ADKINS, J.

In this case, we must decide the extent to which the Local Government Tort Claims Act (the "LGTCA")1 limits the recovery of a man whose constitutional rights have been violated by a local government and its police force. Respondent Keith Longtin was arrested, interrogated for over 36 hours, and charged with the rape and murder of his wife. He was held in prison for over eight months. During his stay in prison, the Prince George's County Police Department (the "Department") obtained exculpatory DNA evidence and evidence of a serial rapist in the area where Longtin's wife was killed, but failed to inform Longtin or release him. Only when the Department confirmed, through a DNA match, that the crime was committed by the other suspect, did it release Longtin from prison.

Longtin sued the Department, Prince George's County, and individual officers,2 (together, the "Defendants") and obtained a jury verdict totaling $6.2 million. The Defendants noted an appeal, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the verdict. The Defendants then petitioned this Court, and we granted a writ of certiorari to review the following questions, rephrased for the sake of clarity and brevity:

We shall affirm.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

1. The Murder of Donna Zinetti

Longtin and Donna Zinetti met in Prince George's County, Maryland, in 1998. They married a few months later, moving into an apartment in Laurel, MD. The relationship was troubled from the start, and the couple eventually separated, Longtin moving out of their home and into a friend's apartment. By October 4, 1999, Longtin and Zinetti had been separated for approximately 2 weeks.

In the afternoon of October 4, 1999, Donna Zinetti's body was discovered in the woods behind her apartment. She had been raped and stabbed to death while jogging sometime on October 4th. Upon discovery of the body, police began a criminal homicide investigation.

Police investigating the crime quickly learned of an altercation between Longtin and Zinetti the day preceding her murder, October 3, 1999, a Sunday. That morning, Longtin and Zinetti attended Zinetti's church. After the service, Longtin overheard a comment from a member of the church to Zinetti, and became enraged, suspecting an extramarital affair. After arguing with Zinetti and church members, Longtin was approached by another man, who attempted to calm him. Longtin pushed the man, ran to his truck, and rapidly exited the church parking lot. After learning of this incident, the Criminal Investigation Division ("CID") considered Longtin a suspect.

The next day, not having heard from Zinetti, Longtin called the Prince George's County police to report her as a missing person. Though Longtin was already a suspect, the police "went along" with him and arranged a meeting purportedly to get him to sign a missing persons form. The officer who took the call then wrote a note to the lead detective informing him of the arranged meeting, and closing with "Good luck: Get him!" Soon after that, Longtin saw on a television news report that a female's body had been discovered near Zinetti's apartment complex. Longtin traveled to the scene.

When he arrived at the crime scene, he approached a police officer, identified himself, and asked for more information. The officer, recognizing Longtin as a suspect, called the CID and asked for guidance. He then approached Longtin, asked him to get into his police cruiser, and took him to the interrogation room in the Landover police station.

Longtin was questioned over the next twenty-seven hours4 by multiple police officers, and Longtin repeatedly and "emphatically" denied killing his wife. Longtin testified that he requested a lawyer during the interview, and his cell phone records show attempted calls to two different lawyers from the interrogation room. Although they had taken his belt, wallet, shoelaces, and at some point, his cell phone, the officers maintained that Longtin was not under arrest during this interrogation, thus justifying their decision not to advise him of his Miranda rights or present him to a commissioner within the 24-hour period required by Md. Rule 4-212. As Longtin later described, he was unable to sleep during the interrogation.

During this "marathon" investigation, Longtin revealed some suspicious details. Longtin mentioned Zinetti's "walkman," which was found by her body at the crime scene, a detail the police believed only the killer would know. Longtin also told an officer that the police would "never find" the knife used in the murder. Moreover, Longtin's boss reported to police that Longtin had called her on the morning of Zinetti's murder (after their dispute at church), and said he was in Canada to visit his sick father and would not be in to work that day.

After approximately twenty hours in interrogation, one detective asked Longtin a series of "what if" questions, asking him to imagine how the murder took place. Longtin responded that he had a vision in which someone grabbed Zinetti from behind in the kitchen hallway, holding a kitchen knife to her throat. At that point, another officer took over the interrogation, and resumed the questioning. Longtin, who had not slept for about 24 hours, provided more details to this officer regarding his vision, stating that he would have gone to Zinetti's home around 11:30 p.m., where he would have pushed Zinetti to the floor. He stated that Zinetti would have left her house to go for a run, after which he would have gone into the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and begun to chase her.

On October 7, 1999, Keith Longtin was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of his wife. Longtin was presented to a commissioner that day, and police prepared a Statement of Probable Cause, which read as followed:

Longtin was then held in jail, awaiting trial.

Significantly, the Statement listed Longtin's responses to the "what if" questions as though they were factual admissions. The Statement declared that Longtin "admitted to having a verbal and physical altercation at the victim's apartment[,]" even though Longtin had maintained that he was at home on the night of the murder, and only described the "altercation" at her apartment in response to a "what if" question after nearly twenty hours of interrogation. The Statement also included Longtin's statement that "the victim ran out of her apartment and that he ran after her with a knife[,]" an "admission" which directly followed his other hypothetical, "what if" statements.5

During the investigation, the police collected two possible DNA samples which could have implicated Longtin. Besides comparing Longtin's DNA with the DNA of the perpetrator, they also detected a blood sample on Longtin's couch, and compared that to Zinetti's DNA. On January 20, 2000, the Crime Laboratory Division of the Maryland State Police ("Crime Lab") completed its examination of the couch sample, and sent a letter to Detective Herndon that the test showed the blood was neither Longtin's nor Zinetti's. Then, on February 23, 2000, the Crime Lab completed its investigation of the DNA found on the vaginal swabs, and concluded that Longtin was "excluded as [a] possible donor[] of the DNA extracted[.]"6 Detective Herndon was also notified of this finding. Longtin was unaware of these DNA test results, and remained in prison through the Spring of 2000.

While Longtin's charges were pending, an unknown perpetrator committed a series of similar crimes in the immediate vicinity of the Zinetti murder. Police eventually arrested a suspect for these crimes, Antonio Oesby, although they did not immediately link Oesby to the Zinetti murder. Later, the police submitted Oesby's DNA for comparison against the perpetrator of Zinetti's murder.

By June 12, 2000, the Crime Lab completed its analysis of the DNA connected from the vaginal swabs, and confirmed a match with Oesby's DNA sample. The Lab again notified Detective Herndon, who relayed the information to the State's Attorney's office. Longtin was released on June 13, 2000. At that point, he had spent over eight months in prison, the last six months of which occurred after the exculpatory DNA test results. Moreover, as the Court of Special Appeals described, Longtin's imprisonment wreaked havoc on his life:

Prince George's County v. Longtin, 190 Md.App. 97, 114, 988 A.2d 20, 29 (2010) ("Longtin").

2. Longtin's Civil Suit

On October 22, 2001, Longtin filed a civil law suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, naming the County, it's then-Chief of Police, and five members of the Criminal Investigation Division, including the interrogating officers. Longtin's thirteen-count complaint alleged, among other things, constitutional violations, a "pattern or practice" claim,7 and various common law claims such as false arrest and malicious prosecution.8 The trial began almost five years later, on August 14, 2006. At the start of the trial, the court granted partial motions for summary judgment with regards to two of the original thirteen counts.9

At trial, Longtin sought to establish unconstitutional actions by the police officers during his initial arrest and interrogation. Longtin described how the officers showed him gruesome pictures of his wife's corpse, mocked his religion, denied him access to legal counsel, deprived him of food and sleep, threatened him, and lied in the Application for Probable Cause.

Longtin further argued that the Department and the Officers failed to take proper steps to release him more promptly after they discovered the exculpatory evidence. He argued that the officers ignored evidence of similar crimes in the area, ignored evidence of a suspicious person in the area, and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to Longtin. Longtin submitted that the officers had already made up their mind that he was the culprit, and would do anything to extract a confession from him.

Finally, as part of his "pattern or practice" claim, Longtin introduced evidence that the policies, training, and practices of the Police Department were partially to blame:

Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 113-14, 988 A.2d at 29-30 (footnote omitted).

The case was submitted to the jury on eight counts,10 and on August 31, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Longtin on all eight counts.11 The jury awarded $5.2 million in compensatory damages against the County, pursuant to Md.Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol.) Section 5-303(b)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP"), which provides, with certain exceptions, that "a local government shall be liable for any judgment against its employees for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions. ..."12 The jury also returned punitive damages over $1 million against the individual officers.

The Defendants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The Defendants then sought certiorari from this Court, which we granted.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the LGTCA's Notice Requirements preclude Longtin's claim.

The first issue raised by the Defendants involves the requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act. The Defendants argue that Longtin failed to comply with the notice requirements of the LGTCA, and that his claims should therefore be precluded. One way the LGTCA protects local governments is through the notice provisions of CJP Section 5-304, which states:

CJP § 5-304. This requirement was designed to assist local governments in their handling of potential claims:

Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 126-27, 872 A.2d 1, 14 (2005) (citing Faulk v. Ewing, 371 Md. 284, 298-99, 808 A.2d 1262, 1272 (2002); Williams v. Maynard, 359 Md. 379, 389-90, 754 A.2d 379, 385 (2000); Jackson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 233 Md. 164, 167, 195 A.2d 693, 695 (1963)) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Compliance with the notice requirement is "a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a local government or its employees to the extent otherwise not entitled to immunity under the LGTCA." Rios, 386 Md. at 127, 872 A.2d at 14 (citing Faulk, 371 Md. at 304, 808 A.2d at 1276; Grubbs v. Prince George's County, 267 Md. 318, 320-21, 297 A.2d 754, 755-56 (1972)). We have denied relief to injured parties for the failure to provide adequate notice to the defendant local government. See, e.g., Heron v. Strader, 361 Md. 258, 761 A.2d 56 (2000) (claims of false arrest and false imprisonment precluded for failure to file timely notice); Williams v. Maynard, 359 Md. 379, 754 A.2d 379 (2000) (dismissing negligence claim for failure to file notice).

The statute, however, also affords relief from strict application the notice requirement. Section 5-304(d) provides:

By the language of the statute, the burden is on the claimant first to show "good cause." Then, if the local government cannot "affirmatively show that its defense has been prejudiced by lack of required notice," the court "may" hear the case despite the faulty notice. This "good cause" exception leaves the courts some discretion in enforcing the notice requirement, and allows a court, in certain circumstances, to avoid an unjust result.

In this case, Longtin provided notice to the Defendants in a letter dated October 31, 2000, and apparently received by the defendants one week later, which read as follows:

After Longtin filed his complaint, the Defendants requested summary judgment on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the LGTCA's notice requirements. The Defendants argued that the 180-day window began on the day of Longtin's arrest, October 5, 1999, which was over a year before Longtin provided notice. The County thus argued that Longtin's notice was untimely with regard to all but one of Longtin's claims.13

In response, Longtin argued that the 180-day notice period did not commence until later, either when Longtin was released from jail or when he discovered the exculpatory DNA evidence. Longtin also argued that any failure to comply with the time requirement should be excused, because the Defendants suffered no prejudice and that his imprisonment and delay in learning the extent of the Defendants' actions provided good cause.

After hearing argument, the Circuit Court denied Defendants' motion, finding "[no] prejudice." This ruling — presumably made under the "good cause" exception14 — was challenged on appeal by the Defendants.

In the intermediate appellate court, the Defendants criticized the Circuit Court's ruling as inconsistent with the "earmarks of good cause" established in Heron, and recited in Wilbon v. Hunsicker, 172 Md.App. 181, 913 A.2d 678 (2006) and White v. Prince George's County, 163 Md.App. 129, 877 A.2d 1129 (2005). As explained in these three cases, the factors a court usually considers are:

Wilbon, 172 Md.App. at 206, 913 A.2d. at 693, citing Heron, 361 Md. at 271, 761 A.2d at 62-63; and White, 163 Md.App. at 152, 877 A.2d at 1141-42 (quotation marks and citations omitted). According to the Defendants, Longtin failed to qualify under the "exclusive" list of factors established in Heron, Wilbon and White.

In response, Longtin presented six alternative theories: (1) the court properly waived the notice requirement for "good cause"; (2) the trial court's denial of the County's motion for summary judgment was not preserved for appeal; (3) notice was timely with regards to one count — the malicious prosecution claim — and the timeliness of that claim preserves the full amount of the jury award under a "general verdict" theory;15 (4) Longtin substantially complied with the notice requirements; (5) the notice requirement does not bar constitutional claims; and (6) Prince George's County waived its governmental immunity through its Charter.

Judge Robert Zarnoch, writing for the Court of Special Appeals ("CSA"), first recognized the "uneasy fit" between the LGTCA's notice requirements and state constitutional torts:

Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 117-19, 988 A.2d at 32-33 (quotation marks and citations omitted) (App. 16-18). The CSA ultimately declined to reach the constitutional issue, in recognition of a court's "obligation to avoid unnecessarily deciding constitutional questions[.]" Id. (citing Davis v. State, 294 Md. 370, 377, 451 A.2d 107 (1982)). Instead, it "believe[d] the notice of claim issue can be resolved on the much narrower ground decided by the circuit court, viz. that good cause existed to excuse timely compliance with regard to each of Longtin's claims." Id. at 122, 988 A.2d at 34-35.

The Court of Special Appeals then reached the "good cause" exception, assuming that the notice actually provided by Longtin was, or could have been, untimely. See Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 124, 988 A.2d at 35-36. It distinguished the three cases relied on by the Defendants in which a "good cause" claim was rejected:

Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 124, 988 A.2d at 35-36. The intermediate appellate court thus concluded that any untimeliness in Longtin's notice was excusable:

Id.

We believe that the notice issue is better resolved, when possible, on the timeliness of the notice than on the "good cause" exception. See Heron, 361 Md. at 262, 761 A.2d at 58 (Before reaching the good cause exception, "it is necessary, first, to determine the time of his alleged injury for each of the appealed claims."). Longtin argued in the Circuit Court that his notice was timely because he sent his letter within 180 days after his release from prison, and although that court rested its decision on lack of prejudice, both arguments are preserved. See Md. Rule 8-131 (appellate courts may hear only those issues which "have been raised in or decided by the trial court").

The parties agree that if the 180-day notice period began on October 5, 1999, the day of Longtin's arrest, then his notice was untimely, but if the period began on June 13, 2000, his release date, or any point after, Longtin's notice would be timely. We may resolve this issue, therefore, by determining, as a matter of law, when Longtin's 180-day notice period began. We will first examine the notice issue with respect to the false arrest and imprisonment claims, and then turn to the remainder of Longtin's counts.

A. Notice Period for False Arrest and Imprisonment

We start with an examination of Heron, which was also a false arrest case. See Heron, 361 Md. 258, 761 A.2d 56 (2000). The plaintiff in that case, David Heron, had been arrested by the Prince George's County police on August 24, 1997, for resisting arrest, obstructing the police, and disorderly conduct. Heron was released from prison on August 26, 1997,16 and later acquitted of all charges. In May of 1998, about two months after his acquittal, Heron provided a Notice of Claim to Prince George's County, alleging false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Prince George's County filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the notice was untimely as it was provided more than 180 days from the date of arrest. See id. at 262, 761 A.2d at 58. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, and the issue eventually reached this Court. We explained that LGTCA's notice period begins when "his causes of action arose, i.e., when the legally operative facts permitting the filing of [his claims] came into existence[,]" or "when facts exist[ed] to support each element." Id. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59. For the false arrest and false imprisonment claims, we held that the plaintiff's "injuries for the purposes of the LGTCA therefore occurred, on August 24, 1997, the date he was arrested and detained by the police. The facts alleged to support each element of his claim were in existence at that time." Id.

At first glance, this conclusion might seem to support the Defendants' claim that the 180-day period began on October 5, 1999, the date of Longtin's arrest. Closer inspection of the case suggests otherwise. Unlike Longtin, Heron was in prison for only two days. There was no need to distinguish between the date of arrest and the date of release; whichever was used, the notice was too late. Instead, the distinction important in Heron was between the date of arrest (and release), and the much later date when the defendant was acquitted. This is true for the few cases cited in Heron which used a "date of arrest" rule; the plaintiff had been imprisoned for a short period of time, and the court had to distinguish between the earlier date of arrest/release and the later date of acquittal or dismissal of the charges. See Michaels v. New Jersey, 955 F.Supp. 315, 327 (D.N.J.1996) (distinguishing date of arrest from date that court proceedings terminated); Pisano v. City of Union City, 198 N.J.Super. 588, 487 A.2d 1296 (Law Div.1984) (claimant was released on bail); Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3rd Cir.1984) (plaintiff released on bail the same day as arrest); see also Livingston v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 398 N.E.2d 1302 (Ind.Ct. App. 1979) (interpreting the Indiana Tort Claims Act's 180-day notice requirement as beginning on the day Livingston was arrested, charged, and released from custody.).

Moreover, the Heron court cited with approval multiple decisions which identified the date of release as the date a false arrest or false imprisonment claim accrues. See Heron, 361 Md. at 266-69, 761 A.2d at 60-63. These cases include Collins v. County of Los Angeles, 241 Cal.App.2d 451, 50 Cal.Rptr. 586, 588 (1966) (100-day period of California Tort Claims Act began on the day the imprisonment terminated); Ragland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 201 A.D.2d 7, 613 N.Y.S.2d 937, 939 (1994) ("The petitioner's claim sounding in false arrest [and false imprisonment] accrued on [the date] on which he was released from custody."); Boose v. Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y.App.Div.1979) (notice was untimely because it was given more than 90 days after arrestee's confinement terminated); Allee v. New York, 42 A.D.2d 899, 347 N.Y.S.2d 708 (N.Y.App. Div.1973) (cause of action for false arrest and imprisonment arose at the time of plaintiff's actual physical release from confinement).

The New York courts, cited extensively in Heron, have occasionally used the "date of arrest" rule, but reaffirmed that it is the date of release that matters when dealing with a prolonged pretrial detention. See Collins v. McMillan, 102 A.D.2d 860, 477 N.Y.S.2d 49 (1984) (three week detention); Bennett v. New York, 204 A.D.2d 587, 612 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1994) (four month detention). In both Collins and Bennett, the courts faced a similar situation to Longtin's, in that the plaintiffs were held in prison for a prolonged period, but released before trial. Those courts faced a similar interpretative choice: if the notice period commenced on the arrest date, the notice was untimely, but if it commenced on the release date, weeks or months later, the notice was timely. Those courts selected the latter date. See Collins, 477 N.Y.S.2d at 50 (90-day notice period began on his date of release); Bennett, 612 N.Y.S.2d at 201 ("In an action for false arrest or false imprisonment ... [the notice period] commences on the day the plaintiff is released from actual custody."). In Heron's reliance on analogous New York cases, we discern an implicit recognition that when a person is arrested, imprisoned, and released without a trial, the notice period for a false arrest and imprisonment claim begins on release.

We are also guided by false arrest and imprisonment cases involving the accrual date for the statute of limitations. Although the notice requirement and a statute of limitations are not perfectly convergent,17 their policies of protecting defendants against stale claims are similar. Compare Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227, 247-48, 905 A.2d 340, 352 (2006) (citing American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974)) (Statutes of limitations "are intended to give notice of suit to defendants within a reasonable amount of time to prevent loss of evidence and the fading of witnesses' memories[.]") with Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98, 112, 928 A.2d 795, 804 (2007) (purpose of the LGTCA's notice requirement is "to apprise local governments of possible liability at a time when they can conduct their own investigation into the relevant facts, while evidence and the recollection of witnesses are still fresh."). For this reason, the accrual date for a statute of limitations period is relevant in determining the accrual date of a notice period for the same claims. See, e.g., Roehrig v. Louisville, 454 S.W.2d 703, 704 (Ky.Ct.App.1970) (notice period for contribution claim begins when statute of limitations for such a claim would); Bryant v. City of Lafayette, 946 P.2d 499 (Colo.Ct.App.1997) (like a statute of limitations, tort claims notice period for automobile accident was tolled by "discovery rule" during plaintiff's prolonged period of unconsciousness); C & G, Inc. v. Canyon Highway Dist. No. 4, 139 Idaho 140, 75 P.3d 194, 198 (2003) (examining "notice period" cases to identify statute of limitations for inverse condemnation); Espanola Housing Authority v. Atencio, 90 N.M. 787, 568 P.2d 1233, 1236 (1977) (recognizing the similarity between notice statutes and statutes of limitation); Emery v. University of New Mexico Medical Ctr., 96 N.M. 144, 628 P.2d 1140 (App.1981) (linking start of notice period to start of statute of limitations period in medical malpractice case); Adams v. Oregon State Police, 289 Or. 233, 611 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1980) (in tort case involving a damaged car, the 180-day notice period and two-year period of limitations commenced on the same day).

The general rule for false arrest and imprisonment cases in which a person is arrested and released prior to trial is that "the statute begins to run only when the imprisonment ends, since the period of imprisonment is treated as a unit." 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 899, Comment c; see also Hackler v. Miller, 79 Neb. 206, 112 N.W. 303 (1907) ("The plaintiff's cause of action arose on the instant of his arrest, and the statute of limitations, which is of one year ... began to run the moment he was set at liberty."); Kirwan v. State, 31 Conn.Sup. 46, 320 A.2d 837, 840 (1974) (same); Belflower v. Blackshere, 281 P.2d 423, 425 (Okl.1955) (same); Mobley v. Broome, 248 N.C. 54, 102 S.E.2d 407, 409 (1958) (same) overruled on other grounds by Fowler v. Valencourt, 334 N.C. 345, 435 S.E.2d 530 (1993); O'Fallon v. City of Burlington, 427 N.W.2d 809, 811 (N.D.1988) (same); Adler v. Beverly Hills Hosp., 594 S.W.2d 153, 156-57 (Tex.Civ. App.1980) (same); Stafford v. Muster, 582 S.W.2d 670 (Mo.1979) (same).18

To be sure, concerns over stale claims should limit applicability of the "release date" rule in cases in which the plaintiff's imprisonment continues from the arrest to trial and beyond. For example, in a series of cases where the plaintiff has been arrested, held, tried, and convicted, only to be released years later, courts have commenced the statute of limitations at the formal start of criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 390-92, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1096-97, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (statute of limitations for false imprisonment claim "commenced to run when [plaintiff] appeared before the examining magistrate and was bound over for trial[,]" and not when the plaintiff was released five years later, after his conviction was overturned on appeal); Johnson v. Blackwell, 885 N.E.2d 25, 31 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (cause of action accrued when defendant was bound over for trial in March 2003, and not when he was arrested in February 2003 or when he was released in 2006). In these cases, using the "release date" as the operative date for limitations would have allowed for stale claims to be brought years after the subject events.

When, however, a defendant is imprisoned while awaiting trial, but never tried, there is sound policy for commencing the notice period upon a plaintiff's release from prison.19 A falsely imprisoned person's failure to immediately initiate a civil tort claim is not usually caused by neglect or imprudence, but instead by "the reality that the victim may not be able to sue while he is still imprisoned." Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1095, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). Severe limitations are (rightfully) placed on a prisoner's ability to communicate with the outside world, and his first few months in prison are presumably spent in preparation for the criminal proceedings. To the extent that a notice period — or a statute of limitations — is directed at those who sit on their rights, it should not run during pretrial imprisonment.20

Moreover, when a plaintiff is held for weeks or months, but released before trial, commencing the notice period on release does not endanger the policy of preserving a municipality's ability to "conduct their own investigation into the relevant facts, while evidence and the recollection of witnesses are still fresh." Notice periods are concerned with the potential that a municipality will be forced to defend itself against injuries it did not know existed, at a time when it is unable to generate evidence to assist in that defense. There is less risk of this in a false arrest/false imprisonment case which has not yet gone to trial. From the moment of arrest, police officers are required to document their actions and create evidence (e.g., the statement of probable cause). While that person is imprisoned, the municipality is presumably gathering evidence, organizing its facts, and identifying potential witnesses to justify that arrest and detention. Notice periods serve to open up the flow of evidence from a potential plaintiff to a local government, and jump start the government's legal defense mechanism. When a party is falsely imprisoned, and already locked in an adversarial proceeding with that government (indeed, one with much higher stakes), the government's engine is revved up. Because of the speedy trial laws, commencing a notice period on the end of pretrial imprisonment will not risk the lengthy delays that render evidence, and claims, stale.21

We hold that when a person is arrested, imprisoned, but released before trial, in order to file a false arrest and imprisonment claim, he must file his notice of claim within 180 days of his release from prison. Longtin did, and he therefore complied with the LGTCA's notice requirements.

The dissent reaches the same conclusion, although through application of the LGTCA's "good cause" exception. See Dissenting Op. at 509, 19 A.3d at 894. Allowing "good cause" for incarceration creates even more problems in future cases. First, it is unclear how long imprisonment will continue to be "good cause" for late filing; should courts forgive longer imprisonments, and allow late notice from defendants who are freed years after conviction? If incarceration is not always "good cause", how will the court determine which imprisonments are, and which are not? Moreover, if the defendant is imprisoned on another charge, is his failure to file notice any less forgivable than Longtin's? The many issues raised by the dissent's "good cause" approach have long since been solved by the common law's treatment of false arrest and imprisonment claims.

B. Notice For Longtin's Other Claims

Our resolution of the notice issue for false arrest and imprisonment resolves the notice issue for most of Longtin's claims. In general, constitutional claims arising from a false arrest and imprisonment — including pattern or practice claims — share a statute of limitations accrual date with the related common law torts. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1095, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (statute of limitations in federal claim for damages resulting from arrest and alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment are drawn by analogy from the torts of false arrest and false imprisonment). Civil conspiracy claims, moreover, share a statute of limitations with the underlying tort. See, e.g., Nader v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 567 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.Cir.2009) ("a civil conspiracy claim incorporates not only every substantive element of the underlying tort, but also its statute of limitations.") As all these claims would share an accrual date for limitations purposes with false arrest and imprisonment, the same should hold true for a notice period.22

The only remaining claims, then, are the counts for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED") and Invasion of Privacy/False Light. With regard to the IIED claim, at least one court has held that the statute of limitations for an IIED claim accrued earlier than the date of false arrest and imprisonment. See Johnson v. Blackwell, 885 N.E.2d 25 (Ind.C.A.2008). In Johnson, the Court of Appeals of Indiana applied Wallace v. Kato and concluded that the plaintiff's "cause of action for false imprisonment/false arrest accrued when he was bound over for trial in March 2003[.]" Id. at 31. The court then observed that the related IIED claim was based entirely upon the search of his home, on the date of arrest, and concluded that the IIED claim accrued on that date.

In a recent case, however, the Seventh Circuit distinguished Johnson on the grounds that the plaintiff's IIED claim was based on events occurring throughout the imprisonment. Parish v. City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d 677, 683 (7th Cir.2010). After a criminal defendant's conviction was overturned, he sued the officers and the police department for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court held that the claim did not accrue until the conviction:

Id. Parish clarifies that the accrual date of an IIED claim can range, depending upon the alleged actions. In this case, as in Parish, the claim is not based entirely on the police officers' actions during the arrest. Rather, Longtin alleged that his emotional distress was the result of continuing actions by the police department to keep him wrongfully imprisoned. His continued wrongful imprisonment was the "crux of his claim." The notice period for the IIED claim, therefore, did not accrue until his release.

A closer question is the accrual date for Longtin's false light claim. Some courts considering the statute of limitations for an array of claims similar to Longtin's have distinguished between privacy claims and the false arrest and imprisonment claims. See, e.g., Price v. City of San Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 893-94 (5th Cir.2005) (invasion of privacy claim accrued on date of arrest, while false arrest and imprisonment claims accrued later); Johnson, 885 N.E.2d at 31 (same). Although this distinction may be meaningful in some factual circumstances, we decline to differentiate the notice period accrual date for a "false light" claim arising from a false statement of probable cause. The false light claim arises from the assertions contained in the Statement of Probable Cause. This same event underlies multiple other counts, including the false arrest and imprisonment claims, for which the notice period commenced upon release. Under these circumstances, the policy of the notice requirement is not further served by requiring a falsely imprisoned person to file earlier notice of the false light claim. We decline, therefore, to distinguish the applicable notice period for the false light claim from Longtin's other claims.

II. LGTCA's Damage Caps

To increase predictability, and provide an upper limit to a local government's potential liability, the LGTCA limits the amount a tort plaintiff can recover from a local government to $200,000 per individual claim and $500,000 per total claims arising from the same occurrence. See CJP § 5-303(a)(1). The jury awarded Longtin $5,025,000, a sum well in excess of the limits provided in the LGTCA. The trial court refused to lower the award, an issue the Defendants challenge on appeal. We must decide, therefore, whether the LGTCA's cap on damages applies in this case so as to limit the permissible award.

The timeline of Longtin's arrest, detention, release, and civil suit, overlays a period of significant development of the LGTCA's damage cap provisions, beginning with this Court's opinion in Housing Auth. v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 754 A.2d 367 (2000). There, a plaintiff sued the Housing Authority of Baltimore City for damages caused by her childhood lead poisoning. The plaintiff alleged that the Housing Authority was "negligent in allowing flaking lead-based paint to remain [in her home,]" and sought several million dollars of damages. See id. at 364, 754 A.2d at 371. The Authority filed a motion in Court to limit their potential liability to $200,000, which the Circuit Court granted. The applicability of the damage caps was raised on appeal, among other issues.

The version of the LGTCA in front of this Court contained the following damages limitation:

Md.Code (1974, 1998 Repl.Vol., 1999 Cum. Supp.), CJP § 5-303 (emphasis added). Section (a) thus capped the damages available against a local government, including respondeat superior liability, which was identified in subsection (b).

Because Bennett did not deal with a suit under respondeat superior, but instead involved a direct suit against the Housing Authority, the parties disputed whether the word "including" signified that the damages caps were intended to apply outside of claims of respondeat liability. See Bennett, 359 Md. at 370, 754 A.2d at 374. The Housing Authority argued that a cap which "includes" respondeat superior liability within its coverage necessarily includes some other type of liability, such as direct liability. Not persuaded by this argument, this Court adopted the plaintiff's interpretation, holding that the statute did not apply to direct suits:

Id. at 373, 754 A.2d at 376. We concluded that "[i]t would not be a reasonable construction of the statutory language ... to apply the monetary caps to tort actions directly against local governments[.]" Id.

The Bennett decision caused alarm among local governments, who immediately sought corrective action from the General Assembly. In the following session, in early 2001, the General Assembly passed emergency legislation to "[clarify] that the monetary limits on the liability of a local government under the [LGTCA] apply to claims against local governments when named as defendants [and] that the monetary limits under [LGTCA] apply to tort judgments for which local governments are liable. ..." Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2001. The Governor signed this legislation into effect on April 20, 2001. Importantly, the General Assembly gave this revision to the LGTCA a retroactive effect, stating in an uncodified section that: "[The] Act shall apply to any claim for damages under § 5-303 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article in a case pending on the effective date of this Act and arising from events occurring on or after July 1, 1987." (Emphasis added).

Longtin was released from prison exactly one week after the Bennett decision was filed. Thus, its holding — that local governments faced unlimited liability for direct suits — was the status of the law upon his release. The question then is whether the subsequent revisions to the LGTCA apply retroactively to limit Longtin's direct claims.23

It is a hallmark of our jurisprudence that retroactive legislation may not deprive a person of a "vested right." See Dua v. Comcast Cable of Md., Inc., 370 Md. 604, 625-630, 805 A.2d 1061, 1073-1077 (2002) (detailing over 150 years of Maryland cases which invalidated retroactive legislation to "vested rights"). Retroactive deprivation of a vested right violates "Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights and Article III, § 40, of the Constitution." Id. at 629-630, 805 A.2d at 1076. We must decide, therefore, whether Longtin possessed "vested rights" at the time of his release from jail. See State Comm'n on Human Relations v. Amecom, 278 Md. 120, 123, 360 A.2d 1, 4 (1976) (there is "no absolute prohibition against retroactive application of a statute.").

In this case, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the "right" at issue for Mr. Longtin was his cause of action for the full amount of damages: "Here, what was at stake was a fully accrued cause of action for complete recovery for constitutional violations that were not previously subject to an assertion of either all or partial local government immunity." Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 128, 988 A.2d at 38.24 The CSA concluded that this right had vested by the statutory change, and thus could not be retroactively deprived. Id. The Defendants object to this conclusion, and argue that Longtin had no vested right to damages above the statutory cap. In a somewhat conclusory argument, the Defendants state that the cap "resulted in no adjustment of any burden or benefit of economic life; no readjustment of such rights or burdens; no disruption of anyone's settled expectations; and no burdening of any limited class with new liabilities."

In a seminal case written by Judge Eldridge, we were called to consider whether two statutes with retroactive effect that limited potential recovery by a party deprived a "vested right." Dua, 370 Md. 604, 805 A.2d 1061. In Dua, the plaintiffs sought to recover from Comcast monthly late fees which they had paid to Comcast, to the extent that such fees exceeded six per cent per annum, the legal rate of interest set forth in Maryland's constitution. One of these two statutes, passed after the alleged illegal late fees were paid, established the validity of late fees in certain allowable amounts, and stated that "this Act shall apply to all late fees provided for in contracts entered into, or in effect, on or after November 5, 1995. Ch. 59 of the Acts of 2000, effective October 1, 2000." Thus, the statute purported to apply retroactively, and to limit the plaintiff's claims for late fees during the five-year retroactive period to those amounts exceeding the new statutory limit. The Dua plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of this retroactive provision as depriving them of vested rights. Dua, 370 Md. at 611, 805 A.2d at 1065.

Holding that a "cause of action" can be the type of "vested right" constitutionally protected, the Dua Court said:

Id. at 632-33, 805 A.2d at 1073. The Dua Court concluded that retroactive application of the new statutes, so as to limit liability, was unconstitutional:

Id. at 642, 805 A.2d at 1083. Under Dua, vested rights protected by the Maryland Constitution include both "causes of action" and "rights to a particular sum of money."

Here, the trier of fact has determined that the plaintiff suffered injuries and deserved compensation in amount that was many multiples of the amount allowed under the statutory damages cap. Application of a damages cap deprives a person of compensation, just as abrogating a cause of action does. For this reason, most courts that have considered the issue disallowed retroactive application of a statutory damages cap. See Socorro v. New Orleans, 579 So.2d 931 (La.1991) (rejecting approach adopted by some lower courts in which damages over a statutory cap were viewed as mere expectancies and not "vested rights."); Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752, 760 (Mo.2010) (when a statute "purports to decrease the amount of damages a victim of medical malpractice could recover after the cause of action has accrued, this Court is bound [] to find the statute unconstitutional[.]"); Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262, 894 N.E.2d 377, 391 (2008)("a court cannot apply [punitive damages cap] to causes of action that arose before the statute's effective date"); Estate of Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 318 S.W.3d 823, 833 (Tn.2010) ("the rights of the plaintiff vest or accrue with the commission of the tort" and may not then be subjected to later damage limitations); Gibson v. Commonwealth, 490 Pa. 156, 415 A.2d 80 (1980) (prohibiting retroactive application of sovereign immunity statute which included damage limitations);25 Martin by Scoptur v. Richards, 192 Wis.2d 156, 531 N.W.2d 70, 89-92 (1995) (retroactive application of damages cap to plaintiffs injured before enactment would impermissibly impair that right);26 Indeed, the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in adopting this position, has already cited favorably to the Court of Special Appeal's opinion. Estate of Bell, 318 S.W.3d at 832 n. 16 ("The Maryland Court of Special Appeals [has] reached the same conclusion applying constitutional provisions expressly proscribing retrospective laws.").27

To be sure, applying a damage cap does not vitiate a person's remedy altogether. Moreover, there was no "particular" sum that Longtin had a right to when the statute was changed; it had not yet been determined by the jury. We are not persuaded, though, that these distinctions disqualify Longtin's accrued right to recover damages from the constitutional protections against retroactive application of laws. As one Florida court concluded:

Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 739 (Fla. 1989).28

Nor can we discern any logical rationale why, under our constitution, we should permit retroactive application of a statute requiring a reduction in damages recovered by a successful plaintiff when we deny retroactive abolishment of the cause of action. Our constitutional precedent recognizes that a person's rights shall not be "impaired" by later-enacted legislation. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim, 376 Md. 276, 296, 829 A.2d 611, 622 (2003) ("As Dua makes clear, the standard for determining whether retroactive legislation violates Art. 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights or Art. III, § 40 of the Maryland Constitution is whether it abrogates or significantly impairs `vested rights.'") (emphasis added). It is patent that the enormous loss to Longtin from application of the statutory cap would "impair" his cause of action. Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that Longtin had a vested right in bringing his cause of action — with no statutory cap on damages — prior to the enactment of the LGTCA revisions. Although the legislature may, in its wisdom, limit tort damages prospectively, see, e.g., Murphy v. Edmonds 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992) (upholding statutory cap on noneconomic tort damages which applied prospectively), the constitution protects against retroactive application of these limitations. The LGTCA's limits, therefore, do not apply to the jury award in this case.

III. Longtin's "Pattern or Practice" Claim

The third certiorari issue was whether Maryland law recognizes a "pattern or practice" claim against a local government for unconstitutional policies and, if so, whether Longtin produced enough evidence to support such a claim.

The eighth count of Longtin's complaint — titled "Pattern or Practice of Improper Conduct," was directed at the then-police chief and the Criminal Investigations Division. It alleged that these parties "maintained a policy of unconstitutional and unlawful detention and interrogation" and that his arrest and detention were not "a single isolated, accidental, or peculiar event[.]" Longtin alleged, inter alia:

Longtin thus sought to hold the Police Department directly responsible for those actions.

At trial, Longtin attempted to establish this "pattern and practice" by introducing a variety of evidence. Longtin's counsel elicited testimony from the officers regarding their questionable investigation techniques, including the makeup of the interrogation room, the guidelines for allowing suspects to sleep and eat, and violations of the rule under which an arrestee must be taken to a Commissioner within 24 hours. Longtin's counsel elicited testimony from the officers about "other marathon interrogation sessions" they had participated in, including the controversial interrogation of a developmentally disabled minor in 1998 who was incarcerated for ten months before charges were dropped. Longtin also introduced a Community Police Institute manual, a CID Policy Manual, and other training materials and policy documents, which contained constitutionally suspect directives. Longtin argued that the policies were motivated by a desire to lower the Department's "closing rate":

At the close of trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Longtin on the "pattern or practice" claim.

On appeal, the Defendants argued that allowing this claim to go to the jury was legal error. The Defendants argued that Article 24 of the Maryland Constitution does not, and should not, support a "pattern or practice" type-claim. The Defendants argue that a pattern or practice claim, or "Monell" claim, is a creature of federal law, and is unnecessary in the Maryland context, or inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. The Court of Special Appeals rejected this claim, stating that, "given the almost uniquely expansive reach of Maryland's constitutional tort remedy, where no official or local governmental immunity is possible ... we think it highly unlikely that Article 24 contains any exemption from liability for an unconstitutional pattern or practice." Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 130-31, 988 A.2d at 40.

Monell is the origin of a "pattern or practice" claim in federal law. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Monell concerned a claim under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by a class of female federal employees claiming that federal agencies required pregnant women to take unpaid leaves of absence during their pregnancy. The claim had been dismissed by the Second Circuit under the Supreme Court's holding of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), which held that municipal corporations were not "people" under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and could not be sued, either directly or under a theory of respondeat superior. The Monell Court was called to re-examine Monroe, and the extent to which a municipality could be liable for constitutional violations.

After a detailed analysis of legislative history, the Court overruled Monroe's holding that a municipality did not qualify as a "person" under Section 1983:

Id. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36. The Court, however, confirmed that municipalities were still free from respondeat superior liability under § 1983, concluding: "a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor[.]" Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036 (emphasis in original). The Monell decision thus set a standard under which a municipality is liable under § 1983 for its employee's actions only if it "`causes' [that] employee to violate another's constitutional rights." Id. In doing so, the Supreme Court shielded municipalities from liability in most cases of constitutional violations by public officials, and subjected them to liability only in that small subset of cases where the violation was "caused" by the municipality.

In contrast, Maryland's constitution requires more of its municipalities, and accordingly this Court has declined to shield municipalities from the unconstitutional acts of its officials. See DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 729 A.2d 354 (1999). In DiPino, we considered a claim brought both under § 1983 and the Maryland Declaration of Rights, a common occurrence. We acknowledged that almost all of the rights protected by the Maryland Declaration of Rights are essentially identical to those protected by the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 43-44, 729 A.2d at 367-68. Although these rights are "parallel," we apply our constitutional principles in a entirely different manner:

Id. at 45, 729 A.2d at 368. DiPino thus made clear that the specific rules for remedying state constitutional violations will differ from the § 1983 claims.

DiPino then considered an issue similar to that in Monell; whether a municipality should be held liable through respondeat superior for the acts of its employees, and concluded:

DiPino, 354 Md. at 51-52, 729 A.2d at 372. As the Court of Special Appeals observed, our decision to impose respondeat liability on local governments has a firm policy foundation:

Id. at 53, 729 A.2d at 372, (quoting Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1142-43 (1996)).

The Defendants' arguments on this issue caution that allowing a "pattern or practice" claim imposes burdens on local governments beyond those imposed by 42 USCA § 1983. Specifically, they argue that this direct suit would "greatly expand the § 1983 liability of counties and municipalities beyond that contemplated by Congress[.]" The Defendants ignore that Maryland has already "greatly expand[ed] the [] liability of counties and municipalities beyond" the scope of § 1983 by imposing respondeat superior liability on municipalities. In DiPino, we held that, unlike federal law, Maryland's constitution imposed an affirmative obligation to avoid constitutional violations by its employees through "adequate training and supervision" and by "discharging or disciplining negligent or incompetent employees." Clearly, if Maryland imposes on local governments an obligation to prevent unconstitutional conduct by its employees, those same governments may not, with impunity, cause such conduct by unconstitutional polices or practices. A pattern or practice claim is merely a more egregious subset of the actions that are prohibited by Maryland constitutional law.

The Defendants also argue that a pattern or practice claim would "deprive the courts of its role to determine the legal question of the threshold issues [of qualified immunity.]" The Defendants argue that such a claim would not provide the same procedural protections for municipalities in a state constitutional claim "as they would for this same fact scenario in a § 1983 cause of action[.]" This argument is based upon a faulty assumption that Maryland constitutional tort law tracks the procedure and standards of the federal Civil Rights Act. "We have consistently declined to adopt the Federal approach [used in § 1983 claims.]" DiPino, 354 Md. at 45, 729 A.2d at 368. We have further stated:

Lee v. Cline, 384 Md. 245, 258, 863 A.2d 297, 305 (2004) (emphasis supplied). See also Okwa v. Harper, 360 Md. 161, 201, 757 A.2d 118, 140 (2000) ("A state public official alleged to have violated Article 24, or any article of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, is not entitled to qualified immunity.").

As we clearly stated in DiPino, Maryland's constitutional protections require more from public officials and municipalities than § 1983, and the rules and procedures of applying them are divergent from the federal rules. Like the Court of Special Appeals, we find our jurisprudence rife with evidence that Article 24 provides protection to individuals against unconstitutional "pattern or practices" of municipalities.

The Defendants further argue that even if a "pattern or practice" claim exists, Longtin failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding:

The Defendants conclude that "[w]ithout proving a prima facie case of a constitutional deprivation caused by the individual [Defendants,] [Longtin] failed to prove that the County itself was the moving force behind the deprivation."

The Defendants' argument is unconvincing, and almost incoherent. Longtin clearly introduced evidence of unconstitutional actions committed against him. He called as witnesses his interrogating officers and elicited testimony regarding the illegal actions they took in arresting and interrogating him. He introduced evidence about the exculpatory DNA tests, and established that the officers did little, if anything, after learning he was excluded. This evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of constitutional deprivation in his case.

As our intermediate appellate court explained, Longtin then introduced multitudinous evidence that his experience was not an isolated incident:

Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 113-14, 132-133, 988 A.2d at 20, 29-30. The trial court properly limited the jury's consideration of this second batch of evidence to the pattern or practice claim, and not as evidence that Longtin's rights were violated. The jury was not unreasonable in concluding that this evidence demonstrated a pattern or practice of unconstitutional police conduct. Accordingly, the Defendants have failed to show any insufficiency or legal error in the evidence supporting the pattern or practice claim.

IV. Admission of Exculpatory Evidence

The final argument raised by the Defendants is that the trial court erred in introducing evidence of (1) Longtin's exculpatory DNA results, and (2) the subsequent conviction of the perpetrator of the crime. The Court of Special Appeals rejected these claims, reasoning that they were not preserved for appeal:

Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 134-35, 988 A.2d at 41-42. Alternatively, the Court of Special Appeals rejected these evidentiary claims on the merits.30

Here, the Defendants make no argument that these issues were preserved for appellate review. Instead, they state that the preservation argument "is simply without merit. The issues were preserved and the CSA rendered an opinion." The Defendants' reliance on the Court of Special Appeal's opinion is mystifying, given that the intermediate appellate court held, in the first instance, that the issues were not preserved. The Court of Special Appeals' alternative rejection on the merits does not remedy the Defendants' preservation problem. Given the Court's sound reasoning on the issue, and the Defendants' failure to present any argument in opposition, we hold that the evidentiary issues are not preserved.

CONCLUSION

Neither the notice provisions nor the damages cap of the Local Government Tort Claims Act apply to eliminate or limit, respectively, the jury award in this case. The 180-day notice period did not begin to run until Longtin was released from prison, and therefore his notice, filed 140 days thereafter, was timely. Moreover, retroactive application of the damages cap, enacted in 2001, to Longtin's cause of action, which was fully accrued by the end of 2000, would violate the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Finally, the Maryland Constitution recognizes a "pattern or practice" claim as part of its protections of citizens against unconstitutional actions of local government and its employees.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.

HARRELL and BARBERA, JJ., Concur and Dissent.

HARRELL, J., concurring and dissenting, in which BARBERA, J., joins.

After being charged criminally, but incorrectly, as it turned out, for the murder of his wife, Keith Longtin ("Longtin") asserted thirteen different civil causes of action1 against Prince George's County and certain of its police officers. The jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County that considered the evidence returned a verdict of more than $5 million. On appeal, we are asked, among the questions presented, to decide when the causes of action accrued, triggering the 180-day notice requirement of the Local Government Tort Claims Act ("LGTCA"). We are asked also to determine whether the damages cap in the LGTCA applies to the verdict, so as to reduce the jury award accordingly.

The Majority opinion, concluding neatly that each claim accrued on the date of Longtin's release from detention, employs a one-size-fits-all analysis of the LGTCA notice question. It also declines to address an unavoidable constitutional challenge associated with application of the damages cap to the verdict, which included a State constitutional tort violation. Although I agree with the conclusion of the Majority opinion that Longtin's claims should not be frustrated by the circumstances surrounding Longtin's giving of notice regarding his claims, it is not because — as the Majority opinion explains — all of his distinct, and some fundamentally different, causes of action accrued on the same date, 13 June 2000 (the date of his release from the County detention center), after which he gave notice within 180 days. Moreover, although I agree with the isolated principle articulated in the Majority opinion that the Maryland Constitution prevents the Legislature from impairing retrospectively a vested right, I disagree that the unliquidated, unspecified, and unknown damages claims associated with Longtin's claims at the time of their accrual (whenever that occurred) represented a substantive protected or vested right under the circumstances of this case.

Thus, I: concur with the result only reached in Part 1 of the Majority opinion; dissent as to Part 2; and, concur with the reasoning and results of Parts 3 and 4.

I. The Notice Requirement.2

The Majority opinion concludes that Longtin satisfied literally the notice requirement of the LGTCA. In attaining that result, it determines that, while Longtin asserted many different causes of action, the trigger of the commencement of the notice period as to all of them began running at the same time — his release from detention. In essence, the Majority opinion crafts a one-size-fits-all analysis and holding for not just the false arrest and false imprisonment causes of action discussed in the bulk of the opinion, but also the largely neglected other causes of action. A closer and more comprehensive examination suggests to me a different analysis supplies the better course of reasoning, albeit the same outcome.

A. Applicable Law.

The relevant provision of the LGTCA is codified at § 5-304 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, titled "[a]ctions for unliquidated damages." Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 5-304. In pertinent part, it provides that "an action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government or its employees unless the notice of the claim required by this section is given within 180 days after the injury." § 5-304(b)(1) (emphasis added). In Heron v. Strader, 361 Md. 258, 263-64, 761 A.2d 56, 59 (2000), we interpreted the phrase "after the injury" in § 5-304(b)(1) as synonymous with "after the cause of action accrued." Therefore, post-Heron, a court determines whether notice was timely by first identifying the accrual date or event.

The Majority opinion approaches this analysis in Longtin's case largely by analogizing the LGTCA notice requirement to statute of limitations jurisprudence. See Majority op. at 475, 19 A.3d at 874 ("[W]e are ... guided by false arrest and imprisonment cases involving the accrual date for the statute of limitations .... [as] their policies of protecting defendants against stale claims are similar."); see id. at 476, 19 A.3d at 875 ("The general rule for false arrest and imprisonment case[s,] when a person is arrested and released prior to trial[,] is that the statute begins to run only when the imprisonment ends ....") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Such an analogy is inapposite, as well as unnecessary. We have said clearly that, to determine when a cause of action accrues under the LGTCA notice provision, we "must examine the elements of the cause of action" — for, under our precedents, "a cause of action is said to have arisen when facts exist to support each element," including injury. Heron, 361 Md. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).3

Thus, we should ask "when the legally operative facts permitting the filing of his [or her] claims came into existence." Heron, 361 Md. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59; see also Hecht v. Resolution Trust Corp., 333 Md. 324, 334, 635 A.2d 394, 399 (1994) ("This Court [has] adopted what is known as the discovery rule, which now applies generally in all civil actions, and which provides that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff in fact knows or reasonably should know of the wrong."); Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc., 358 Md. 435, 444, 749 A.2d 796, 801 (2000) ("[W]e now hold the discovery rule to be applicable generally in all actions and the cause of action accrues when the claimant in fact knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong.").4 Because each cause of action possesses distinct elements (usually), we should examine each cause of action separately. Not surprisingly, under such an approach, each claim may have a unique accrual date. Heron, 361 Md. at 262, 761 A.2d at 58 ("[T]o assess the timeliness of [the] Notice of Claim under the LGTCA, it is necessary, first, to determine the time of [the] alleged injury for each of the appealed claims.") (emphasis added).

B. False Arrest and Imprisonment.

The Majority opinion devotes the bulk of its notice analysis (understandably perhaps) to the torts of false arrest and false imprisonment. These torts seem to be the lynchpins guiding the Court's treatment of the accrual dates for Longtin's other claims. Majority op. at 480, 19 A.3d at 877 ("Our resolution of the notice issue for false arrest and imprisonment resolves the notice issue for most of Longtin's claims."). I will focus likewise on these torts because applying the proper analysis to them alone reproves the reasoning of the Majority opinion. I submit nonetheless that a majority opinion of this Court should conduct a more comprehensive examination for each cause of action, rather than employ shortcuts.5

Unusually, the "elements of false arrest and false imprisonment are identical"; thus, they may be considered together. Heron, 361 Md. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59. The elements are: "[(1)] the deprivation of the liberty of another[,] [(2)] without consent[,] and [(3)] without legal justification." Heron, 361 Md. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59 (emphasis added). "Whatever technical distinction there may be between an `arrest' and a detention[,]' the test whether legal justification existed in a particular case has been judged by the principles applicable to the law of arrest." Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Paul, 256 Md. 643, 655, 261 A.2d 731, 738 (1970) (emphasis added) (reviewing the distinction between the torts of false arrest and imprisonment).

A police officer possesses legal justification "to make a warrantless arrest where he has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed, and that the arrestee perpetrated the offense." Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 120, 660 A.2d 447, 472 (1995) (citations omitted); see also Montgomery Ward v. Wilson, 339 Md. 701, 721, 664 A.2d 916, 926 (1995) ("[A] police officer carrying out ... an arrest ... is not liable for false imprisonment in connection with that arrest if the officer had ... legal [justification] to arrest under the circumstances.") (citation omitted). "[T]he act of arrest," however, "is ordinarily a momentary event." State v. Dett, 391 Md. 81, 93, 891 A.2d 1113, 1121 (2006). As a result:

See id. (emphasis added).6

In Longtin's case, at the moment police arguably arrested him, viz., placed him into an interrogation room at 1:30 p.m. on 5 October 1999,7 they had probable cause, i.e., legal justification, to do so. On the day of the murder, 4 October 1999, the police discovered the victim with her pants and underwear at her feet and with multiple stab wounds. On the day of the "marathon" interrogation, 5 October 1999, the police learned, before Longtin was placed in the interrogation room, that: (1) Longtin called the police to report his estranged wife missing, (2) he knew where to locate the victim, (3) he asked, at the crime scene, if the victim was his wife, and (4) he allegedly carried a "buck knife," "used [it] very well," and had been "very abusive" to his past two ex-wives. Detective Herndon, Primary Investigator, Notes from Telephone Conversation with Charles County Sheriff's Office, 12:45 p.m.; see also Mobley v. State, 270 Md. 76, 81, 310 A.2d 803, 807 (1973) ("[W]hether probable cause is shown to exist may be measured in terms of the collective information demonstrated by the record to be within the possession of the entire police team.") (citations omitted).8

Over time, however, the probable cause/legal justification dissipated, which at some point in the continuum Longtin's cause of action accrued. Specifically, in February 2000, Longtin was excluded as a possible donor of DNA taken from the victim, to wit, a vaginal swab. Taken together with the fact that the police knew the victim was raped9 and then murdered, the police no longer had probable cause/legal justification to detain Longtin.10 Thus, the false arrest/imprisonment causes of action accrued actually in February 200011 — when facts existed to support each element of the torts.12

C. Heron.

In arriving at its determination that all of Longtin's causes of action accrued on his date of release from detention, the Majority opinion discusses and distinguishes Heron. In Heron, the plaintiff was "arrested and charged with resisting arrest, obstructing the police in the performance of their duties, and disorderly conduct." Heron, 361 Md. at 261, 761 A.2d at 57. He was acquitted eventually of all charges and, subsequently, filed a civil suit for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment. See id. We held that Heron's false arrest and false imprisonment claims accrued upon his arrest. See Heron, 361 Md. at 265, 761 A.2d at 59. The Majority opinion suggests that the conclusion reached in Heron was achieved haphazardly.

In particular, the Majority claims that "[t]here was no need [in Heron] to distinguish between the date of arrest and the date of release; whichever was used, the notice was too late." Majority op. at 473, 19 A.3d at 873. In fact, it observes that, in Heron, we cited "with approval multiple decisions which identified the date of release as the date a false arrest or false imprisonment claim accrues." Majority op. at 473-74, 19 A.3d at 873 (citing Collins v. County of Los Angeles, 241 Cal.App.2d 451, 50 Cal.Rptr. 586, 588 (1966); Ragland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 201 A.D.2d 7, 613 N.Y.S.2d 937, 939 (App.Div.1994); Boose v. Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740 (1979); Allee v. New York, 42 A.D.2d 899, 347 N.Y.S.2d 708 (App.Div. 1973)). In each of the foreign cases relied on by the Majority opinion, "[t]here was [similarly] no need to distinguish between the date of arrest and the date of release; whichever was used, the notice was too late." Majority op. at 473, 19 A.3d at 873. Indeed, all of the cases involved plaintiffs who, like Heron, were detained for a very brief period of time, i.e., one day. Given the Majority's reason for deeming Heron unenlightening, one wonders why these foreign cases were more persuasive to the Majority than Heron seemed to be.

Three of those foreign cases (i.e., all but Collins) appear in unanalyzed string citations in Heron. I find more relevant and persuasive the cases the Heron Court cites and fleshes out. They include Collins; Allen v. District of Columbia, 533 A.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C.App.1987); Livingston v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 398 N.E.2d 1302 (Ind.App.1979); Pisano v. City of Union City, 198 N.J.Super. 588, 487 A.2d 1296, 1299 (N.J.Super.Law Div.1984); Michaels v. New Jersey, 955 F.Supp. 315 (D.N.J.1996); and Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3rd Cir.1984).

In Collins, the California Court of Appeal held that "it is only reasonable to assume that immediately upon their arrest and imprisonment [the plaintiffs] would have believed the same to be unlawful, at which time they could and should have sought legal assistance to determine the cause and the reason for their arrest. ..." Collins, 50 Cal.Rptr. at 589 (emphasis added) (observing that false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution do not share the same accrual date because they do not share the same elements). In Allen, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals stated that "[a]ccording to the facts of this case, any injury for the alleged false arrest ... would have been sustained at the time of [plaintiff's] arrest and transport to police headquarters. ..." Allen, 533 A.2d at 1263 n. 9 (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (interpreting statute which required notice within six months "after the injury or damage was sustained"). In Livingston, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that "[the plaintiff's] claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery accrued on ... [a single] day" — when "[she] was arrested, charged, and released from custody." Livingston, 398 N.E.2d at 1303 (citation omitted).

In Pisano, the Superior Court of New Jersey held that a "plaintiff's cause of action for false arrest accrued as of the date of arrest. ..." Pisano, 487 A.2d at 1299 (citing Collins for the proposition that "[t]he interpretation of the California statute, upon which the New Jersey Tort Claims Act is modeled, provides authority for the view that a cause of action accrues at the time of the arrest"); see id. (observing that false arrest and malicious prosecution do not share the same accrual date because they do not share the same elements). In Michaels, the federal District Court found that a plaintiff's causes of action "accrued ... when [she] had reason to know that the elements of the claims existed," which "occurred at or about the time of [her] arrest. ..." Michaels, 955 F.Supp. at 326 (citations omitted). Finally, in Deary, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — interpreting the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act, V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 33, § 3401 (2000) — provided that false arrest/imprisonment accrued when the plaintiff "knew or had reason to know of the injury that constitutes the basis of this action," which it held was the date of arrest. Deary, 746 F.2d at 193 (stating that when the plaintiff was arrested, her cause of action accrued because "nothing further had to occur"; "so far as she knew[,] she was arrested without probable cause").

Returning to Heron, we said that "to determine when ... causes of actions arise, we must examine the elements of the cause of action ... as a cause of action is said to have arisen when facts exist to support each element." Heron, 361 Md. at 264, 761 A.2d at 59 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Heron demonstrated that other jurisdictions examine also the elements of each claim to determine when it accrued — they did not opine that all tort claims in a complaint accrue on the same date, nor that false arrest and imprisonment claims always, regardless of the particular circumstances of each case, accrue on the same date. Such a one-size-fits-all, "domino" approach, in which one accrual date dictates the rest, is inconsistent with well-established tort law. At the very least, these cases militate against the Majority opinion's suggestion that Heron's reliance on foreign cases actually supports its position that the accrual date for all false arrest/imprisonment claims is the plaintiff's date of release.

In sum, we did not in Heron select haphazardly the date of arrest as the accrual moment. Rather, the Court examined the record and held that "[t]he facts alleged to support each element of his claim were in existence" when "he was arrested and detained by the police." Heron, 361 Md. at 265, 761 A.2d at 59. As a result, Heron's "causes of action ... arose" on the date of arrest. Id. Assuming the Majority opinion employs the wrong analysis in evaluating the notice question and that a proper analysis yields a conclusion that the day of Longtin's arrest was the correct accrual date of these causes of action, must Longtin's claims fail for improper notice? The answer is "No."

D. Substantial Compliance or Waiver for Good Cause under the LGTCA?

Because, in my view, Longtin's false arrest/imprisonment causes of action accrued in February 2000, his October 2000 notice to the County was untimely. If, however, Longtin complied substantially with the LGTCA notice requirement or demonstrated good cause, he should be permitted nonetheless to pursue his civil claims. Substantial compliance is possible ordinarily when a plaintiff files timely notice, but fails to abide some other procedural requirement, e.g., service on a proper recipient. See Faulk v. Ewing, 371 Md. 284, 299, 808 A.2d 1262, 1272-73 (2002) ("[S]ubstantial compliance is such communication that provides ... requisite and timely notice of facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the present case, Longtin's notice was untimely and, thus, a poor fit for substantial compliance.

Waiver for good cause, in the context of the § 5-304 notice requirement, is possible where "the claimant prosecuted his [or her] claim with that degree of diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances." Heron, 361 Md. at 271, 761 A.2d at 63. Based on a survey of other jurisdictions, we recognized in Heron that circumstances justifying good cause "fit [normally] into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake, see e.g.,... Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575, 371 A.2d 785 (N.J.Super.App.Div.1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state; the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation; and ignorance of the statutory notice requirement. ..." Heron, 361 Md. at 272-73, 761 A.2d at 63-64 (citations omitted). A plaintiff is not excused, however, because he or she is occupied preparing for a criminal trial. See id.

In Kleinke, the Superior Court of New Jersey found excusable neglect where the plaintiff, among other things, was "confine[d] to a hospital for two months" and was "incapacitat[ed by a complication] of an embolism. ..." Kleinke, 147 N.J.Super. at 580, 371 A.2d at 788. Unlike the plaintiff in Kleinke, Heron was imprisoned for two days, but then released and delayed filing his notice. He argued that the Court should grant a waiver for good cause because, post-release, he was immersed in the planning of his defense to the criminal charges. We held that Heron, who was no longer imprisoned, was not so burdened by his preparation for the impending criminal trial as to prevent the filing of a simple written notice. Heron, 361 Md. at 271, 761 A.2d at 63 ("We agree... that an ordinarily prudent person, in [Heron's] circumstances, would have been able, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, to file ... a Notice of Claim.") (emphasis added).

In the present case and unlike Heron, Longtin was imprisoned for a substantial period of time, while the notice period(s) for his causes of action was (were) running. It was not a matter simply of finding time to file the notice; it was finding a way to file notice while "confine[d]" and "incapacitat[ed]," like the plaintiff in Kleinke. At bottom, then, I would conclude that Longtin acted with the due diligence of a reasonable person isolated in a detention center for eight months, such that his neglect should qualify under the first Heron category for waiver of strict compliance with the LGTCA notice requirement.

II. The Damages Cap.

A. Vested Rights Analysis Is Inapposite.

The Maryland Constitution prohibits the Legislature from impairing retrospectively vested rights. One necessarily asks, in performing such an analysis, what constitutes a protected vested right? From its infancy, our vested rights jurisprudence focused on a plaintiff's ability (or inability) to bring a cause of action. Thus, 150 years ago in Thistle v. The Frostburg Coal Co., 10 Md. 129, 144 (1856), we confronted a purported retrospective legislative provision which enabled adverse possessors of real property to challenge paper title holders on the basis of mere use, rather than the then-law, actual enclosure. Because the statutory provision "changed the elements of adverse possession" to make it easier for adverse possessors to challenge successfully paper title holders, we deemed it invalid. Dua v. Comcast Cable of Md., Inc., 370 Md. 604, 623, 805 A.2d 1061, 1072 (2002) (citing Thistle); see also Thistle, 10 Md. at 145 ("Hence, ... it was not in the power of the legislature to change this rule of law, so far as to give it retroactive operation, because it would virtually be taking the land of one man, held [previously] by a good legal title, and giving it to another, who the law has said had none."). We made clear in Thistle, however, that "it was within the power of the legislature, to alter and remodel the rules of evidence and remedies, to which parties claiming title and possession of land, might resort. ..." Thistle, 10 Md. at 145 (emphasis added).

Reflecting in Dua on our Thistle holding, we concluded that "there is a vested right in an accrued cause of action." Dua, 370 Md. at 632, 805 A.2d at 1077. As in Thistle, we recognized that there is a difference between the Legislature abrogating the right to bring a cause of action, and the Legislature altering the remedy sought by, but not yet conferred upon, a plaintiff. In particular, we relied on Baugher, et al. v. Nelson, 9 Gill 299, 308 (1850), which upheld a retrospective provision because "[i]t [was] no more than the exercise of the legislative authority over the subject of remedies[, a] power which the legislative may unquestionably exercise at pleasure in relation to past as well as future contracts." We looked also to WSSC v. Riverdale Fire Co., 308 Md. 556, 564, 520 A.2d 1319, 1323 (1987), in which we observed that "a statute governing [only] procedure or remedy will be applied to [all] cases," whether they be "accrued, pending or future. ..." WSSC, 308 Md. at 563 n. 2, 564, 520 A.2d at 1323. In addition, we invoked Allen v. Dovell, 193 Md. 359, 363, 66 A.2d 795, 797 (1949), which acknowledged that "[i]t is thoroughly understood that a statute of limitations, which does not destroy a substantial right, but simply affects remedy, does not destroy or impair vested rights."

We expressed some reservations in Dua regarding the distinction between remedy and substantive right, but, in the process, strengthened further the ultimate holding that the Legislature may change, under many circumstances, the former with retrospective effect, but not the latter. In particular, we quoted from State, use of Isaac v. Jones, 21 Md. 432, 437 (1864) for the contention that the "`abrogation or suspension of a remedy, necessary to enforce the obligation of an existing contract,... is void.'" Dua, 370 Md. at 635, 805 A.2d at 1079 (emphasis added). We relied on Allen, 193 Md. at 363-64, 66 A.2d at 797 to underscore that by "cut[ting] off all remedy ... in such a way as to preclude any opportunity to bring suit," the Legislature "deprive [s improperly] a party of his [accrued] cause of action. ..." (Emphasis added.) In these and other cases, we recognized that the Legislature may legislate retrospectively, as long as the effect does not cut off all remedy. Contrary to this principle, the Majority concludes that the Maryland Constitution protects not only a plaintiff's accrued right to bring a cause of action, but also his or her associated prospect of recovering an amount of as-of-yet unidentified, uncertain, and unawarded damages. See Majority op. at 486-87, 19 A.3d at 881.

B. Dua.

The Majority opinion relies heavily on Dua to bolster its conclusion that the Maryland Constitution protects against the legislative impairment of the recovery of any amount of damages associated with causes of action. See id. It seizes upon the Dua Court's description of the statute there as one that abrogates the plaintiffs' rights to "particular sum[s] of money. ..." Dua, 370 Md. at 642, 805 A.2d at 1083. Seemingly, the Majority opinion equates "particular sum[s] of money" with the unliquidated damages claims Longtin sought at the time the Legislature amended the damages cap in the LGTCA. The Majority does so wrongly.13

In Dua, we confronted consolidated cases where two plaintiffs sought to recover "particular sum[s] of money" already paid to two creditors. When the plaintiffs made the payments, however, the creditors did not have a right to demand or receive the money. Dua, 370 Md. at 611-16, 805 A.2d at 1066-68. In a sense, then, the plaintiffs were pursuing replevin-type actions to recover wrongfully relinquished and unreturned liquidated amounts of money, i.e., property.

Subsequent to the wrongful payments, the Legislature passed laws purporting to grant to those creditors retrospectively a right to the money. The Legislature was not limiting, however, the amount of damages the aggrieved plaintiffs could recover from the creditors, over and above their already-paid sums of money. Rather, it purported to eliminate the heart of the dispute — the plaintiffs' right to brings claims to recover their already-paid, known sums. It was, in other words, "taking the [property] of one man, held [previously] by a good legal title," i.e., the money paid by the plaintiffs, "and giving it to another, who the law has said had none," i.e., the creditors. Thistle, 10 Md. at 145.

In the present case, the heart of the dispute was the underlying torts of false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, etc. By limiting, through the LGTCA, the amount of possible damages Longtin could recover, the Legislature was not affecting his ability to bring and pursue his claims in the first instance. As we stated in a related context, punitive damages:

Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 366, 601 A.2d 102, 114 (1992) (emphasis added).14

C. Does the LGTCA Damages Cap Vitiate Effectively a Substantive Right?

Having concluded that the Legislature may limit retrospectively the amount of damages to some extent and under certain circumstances, I now ask (rhetorically) whether the LGTCA damages cap limits recovery effectively "in such a way as to preclude any opportunity to bring suit...." Allen, 193 Md. at 363-64, 66 A.2d at 797. By enacting the $200,000/$500,000 LGTCA damages limit, I conclude that the Legislature did not so transform plaintiffs' substantive rights.

Prior to the LGTCA, local governments (but not their officers or employees) enjoyed immunity against most non-constitutional tort claims. See Housing Auth. v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 359-60, 754 A.2d 367, 368-69 (2000). Through the LGTCA, the Legislature altered the common law, giving plaintiffs limited access to the often sizable assets of local government, which must satisfy the awards returned by juries. Ashton, 339 Md. at 107-08, 660 A.2d at 465-66 (stating that the Legislature, through the LGTCA, provided "a remedy for those injured by local government officers.. ., while ensuring that the financial burden ... is carried by the [ultimately responsible] local government"). In the process, it encouraged coincidentally local governments to better train their officers and employees. To mitigate the budgetary impact of this statutory sea change, the Legislature also limited the amount that plaintiffs could recover. See Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. at 370, 601 A.2d at 115-16 (holding that "the Legislature did not act arbitrarily in enacting" a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury actions, as it possessed "several studies which concluded that $250,000 would cover most noneconomic damage claims"); Gooslin v. State, 132 Md.App. 290, 296, 752 A.2d 642, 645 (2000), cert. denied, 359 Md. 334, 753 A.2d 1031 (2000) (finding constitutional the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Maryland Code (1984, 2009 Repl. Vol) State Government Article, §§ 12-101 et. seq., because the $50,000 waiver represented the level at which the Legislature chose to waive governmental immunity). The $200,000/$500,000 damages cap was a reasonable, rational, and constitutional balancing. Indeed, it may well have been a necessary prerequisite to the passage of the LGTCA.

D. May a Statutory Damages Cap Apply to an Award for Successful Constitutional Tort Claims?

Because the Legislature is permitted to cap damages recovery retrospectively and because the LGTCA cap is not so unduly low as to equate with cutting off all remedy, the damages cap should apply to the jury award in the present case. The fact that Longtin brought and proved constitutional tort violations does not dictate a different result under the Maryland Constitution or the legislative history of the LGTCA.

At common law (that is, before the LGTCA), a plaintiff could bring a constitutional tort claim directly against local government officers and employees, as well as their employers—the local governments. After the passage of the LGTCA, a plaintiff lost, however, his/her/its ability to recover from the officers and employees, provided those tortfeasors acted within the scope of employment. The LGTCA restriction on liability ultimately applies to constitutional and non-constitutional tort claims alike, such that a plaintiff bringing a constitutional claim may recover only from the employing-local government. See DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 52, 729 A.2d 354, 371 (1999) ("[L]ocal governmental entities do, indeed, have respondeat superior liability for civil damages resulting from State Constitutional violations committed by their agents and employees within the scope of the employment."); Ashton, 339 Md. at 108 n. 19, 660 A.2d at 465 n. 19 ("[T]here is no exception in the [LGTCA] for constitutional torts.... [T]he local government is required to pay the judgment against the employee...."); see also Lee v. Cline, 384 Md. 245, 256, 863 A.2d 297, 304 (2004) (holding that the Maryland Tort Claims Act applies to constitutional and non-constitutional torts, such that the State steps into the shoes of public officials for purposes of liability).

Moreover, we recognize, at least implicitly, that the LGTCA procedural requirements (e.g., notice) apply also to constitutional tort claims. Ashton, 339 Md. at 108 n. 19, 660 A.2d at 465 n. 19 ("[Although] there is no exception in the [LGTCA] for constitutional torts[,] .... [t]he parties in this case[, who raised constitutional and non-constitutional claims,] would appear to have waived [its] procedural requirements."); see also Gonzalez v. Cecil County, 221 F.Supp.2d 611, 615-16 (D.Md.2002) (dismissing state constitutional tort claims because plaintiffs did not comply with the LGTCA notice requirement). The Court of Special Appeals has applied the notice requirement to constitutional tort claims in at least three cases. See Wilbon v. Hunsicker, 172 Md.App. 181, 913 A.2d 678 (2006) cert. denied 398 Md. 316, 920 A.2d 1060 (2007); White v. Prince George's County, 163 Md.App. 129, 877 A.2d 1129 (2005), cert. denied, 389 Md. 401, 885 A.2d 825 (2005); Chappelle v. McCarter, 162 Md.App. 163, 873 A.2d 458 (2005).

We implied that the LGTCA damages cap should apply to constitutional claims. In Ashton, 339 Md. at 108 n. 19, 660 A.2d at 465 n. 19, we observed that "there is no exception in the [LGTCA] for constitutional torts." Therefore, "[a]s long as the local government employee is acting in the scope of his employment and without malice, the local government is required to pay the judgment against the employee to the extent it represents compensatory damages, up to certain statutory limits." Id. (emphasis added); see also Ashton, 339 Md. at 108, 660 A.2d at 466 (holding that "plaintiffs are entitled to a trial" for their constitutional tort claims and that "[a]ny judgment rendered should, under the [LGTCA], be paid by the City") (emphasis added).

We also held relevantly that the cap on noneconomic damages in § 11-108 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article applies to constitutional claims. Specifically, in Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 409 Md. 528, 544, 976 A.2d 279, 288 (2009), we agreed with the Court of Special Appeals that:

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Regarding the damages cap provided by the Maryland Tort Claims Act, we observed in Benson v. State, 389 Md. 615, 628, 887 A.2d 525, 532 (2005), that not "all constitutional tort claims must [necessarily] comply with the ... MTCA." We reasoned thus, however, because the constitutional provision at issue—Article 14 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights—was not "compensable in monetary damages." Id. Presumably, therefore, constitutional violations that are compensable in monetary damages are governed by the MTCA.15

In sum, I would hold that good cause existed to waive Longtin's failure to comply strictly with the LGTCA notice requirement. I would conclude also that the LGTCA damages cap limits Longtin's overall recovery. In all other respects, I agree with the Majority opinion.

Judge BARBERA authorizes me to state that she joins the views expressed in this concurring and dissenting opinion.