Humbert v. O'Malley
| Decision Date | 28 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO.: WDQ-11-0440 |
| Parties | MARLOW HUMBERT, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Marlow Humbert sued Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and others,1 alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other claims. Pending are motions to dismiss by the City and Dixon (ECF No. 6); O'Malley (ECF No. 7); and the Police Department, Bealefeld, and Caldwell (ECF No. 15).2 For the followingreasons, O'Malley's motion will be granted, the City and Dixon's motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and the Police Department, Bealefeld, and Caldwell's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant O'Malley became Baltimore mayor in December 1999 and introduced a plan to reduce crime. Compl. ¶ 17.
In March 2005, then-Police Commissioner Leonard Hamm started a program in which officers tallied their enforcement statistics, "from parking citations to felony arrests." William Wan, Critics Assail Police Policy, Baltimore Sun, Mar. 29, 2005, at 1B . Each month, the numbers were compared with averages from the officers' squads and shifts and the 27 lowest-performing officers "were reassigned, at least temporarily, to another district and told to improve." Id.
The same month, the Police Department halted another program that one of the Police Department's lieutenants had started. Id. That program gave officers in that lieutenant's district performance scores, ranging from one point for a traffic citation to 10 points for a gun arrest; at the end of each week, sergeants tallied the points for their assignedsquads. Id. A spokesman said the Police Department ended the program, which began in February 2005, to avoid the appearance of a quota system. Id. Maryland law prohibits the Police Department from establishing quotas or using an officer's number of arrests or citations as a "primary criterion for promotion, demotion, dismissal, or transfer." Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-504 . The Police Department can, however, use "quantitative data for arrests . . . in evaluating performances" and assess the proportion of arrests made by an officer or group of officers. Id.
On January 17, 2007, O'Malley became governor and Defendant Dixon became mayor. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19. That same year, Defendant Jones "was championed for closing [100 percent] of his cases" and promoted. Compl. ¶ 43.
On April 30, 2008, a woman4 told police that she had been raped and robbed at her home in Baltimore's Charles Village neighborhood. Compl. ¶ 47. Her account matched other reported attacks in the area: a black man approached her as she walked home, pushed her through the front door to her home, held a gun to her head, demanded money, and raped her. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 45, 47. The Victim described the assailant as a well-spoken blackman who was five-foot-eight-inches tall, weighed 160 pounds, and wore a face mask. Compl. ¶ 48.
Defendant Caldwell processed the crime scene. ¶ 52. She found no physical evidence of a rape or robbery but took pictures of a wallet and bank card found on the loveseat where the Victim reportedly had been raped. Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54, 56. Caldwell's report stated that the assailant put on a mask and pair of gloves after entering the Victim's house and raped her before asking if she had money. Compl. ¶ 49.
On the night of the alleged rape, Defendant Griffin took the Victim to a hospital for a physical examination and to collect DNA samples. Compl. ¶ 61. The medical exam found evidence of vaginal penetration but no vaginal or anal bruising or bleeding. Compl. ¶ 62.
Police canvassed the area around the Victim's home for possible eye witnesses. Compl. ¶ 63. Three neighbors who were home at the time of the reported attack neither saw nor heard anything. Compl. ¶ 64. Police reviewed footage from a surveillance camera attached to the Baltimore Lab School and facing the Victim's home. Compl. ¶ 66. The footage showed the Victim but no one matching her description of the assailant. Id.
In early May 2008, the Police Department determined that one person, dubbed the "Charles Village Rapist," was responsiblefor the neighborhood's series of robberies and sexual assaults. Compl. ¶ 45. Police released a composite sketch of the suspect. Compl. ¶ 69.
On May 1, 2008, Defendants Griffin and Jones interviewed the Victim at the Police Department headquarters. Compl. ¶ 70. The Victim said her assailant was already inside when she arrived home; he then pulled out a handgun, and put on a white mask. Compl. ¶ 71. Jones asked if the assailant wore gloves; the Victim said yes. Compl. ¶ 72. The Victim, an art student, created a composite sketch. Compl. ¶ 80. Police took the Victim to Defendant Brassel to sketch a version which included features reported by other victims of the Charles Village Rapist. Id.
State law requires the Police Department to comply with U.S. Department of Justice standards on eyewitness identifications. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-506 . These standards warn police to "evaluate[] with caution" a witness's identification using a "mug book," a collection of photos of previously arrested people.5
On May 4, 2008, police arranged a photo line-up of 45 registered sex offenders from which the Victim picked two as herpossible assailant. Compl. ¶ 82. Police never investigated those men. Compl. ¶ 83. Police showed the Victim a second photo line-up. Compl. ¶ 85. The Victim identified Humbert as her possible attacker and asked to see him in a line-up and to hear his voice. Id. Police denied this request. Compl. ¶ 88.
Police received several tips over the next few days. Compl. ¶¶ 193-196. On May 5, 2008, a man told police that he heard two other men talking at a local grocery store about how "the rapist" had recently gotten out of jail. Compl. ¶ 193. On May 6, 2008, a woman told police that she had been attacked on an elevator in the 1300 block of St. Paul Street but that her assailant had freckles and a nose that differed from the man depicted in the sketch of the Charles Village Rapist. Compl. ¶ 194. On May 7, 2008, police visited the home of a woman who called to say the composite sketch looked familiar, but she was not at home. Compl. ¶ 195. That same day, police visited the home of another woman who reported being followed into her home by a drunken person in March 2008. Compl. ¶ 196. She also was not at home. Id. No records show that police followed up on any of the tips. Compl. ¶¶ 193-196.
On May 8, 2008,6 the Police Department prepared a wanted poster naming Humbert the Charles Village Rapist and warningthat he was "armed and dangerous." Compl. ¶ 93. On May 9, 2008, police obtained a warrant to arrest him. Compl. ¶ 95. On May 10, 2008, Defendant Smith arrested Humbert, and the Police Department closed the case. Compl. ¶ 97.
After waiving his Miranda rights, Humbert told police they had arrested the wrong person. Compl. ¶ 98. Police did not investigate Humbert's alibi. Compl. ¶ 99. Humbert never received copies of the photos that Caldwell took at the crime scene. Compl. ¶ 58. Reported attacks continued in Charles Village after Humbert's arrest. Compl. ¶¶ 109-110.
On May 12, 2008, Defendant Jones applied for a search and seizure warrant, swearing that the Victim had made a positive identification of Humbert. Compl. ¶ 101. Jones omitted the Victim's request to see Humbert in a line-up and to hear his voice. Id. A judge issued a warrant for Humbert's DNA. Id.
On May 27, 2008, a Police Department laboratory report found the DNA of at least two unknown persons in the Victim's underwear and at least two more on her stockings. Compl. ¶ 102. On June 2, 2008, a second laboratory report found that "Humbert [was] excluded as a contributor or source of the DNA" found on the Victim's underwear and nylons. Compl. ¶ 104. On June 30, 2008, additional DNA samples were taken from the Victim. Compl. ¶ 106.
On September 27, 2008, the Baltimore Sun reported that police told crime lab technicians not to follow up on DNA found at crime scenes in at least six open homicide and sexual assault cases and three closed burglary cases. Justin Fenton, Criminals' DNA Ignored, Baltimore Sun, Sept. 27, 2008, at 1A .
On December 15, 2008, a laboratory report confirmed the findings of the earlier DNA analyses: at least two unknown DNA samples were found in the Victim's underwear, two more unknown DNA samples were found on her nylons, and Humbert was excluded as a contributor of the DNA. Compl. ¶ 107.
On July 2, 2009, Baltimore news station WBAL-TV reported that the former chief of the Police Department's internal disciplinary system, fired in April of that year, had accused the department of corruption.7 Joann Branche said there were "back-door deals in punishment" and "cases that should be punished were dismissed."8
In late July 2009, Humbert was released.9 Just before his release, the Victim told the State's Attorney's office that she would not cooperate in Humbert's prosecution, because police had denied her requests to see Humbert in a line-up or hear his voice, and she was unsure if Humbert was her assailant. Compl. ¶ 91.
On February 17, 2011, Humbert sued, alleging battery, false arrest, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to commit those torts; negligence; and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. On March 15, 2011, O'Malley, Dixon, and the City filed their motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 6, 7. On April 15, 2011, Bealefeld, Caldwell, and the Police Department filed their motion to dismiss.10 ECF No. 15. On April 19, 2011, Humbert opposed O'Malley, Dixon, and the City's motions to dismiss.11 ECF. No. 16. On May 3, 2011, Humbert opposed Bealefeld, Caldwell, and the Police Department's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 21. On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial