Roshchin v. State
100 A.3d 499
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- On Feb. 23, 2010, Vadim Roshchin, driving a limousine owned by American Sedan Service, picked up prearranged customers at BWI without the vehicle’s permit displayed; MTAP was running an enforcement initiative that night.
- MTAP Detective Kevin Ermer arrested Roshchin for violating COMAR § 11.03.01.05-1(A)(1) (failure to display an airport commercial-vehicle permit) and impounded the vehicle; Roshchin was later released and the criminal charge was nolle prossed.
- Roshchin and American sued the State (MTA, MTAP, MAA) for false arrest, false imprisonment, Article 24 violation, trespass to chattels, and tortious interference with business relations; the circuit court granted summary judgment for the State on all counts.
- Key statutory framework: TA § 5-426 requires regulations adopted for publicly owned airports to be posted conspicuously at the airport; TA § 5-427(b) makes violation of a regulation adopted and posted under § 5-426 a misdemeanor; TA § 5-1104 requires issuance of a citation for violations punishable as misdemeanors under that title, with limited conditions allowing custody.
- Appellants argued the regulation was not validly enforceable that night because the required posting was absent, and that TA § 5-1104 mandated citation rather than arrest; the State relied on probable cause and CP § 2-202 (officer may arrest misdemeanants in presence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was COMAR § 11.03.01.05-1 enforceable on the night of arrest (posting requirement)? | Roshchin: regulation was not properly posted at BWI as required by TA § 5-426, so it was not enforceable. | State: posting is not a prerequisite to enforcement; Roshchin had actual knowledge of the rule. | There is a genuine dispute of material fact whether the regulation was posted; posting is required for enforcement under TA §§ 5-426 and 5-427. |
| Was the arrest legally authorized where officer had probable cause for misdemeanor? | Roshchin: TA § 5-1104 requires issuance of a citation for misdemeanors under that title; arrest was not authorized absent statutory exceptions. | State: CP § 2-202 and probable cause authorized arrest for misdemeanors committed in officer’s presence. | Court: Probable cause existed (so Article 24/Fourth Amendment claim fails), but TA § 5-1104’s mandatory citation requirement limits arrest authority; CP § 2-202 does not override that specific statutory constraint. Detective Ermer lacked legal authority to arrest. |
| Article 24 (state constitutional) claim based on unlawful detention | Roshchin: arrest/deprivation violated Article 24 because it lacked legal justification. | State: officer had probable cause to arrest for misdemeanor, so no Article 24 violation. | Held for State: because officer had probable cause, there was no Article 24 violation. |
| Are American’s tort claims (trespass to chattels; tortious interference) barred because vehicle impoundment was lawful? | American: impoundment was wrongful if arrest was unauthorized; tort claims viable. | State: impoundment lawful incident to a lawful arrest and for public safety. | Because the arrest lacked statutory authority under TA § 5-1104, summary judgment for the State on American’s tort claims was erroneous; those counts are remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (probable cause suffices for arrest even for minor offenses)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (probable cause governs arrest legality despite state law forbidding custodial arrest for certain offenses)
- Davenport v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable-cause analysis for arrests)
- DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18 (Maryland discussion of probable cause and arrests)
- Montgomery Ward v. Wilson, 339 Md. 701 (legal authority and liability for arrests)
- Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (elements of false arrest/false imprisonment)
- Smithfield Packing Co. v. Evely, 169 Md. App. 578 (definition of probable cause in Maryland)