258 A.3d 210
Md.2021Background:
- In 2012, Baltimore police detective Adam Lewellen procured a search warrant by perjury, arrested David Esteppe, and prosecuted him apparently to benefit a personal acquaintance; Lewellen later obstructed the internal affairs investigation.
- Criminal prosecution of Esteppe was dropped; Lewellen pled guilty (perjury and misconduct in office) in 2014 and resigned.
- Esteppe sued Lewellen in civil court and, after a bench trial in 2014, obtained a $167,007.67 judgment on several claims (negligence, Maryland Declaration of Rights violations, civil conspiracy).
- Esteppe then sought to enforce that judgment against the Baltimore City Police Department (and the City) under the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA), filing a motion for declaratory relief asserting Lewellen acted within the scope of employment.
- The Circuit Court treated the motion as deciding scope and held Lewellen acted within the scope, making the Police Department liable; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding unresolved factual disputes (personal motive) made summary judgment improper; this Court affirms the intermediate court and adopts its analysis.
- The opinion clarifies procedural points (waiver by appearance; anomalous grant of summary judgment where no party moved) and notes the unique legal status of the Baltimore Police Department for LGTCA purposes.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewellen's torts were within scope of employment under the LGTCA | Esteppe: Lewellen’s acts (search warrant, arrest, seizure) were police acts that at least partly furthered Police Dept business | Police Dept: Lewellen acted for personal reasons (to help a friend/romantic interest), not to further Dept interests | Court: Plaintiff not entitled to judgment as a matter of law; record shows evidence of personal motive so factual dispute precludes summary judgment; remand for further proceedings |
| Procedural propriety of using a declaratory-relief motion in the underlying case to enforce judgment against non-party Police Dept | Esteppe: Declaratory/enforcement relief in the underlying action is permissible; Police Dept waived procedural objection by appearing and defending | Police Dept: Motion was procedurally improper; Esteppe should have filed a separate action | Court: Court of Special Appeals correctly held Police Dept waived procedural objection by defending; issue not further appealed |
| Whether Circuit Court could grant summary judgment on scope issue when no party filed a summary judgment motion | Esteppe: Circuit Court effectively entered judgment on scope in his favor | Police Dept: Procedural anomaly—Rule does not contemplate SJ where none moved | Court: Appellate courts may treat the ruling as SJ for review, but because neither party moved, appellate court will not award SJ in the first instance; remand appropriate for proper motions/proceedings |
| Estoppel based on Esteppe’s earlier trial statements (inconsistent positions) | Esteppe: Not estopped; prior trial evidence does not bind his enforcement posture | Police Dept: Esteppe took inconsistent positions at trial and should be estopped from asserting Dept interest now | Court: Declines to resolve estoppel here; says appropriate to consider on remand if Police Dept files a motion for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore City Police Dep’t v. Potts, 468 Md. 265 (2020) (clarifies Sawyer-based two-prong scope-of-employment test under the LGTCA)
- Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247 (1991) (establishes that acts must further employer's business and be authorized/incidental to duties to be within scope)
- Maryland Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Int’l Ltd., 442 Md. 685 (2015) (appellate standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Md., Inc., 435 Md. 584 (2013) (appellate review of legal questions without deference to trial court)
- Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc., 335 Md. 135 (1994) (procedural limits on granting summary judgment when no party moved)