227 A.3d 186
Md.2020Background
- The cases arise from two false-arrest incidents by former members of the Baltimore Police Department’s Gun Trace Task Force: Ivan Potts (stop, beating, planted gun, wrongful conviction later vacated) and William James (traffic stop, planted gun, jailed >7 months).
- Plaintiffs and the involved officers settled each lawsuit for $32,000; the officers assigned their indemnity claims against the City under CJ § 5-303(b)(1).
- Stipulations establish the officers lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause, planted firearms, and in Potts’ case used excessive force; the stipulations also show the officers did not take money or drugs from Potts or James.
- The same officers were later prosecuted and convicted in a separate federal racketeering conspiracy based on other incidents where officers seized and kept cash/drugs. No federal plea or stipulation included the Potts or James incidents.
- Certified question: whether, on the undisputed facts, the officers’ torts were committed within the scope of employment so that the City must indemnify under the Local Government Tort Claims Act (CJ § 5-303(b)(1)).
- The Court applied Maryland precedent (the Sawyer two-prong test and ten-factor incidental test) and held the officers’ actions in both cases were within the scope of employment; the City is therefore liable for the settlements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the officers’ torts within the scope of employment under CJ § 5-303(b)(1)? | Potts/James: arrests and related actions are policing duties; stipulations show no personal benefit, so acts furthered Dept. business. | City/Dept: conduct was outrageous, criminal, and personally motivated (part of racketeering); thus outside scope. | Yes. Applying Sawyer, conduct furthered Dept. business (arrest activity) and was incidental to authorized duties; City must indemnify. |
| Does willful criminality or egregious misconduct automatically place acts outside scope? | Potts/James: No — intentional/egregious acts can still be within scope if related to employment duties. | City/Dept: such conduct should be outside scope as a matter of law. | No bright-line rule; intentional or criminal acts are evaluated case-by-case under Sawyer; here they were within scope. |
| Do the officers’ federal racketeering convictions make the Potts/James incidents part of the conspiracy (and thus personal/unauthorized)? | Potts/James: stipulations show federal prosecutions concerned other incidents; no evidence Potts/James acts were for personal enrichment. | City/Dept: planting evidence generally served the conspiracy/cover and supports finding personal motive. | The stipulations show Potts/James incidents were not included in federal plea/stipulations and no personal benefit was shown; the acts were not part of the prosecuted conspiracy. |
| Remedy: Is the City liable to pay the settlements reached by plaintiffs and officers? | Potts/James: yes — LGTCA requires local government indemnity for employee torts within scope. | City/Dept: paying would frustrate LGTCA policy and reward criminal officers. | Yes. Because acts were within scope, CJ § 5-303(b)(1) requires City liability for the settlement amounts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247 (1991) (establishes two-prong scope test—furtherance and authorization—and the ten-factor incidental test)
- Cox v. Prince George’s County, 296 Md. 162 (1983) (intentional torts may be within scope if done in furtherance of employer business and foreseeable)
- Houghton v. Forrest, 412 Md. 578 (2010) (wrongful arrest can be incident to officer’s authority; employer liable)
- Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County, 374 Md. 20 (2003) (sexual assault by officer held outside scope)
- Morales v. Prince George’s County, 230 Md. App. 699 (2016) (fact question for jury on scope where officer engaged in policing while off-duty and armed)
- Titan Indem. Co. v. Newton, 39 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (N.D. Ala. 1999) (fabrication/planting of evidence can be within scope where done as part of policing duties and no personal motive shown)