. Blair possessed a weapon. Officer Austin testified that Mr. Blair failed to remain on the ground after being shot; thus, when the responding law enforcement officers arrived on the scene, they subdued him by use of a taser. Subsequently, an ambulance transported Mr. Blair to shock trauma at the University of Maryland Medical Center, where he was treated for gunshot wounds
to his abdomen and right hand.
Mr. Blair was released from the hospital to Central Booking in Baltimore City, on or about March 9, 2015. He was held on bail for charges related to this incident and remained in custody until May 6, 2015. In June 2015, Mr. Blair died of causes unrelated to this incident.
Procedural Background
In 2016, Ms. Tiauna Blair, the widow of Mr. Blair, filed a complaint on behalf of his Estate in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against several law enforcement officers, including Officer Austin. The complaint sought relief for nine counts, including one count of civil assault, one count of false arrest, two counts of false imprisonment, one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress, one count of conversion, one count of excessive force, one count of deprivation of property without due process, and one survival action, in connection with the encounter against Mr. Blair. At trial, the parties presented the video camera evidence, testimony from several fact and expert witnesses, and documentary evidence, including Mr. Blair's medical records and a diagram of the scene.
On behalf of the Estate, the following witnesses were called: Ms. Anne Blair, Mr. Blair's mother; Ms. Tiauna Blair, widow of Mr. Blair and Personal Representative of the Estate; Rachel Bennett, Esquire, an assistant public defender who represented Mr. Blair on a previous occasion; and Dr. Tyrone Powers. Dr. Powers, a former Maryland State Trooper, FBI agent, and consultant for police departments, testified as an expert witness for the Estate and opined regarding the reasonableness of the use of force by Officer Austin. During his testimony, Dr. Powers explained a concept called the continuum of force, which describes the seven levels of force law enforcement officers may use to initiate and complete an arrest or stabilize a situation involving members of the public. He asserted that "a reasonable officer being attacked by an unarmed individual would have limited his use of force to defensive tactics or impact techniques, such as use of a baton or a taser[ ]" and that "[Officer] Austin's use of deadly force—firing his [weapon]—breached this standard." Austin v. Estate of Blair by Blair , No. 580, 2019 WL 1873495, at *1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 25, 2019) (footnote omitted). He concluded that Officer Austin exceeded the level of force an objectively reasonable officer would use under the circumstances.
Following the denial of Officer Austin's motion for judgment at the end of the Estate's case, Officer Austin presented three witnesses: Officer Austin, Baimba Sesay, and expert witness Mr. Charles Key. At trial, Officer Austin conceded that he did not see Mr. Blair in possession of a weapon, but thought he might have one because he reached for his pants’ pocket. During cross-examination, Officer Austin conceded that the police academy trained him to use a collapsible baton or mace spray to maintain distance between himself and another person. However, he elected to control the distance between himself and Mr. Blair by pulling his firearm and discharging it.
Officer Austin offered Mr. Charles Key as an expert witness. The defense attorney for Officer Austin presented the following hypothetical factual scenario to Mr. Key:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Balt. Cnty.
...v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) ; Estate of Blair by Blair v. Austin , No. 35, Sept. Term, 2019, 469 Md. 1, 22–24, 228 A.3d 1094 (Md. June 2, 2020) (plurality opinion). See Randall v. Peaco , 175 Md. App. 320, 330, 927 A.2d 83 (Claims of excessive force......
-
State v. Elzey
...on any particular fact and to determine the weight, if any, to give to each piece of evidence. See, e.g. , Estate of Blair v. Austin , 469 Md. 1, 17-18, 228 A.3d 1094 (2020) ; Atkins v. State , 421 Md. 434, 453-54, 26 A.3d 979 (2011). The trial court should not take any action – in a jury i......
-
Koushall v. State
...the factfinder in the determination of reasonable use of force based on the totality of circumstances. Estate of Blair by Blair v. Austin , 469 Md. 1, 22–23, 228 A.3d 1094, 1106 (2020). Upon sufficiency of evidence review, we assess the facts adduced at trial, viewed most favorably to the S......
-
Town of Riverdale Park v. Ashkar
...The contradictory testimony also presents a quintessential question of fact best left to the jury to resolve. Estate of Blair v. Austin , 469 Md. 1, 18, 228 A.3d 1094, 1103 (2020) ("We have long held that ‘[n]either the [circuit] court nor this Court is permitted to substitute its evaluatio......