Brooks v. McKimmie

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied a deputy sheriff’s Rule 50(b) motion seeking qualified immunity from a Fourth Amendment unlawful-arrest judgment. The court held that, viewing the evidence favorably to the plaintiff, no reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest him for trespassing when he immediately attempted to comply with an order to leave. The court also denied the plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion, concluding that the deputy was immune under the Maryland Tort Claims Act from state-law and state constitutional claims because he acted within the scope of his duties and the jury found no malice.

Holdings

1. McKimmie was not entitled to qualified immunity because, viewing the evidence in Brooks's favor, no reasonable officer could have believed that Brooks had probable causeably remained on the hotel property after being notified to leave when Brooks immediately attempted to comply.
2. The court properly denied Brooks's Rule 59(e) motion because McKimmie, a deputy sheriff, qualified as state personnel for purposes of Maryland Tort Claims Act immunity and the jury found that he did not act with malice; the state-law claims therefore remained barred by immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McKimmie was entitled to qualified immunity on Brooks's Fourth Amendment unlawful-arrest claim after the jury found that he arrested Brooks without probable cause.
2. Whether the court erred under Rule 59(e) by concluding that the Maryland Tort Claims Act immunized McKimmie from Brooks's Maryland false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and state constitutional unlawful-arrest claims despite the jury's liability findings.

Disposition

other