Prince George's County v. Blue

ZARNOCH, J. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellee/cross-appellant, Roguell Blue (“Blue”), filed suit against appellants/cross-appellees, Prince George’s County, and police officers Steve Thompson (“Thompson”), Charles Patterson (“Patterson”), and Timothy Tyler (“Tyler”) (collectively, “the County”) for a violation of his civil rights under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, false arrest/imprisonment, and malicious prosecution stemming from his allegedly wrongful arrest for wearing and carrying a handgun without a permit outside Irving’s Nightclub in Capitol Heights. In December 2010, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted the County’s motion for judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, but allowed the remaining counts to be considered by a jury, which found the County liable. Compensatory damages were awarded in the amount of $106,100.00. After the court denied the County’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”), both parties appealed.

The County poses the following questions: 1. Did the trial court err when it denied the Motion Notwithstanding the Verdict on the issue of the existence of probable cause? ⁶¹¹ 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it permitted the treating psychiatrist to be qualified as an expert witness and testify as to expert opinions not contained in any report? Blue raises an additional issue: Did the trial court err in directing a verdict on Blue’s malicious prosecution claim on the basis that there was no showing of malice?

In answering the first question in the affirmative, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, Md.Code (2002, 2012 Repl.Vol.) Criminal Law Article (“Crim.Law”) § 4-203(b)(7) 1 , which exempts certain supervisory employees from the statute’s general prohibition against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun without a permit, see Crim. Law § 4-203(a), 2 does not apply to employees working outside the building that houses the nightclub. Because Blue was wearing a handgun outside the premises and failed to produce a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun 3 , the County ⁶¹² had probable cause to arrest and charge him with violating Crim. Law § 4-20S(a)(l).

In the absence of this vital element of his claims, Blue cannot prevail in his constitutional or common law actions. Because we must reverse the judgment, there is no need to address the County’s second contention. As to Blue’s cross-appeal, we find that the circuit court did not err in rejecting his malicious prosecution claim. FACTUAL AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On June 17, 2008, during an investigation into a possible shooting at Irving’s Nightclub in Capitol Heights, County police officers Patterson, Tyler and Thompson discovered that Blue was standing in the parking lot of the nightclub, wearing a handgun without a permit, and had neither a certification nor a license to be a security guard.

When questioned, Blue identified himself as the nightclub’s “head of security,” and produced a card which identified him as a “special agent” of the “United States Fugitive Enforcement Agency,” a company that he formed and owned. He also provided the officers with several weapons certifications and a laminated copy of a “portion of the Maryland Handgun Law” which he believed exempted him from the State’s handgun permit requirement. It was Officer Tyler’s belief that Blue was required to have been in possession of both a security guard permit and weapons permit to lawfully carry a handgun as an armed security guard in the parking lot of a business. Lacking this documentation, Blue was arrested and charged with “wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, whether concealed or open” without a permit, in violation of Crim.

Law § 4-203. Officer Thompson’s sworn Statement of Probable Cause provided: [Blue], head of security for Irving’s Night Club, was in possession of a Black Sig Sauer p229 Caliber. At this time [Patterson] ... asked [Blue] to display his credentials and ⁶¹³ handgun permit to carry on the property. At this time [Blue] started to display several documents but failed to display any handgun permit to carry on the property. [Blue] was subsequently apprehended and transported to the Prince George’s County Department of Corrections for processing.

After the criminal charges against him were nol prossed, Blue filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against the County and its police officers, alleging that his civil rights under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights had been violated (Count I); 4 that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned (Count II); and that he was maliciously prosecuted (Count III). According to Blue, the officers arrested him without probable cause because he could lawfully wear and carry a handgun without a permit pursuant to the “supervisory employee” exception enumerated in Crim. Law § 4-203(b)(7). The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Blue was engaged in providing security services in the parking lot, which was outside “the confines of the business establishment,” and was unable to produce a valid Maryland handgun permit, the police had probable cause to arrest.

Therefore, the County argued, Blue was precluded from maintaining an action for any of the counts pled. The court denied ⁶¹⁴ the motion and, on December 13, 2010, the case proceeded to trial before a jury. Daniel Irving, the owner of Irving’s Nightclub, testified that he hired Blue as the “head of security,” which entailed “[managing] the security of the club.” Specifically, Blue was responsible for making “sure that everything was safe around the club, ... [going] out ... [to] scout other people, [hiring] ... under his management, and just [making] sure that he provided safety inside and around the club.” Irving stated further that Blue “had to be armed” to work at the nightclub, that he required Blue “to have a weapon on [the] premises,” and that Blue was responsible for security “[i]nside and around the parking lot” of the nightclub, which was “part of [his] land.” According to Officer Thompson, however, the only information given to him to indicate that Blue was authorized by Irving to carry a weapon was Blue’s “word of mouth” as he was getting handcuffed. Thompson testified that the officers’ decision to arrest was based solely on Blue’s inability to produce a handgun permit; thus, it was immaterial whether Blue had identified himself as “head of security.” At the close of Blue’s case, the County moved for judgment on all counts.

The court granted the motion as to the malicious prosecution claim on the ground that Blue failed to prove, as a matter of law, that his arrest was “motivated by any ill will, rancorous—or contempt or with the intent to injure ... at least ... as malice is defined under the law.” As to the remaining counts, the court reserved ruling on the County’s motion, eventually denying it and sending the case to the jury. With respect to the alleged civil rights violation, the judge provided the jury with the following framework for evaluating the County’s evidence in support of the existence or lack of probable cause: [Blue] has a claim against the officers for violation of his rights under Article 24 of the Maryland Constitution. This section of the Constitution guarantees, to each person cer ⁶¹⁵ tain rights, including the right to be free from unlawful seizures and arrests. If the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, then there is a violation of this right.

If, however, the officers had legal justification for the seizure, or the detention or the arrest, then there is no Constitutional violation.... When a law enforcement officer arrests an individual based on—upon probable cause, that action is done with legal justification. Probable cause does not have a technical definition, but has been defined as facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense. Probable cause does not require evidence sufficient to convict a person.

Rather, it is sufficient that a fair probability exists that the crime had occurred. There is substantial difference between the quantum of proof necessary to constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction and that necessary to establish probable cause. In making an arrest, a police officer may rely upon information learned and gathered from other police officers investigating the case. In determining whether probable cause existed, it is to be evaluated with the facts known at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight, and from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent police officer, and his training and his experience.

A suspect charged in a crime does not have the right to have the investigation that led to the criminal charges to have been conducted ... as the suspect wanted. On December 15, 2010, the jury found that the County had violated Blue’s civil rights and was liable for his false arrest and false imprisonment. Compensatory damages were awarded in the amount of $106,100.00, comprised of $1,750.00 for medical expenses, $29,350.00 for lost wages, and $75,000 for non-economic damages. After the court denied the County’s JNOV Motion, the County noted an appeal to this Court.

For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court against the County and affirm the rejection of Blue’s malicious prosecution claim. ⁶¹⁶ DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review/Tenets of Statutory Construction In reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on the County’s JNOV motion, we consider “the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made.” C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 290 , 22 A.3d 867 (2011); see also Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166, 176 , 831 A.2d 481 (2003) (“We review the denial of a motion for judgment and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... under the same appellate lens.”) We will affirm a circuit court’s denial of a JNOV motion if there is “any evidence, no matter how slight, that is legally sufficient to generate a jury question.” C & M Builders, 420 Md. at 291 , 22 A.3d 867 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Put another way, we will reverse the court’s ruling on the motion only “if the facts and circumstances permit but a single inference as relates to the appellate issue presented.” Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1, 31 , 38 A.3d 333 (2012). We also review legal questions generated at trial, such as the interpretation of a statute, under a de novo standard. Parker v. State, 193 Md.App. 469, 498 , 997 A.2d 912 (2010).

Therefore, it would have been appropriate here for the circuit court to grant the County’s JNOV motion if the state of the law or all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to Blue led to a single conclusion: that the County had probable cause to arrest. Essentially, the County’s position is that the plain meaning of Crim. Law § 4-203(b)(7) did not insulate Blue from being arrested for violating Crim. Law § 4-203(a).

In other words, he did not carry a handgun on the night of the offense “within the confínes of the business establishment” because he was arrested in the parking lot. Blue contends that limiting Crim. Law § 4-203(b)(7)’s supervisory employee exception to only the “inside of the building ... is entirely illogical and disingenuous” and that Blue’s arrest was unjustified. ⁶¹⁷ The threshold issue here is determining the scope of Crim. Law. § 4-203(b)(7). 5 We resolve this issue of statutory construction by considering “three general factors: 1) text; 2) purpose; and 3) consequences.” Town of Oxford v. Koste, 204 Md.App. 578, 585-86 , 42 A.3d 637 (2012).

Koste notes that: “[t]ext is the plain language of the relevant provision, typically given its ordinary meaning, viewed in context, considered in light of the whole statute, and generally evaluated for ambiguity.” Id. (Citations omitted). Legislative purpose, either manifested in the text or gleaned from other sources, often informs, and may even control, our interpretation of the statute. Id. at 586 , 42 A.3d 637 .

Finally, our examination “of interpretive consequences, either as a comparison of the results of each proffered construction, or as a principle of avoidance of an absurd or unreasonable reading, grounds the court’s interpretation in reality.” Id. (Citations omitted).

II

Text Because the statute contains no definition of the relevant terms, we consult the dictionary for assistance. Schreyer v. Chaplain, 416 Md. 94, 101 , 5 A.3d 1054 (2010). The word “confine” is defined in Merriamr-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2005) as “something (as borders or walls) that encloses.” That same dictionary tells us that “establishment” ⁶¹⁸ means a “place of business with its furnishings and staff.” Id. at 427. 6 We note, too, that the word “within” suggests being “in or into the interior.” It would appear that the language “within the confines of the business establishment,” sets forth a very specific and narrow limitation on the supervisory employee exception to the handgun law. 7 In examining the language of Crim. Law § 4-203, with an emphasis on its context and related provisions in the whole statute, we believe it is helpful to focus on the relevant provisions as enacted in 1972 and incorporated without substantive change into a 2002 Code Revision—essentially its present form.

The law before revision set forth the following exception to the handgun prohibition: Nothing in this section shall prevent a person from wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun within the confines of real estate owned or leased by him or upon which he resides or within the confines of a business establishment owned or leased by him. Nothing in this section shall prevent a supervisory employee from wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun within the confines of a business establishment in which he is employed during such time as he is acting in the course of his employment and has been authorized to wear, carry, or transport the handgun by the owner or manager of the business establishment. See Md.Code (1957, 1996 RepLVol., 2001 Supp.), Article 27, § 36B(c)(4); Chapter 13, Laws of 1972. ⁶¹⁹ Among other things, the 2002 Code Revision moved these two sentences into separate paragraphs, so that they now exempt: (6) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person on real estate that the person owns or leases or where the person resides or within the confines of a business establishment that the person owns or leases; (7) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a supervisory employee: (i) in the course of employment: (ii) within the confines of the business establishment in which the supervisory employee is employed; and (iii) when so authorized by the owner or manager of the business establishment; The revision also substituted “on” for “within the confines of” in the “real estate” exception. 8 This understandable change by the revisors to this locationally-amorphous exemption does not suggest that the more specific “business establishment” exemption should also be read broadly. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the revisors made no change to the place-restrictive