State v. Rovin
472 Md. 317
| Md. | 2021Background
- Valerie Rovin was arrested after visiting a juror foreperson who had served in her daughter’s trial; Deputy Cook applied for a statement of charges after consulting prosecutors and a District Court Commissioner issued an arrest warrant. Rovin was charged with juror intimidation and assault and later acquitted by judgment of acquittal.
- Rovin sued the State, two prosecutors (Maciarello and Brueckner), Sheriff Lewis, and Deputy Cook for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, Article 24 violations, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The circuit court granted a protective order and summary judgment for all defendants; the Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded, finding the trial court abused its discretion in cutting off discovery.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve whether absolute common-law immunities (prosecutorial or judicial) or MTCA (State personnel) immunity bar Rovin’s claims and whether officers can be liable when relying on prosecutor/judicial probable-cause determinations later held legally erroneous.
- Holding: prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity (so State not liable for their acts); officers are not entitled to absolute prosecutorial or judicial immunity, but both officers and prosecutors qualify for State personnel immunity under the MTCA; the Court declined to apply Heien because it was not raised below; defamation/false-light issues were not decided by this Court and remain for remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for advising police, filing charges, and representing the State | Rovin: record is sparse; advice to police and pre-filing conduct are not necessarily protected; factual disputes exist | State: prosecutors’ acts (advising, filing information, presenting case) arise from judicial process and are absolutely immune | Prosecutors Maciarello & Brueckner are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; summary judgment for them and State as to prosecutors’ acts |
| Whether absolute prosecutorial or judicial immunity extends to law-enforcement officers (including under Keller-Bee) | Rovin: officers are not judicial actors and Keller-Bee is distinguishable; immunity should not shield officers | Petitioners: officers should be shielded because proximate cause was prosecutor/judge determinations (Keller-Bee analogy) | Officers are not entitled to absolute prosecutorial or judicial immunity; Court declines to extend Keller-Bee to officers |
| Whether MTCA (State personnel) immunity bars claims and whether State remains liable for officers’ conduct | Rovin: MTCA applicability disputed; argues issues of fact and that suing in official capacity changes analysis | Petitioners: officers and prosecutors are "State personnel"; no malice/gross negligence alleged so MTCA immunity applies | State personnel immunity under MTCA bars claims against individuals in their individual capacities; because prosecutors have absolute immunity, State not liable for prosecutors’ acts; claims against State based on officers’ acts remain for further proceedings |
| Whether officers can avoid civil liability under the Heien reasonable‑mistake‑of‑law rationale (objectively reasonable mistake of law re: probable cause) | Rovin: officers’ mistake was objectively unreasonable; question of fact requires discovery | Petitioners: Heien should protect officers who acted on an objectively reasonable mistake of law | Court declined to apply Heien here because Petitioners did not raise it below; remanded to circuit court to consider applicability |
| Whether defamation/false‑light claims fail for lack of falsity | Rovin: Sheriff Lewis’ public statements were false and defamatory | Petitioners: statements were not false; element of falsity lacking | Court did not decide the falsity issue (party did not raise it in cert petition); Court of Special Appeals’ vacatur and remand as to these claims affirmed for further discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. Ripley, 352 Md. 754 (Md. 1999) (recognizing Maryland prosecutorial immunity for acts arising from the prosecutorial role in the judicial process)
- Keller-Bee v. State, 448 Md. 300 (Md. 2016) (judicial-immunity analysis where proximate cause of harm was judge’s act; did not extend immunity to nonjudicial employee)
- Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (Md. 1995) (absolute judicial immunity can preclude recovery under MTCA)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (officer applying for a warrant not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; qualified immunity standard applied)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (establishing prosecutorial immunity doctrine)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishing prosecutorial legal-advice immunity when tied to investigative functions)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2009) (limits of prosecutorial immunity for administrative failures and non-judicial functions)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable mistake of law can supply the reasonable-suspicion/practical-justification standard for stops; Court declined to apply here)
- Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98 (Md. 2007) (Malley persuasive as to denying absolute immunity for officers in warrant/search contexts)