Paula v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

• Citation: 253 Md.App. 566,268 A.3d 972
• Decision Date: 27 January 2022
• Docket Number: 1272, Sept. Term, 2020
• Parties: Gisell PAULA, et al. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

253 Md.App. 566

268 A.3d 972

Gisell PAULA, et al.

v.MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al.

No. 1272, Sept. Term, 2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

January 27, 2022

Argued by: Matthew Zerhelt (Baltimore Action Legal Team, Baltimore, MD) all on the brief, for Appellant.

Argued by: Matthew Olen Bradford (Hanna Marie C. Sheehan, Litigation Practice Group, Kay N. Harding, Office of Legal Affairs, Rachel Simmonsen, Michael Redmond, Appellate Practice Group, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, MD) all on the brief, for Appellee.

Panel: Kehoe, Berger, Ripken, JJ.

Ripken, J.

This appeal arises out of an action regarding the establishment and operation of the Baltimore City Civilian Review Board ("CRB" or "the Board"). Gisell Paula, Megan Kenny, and the Baltimore Action Legal Team (collectively "Appellants") filed a complaint against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, and various related entities (collectively "the City"), including the Baltimore City Police Department ("BPD"), alleging that the CRB was not functioning as an independent agency, but rather under the control of the City. Appellants argued such function was in violation of the Public Local Laws of Baltimore City under which the Board was created as well as in violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and they sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed the Complaint, resting its opinion on Appellants’ standing to challenge the Board's functioning. Appellants appeal to this Court contending the dismissal was in error. We shall affirm the circuit court's dismissal because there was no justiciable controversy before the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Role and Procedure of the CRB

In 1999, The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation creating the CRB.

Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City ("PLL") §§ 16-41–54 (2016). The purpose of the CRB is to "provide a permanent, statutory agency" to process, investigate, and evaluate "complaints lodged by members of the public regarding abusive language, false arrest, false imprisonment, harassment, or excessive force by police officers of a law enforcement unit" and to review policies of law enforcement units. PLL § 16-42(a). The CRB consists of nine members of the public selected by the Mayor, each representing one of the nine police districts in Baltimore City, four representatives appointed by interested organizations, and the Police Commissioner. PLL § 16-43(a). At the first meeting of the year, the CRB "shall elect a Chair and Secretary." PLL § 16-43(b). In addition, the Mayor "shall assign staff to the Board for the periodic meetings" from the Office of the City Solicitor and the Community Relations Commission, and the City "may hire an independent administrator to serve the Board." PLL § 16-43(f).

An individual who has been subjected to or a witness of police misconduct "may file a complaint at the Office of the Internal Investigative Division [within BPD], the Legal Aid Bureau, the Maryland Human Relations Commission, the Baltimore Community Relations Commission, or at any of the police district stations." PLL § 16-44(a). Following the filing of a complaint, a copy shall be sent to both the Secretary of the Board, who "shall send a copy to each member of the Board," as well as the Internal Investigative Division. PLL § 16-44(d)–(e). The Internal Investigative Division "shall make a comprehensive investigation of each complaint and submit its Internal Investigative Division Report relating to the incident alleged to the Board[.]" PLL § 16-45. The CRB also permits complaints to be filed directly with the Board. See Baltimore City Civilian Review Board Bylaws , BALTIMORE CITY CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD , 10, https://civilrights.baltimorecity.gov/civilian-review-board (under "Bylaws," click "CRB BYLAWS Final Draft.docx") (last visited Dec. 12, 2021) (hereinafter "Board Bylaws").

The CRB "shall review all complaints alleging police misconduct" within its jurisdiction and "may investigate, simultaneously with the Internal Investigative Division, each complaint it deems appropriate[.]" PLL § 16-46(a). Following the Internal Investigative Division's report, the CRB "shall review" the report, and "shall recommend to the head of the appropriate law enforcement unit" appropriate disciplinary action, if any. PLL § 16-46(c). The head of the appropriate law enforcement unit must review the recommendation of the CRB, but "has final decision-making responsibility for the appropriate disciplinary action in each case." PLL § 16-48. Currently, and during the time frame raised in this matter, the CRB is organized within the Baltimore City Office of Equity and Civil Rights ("OECR"). According to the CRB's bylaws, "the Mayor has designated the [OECR] to provide administrative support, investigative staff, and meeting space for the CRB." Board Bylaws.¹

Current Litigation

In June of 2020, Appellants filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore seeking to "exert their right to an independent civilian review board as the Public Local Laws guarantee." The Complaint asserted Appellant Paula was a resident of Baltimore. It asserted that Appellant Kenny was a resident of Baltimore and "maintains a complaint against [BPD]."

The Complaint alleged that the City undermined the CRB's independence in two ways. First, Appellants asserted the City's decision to organize the CRB within the OECR gave the City undue authority over the CRB as the OECR Director "is accountable to the Mayor." Second, Appellants asserted the Baltimore City Law Department and City Solicitor exceeded their supporting role by taking "controlling actions" over the CRB. According to Appellants, the City's control "throttled the CRB's ability" to investigate and review complaints. More specifically, Appellants alleged that, in actuality,

investigative reports are first passed from [BPD] to the [OECR]. The [OECR] have held these reports from the CRB members until approval to pass them along has been granted from the City Law Department. This assumed discretion and delay has led to reports being held for over twelve months, disqualifying them from procession to any disciplinary action and relevance for CRB review.

Appellants supported their claims with a November 2018 letter from the former City Solicitor to the City Council discussing the "strained relationship" between the Law Department and the CRB.² Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on the Board's alleged violations of Articles 9, 19, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Appellants did not allege that they, at any time, filed a complaint asserting allegations of police misconduct with the Board.

The City filed a motion to dismiss. First, it claimed that the Complaint was devoid of facts to either state a claim or to establish standing to pursue the action. Next, it argued that complainants do not have a right to involvement in the CRB's operations. Finally, it contended the Maryland Declaration of Rights was inapplicable to the allegations in the Complaint.³ BPD and the Police Commissioner, represented by separate counsel below, also moved to dismiss

In response, Appellants filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellants argued that they had taxpayer standing, general standing, and standing under the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Appellants included new factual allegations in their opposition and attached numerous exhibits.

Three of these new exhibits included affidavits. The first affidavit was from Paula stating she is a Black woman, a Baltimore City resident, owns property in the City, and pays taxes. She further stated that she has witnessed police harassment and racialized targeting by the BPD, and that she desires an independent CRB. The second affidavit from Kenny stated that she is a Baltimore City resident who frequently attends protests to exercise her First Amendment rights, and she has been subjected to police misconduct. On one occasion, she asserted she was at a protest where, after noticing a person on the ground in front of approaching police officers and "moving toward" that person, police began to forcefully "thrust" their shields against her, shove her, and otherwise harass her. She further stated that such police misconduct warrants "the filing of a complaint to the [CRB]," but that she cannot do so because no CRB "that reflect[s] the law exists."

The third affidavit was from a former CRB employee, Jillian Aldebron, describing her account of City control over the CRB.

Another exhibit included a budget report detailing the expenses incurred by the CRB. Other exhibits included a Department of Justice Report describing the presence of racial disparities, use of excessive force, and discrimination prevalent among the BPD; a letter to the Director of the OECR requesting the CRB take certain actions to maintain independence; and additional documents describing the relationship between the CRB and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the BPD.⁴

The circuit court held a hearing on the City's Motion to Dismiss and the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. After each side reiterated the arguments consistent with those made in their respective written motions, the court issued its oral ruling.

The court articulated the relevant standards for both motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. It found that standing was a threshold issue that needed to be addressed, and a recent opinion from this Court, Green v. Comm'n on Jud. Disabilities , 247 Md. App. 591, 239 A.3d 711 (2020), was on point. The court found that, applying the reasoning of Green , there was no general standing because the filing of a complaint to a disciplinary board tasked with making recommendations "is not [a] sufficient ground to find that [Appellants] were aggrieved or suffered an injury for...