Blue v. Prince George's County et al
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/18/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
r"
,-
"
IN THE UNITED STATES IHSTRICT COURT
FOR THE IHSTRICT OF MAI~YLAND
Inn SEP \ 8 ~ 3: 52
SOl/tit em DiI'i.\,;ol/
IWGUELL
BLUE,
*
Plaintiff,
*
CaS(' No.: G.III-15-1024
v.
*
SUKII.IIT
BATTH,
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
*
*
*
*
*
*
OPINION
This civil ril!hts action. broul!ht undcr 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. ariscs Irom thc Novcmber 23.
"
"
.
2011 arrest of Plaintiff Roguell Blue by Defendant
addressing
cross-motions
summary judgment
for summary judgment.
Sukhjit Haith. In a previous Opinion
ECF No. 50. the Court declined to grant
with respect to the claims against Haith in his individual capacity. but
instructed the parties to submit renewed cross motions addressing
immunity.
Alternative.
Now pending bet(Jre the Court is Defendant's
the applicability
of l}ualilied
Renewed Motion to Dismiss or. in the
for Summary .Judgment. ECF No. 52. and PlaintiIrs
Renewed Cross-Motion
I()r
Summary .Judgment. ECF No. 53. A hearing on the Motion was held on .July 7. 2017. See I.oe.
Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons. Defendant's
summary judgment.
I.
is grantcd and Plaintitrs
BACKGROUND
Motion. construed as one 1(11'
Motion is dcnicd.
I
The facts of this casc wcre fully set forth in the Coul1's prcvious Opinion. ECF No. 50 at
,
1-4.- but. for case ofrcference.
I
thc Coul1 will repeat the relevant lacts here. On Novcmber
The facts relied on herein arc either undisputed or viewed in the light most t:lvorahlc to the Plaintiff.
23.
2011. Blue. an agcnt working
assignmcnt
to apprehend
Maryland,
';'i 5-6.
Court./d';
with thc fugitivc. thc Princc Gcorgc's
oflicers.
a picturc ofthc
8. While Bluc and Ycargin wcrc
County policc arri\'cd in thc parking
fugitive. and a copy ofthc
Blue ejectcd the magazine
warrant.
Bluc sho\\cd
/I!.
from the MPI5. demonstrating
'i 12. At
thc
thc
that it had bccn
'1 14,
loadcd. /d
Bluc and the ofliccrs.
including
Ofliccr Sukhjit [hlth.
law requircd
S"" il!. ~ 15. According
Bluc to havc a permit.
back and li)[lh. Balth handcuflcd
lilr questioning,
'1 J 6,
/d
to the ofliccrs.
to Blue. ho\\'cvcr.
in the State of Maryland:'
hc did
/d'i
15. Allcr somc
Blue and in!i11'l1lcd him that hc was bcing taken in
Bluc called his supervisor
Blue was on a lawful assignmcnt.
.:'Pin cites to documents
Bluc was
with Blue about thc need lor a pcrmit and statcd "I have always
known that you necd a permit to carry anything
discussion
whcthcr
rille. /d A ranking police oflicial arri\'cd at
not nced a pcrmit to lawfully carry a scmiautomatic
the scenc. had a convcrsation
began debating
rille. /d '114, According
required to have a pcrmit to carry his semiautomatic
Maryland
in Capitol lleights.
who had sccn Bluc. /d '1'111-12.
to a 911 call from a ncighbor
his idcntification.
requcst ofthc
Court tmmhomcs
At thc time. Blue was wcaring a badgc. tactical vest. and MPI5
thc fugiti\'c at 1015 Iluntsworth
leaving the residcnce
lot. in rcsponsc
Agcncy. was on an
around his neck, /d ,; 6, Bluc and his fcllow agcnt. Dana Ycargin. lound
rilk'
and apprehendcd
ofliccrs
a male fugiti\'c at thc Ilunts\HlI.th
ECF No, 44
semiautomatic
lor thc Unitcd Statcs Fugitivc Enforccment
who spoke to the oflicers and explaincd
/d Nevertheless.
filed on the COlll1"S electronic
Blue was ultimately
filing
arrcsted
that
lilr wcapons
system (C~1/ECF) refer to the page llumbers gCllcratt:'d
bv that svstcm .
.•:rhc panies
ECF No. 57.
See
"Maryland
refer
to this
wcapon
State Police
Criminallllvcstigation
Firearms
to the
tnke judicial
li~earm ~s it
F.3d
Search."
an "Mil
IY" or an "AR. I 5'" COIJI/hlre EeF No ...• -t nt ~. ",illl
& Wesson M&P 15" is a "Copy of the Colt AR.15:"
Maryland.gov.
http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization'P
This clause has not been raised
7
10
2. Qualified
Immunity
The doctrine of qualilied
immunity shields police oflieers performing discretionary
duties
"'om "eivil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly estahlished
statutory or
constitutional
". Fi/~gl'ro/d.
rights of \dlich a reasonahle
457 U.S. 800. 818 (1982). Qualilied
claims of constitutional
violations
person \Hllild have knmm:'
I/orlmr
immunity "protects police oflicers and puhlic oflicials li'OI11
'for reasonahle
mistakes as to the legality of their actions ... ,
,\/c/)clI7ie! \'. Al"I1o/d, 898 F. Supp. 2d 809, 831-32 (D. Md. 2012) (citing ;\/1'rc/WIl/ \', HOI/I'r.677
F.3d 656. 661 (4th Cir. 2012)), This doctrine "applies regardless of whether the oflicer's
error is
a mistake of law, a mistake of fact. or a mistake hased on mixed questions of law and fact." (;mh
\', ROll7ire~, 540 U.S, 551. 567 (citing Hl//~ \', Ecollo/l/ol/. 438 U,S, 478, 507 (1978)): see also
(jo/l/e~ ,', Alkim. 296 F,3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that qualilied
oflieers li'OIll "had guesses in gray areas'" such that they arc personally
transgressing
immunity protects law
liahle only ..tor
hright lines").
An oflicer is protccted from liahility under ~ 1983 hased on qualilied
the facts alleged show the oftieer's
violated was clearly estahlished
Wilsoll. 565 F. App'x.
conduct violated a constituti()nal
immunity unless I)
right. and 2) the right
at the time the ofticer"s conduct occurred. See Slreoll'r \',
208. 210 (4th Cir. 2014), With respect to the second prong. "lfJora
to he clearly estahlished,
would [havc] understlood]
its contours 'must he sufticiently
right
clear Isuch I that a reasonahle oflicial
that \lhat he is doing violates that right. ... (hrells \', Rolli/l/ore Cily
Stale's Al/ol"l1eys Ollice. 767 F.3d 379. 398 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Alldl'rSOIl \', Creigh/oll.483
U.S, 635. 640 (1987)), A "case directly on point"' is not required, "hut existing precedent must
have placed the statutory or constitutional
question heyond dehate," Ashem/i \', ol-Kidd. 563
arresting officers to determine whether they provide n probability 011 which rC3sonabie and prudent persons would
act: \\c do not examine the subjective beliefs orthc arresting officers to determine whether /hey thought that the
facts constituted probable cause." (irtW. 137 F.3d al 769-770 (emphasis in original).
11
U,S, 731. 741 (20 II ): see also Molhis \', McDonough,
3853087.
at *23 (D, Md. June 19.2015)
established.
No, CIV,A, ELI 1.13.2597,
("'In determining
courts in this Circuit ordinarily
2015 WI.
whether a right was clearly
need not look beyond the decisions
of the Supreme
Court. the Fourth Circuit. and the highest court of the stale in which the case arose. as of the date
sc.
of the conduct at issue."') (citing Doe ex rei. .Iohl7Son \'.
170 (4th Cir. 2010»
(internal
alterations
Del'l, o(Soc.
omitted).
Here. the Court finds that it was not "clearly established"
through a residential
previously
discussed.
neighborhood
in Prince George's
Blue was clearly in violation
of Prince George's
of a loaded lirearm in a residential
contends
was "preempted
was not clearly established.
preempted
Maryland
As discussed
by Maryland
law. or expanded
the regulatory
County Ordinance
neighborhood.
whether the ordinance
of whether the ordinance
researching
the question
case law'. but what a reasonable
the constitutionality
of the conduct."
person in a defendant's
omitted).
placing as "beyond
debate."
Ct. 348. 350 (2014). Blue's right to earry a loaded. semi.automatic
neighborhood.
with
required of lawyers.
whether an oflicer
is not what a I,myer would learn or intuit li'OI11
(internal quotations
nor is the Court aware of. any precedent
was
was inconsistent
(r All/ore \'. NO\"{/I'm. 624 F.3d 522. 533-34 (2d Cir. 20 I0) ("In determining
immunity.
Blue
scope: while the Court linds that oflicers must know
the law. it cannot ask that oflieers also engage in the type of interpretation
is entitled to qualilied
Although
~ 14.
state law."' the Court finds that this
above. to determine
would have required a determination
that Blue could lawfully walk
County with a loaded M1'15. As
140. as hc was in possession
that this ordinance
Sen's .. 597 F.3d 103.
Even viewing the f~lcts in the lighlmost
12
position should know about
Plaintiff has nol idcntified.
COl'mll \', ('ol'lI/on.
135 S.
rille in a residential
I~lvorable to Plaintiff. this right was not
clearly established.
and Defendant
13atth is thus entitled to qualified
immunity.
Defendant's
Motion is granted with respect to the ~ 1983 claim.
H. Falsc Imprisunmcnt/Falsc
Arrcst
To prcvail on a claim for common
establish
that he was deprived
Me!' 81. 92 (2006): eray
to detain is equivalent
law 11\lse imprisonment
of liberty without consent or legal justilieation.
". ,1/(//:1'11I1It!.228 F. Supp. 2d 628 (D. Md. 20(2).
to legal authority
S/ll/e ,'. Dell. 391
The legal justilication
under the law of arrest. See .IIoJ1lgollle/:1' WlIrt! ".
339 Md. 70 I. 721 (1995). "Thercforc.
Wilsoll.
or 1111sc rrest. Blue must
a
where the basis of a 1~\lse imprisonment
an arrest by a police oflicer. the liability of the police oflicer for false imprisonment
ordinarily
depend upon whether or not the oflicer acted within his legal authority
In Maryland.
committed
"[aJ police oflicer who has probable
in the oflicer's
presence
339 Md. 70.122
Br{)\l'I1.
(granting
authority
(1995) (internal
1~t1searrest and imprisonment
warrantless
plaintifL
ElIrly.
believe to have committed
alterations
in his presence):
omitted):
the coul1must
summary judgment
Ash/Oil
oflicer witnesses
a misdemeanor
ifan oflicer had legal authority
to make a
ask iL in the light most 11\vorable to the
430 (D. Md. 2(12).1I(1'd.
For the same reasons as discussed
such offense."
Me!' Code. Crim. I'roc .. ~ 2-202
a l~lCt-linder could inter the plaintiff was not committing
899 F. Supp. 2d415.
is being
see 1Iiso /loss. 899 F. Supp. 2d at 430 (discussing
claims). "To determine
arrest liJr a non-Ielony.
to arrest." Id
\'iew. may arrest without a warrant
to make an arrest without a warrant ifpoliee
or felony being committed
will
cause to bclieve that a misdemeanor
or within the oflicer's
any person whom the oflieer may reasonably
action is
the charged crime:'
/loss
1'.
746 F.3d 546 (4th Cir. 2(14).
above. the Court linds that Batth is entitled to
on Blue's false arrest/false
imprisonment
claims. At the time of his arrest.
Blue was carrying a loaded firearm within 1000 leet of a residential
IJ
home other than his own.
".
constituting a misdcmeanor under county ordinancc. See Princc Gcorgc's County. Md .. Codc of
Ordinances
* 14-140. Blue displayed this weapon in thc plain vicw ofthc
officcrs. Thus. as a
police officer empowered to arrest a person who commits a misdcmcanor in his presence. Officcr
I3atth cxcrcised his legal authority to arrcst I31uc.Morcovcr. good faith and a rcasonablc belief
that a misdemeanor is bcing committcd is a dcfcnsc to thc common law torts of t~llsearrcst and
imprisonmcnt. See Piersoll ". Ray. 386 U.S. 547. 557 (1967): Tholllpsoll \'. ;Imlcr.lwi. 447 F.
Supp. 584. 600 (D. Md. 1977) (finding good l~lithdctCnsc precludcd rccovery on f~llsc
imprisonmcnt claim bccausc officcr rcasonably bclicvcd arrcst was legal). Givcn thc unccrtain
application of the compcting lirearm rcstrictions. no rcasonable fact lindcr could concludc that
Officer Balth did not act in good I~lithin making thc arrcst of Blue. Accordingly. Defcndant's
Motion is also grantcd with rcspcct to thc falsc imprisonmcnt/falsc arrcst claim.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For thc foregoing rcasons. Dcfendant's Motion for Summary Judgmcnt. lOCI'No. 52. is
granted. Plaintiffs Cross-Motion It))'Summary Judgmcnt. ECF No. 53. is dcnicd. A scparatc
Order shall issuc.
Date: Scptember ( (
4/C-
2017
GEORGE .I. IIAZEL
United Stales District Judgc
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?