BARBERA, J.
This case has its genesis in an altercation between Kimberly Jones (hereafter "Petitioner") and two Prince George's County Deputy Sheriffs, Billy Falby and Gerald Henderson, during the deputies' attempt to serve an arrest warrant for an individual at the home of Petitioner. Petitioner filed a twelve-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, naming as defendants Deputies Falby and Henderson and their employer, the State of Maryland (hereafter "the State"), Respondent here. Among other allegations, Petitioner claimed that the State was negligent in its training of the two deputies in connection with the Fourth Amendment limitations on in-home execution of arrest warrants.
The counts of the complaint were bifurcated for trial and, at the second trial before a jury, the jury returned a verdict finding the State liable for the negligent training of the two deputies. The jury awarded Petitioner damages in the amount of $261,000, which the Circuit Court later reduced to $200,000, pursuant to the Maryland Tort Claims Act. Both parties appealed the judgment.
The State raised numerous claims of error, including, pertinent here, that the trial judge erred in entering judgment against the State, because, in the words of the State: (1) "the State did not owe any duty ... to Petitioner, as opposed to the public generally, with respect to the ... training of Deputies Falby and Henderson"; and (2) Petitioner "failed to present evidence that the State owed a duty or breached a duty with respect to its... training of Deputies Falby and Henderson, and failed to present that any such breach was a proximate cause of her alleged damages." In connection with the latter claim, the State asserted that Petitioner was obligated to present expert evidence in support of her claim of negligent training.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment, agreeing with the State that the Circuit Court should have entered judgment in the State's favor because there was legally insufficient evidence that the State breached any duty to Petitioner in connection with the tort of negligent training and supervision. State v. Jones, 197 Md.App. 638, 674, 14 A.3d 1223, 1244 (2011). In light of that disposition, the Court of Special Appeals did not decide the remaining claims the parties raised in that court.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted, Jones v. State, 420 Md. 81, 21 A.3d 1063 (2011), to answer the following questions:
Each of the questions presented relates to the ultimate question of whether the Circuit Court properly denied the State's motions for judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Consequently, our factual summary is taken from the evidence presented at trial, cast in the light most favorable to Petitioner. See Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville, 418 Md. 496, 503, 16 A.3d 159, 163 (2011) ("An appellate court reviews the trial court's decision to allow or deny judgment or [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] to determine whether it was legally correct, while viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
The events at issue took place on the morning of September 15, 2006, in and about the home of Petitioner, a one-bedroom apartment located at 151 Westway Center Drive, apartment number T-3, in Greenbelt, Maryland. At the time, Petitioner was asleep in bed, having returned home from working a midnight-to-8:00 a.m. shift as a "youth care worker II," at Father Flanagan's, an emergency shelter for teenage girls and boys. Petitioner, who was not wearing clothing at the time, awoke to someone knocking at her door. She called out "who is it?" and received the response, "it's the sheriff's department." Petitioner's immediate reaction was that there might be a fire or some other emergency, "because there would be no reason for a sheriff to knock at my door."
Petitioner called out "one moment," then went to her closet to retrieve a robe. She donned the robe, went to the door, and opened it. Two men, later identified as Deputy Sheriffs Falby and Henderson, were standing in front of the doorway. Petitioner did not recognize the men's attire as that of a law enforcement officer.
Petitioner testified to what occurred next:
Petitioner added that Deputy Falby did not ask permission to enter; indeed, he said nothing before putting his foot through the door opening.
The "hit" Petitioner received from Deputy Falby was a close-fisted punch to her face, which knocked her against a closet door behind her. At the same time, Deputy Henderson pulled out his baton and shattered the glass patio door in order to enter the apartment. Petitioner, unfamiliar with the deputies' style of dress and never having encountered such behavior from law enforcement officers before, "truly didn't believe that they were police officers." She thought the men were criminals posing as sheriff's deputies. She therefore began to struggle against the two men in an attempt to escape the apartment.
Petitioner testified that she was sprayed with pepper spray, beaten with a baton, and had a portion of hair pulled from her scalp. Eventually Petitioner broke free, ran through the front doorway and into an adjoining hallway. She knocked on the doors of the residential units around her and called out for help. Temporarily blinded by the pepper spray, she eventually began to knock on the door of her own apartment where, for a second time, she encountered the two deputies. During that encounter, one or the other of the deputies again sprayed Petitioner and struck her on the forearm with a baton.
Petitioner ran from the doorway of her apartment, through the hallway, and into the surrounding parking lot. Deputies Falby and Henderson caught up with her there. They subdued and arrested Petitioner by "jerk[ing]" her arms behind her back and "bang[ing]" her head against a car. The deputies then helped Petitioner clean some of the pepper spray from her skin and retrieved clothes from her apartment for her to wear. Petitioner was made to change into those clothes in the parking lot, in full view of her neighbors.
The deputies escorted Petitioner to a hospital for "decontaminat[ion]" from the pepper spray, then transported her to jail and charged her with, inter alia, assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest. The charges were nol prossed after neither deputy appeared for trial. Nevertheless, Petitioner lost her job at the emergency youth shelter because the charges appeared on her annual criminal background check.
On November 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, naming as defendants Deputies Falby and Henderson and the State of Maryland. She pleaded ten counts arising from the altercation, including: (1) violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 26; (2) violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 24; (3) false arrest; (4) trespass to land; (5) trespass to chattel/trover and conversion; (6) false imprisonment; (7) battery; (8) malicious prosecution; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (10) civil conspiracy. After a period of discovery, during which Petitioner deposed both deputies, Petitioner amended the complaint to add two more counts: (11) negligent retention; and (12) negligent training and supervision, the count at the heart of the instant appeal. With regard to the claim of negligent training and supervision, Petitioner alleged that the "State has a duty to individuals such as [Petitioner] to properly train and supervise officers such that they
The State answered the amended complaint, generally denying liability on multiple grounds. The State filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment asserting, in connection with the claim of negligent training and supervision, that Petitioner could not establish the claim as a matter of law. The State argued that the deputies' training was consistent with Fourth Amendment standards; therefore, the State did not breach any applicable duty. The State further argued that, even if Petitioner could show a breach, the State's duty to train the deputies in constitutionally permissible arrest procedures was a duty owed to the public, not to Petitioner as an individual. In the State's view, its public duty to provide proper training for its deputies did not provide a basis for tort liability grounded in negligence. The Circuit Court denied the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Trial commenced on all twelve counts of the complaint. During trial, the court found it necessary for evidentiary reasons to sever Counts XI (alleging negligent retention) and XII (alleging negligent training and supervision) from the remaining counts. Trial went forward on Counts I through X, and, at its conclusion, the jury found in favor of Deputy Henderson on all counts, and in favor of Deputy Falby and the State on all counts except the battery claim. On the battery claim, the jury found in favor of Petitioner and awarded her $5,000 in non-economic damages.
On September 14, 2009, trial commenced on the counts alleging negligent retention, supervision and training. Petitioner's testimony was as we have summarized it. Petitioner also had read into the record a transcript of the testimony of Angela Bolder, who had testified at the first trial but was unavailable to testify at the second. Ms. Bolder testified that, on September 15, 2006, she lived in the apartment next door to Petitioner. Ms. Bolder heard Petitioner in the hallway screaming: "Help me. Can you help me. Can you help me." When Ms. Bolder looked through the peep hole in her front door, she saw that a man had Petitioner pressed against the hallway wall and hit her with a "stick." Ms. Bolder called 911 because she could not tell that the man, who was wearing dark clothing, was a police officer.
Petitioner also called Sandra Frye, a childhood friend. Ms. Frye testified that Lamarr Wallace is her brother and was living with her at the time in question. Ms. Frye testified that she picked up Petitioner upon her release from jail the day following the incident. At that time, Petitioner had a black eye and a bald spot on the back of her head. The two women went to Petitioner's apartment, where they noticed hair on the floor. Ms. Frye used her cell phone camera to take digital photographs of Petitioner's head.
Petitioner called both Deputies Falby and Henderson to testify about the training they received in connection with serving arrest warrants. Deputy Falby confirmed that he had attended the police academy, attended annual in-service training seminars, and obtained yearly re-certification for all his policing qualifications. Deputy Falby testified that the Sheriff's Office alone was responsible for keeping him apprised of the legal standards associated
Deputy Falby also testified about the training he received in connection with the act of placing his foot in the doorway of a home during an arrest encounter:
Deputy Henderson's testimony was to like effect. He testified that he attended the police academy and regularly attended
The State moved for judgment at the close of Petitioner's case, arguing, pursuant to the "public duty doctrine," that the State owed no specific duty to Petitioner and, even so, there was no evidence of a breach of any duty owed Petitioner. In connection with the latter argument, the State contended that Petitioner had failed: (1) to present expert testimony to show that the deputies' training deviated from generally acceptable training standards, as is usually required in professional negligence cases; and (2) to introduce sufficient evidence showing the unconstitutionality of the deputies' training. The court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner, denied the motion. The State rested without offering any witnesses, then renewed its motion for judgment. The State remade the arguments presented at the close of Petitioner's case, adding that the State was not on any notice such that it could be held liable in tort for any wrongdoing by either deputy. The court denied the motion.
The court instructed the jury, in pertinent part:
The Circuit Court, reasoning that Counts XI and XII addressed several aspects of what is a single tort, that of negligent retention, training or supervision, included on the verdict sheet only one question as to liability: "Do you find Defendant, State of Maryland, is liable for negligent retention, supervision or training of Bill Falby or Gerald Henderson as employees?"
The State filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, raising the
On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals,
The three questions Petitioner presents for our consideration all relate, in one way or another, to the overarching question of whether the Circuit Court correctly denied the State's motions for judgment and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Petitioner asks us to decide in her favor: (1) whether the "public duty" doctrine shields the State from Petitioner's claim of negligent training of Deputies Falby and Henderson; (2) whether Petitioner was required to present expert testimony on that negligence claim; and (3) whether she presented legally sufficient evidence that the State was negligent in training Deputies Falby and Henderson on the constitutional rules respecting in-home execution of arrest warrants.
We shall address each of those questions. We begin, though, with a brief summary of the tort of negligent selection, training, or retention. We recognized more than 100 years ago that
Petitioner's current focus with regard to her negligence claim is that the State was negligent in training Deputies Falby and Henderson to violate Fourth Amendment law. Therefore we shall address the issues Petitioner has presented within the context of the specific claim of negligent training.
The parties dispute the applicability of the so-called "public duty doctrine" to Petitioner's claim of negligent training. The question is a threshold one, for, if the doctrine applies to the present case, then the State owed no duty to Petitioner, and, thus, the negligence claim fails at the outset. As we consider this issue, we bear in mind that, ordinarily, in a negligence action, whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff is a question of law, to be decided by the court. McNack v. State, 398 Md. 378, 395, 920 A.2d 1097, 1107 (2007).
Establishment of a legal duty is a prerequisite to a claim of negligence because "[t]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another." Id., 920 A.2d at 1106 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "`Duty' in negligence has been defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another." Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447, 486, 805 A.2d 372, 395 (2002) (citation and some internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a duty exists, we have considered, among other factors, "`the nature of the harm likely to result from a failure to exercise due care, and the relationship that exists between the parties.'"
The State raised the public duty doctrine as a defense to Petitioner's negligent training claim. The doctrine provides that, "when a statute or common law `imposes upon a public entity a duty to the public at large, and not a duty to a particular class of individuals, the duty is not one enforceable in tort.'" Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486, 805 A.2d at 395 (quoting Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 271 (2000)). The public duty doctrine "define[s] the scope of the tort duty owed by police officers to persons in need of assistance." Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486, 805 A.2d at 395; accord Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 628, 510 A.2d 1078, 1084 (1986) (explaining that the "`[d]uty' owed by the police by virtue of their positions as officers is a duty to protect the public"). In keeping with that doctrine, "police officers ordinarily may not be held liable for failure to protect specific persons because they owe no duty, as the first element of a negligence action requires, to those individuals." Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486-87, 805 A.2d at 395.
Ashburn is perhaps the lead case in Maryland addressing the duty that police officers owe to the public. In that case, an Anne Arundel County police officer encountered a person in a parking lot sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle, with its engine running. Ashburn, 306 Md. at 619, 510 A.2d at 1079. It was undisputed that the individual was intoxicated and could have been charged with driving while intoxicated. Id. at 619-20, 510 A.2d at 1079. The officer did not arrest the individual, but instead ordered him to park the car and not drive until the next day. Id. at 620, 510 A.2d at 1079. The officer then left the scene. Id., 510 A.2d at 1079. The driver later drove from the parking lot and struck a pedestrian, who was seriously injured. Id., 510 A.2d at 1079. The pedestrian sued the officer, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, and Anne Arundel County, on the theory that the police had a mandatory duty under state law to detain all intoxicated drivers. Id., 510 A.2d at 1079. The Circuit Court dismissed the suit in part because the defendants owed no special duty to the pedestrian. Id., 510 A.2d at 1079. This Court affirmed. Id. at 635, 510 A.2d at 1087.
We noted at the outset that the police officer had made a discretionary decision not to arrest the individual but instead to order him not to drive until the following day. Id. at 626, 510 A.2d at 1083. We then defined the duty "owed by the police by virtue of their positions as officers" as "a duty to protect the public." Id. at 628, 510 A.2d at 1084. We explained why the general duty to protect the public, without more, does not create a duty owed to a specific individual:
Id., at 629-30, 510 A.2d at 1084 (citations and quotation marks omitted) (some alterations in original).
We have recognized the policy undergirding the public duty doctrine and applied the doctrine in a number of cases, albeit in some of them without specific reference to the doctrine, as such. E.g., McNack, 398 Md. at 403, 920 A.2d at 1111 (holding that neither the State nor Baltimore City was liable for failure to protect plaintiff from drug dealers firebombing plaintiff's home because no special relationship existed between the State, or the City, and the plaintiff, and, thus, the public duty doctrine applied); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 490, 805 A.2d at 397 (holding that allegedly-negligent 911 employees were not liable to victims who had contacted them, including the family of a young girl killed by her friends and a woman whose husband shot her and her children, because "it [was] appropriate to measure [the employee's] negligence liability ... by the same standard applied to police officers," and the employees "by virtue of their position ... [owed] a public duty to aid," and were thereby shielded by the public duty doctrine); Boyer v. State, 323 Md. 558, 577-78, 594 A.2d 121, 130-31 (1991) (holding, in part, that the public duty doctrine shielded both the State and a law enforcement officer from the officer's allegedly negligent discretionary decision not to apprehend immediately a drunk driver who thereafter, during a high-speed chase, struck and killed two motorists); cf. Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 151, 753 A.2d 41, 68 (2000) (holding that the trial court's grant of summary judgment was improper because a dispute of material facts—whether the defendant officer told one of the plaintiffs that he would remain outside her home to protect her—determined the existence of a special protective relationship between law enforcement and plaintiffs; noting, though, that, if those facts proved true, and the officer had made such a promise, then the public duty doctrine would not have shielded the law enforcement officer from liability for failing to protect plaintiffs from an attack by one plaintiff's murderous boyfriend).
We also have recognized that the public duty doctrine "is not without its limitations." Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 487, 805 A.2d at 396. The doctrine does not apply, for example, "when the court concludes that a statute or court order has created a special duty or specific obligation to a particular class of persons rather than to the public at large." Id., 805 A.2d at 396 (quoting Dobbs, supra § 271). We have made clear that, in order for a special relationship between law enforcement and an individual or class of persons to be found, it must "be shown that the local government or the police officer affirmatively acted to protect the specific victim or specific group of individuals like the
Petitioner does not claim that a statute or court order has created a specific obligation the State owed her in connection with the events at issue. Rather, she argues that the public duty doctrine simply has no applicability when law enforcement is not engaging in the role of protecting citizens from private harms. That argument finds support in Ashburn, as we stated there that the public duty doctrine protects law enforcement from liability for failure to protect an individual "against injury caused by another citizen." Ashburn, 306 Md. at 628, 510 A.2d at 1083. As far as we can discern, though, we have not yet directly decided
Strickland v. Univ. of N.C. at Wilmington, ___ N.C.App. ___, 712 S.E.2d 888 (2011), review denied, ___ N.C. ___, 720 S.E.2d 677 (2012), provides an example. In Strickland, the plaintiff was mistakenly killed by local law enforcement officers who were trying to serve an arrest warrant when one of the officers, mistaking the sound of a battering ram hitting a door for a gunshot, fired his weapon into the plaintiff's residence. 712 S.E.2d at 889. A subsequent suit for the plaintiff's wrongful death claimed that the State "negligently provided false, misleading, and irrelevant information to [the law enforcement officers]... serving [the plaintiff]'s arrest warrant," which "le[d] [the officers] to believe that they were entering into ... a `severely dangerous environment including heavily armed suspects with histories of intentional physical violence causing injuries to persons.'" Id. In its defense, the State argued that the public duty doctrine precluded liability because the State's duty to provide accurate information to its officers was one "owed to the general public." Id. at 892. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina disagreed, holding that the duty to provide accurate information was not a public duty, and the associated duty to conduct non-negligent investigations "[did] not resemble the type[] of dut[y] to the general public for which the public duty doctrine normally precludes liability." Id. The court explained that, "[i]n all cases where the public duty doctrine has been held applicable, the breach of the alleged duty has involved the governmental entity's negligent control of an external injurious force or of the effects of such a force." Id.
Other courts are to like effect. Liser v. Smith, 254 F.Supp.2d 89, 102 (D.D.C.2003) ("[The public duty doctrine] is wholly inapposite in a case such as this, where the alleged harm was brought about directly by the officers themselves, and where
The reasoning of these cases is sound and, we believe, wholly consistent with the policy considerations that undergird Maryland's public duty doctrine. Those policy considerations we quoted above from Ashburn and restated in other cases, e.g., McNack, 398 Md. at 397-98, 920 A.2d at 1108, and Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 487 n. 26, 805 A.2d at 395-96 n. 26, are not present in situations in which, as here, the law enforcement officers are not called upon to react quickly and with "reasoned discretion," and therefore are not susceptible to post hoc review by lay juries. Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 487 n. 26, 805 A.2d at 395-96 n. 26. Nor, for that matter, does the situation we confront in the present case call upon us (or, previously, the fact-finder) to "judge considered legislative-executive decisions as to how particular community resources should be or should have been allocated to protect individual members of the public." Id., 805 A.2d at 396 n. 26 (quotation mark and citation omitted). None of these policy considerations is implicated in circumstances like the present one, in which a plaintiff seeks to impose liability based upon the State's negligent training of its law enforcement agents, as opposed to the State's failure to prevent the infliction of harm by one "lay" person to another.
We therefore join our sister jurisdictions that recognize the public duty doctrine does not apply if law enforcement is not engaged in protecting the public from an injurious force caused by a member of the public, but rather is itself the alleged injurious force. Petitioner's claim of negligent training does not allege harm resulting from an external injurious force, but rather alleges harm from the State's negligent training of Deputies Falby and Henderson in what were alleged to be unconstitutional arrest procedures. The public duty doctrine does not foreclose liability on that claim.
The State argued to the trial court that Petitioner's claim for negligent training fails for lack of expert testimony establishing a standard of care. The trial court disagreed. So do we.
To be sure, "[w]here the plaintiff alleges negligence by a professional, expert testimony is generally necessary to establish the requisite standard of care owed by the professional." Schultz v. Bank of Am., 413 Md. 15, 28, 990 A.2d 1078, 1086 (2010). The rule, derived to a large degree from medical malpractice cases, see Rodriguez v. Clarke, 400 Md. 39, 71, 926 A.2d 736, 755 (2007) (and cases cited therein), is that experts are usually necessary to explain professional standards because such standards require specialized
We have emphasized, though, that experts are not needed when "the alleged negligence is so obvious that the trier of fact could easily recognize that such actions would violate the applicable standard of care." Schultz, 413 Md. at 29, 990 A.2d at 1087; see, e.g., Thomas v. Corso, 265 Md. 84, 99, 288 A.2d 379, 388 (1972) (requiring no expert testimony to establish the standard of care in a medical malpractice case where the alleged breach was the failure of an emergency room attending physician to personally observe and treat a severely injured patient after the patient was struck by a car and brought to the hospital); Cent. Cab Co., Inc. v. Clarke, 259 Md. 542, 551, 270 A.2d 662, 667 (1970) (requiring no expert testimony to establish the standard of care in a legal malpractice case when the alleged breach was a lawyer's failure to inform his client that he was terminating representation). If a jury can use its "common knowledge or experience" to recognize a breach of a duty, then expert testimony is unnecessary to calibrate the exact standard of care owed by the defendant. Cent. Cab Co. 259 Md. at 551, 270 A.2d at 667 (quoting Butts v. Watts, 290 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Ky.1956)).
In this instance, the standard of care is established by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
The jury in the case at bar, after being properly instructed on the applicable Fourth Amendment law by the trial court, needed only its "common knowledge or experience," Cent. Cab Co., 259 Md. at 551, 270 A.2d at 667, to understand that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if the officer crosses the threshold of a home (here, by placing his foot in a home's doorway in order to block the door from closing) without proper authority to do so. We therefore hold that Petitioner did not fail to establish the relevant standard of care in presenting her case for the State's negligent training of its deputy sheriffs on Fourth Amendment doctrine.
Finally, the parties dispute whether there was legally sufficient evidence to establish whether the State breached its duty to Petitioner. This dispute divides into two sub-issues. First, Petitioner and the State comprehend differently the Fourth Amendment standard that governs entry of a home to execute an arrest warrant of a person suspected of being inside. Second, the parties disagree about whether there was sufficient evidence that Deputies Falby and Henderson were negligently trained by the State, in effect, to violate the pertinent Fourth Amendment standard.
The Fourth Amendment rules for executing an arrest warrant in a home are not in doubt. The threshold rule, long accepted by the United States Supreme Court, is that, except when pursuant to valid consent or exigent circumstances (neither of which is present here), "the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant." Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 211, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981); accord Kentucky v. King, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948). Consequently, "[i]n terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant." Payton, 445 U.S. at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371.
In Payton, the Court held that an arrest warrant suffices to authorize law enforcement to enter the home of the subject of the arrest warrant, if, at the time of the entry, the police have reason to believe the arrestee is in his or her home. Id. at 602-03. In Steagald, the Court held that an arrest warrant does not authorize law enforcement to enter a third person's home to arrest the subject of the arrest warrant, even if the officers have reason to believe the subject of the arrest warrant is inside that home. 451 U.S. at 213-14, 101 S.Ct. 1642. In that latter scenario (and absent valid consent to enter or exigent circumstances), the law enforcement officers may not enter the home of the third person to execute an arrest warrant, unless the officers are armed with a warrant to search the home of that third party, and the search warrant is supported by the probable cause-based averment of the affiant that the subject of the arrest warrant is in the home of such third person. Id. at 216, 222, 101 S.Ct. 1642. An arrest warrant for the subject believed to be in the
The State does not dispute that it has the duty to train its deputies in accordance with Fourth Amendment principles. Those rules, applicable here, are the rules established long ago in Payton and Steagald. The State is of the view that Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the State negligently trained Deputies Falby and Henderson in compliance with those Fourth Amendment rules. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the State and held that the Circuit Court committed legal error in denying the State's motions for judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Petitioner continues to maintain that she presented legally sufficient evidence of the State's breach of the duty to provide proper training in the applicable Fourth Amendment principles. We agree with Petitioner.
"An appellate court reviews the trial court's decision to allow or deny judgment or [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] to determine whether it was legally correct, while viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Scapa, 418 Md. at 503, 16 A.3d at 163 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We must affirm the denial of a motion for judgment or judgment notwithstanding the verdict if there is "any evidence, no matter how slight, that is legally sufficient to generate a jury question." C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub, 420 Md. 268, 291, 22 A.3d 867, 880 (2011). Put another way, we will reverse the trial court's denial of a motion for judgment or judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if the facts and circumstances permit but a single inference as relates to the appellate issue presented. See Scapa, 418 Md. at 503, 16 A.3d at 163.
Petitioner maintains that we need only look to the testimony of the two deputies for evidence of the State's negligent training of Deputies Falby and Henderson in connection with the Fourth Amendment's dictates concerning in-home execution of arrest warrants. Petitioner directs us to the following testimony.
(Emphasis added). Additionally, Deputy Falby testified that whenever a door opens while he is serving an arrest warrant he is to cross the threshold by placing his leg in the way of the door (thereby entering the home):
(Emphasis added).
Deputy Henderson, like Deputy Falby, testified that he had been trained by the State. When asked about his understanding, according to his training, about the requirements to enter a home, Deputy Henderson replied as follows:
The deputies' testimony, viewed in the light favorable to Petitioner, and examined through the prism of the proper standard of care (here, training that is consistent with the Fourth Amendment principles announced in Payton and Steagald) provides the requisite "slight evidence" that the deputies were negligently trained by the State. From their testimony, a jury could find that Deputies Falby and Henderson were trained that an arrest warrant carries with it the authority forcibly to enter a home, the address of which was listed on the arrest warrant (but not necessarily the home of the arrestee), based solely on a belief that the arrestee is inside that home at the time of the entry. As characterized by the deputies, such training is contrary to the dictates of Payton and Steagald, which draw the important distinction between the sort of warrant that authorizes the forcible entry of the arrestee's home (an arrest warrant for the arrestee) and the sort that authorizes the forcible entry of a third party's home (a search warrant that reflects probable cause that the arrestee is inside that home). Because there was the requisite slight evidence of a breach of the State's duty to provide the deputies with training that meets the standard of care (compliance with Fourth
Finally, we say a word about the State's argument that, even assuming that Petitioner presented sufficient evidence of a duty owed and breached, the Circuit Court should have granted judgment in the State's favor because Petitioner failed to establish that the State's breach was the proximate cause of Petitioner's damages. We reject this contention.
To constitute a proximate cause, the deputies' training must be "1) a cause in fact, and 2) a legally cognizable cause." Pittway Corp. v. Collins, 409 Md. 218, 243, 973 A.2d 771, 786 (2009). The deputies' negligent training in connection with what the arrest warrant authorized them to do—forcibly enter the home of Petitioner—was, "more likely than not," "a substantial factor in producing" the altercation that led to Petitioner's injuries. Id. at 244, 973 A.2d at 787. The deputies' negligent training, moreover, was the legally cognizable cause of Petitioner's injuries because the altercation that caused them was a "foreseeable result" of the improper training. Id. at 246, 973 A.2d at 788.
In sum, Petitioner presented legally sufficient evidence of her claim that the State was liable to her in tort for the negligent training of Deputies Falby and Henderson. Accordingly, the Circuit Court properly denied the State's motions for judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Horridge v. St. Mary's County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 382 Md. 170, 183, 854 A.2d 1232, 1238 (2004) (quoting Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568, 583, 831 A.2d 18, 26 (2003)).
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 214 n. 7, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602-03, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)).
The Steagald Court continued:
Id. at 214-15 n. 7, 101 S.Ct. 1642.
