Foster v. Baltimore Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 30 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1666-2019 |
| Parties | MARQUIS FOSTER v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-19-000044
OPINION [*]
On August 10, 2016, Marquis Foster ("Appellant") was stopped by two Baltimore Police Department officers, Timothy Romeo and John Burns (collectively, "Appellee Officers"), in the 1600 block of Eager Street in the city of Baltimore ("August Detention"). Appellee Officer's frisked Appellant for weapons, and subsequently detained Appellant while canvassing the area for discarded contraband. After finding nothing, Appellant was released. Fifteen (15) minutes later, an anonymous caller told police that they witnessed a male - who was stopped and let go by two undercover officers - stash a gun in the "fourth air conditioner" near 1603 Eager Street. Appellee Officers returned to the scene and located a gun in a trash can near the air conditioner referenced by the anonymous caller. Nearly two months later police arrested Appellant, pursuant 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 for Baltimore City alleging that both the August Detention and the October Arrest constituted False Arrest, False Imprisonment, and Battery of Appellant. Appellee Officers responded with a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment ("The Motion"). The Circuit Court granted The Motion on all counts. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from which this appeal follows. In bringing his appeal, Appellant presents two (2) questions for our review, which we have rephrased to three (3) questions for clarity:[1]
I. In granting Appellees' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, did the Circuit Court's consideration of disputed facts outside of the pleadings convert the motion into one for summary judgment?
II. In ruling on Appellees' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, did the Circuit Court err in granting the motion for Appellant's claims arising out of the August Detention?
III. In ruling on Appellees' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, did the Circuit Court err in granting the motion for Appellant's claims arising out of the October Arrest?
Finding that the Circuit Court was legally correct in granting The Motion, we affirm the decision of the Circuit Court.
This appeal comes from the dismissal of an amended complaint, filed by Marquis Foster ("Appellant"), against two Baltimore Police Department officers, Timothy Romeo and John Burns ("Appellee Officers"), and the Baltimore Police Department ("Appellee Department"). In his complaint, Appellant alleged that his August Detention, and his subsequent October Arrest, each constituted false imprisonment, false arrest, and battery. Appellant's complaint included references to the statement of charges ("Statement of Charges") authored by Appellee Romeo. The Statement of Charges provides a factual narrative of the events of the August Incident.
On August 10, 2016, Appellee Officers monitored the Clay Court public housing area while operating an unmarked police vehicle in plain clothes. As they drove down Eager Street, Appellee Officers observed Appellant with two other individuals and noted Appellant adjusting what Officer Appellees believed to be an item, or items, in his front waistband area. Suspicious of Appellants movements, Appellee Officers quickly stopped the vehicle and backed the vehicle toward Appellant's group. At that point, Appellee Officers allegedly saw Appellant look in their direction and flee on foot out of Appellee Officers' field of vision.
Appellee Officers pursued Appellant to a private public housing complex where Appellant, upon seeing the officers, raised his hands and approached Appellee Officers. Appellee Romeo asked Appellant if he lived in the housing complex, to which Appellant responded that he did not. Appellee Romeo asked for Appellant's identification, and informed Appellant that the complex was private property and that Appellant was trespassing. While Appellee Romeo questioned Appellant, Appellee Burns canvassed the area from which Appellant had fled to search for potential discarded contraband. After finding nothing, Appellee Officers released Appellant and left the scene. According to the Statement of Charges, the detention lasted approximately ten to twenty minutes.
Approximately fifteen (15) minutes after Appellee Officers left the scene, an anonymous 911 caller told police that they witnessed a male - who was stopped and let go by two undercover officers - stash a gun behind the "fourth air conditioner" near 1603 Eager Street.[2] Dispatch relayed the information to Appellee Officers, who returned to Eager Street to search for the gun referenced in the anonymous caller's tip. While searching the area, Appellee Officers discovered a gun in a trash can adjacent to the air conditioner referenced in the anonymous call.
Based on the anonymous call and the gun found at the scene, Appellee Romeo authored the Statement of Charges, charging Appellant with possession of the handgun found at Eager Street. On August 30, 2016, a warrant was issued for Appellant's arrest based on information in Appellee Romeo's Statement of Charges.
On or about October 25, 2016, Appellant was arrested by the Baltimore Police Department ("October Arrest"). Appellant was committed on October 26, 2016 and released on October 29, 2016 after posting bond. On November 29, 2016, the State dismissed all charges against Appellant and a Nolle Prosequi was entered in Appellant's case.
On January 20, 2017, Appellant notified the State of Maryland and Baltimore City of his intention to initiate legal action against the Appellee Department and Appellee Officers (collectively, "Appellees"). On January 18, 2018, Appellant appeared before the Civilian Review Board and alleged that Appellee Officers' actions constituted police misconduct. The Civilian Review Board sustained Appellant's complaints against Appellee Officers for False Imprisonment, False Arrest, and Excessive Force.[3]
On January 4, 2019, Appellant filed a complaint against Appellees in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City alleging that both the August Incident and the October Arrest constituted False Arrest, False Imprisonment, and Battery of Appellant. Appellee Baltimore Police Department filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 10, 2019. On June 20, 2019, Appellee Officers filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment ("The Motion"). In their brief in support of The Motion, Appellee Officers argued that the Statement of Charges, which Appellant referenced in his amended complaint, showed that Appellee Officers had legal justification for the August Detention and October Arrest based on Appellant's unprovoked flight in a high crime area. However, in his brief opposing The Motion, Appellant stated the following:
Defendants' attempt to reframe this stop as a Terry stop is largely dependent upon their classification of Foster "fleeing." However, that fact is not to be found anywhere in the Complaint. That is a new fact that they have inserted into the proceedings. Their position may be that Foster engaged in "unprovoked flight," but that is not Foster's position and it is an allegation outside of the Complaint.
During a hearing on The Motion, Appellees again asserted that "[Appellant] now concedes the fact that he was…racing away from officers upon seeing them." In response, Appellant reiterated his position:
Following a hearing on The Motion in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, the Circuit Court granted The Motion on all counts after finding that Appellant failed to adequately allege that Appellee Officers lacked legal justification for the August Detention and October Arrest. In ruling on The Motion, the Circuit Court considered the Statement of Charges and the anonymous 911 call transcript to be a part of the original pleadings. The Circuit Court explained:
[Appellant] did not provide any information in the Complaint as to what lead to Plaintiff's detention on August 10, 2016. However, he provided partial excerpts from Defendant Romeo's Application for Statement of Charges and did not assert that the Application contained false statements. During oral arguments [Appellant] argued that there were questions as to accuracy of the 911 Caller's information, he did not contend that the facts leading to [Appellant's] detention on August 10 were false. Thus, the Court will consider the facts as stated by [Appellee] Romeo in his sworn Application for Statement of Charges.
Accordingly, the Circuit Court considered the factual allegations contained within the Statement of Charges and 911 transcript in reaching its decision to dismiss Appellant's claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and battery.
On October 16, 2019, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the Circuit Court's decision to dismiss Appellant's suit for failure to state a claim.
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss as a question of law to determine whether the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial