Summary
The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether the Maryland Tort Claims Act provides qualified immunity to state personnel for state constitutional torts and common-law intentional torts committed within the scope of employment. The court also addressed whether evidence of malice was sufficient to overcome that immunity. The opinion discusses the statutory waiver of State immunity and holds that the Act generally covers nonmalicious constitutional and intentional torts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Maryland Tort Claims Act grants qualified immunity to state personnel for tort actions based on violations of the Maryland Constitution.
- Whether the Maryland Tort Claims Act grants qualified immunity to state personnel for certain common-law intentional torts.
- Whether Lee presented sufficient evidence of malice to create a triable issue and defeat Cline's qualified immunity.
Holdings
- The Maryland Tort Claims Act's immunity provisions encompass tort actions based on violations of the Maryland Constitution when the alleged conduct was within the scope of the state employee's public duties and was committed without malice or gross negligence.
- The Maryland Tort Claims Act's immunity provisions encompass covered common-law intentional torts, provided the conduct was within the scope of public duties and was not malicious or grossly negligent.
- Lee presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Cline acted with ill will or an improper motive, thereby creating a triable issue and defeating Maryland Tort Claims Act qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
Key quotations
“For all of the above-discussed reasons, we hold that the immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, if otherwise applicable, encompasses constitutional torts and intentional torts.” (863 A.2d at 310)
“A jury issue with regard to malice was generated.” (863 A.2d at 312)
Factual background
Keith Lee, an African-American man, was stopped by Frederick County Deputy Sheriff Gary Cline while driving a BMW without a front license plate. Lee explained that the plate had fallen off at a car wash and showed Cline the mangled plate; the dispatcher subsequently confirmed that the plate and Lee's license were valid and that Lee had no criminal history or outstanding warrants. After Lee refused consent to search, Cline requested a canine unit, described Lee as an uncooperative suspect, ordered him back into the vehicle, and prolonged the stop for approximately forty minutes despite the absence of evidence justifying a search. The canine found no drugs, and Cline ultimately issued warning tickets and released Lee.
Procedural history
Lee sued Cline and other government defendants in the Circuit Court for Frederick County after a traffic stop and attempted canine search. The case was removed to federal district court, which dismissed or resolved the federal claims and returned the state-law and state-constitutional claims against Cline to the circuit court. The circuit court granted Cline summary judgment, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, direct that court to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.