Dett v. State

Decision Date01 March 2005
Docket NumberNo. 286,286
Citation869 A.2d 420,161 Md. App. 429
PartiesEvelyn Yulonda DETT v. STATE of Maryland, et al.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Randall J. Craig, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.

Glenn T. Marrow (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., on brief), for appellee.

Panel MURPHY, C.J., DAVIS, EYLER, DEBORAH S., JJ.

DEBORAH S. EYLER, J.

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Evelyn Y. Dett sued the State of Maryland, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("Department"), the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services ("DPDS"), the Baltimore City Detention Center ("the Detention Center"), the Central Booking and Intake Center ("Central Booking"), and the Division of Parole and Probation ("DP & P"), the appellees, for false imprisonment and violation of her state constitutional right to due process. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees.

Dett challenges that ruling in two questions presented that can be distilled into one: Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment for the appellees?1 For the following reasons, we answer "yes" and therefore shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The facts and reasonable inferences presented to the court in the summary judgment record, and viewed most favorably to Dett, show the following.

On March 7, 2003, at 5:00 p.m., Dett was driving near the 100 block of North Schroeder Street, in Baltimore City, when she was stopped by Officer Darren Moore, of the Housing Authority of Baltimore City ("HABC") Police Department, for a traffic violation. Dett identified herself by her name. Officer Moore contacted his dispatch officer to run a routine background check.

The background check revealed an open violation of probation bench warrant issued on July 31, 2002, by a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, for "Vanessa Hawkins a/k/a Evelyn Dett," having "SID No. 381961," in Case Number XXXXXXXXX ("the bench warrant"). An SID (State Identification) number is a unique identification number that Central Booking issues to each person processed there. The number is assigned based on the person's fingerprint. See Glover v. State, 143 Md.App. 313, 318, 794 A.2d 735 (2002)

.

Believing Dett to be the subject of the bench warrant, Officer Moore arrested her and took her to Central Booking. Dett arrived at Central Booking at 5:50 p.m., and was taken to a booking station.

According to Central Booking's "Offender Activity Log," Dett was booked at 6:15. At 6:26, she was moved from the booking station to a photograph station. Her photograph was taken at 6:27. At 6:32 p.m., an entry in the "Offender Activity Log," under "Offender Delays," states: "DO NOT RLSE SUBJECT BOOKED ON CIRCUIT # XXXXXXXXX." A similar entry appears at 6:35, by the same person, on an "Offender Detainer Information Report." These entries were prompted by a "commitment order" issued by the Baltimore City Sheriff that evening to DPDS, which administers the Detention Center, directing the Detention Center to detain "Vanessa Hawkins" a "B/F" having "SID No. 381961" and a date of birth of July 11, 1963, to "await further action [by the] Circuit Court for Baltimore City." The commitment order states it was issued on March 7, 2003, pursuant to "Bench Warrant No. XXXXXXXXX."

At 6:41 p.m., Dett was moved to a fingerprint station. Her fingerprints were taken at 6:43. One minute later, they were "[u]ploaded to CRC." It is apparent that the "uploading" of Dett's fingerprints into the computer database generated SID number 2413966, not SID number 381961, because an "offender check" was made on SID number 2413966 at 7:05, and, according to Central Booking's "Offender Criminal History Information Report," three computer searches (an "IDENT/INDEX" search, a "RAP SHEET CONDENSED" search, and a "RAP SHEET NARRATIVE" search) were made at 7:22, using that SID number. The "Offender Activity Log" and all other computer documents for Dett generated by Central Booking, and later by the Detention Center, bear SID No. 2413966.

As an apparent result of the discrepancy between the SID number on the bench warrant and Dett's SID number, at 7:22 p.m., a "Flag" was "Inserted" into Dett's computer identification record. At a time that evening not referenced in the "Offender Activity Log," Central Booking generated an "Offender Identification Information Report" showing that Dett's SID number was 2413966, not 381961.

Also sometime that evening, not timed, Debara Driver of Central Booking filled in the top section of a "Problem Paperwork Notice" for "Vanessa Hawkins," with SID numbers "2413966" and "381961," stating: "[D]efendant has 2 sid # `s[.] Please clarify with fingerprint the correct [number] to be used." That same evening (again not documented by time), Driver prepared an "SID PROBLEM FORM" for "Vanessa Hawkins," having SID numbers "2413966 and 381961," on which she wrote:

[D]efendant has 2 sid # `s — commitment has been entered into the system under 2413966. I contacted fingerprint who insisted that this is the correct # . I spoke to Ada who said that they could not do anything until Monday 3/10/03.

At 7:33 p.m., Dett was moved to a group cell, where she remained until 1:31 a.m. (Saturday, March 8), when she was "released" to the Detention Center, i.e., moved there from Central Booking. Several reports were generated at that time, all under SID number 2413966, among them: an "Offender Personal Property Information Report," an "Offender Detainer Information Report," an "Offender Arrest Information Report," and an "Offender Booking Information Report." The latter report gives Dett's birthday as February 6, 1962, not July 11, 1963, as stated in the bench warrant. It also gives a social security number, weight, height, and address for Dett.

A "Bed Entry Completed" notation was made at 4:12 a.m. A little more than two hours later, at 6:19, someone at the Detention Center made an "Identification/Index System Central Repository Inquiry," into "Maryland CJIS," for SID number 2413966. The search showed "No exact matched record on file." Two minutes later, the person made an inquiry for SID number 381961 — the number for the person who was the subject of the bench warrant. That search did not match any of the information generated until then on Dett and SID number 2413966. It showed the subject's name was Vanessa Ann Hawkins but that she used the alias Evelyn Y. Dett. It gave her date of birth as July 11, 1963 — not February 6, 1962 — but cautioned that she used an alias date of birth of February 6, 1962. It further showed that Hawkins was using two social security numbers (neither of which matched Dett's social security number), that she had an assigned FBI number (which Dett did not), that she had prior contacts with Central Booking in 1983, 1997 (twice), 1998 (three times), 1999 (twice), and 2002 (when Dett had no prior contacts), and that her address and height were not the same as Dett's.

At 6:23 a.m., Dett's "release" from Central Booking to the Detention Center was entered into the "Offender Activity Log" as "completed," and she was documented as having been moved.

There are no further entries for Saturday, March 8 and none at all for Sunday, March 9. On Monday, March 10, two entries were added to the March 7 "Problem Paperwork Notice." One states: "these are two different people. Correct sid # 2413966 for Vanessa Hawkins DOB 2-6-1962, sid # 381961 belongs to Evelyn Dett who used Vanessa Hawkins as AKA DOB 7-11-63."2 The other, also untimed, states, in apparent response, and referring to Dett's "release" from Central Booking to the Detention Center:

[Y]ou still did not tell us which sid is correct for Vanessa Hawkins born 2-10-62 # 2413966 is that the correct sid # also the DOB on the release is for the inmate w[ith] DOB of 7-11-63 but uses the DOB of 2-6-62. We need to have this lady fingerprinted again since the release had the DOB different from what is on the offender booking sheet.

There is no further activity documented on Monday, March 10.

On Tuesday, March 11, at 10:27 a.m., a staff employee of DPDS sent a facsimile to "Bonnie," in the circuit court, requesting a "court seal & true test" for "Vanessa Hawkins," SID number 2413966, case number XXXXXXXXX. Sometime that same day, the Sheriff issued a document to the Detention Center directing the release from custody of "Vanessa Hawkins" with SID number 2413966, in case XXXXXXXXX, stating "Wrong Defendant."

Although the parties in their briefs have made reference to a court order issued that day, releasing Dett, there is no such order in the record, and they appear to be referencing the "release" issued by the Sheriff.3 A DPDS "Release Form" signed by four employees, at times ranging from 10:57 that morning to 1:00 that afternoon, states that, upon examining "the commitment papers and computer record" for "Vanessa Hawkins," SID number 2413966, they had "determined that [she] should be released from the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services...." The DPDS "Release Form" shows that Dett in fact was released from custody at 3:00 p.m.

From the time she was arrested forward, Dett was protesting, saying she was not the person who was the subject of the bench warrant. At Central Booking, she was told that, if her fingerprints did not match the fingerprints of the warrant suspect, she would be released. When the fingerprints did not match, however, she was not released, and instead was moved to the Detention Center.

On December 12, 2003, Dett filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the State; the Department; DPDS; the Detention Center; Central Booking; and DP & P, for false imprisonment and violation of her due process rights under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. She alleged that she was held in custody at Central Booking and the Detention Center without her consent, without legal justification,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Dett, 25, September Term, 2005.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 7, 2006
  • Johnson v. Prince George's County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 1, 2011
    ... ... Page 11         Throughout their opposition, Defendants make much of the fact that a Maryland state district court commissioner (apparently during Johnson's initial appearance pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-216) determined that "probable cause existed ... are present: "'1) the deprivation of the liberty of another; 2) without [his] consent; and 3) without legal justification.'" Dett v. State, 161 Md.App. 429, 441 (2005) (quoting Heron v. Strader, 361 Md. 258, 264 (2000)). Defendants note that claims of ... ...
  • Rovin v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 31, 2023
    ... ... 701, 721 (1995), and there will ... typically be legal authority where "a law enforcement ... officer [] detains a person based on an arrest warrant that ... is valid on its face ... even though the warrant was ... improperly issued by the court[,]" [ 61 ] Dett v ... State , 161 Md.App. 429, 443 (2005); see also ... Ashton , 339 Md. at 120 ("[A]n arrest made under a ... warrant which appears on its face to be legal is legally ... justified in Maryland, even if unbeknownst to the arresting ... police officer, the ... ...
  • Foster v. Baltimore Police Dep't
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 30, 2021
    ... ... to a warrant, for possession of the handgun found at Eager ... Street ("October Arrest"). On November 29, 2016, ... the State dismissed all charges against Appellant. On January ... 4, 2019, Appellant filed a complaint against Appellees in the ... Circuit Court ... legal authority to arrest and detain the person who is the ... subject of the warrant." Dett v. State , 161 ... Md.App. 429, 443 (2005). Moreover, "a law enforcement ... officer who detains a person based on an arrest warrant that ... ...
  • 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