Rucker v. Harford County

• Decision Date: 01 September 1988
• Docket Number: No. 18,18
• Citation: 558 A.2d 399,316 Md. 275
• Parties: James H. RUCKER et al. v. HARFORD COUNTY, Maryland et al. Misc.,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 275

316 Md. 275

558 A.2d 399

James H. RUCKER et al. v. HARFORD COUNTY, Maryland et al.

Misc. No. 18, Sept. Term, 1988.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 6, 1989.

Carmen M. Shepard, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carolyn A. Quattrocki, Stuart M. Nathan, Asst. Attys. Gen., all on brief), Baltimore, for appellants.

Jefferson L. Blomquist, Asst. County Atty. (Victor K. Butanis, County Atty., Jacqueline A. Moore, Asst. County Atty., all on brief), Bel Air, for appellees.

Argued before ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ADKINS, and BLACKWELL, JJ., and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland (retired), Specially Assigned.

ELDRIDGE, Judge.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Maryland Code (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol.), §§ 12-601 through 12-609 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, has certified the following two questions to this Court:

"1. Whether the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriffs of Harford County are employees of the State of Maryland or of Harford County?

"2. Whether Harford County or the State of Maryland is obligated to fund the expenses associated with claims for liability involving the Harford County Sheriff, the Deputy Sheriffs or the Sheriff's office, including the cost of liability insurance, the costs of defending suits brought against them and the payment of any settlements and judgment?"

The facts relevant to these questions were set forth in the Order of Certification. On July 28, 1987, an individual named Jerry Mace stole a car, drove through the Susquehanna River Bridge Toll Facility without paying the toll, and proceeded on Interstate 95 towards Edgewood, Maryland, at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Maryland State Police pursued Mace on Interstate 95, and Harford County Sheriff's Deputies joined the chase when Mace exited onto Maryland Route 24. Mace then drove off the road and into a cornfield. When Mace tried to escape from the cornfield, shots were fired, and David Rucker, a civilian bystander, was struck by a bullet.

David Rucker and his father filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Named as defendants in the complaint, as amended, were Harford County, the "Harford County Sheriff's Department," each of the Deputy Sheriffs involved in the chase, the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and each of the State Police Troopers involved in the chase. The plaintiffs' action was based on common law negligence principles and claimed violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Certification Order stated that the Deputy Sheriffs

"have been sued in their capacity as public officials, and have moved to dismiss the portion of the complaint that seeks recovery against them for the alleged violation of David Rucker's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Deputy Sheriffs in this case assert that any suit against them in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment because they are state employees or officials. This argument is premised on the assumption that any judgment against them would 'expend itself on the public treasury or domain.' The State disputes this core assumption arguing that the County is responsible for any judgments rendered against the Deputy Sheriffs.

"Whether the Deputies are State or County employees may have other implications in this litigation."

The Order of Certification also included a stipulation of facts entered intoby the several defendants. ¹ The disputants with regard to the status of the Harford County Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs are all defendants. Harford County and the Deputy Sheriffs take the position that the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs are State employees. The State Police defendants, represented by the Maryland Attorney General, take the position that the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs are county employees. The same parties differ with respect to the second certified question relating to financial responsibility for liability claims.

I.

The first certified question broadly asks whether the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriffs of Harford County are State or county employees. Preliminarily, we wish to emphasize that we answer this question as a matter of Maryland law only. Whether the Harford County Sheriff's Office is to be regarded as a State or local government agency, and whether the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs are to be regarded as State or local government employees, for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are federal law issues which are not before this Court in a proceeding under the Certification of Questions of Law Act. Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hosp. Center, 300 Md. 520, 536-537, 479 A.2d 921 (1984). See Clea v. City of Baltimore, 312 Md. 662, 670 n. 5, 541 A.2d 1303, 1306-1307 n. 5 (1988) ("with regard to federal law liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the state law classification of the [agency] ... would not be decisive").

In response to the first certified question, we conclude that, as a matter of Maryland law, the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs of Harford County are officials and/or employees of the State of Maryland rather than of Harford County. ² The role of a sheriff as a State constitutional officer whose duties are subject to control by the General Assembly leads us to the conclusion that sheriffs are State rather than local government employees. Because a deputy sheriff functions as the alter ego of the sheriff, and exercises the same authority, we reach the same conclusion with respect to deputy sheriffs.

This Court in Talbot County v. Carroll, 172 Md. 386, 387, 191 A. 574 (1937), flatly took the position that sheriffs are State rather than county officials. In that case we held that a county government was not required to reimburse a sheriff for premiums paid for his official bond. In reaching that result we dealt with a provision of the Maryland Code which, as described by the Court, stated that

"when any county treasurer, tax collector, county commissioner, or any officer coming within the common meaning of a county official shall furnish an official bond ... the county may pay the premium ... from the general fund of the county 'provided, however, that when any such bond is given by a clerk of court, register of wills, state's attorney or sheriff, the payment of the premium on said bond shall be charged as an expense of any such officer.' " (172 Md. at 387, 191 A. at 575).

In construing this language, we held as follows (172 Md. at 387, 191 A. at 575, emphasis added):

"The two parts of the statute, the first clause and the proviso, are distinct in respect to officials and the public funds from which the premiums may be paid. County officials are specified in the first clause. Those in the second are state officials. A sheriff, 'as conservator of the peace in his county or bailiwick, is the representative of the king, or sovereign power of the State for that purpose.' South v. Maryland, 18 How. 396, 402, 15 L.Ed. 433 [1856]."

The Attorney General attempts to distinguish Talbot County v. Carroll by pointing out that the scheme for paying the salary and expenses of sheriffs has changed since the time of that decision. At that time the sheriffs' offices were funded through fees collected by the sheriffs. Since 1945, the salaries and many of the expenses of the sheriffs' offices have been paid directly by the counties. Art. IV, § 44, of the Maryland Constitution; Code (1939, 1947 Cum.Supp.), Art. 87, § 37B.

Under this Court's decisions, however, the source of an agency's or official's funding is not dispositive of the agency's or official's status as a State government entity or local government entity. ³ In Valle v. Pressman, 229 Md. 591, 185 A.2d 368 (1962), this Court was concerned with whether state's attorneys are State or local officers. State's attorneys, like sheriffs, operate within and are compensated by a particular county or Baltimore City. See Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.), Art. 10, § 40. The Court unequivocally held that a state's attorney was a State officer, saying (229 Md. at 600, 185 A.2d at 374):

"The office is created by the Constitution.... Removal [of a state's attorney from office is] a State and not a local function. The naming of a successor to a State's Attorney who dies or resigns during his term is confided to the Judges of the political subdivision in which he was serving, and Maryland Judges are Officers of the State."

In several cases it has been held that particular agencies or officials are State agencies or officials despite the fact that local governments are wholly or substantially responsible for funding those agencies or officials. See, e.g., Clea v. City of Baltimore, supra, 312 Md. at 668, 541 A.2d at 1306 ("Unlike other municipal or county police departments which are agencies of the municipality or county ..., the Baltimore City Police Department is a State agency"); Bd. of Educ. v. P.G. Co. Educators' Ass'n, 309 Md. 85, 95 n. 3, 522 A.2d 931 (1987) ("County boards of education are, of course, State agencies and not agencies of the county governments"); Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Comm'n v. Kranz, 308 Md. 618, 622-626, 521 A.2d 729 (1987) (Commission a State agency for tort liability purposes); Katz v. Washington Sub. San. Comm'n, 284 Md. 503, 397 A.2d 1027 (1979); Board v. John K. Ruff, 278 Md. 580, 366 A.2d 360 (1976). See also County Council v. Montgomery Ass'n, 274 Md. 52, 62-63, 333 A.2d 596 (1975), and 58 Op. Atty. Gen. 285 (election boards); Nesbitt v. Fallon, 203 Md. 534, 545, 102 A.2d 284 (1954), and 58 Op. Atty. Gen. 3 (1973) (liquor boards); Art. IV, § 40, of the Maryland Constitution (judges of the orphans' courts).

Many other considerations have been more important than funding in determining the status of a governmental agency or official as State or local. In O & B Inc. v. Md-Nat'l Cap. P. & P., 279...