Court of Special Appeals revives suit against Harford deputy sheriff

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Jul 7, 2004 by Alisa Bralove

A Harford County woman who claims she was mistreated by a law enforcement officer after being mistaken for a hit-and-run driver has won a partial victory from the Court of Special Appeals.

The intermediate appellate court allowed Mary Ann Hines to pursue her excessive force, malicious prosecution and negligence case against a Harford County deputy sheriff, but upheld the dismissal of her assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

On the evening of Aug. 29, 1998, Deputy Sheriff John French received a call from a 911 dispatcher, notifying him to be on the lookout for a green Dodge truck with Maryland tags 17F118 that had fled the scene of a hit-and-run accident along Route 40 in Baltimore County.

At the same time, Hines was driving her green Dodge truck with the same tag number along that road. French spotted her and pulled her over.

According to Hines, the officer, who was not in uniform, pointed his gun at her, ordered her out of the truck and slammed her head against it.

She also said that when she and her husband went to the sheriff's office four days later, Sergeant Gary Vernon would not take their complaint.

French, however, claimed that he and another officer pursued Hines for more than a mile before she pulled over, and that, during that time, she gestured that she would not comply, drove erratically and went onto the shoulder three times.

When French failed to find any evidence of damage on Hines' vehicle, he charged her with eluding police, negligent driving and failure to drive in the designated lane. Pursuant to an agreement with prosecutors, the District Court in Harford County put the first charge on the stet docket, nol prossed the second, and entered a not guilty statement of facts on the third.

Three years after the incident, Hines and her husband filed an eight-count complaint in Harford County Circuit Court against the Harford County Sheriff's Department, Harford County, the state of Maryland, the Baltimore County Police Department, Baltimore County, a Baltimore County police dispatcher, two police deputies and two police sergeants.

The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss the Baltimore County- related defendants shortly thereafter, and later granted the motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment for the remaining defendants.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals revived Hines' suit only against French, reversing the grant of summary judgment on three counts and related loss of consortium claims.

A jury could reasonably infer from [Hines'] version of the events that Deputy French issued the negligent driving citation as a means of insulating himself from liability after not finding damage on [Hines'] vehicle and to supply probable cause after it had evaporated by reason of discovering [Hines] was not involved in the reported hit- and-run, Judge Arrie W. Davis wrote for the court, remanding Hines' claim for malicious prosecution based on the negligent driving citation.

The court also reversed the summary judgment ruling on the excessive force issue, saying it is best left to the jury, and on the negligence count, since Hines' version of events raised a triable question of whether he was motivated by an intent to harm her.

Because such a finding could preclude him from invoking the defense of qualified immunity, we hold that summary judgment was not the correct disposition of Hines' negligence claim against Deputy French, Davis wrote.

On the battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest counts, however, the court upheld the grant of summary judgment, saying French had probable cause - the message from the 911 dispatcher - to pursue Hines' truck.

Similarly, the court said that even though Vernon's ministerial duties require him to accept all complaints without making a decision on the merits, his alleged failure to accept Hines' complaint did not rise to the level required for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Hines' attorney, Michael P. Tanczyn, had not yet seen the court's opinion and declined to comment. Philip S. Roberts, an attorney with the Harford County Office of Law, also declined to comment.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Case:

Mary Ann Hines, et vir v. John French, et al. CSA No. 1784, Sept. Term 2003. Reported. Opinion by Davis, J. Filed July 2, 2004

Issue:

Did the trial court err in granting appellees' motions to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment?

Holding:

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The negligence, excessive force and malicious prosecution counts should be decided by a jury.

Counsel:

Michael P. Tanczyn for appellant, Philip S. Roberts for appellee.