American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Leopold
115 A.3d 649
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- John R. Leopold, then Anne Arundel County Executive, was indicted in 2012 for misconduct in office for using on‑duty EPOs to compile dossiers on political opponents.
- ACLU and others requested copies of information about them from Leopold and the County custodian under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA).
- The County partially produced records but withheld Bergin tapes and certain emails kept by EPO personnel; Bergin tapes were later released after Leopold’s trial.
- Plaintiffs alleged three PIA counts: Count I (improper collection/use of personal records), Count II (improper denial of access), Count III (failure to timely petition for continuance of a temporary denial).
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for some counts and dismissed Count I; granted Count II partial summary judgment; Count III was dismissed; the appeal followed.
- This Court reverses as to Count I, affirms as to Counts II and III, and remands for further proceedings on Count I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I states a PIA claim for creation, use, and dissemination of personal records | ACLU contends §10-624 and §10-626 permit a remedy for creation/use of personal records. | Leopold/County argue no creation of new records and no §10-626 remedy for this misuse. | Count I states a claim; §10-626 applies to misuse of records. |
| Whether §10-626 provides a remedy for §10-624 violations and whether damages are available | Plaintiffs seek actual damages and attorneys’ fees for violations. | Defendants contend no remedy or damages under these provisions beyond existing torts. | §10-624 and §10-626 interact to allow remedies; actual damages may be proved; declaratory and nominal damages possible. |
| Whether Leopold/Teare can invoke public official immunity | Immunity should not shield intentional misconduct violating PIA. | Immunity may shield discretionary acts absent malice or gross negligence. | Public official immunity does not bar Count I; alleged intentional misuse falls outside immunity. |
| Whether the ACLU may pursue §10-626 claims against the County | County is a proper defendant under the statute’s broad definition of ‘person’. | County’s and individuals’ roles render them as custodians; separate liability is improper. | County may be liable under §10-626; Commission of willful/knowingly improper actions by an entity is permitted. |
| Whether the Bergin tapes were properly withheld under MPIA and whether Count III is moot | Tapes were improperly withheld or not part of the Leopold investigation. | Tapes relate to a pending criminal investigation; properly exempted; Count III moot after production. | Count III moot; Bergin tapes were properly withheld pending prosecution; case moot on that point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Debbas v. Nelson, 389 Md. 364 (2005) (standard of review for dismissal orders; facts assumed true)
- Williams v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 440 Md. 573 (2014) (appellate review standards for summary judgment)
- Ireland v. Shearin, 417 Md. 401 (2010) (custodian definitions and duty to collect records)
- Houghton v. Forrest, 412 Md. 578 (2010) (public official immunity limited to discretionary acts)
- Lee v. Cline, 384 Md. 245 (2004) (limitations and scope of public official immunity)
- Fioretti v. Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners, 351 Md. 66 (1999) (presumption in favor of disclosure; narrow exemptions)
- Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580 (1976) (damages for privacy/defamation-like claims; 'actual injury' concept)