738 F.Supp.3d 644
D. Maryland2024Background
- Plaintiffs, Weatherly Graham and Justin Lane, allege Baltimore City Sheriff's Deputies shot and killed their dog "Boy" on their property while serving a warrant at a neighboring house.
- Plaintiffs claim the deputies shot Boy in the front yard and then again in the street, resulting in Boy's death and plaintiffs' emotional and financial loss.
- Plaintiffs assert causes of action under common law torts, the Maryland Declaration of Rights (Articles 24 & 26), and the U.S. Constitution (Fourth Amendment), including unlawful seizure, illegal entry, conversion, trespass, negligence, and trespass to chattels.
- Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims, including trespass-related counts, the Article 24 claim, claims against deputies in their official capacity, negligence, and trespass to chattels.
- The court considered only the legal sufficiency of the pleading under Rule 12(b)(6) and accepted plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true for purposes of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trespass (Counts II, IV, VIII) | Bullets fired over and onto property (hitting their dog) is trespass | No physical entry on land or evidence bullets struck property | Dismissed—No tangible invasion of land alleged |
| Article 24 Due Process (Count I) | Shooting was an excessive force claim under Article 24 | Only Article 26 (Fourth Amendment analogue) is proper for such claim | Dismissed—Article 26 governs; Article 24 duplicative/dismissed |
| Official Capacity Claims | Clarified that relief sought is individual capacity only | No official capacity liability under § 1983 or Maryland law | Dismissed all official capacity claims |
| Negligence (Count VI) | Immunity doesn't apply to gross negligence (plead in alternative) | Deputies immune from negligence claims under MTCA for actions within scope | Dismissed negligence (but not gross negligence) |
| Trespass to Chattels (Count IX) | Should not have to elect between conversion and trespass to chattels at pleadings stage | Only one remedy allowed; can't pursue both | Not dismissed—Both allowed to proceed at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Balt. City Sheriff’s Off., 814 A.2d 127 (Md. App. 2002) (outlines elements and limitations of trespass claims in Maryland)
- Brooks v. Jenkins, 104 A.3d 899 (Md. App. 2014) (dogs shot by officers; court discusses Article 24 and 26 claims for excessive force/property deprivation)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and their officials in official capacity are not "persons" for §1983 liability)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process)
- Yates v. Jamison, 782 F.2d 1182 (4th Cir. 1986) (random, unauthorized deprivation of property does not violate due process if postdeprivation remedies exist)