Sherrod v. McHugh
Civil Action No. 2016-0816
D.D.C.Feb 15, 2017Background
- In May 2015 Vashti and Eugene Sherrod were involved in a minor traffic accident with Diane Schulz; Schulz reported that Vashti brandished a handgun.
- MPD Det. Phillip McHugh viewed surveillance video that Plaintiffs allege disproved Schulz’s story but nonetheless (per the complaint) filed a false police report/broadcast that the Sherrods’ car was a felony/stolen vehicle.
- The broadcast led to a forceful Capitol Police stop where officers pointed shotguns at the Sherrods; McHugh arrived and searched the car without finding weapons.
- McHugh worked with Prince George’s County to obtain a search warrant based on an affidavit Plaintiffs allege contained falsehoods; police executed a nighttime no-knock entry, roused the elderly, handcuffed Mr. Sherrod (who is blind), and caused property damage.
- McHugh swore a complaint and affidavit leading to an arrest warrant for Ms. Sherrod; charges ultimately were not presented by the grand jury and prosecution was terminated.
- Plaintiffs sued McHugh and the District of Columbia asserting assault, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and related claims; District Defendants moved to dismiss specified common-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault based on Capitol Police stop and show of weapons | McHugh’s false report/broadcast foreseeably and with substantial certainty caused officers to stop the Sherrods and point weapons, creating imminent apprehension | McHugh did not command officers to point weapons; broadcast/stop does not establish intent to cause apprehension | Denied — pleadings plausibly allege McHugh knew with substantial certainty his report would cause an arrest stop and apprehension sufficient to state assault claims |
| Assault based on nighttime no‑knock entry/search | McHugh procured a warrant by false statements and led a forcible, unannounced nighttime entry that caused fear of imminent harm | Plaintiffs could not have reasonably apprehended imminent contact while in bed; no allegation McHugh personally kicked door | Denied — allegations plausibly show McHugh knowingly caused the Sherrods to fear imminent harmful contact during the search |
| Negligence (duty/breach and distinctness from intentional torts) | McHugh breached the duty of reasonable care (as a police officer) by false affidavits, unlawful searches/seizures, and property damage; alternative pleading to intentional torts is permissible | Plaintiffs failed to plead a viable standard of care (relying only on MPD policies) and negligence is duplicative of intentional torts | Denied — reasonable‑care standard suffices at pleading stage; MPD policies are relevant to standard of care; negligence claims are plausibly distinct and may proceed alongside assault allegations |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (zone of danger) | Nighttime unannounced forcible entry, handcuffing, and false arrest placed plaintiffs in the zone of physical danger causing serious emotional distress | Plaintiffs were not in a zone of danger with respect to searches/arrest (defendants conceded Capitol Police stop would satisfy zone) | Denied — pleadings plausibly allege McHugh’s negligence actually exposed plaintiffs to danger and caused verifiable severe emotional distress |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 412 A.2d 948 (D.C. 1980) (assault defined as apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact)
- Evans-Reid v. District of Columbia, 930 A.2d 930 (D.C. 2007) (assault standard applied)
- Arias v. DynCorp, 752 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (zone of danger requirement explained)
- Dormu v. District of Columbia, 795 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2011) (negligence and assault may both proceed where facts support distinct mental states)
- Kenley v. District of Columbia, 83 F. Supp. 3d 20 (D.D.C. 2015) (reasonable police‑officer standard; policies probative of care)
- District of Columbia v. Chinn, 839 A.2d 701 (D.C. 2003) (no negligent battery; distinctness of negligence and intentional torts)
- David v. District of Columbia, 436 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2006) (negligent false arrest can create a zone of danger supporting NIED)