Case: Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Baltimore City Police Department

The plaintiffs in this case were the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches and the Baltimore City Branch of the NAACP, alongside a putative class of individuals allegedly subject to constitutional violations by the Baltimore Police Department (BPD). They filed suit in Maryland state trial court on June 15, 2006, represented by the ACLU of Maryland and private counsel, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; analogues in Maryland’s state constitution; and state tort law. The individual plaintiffs sought punitive and compensatory damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and expungement of their arrest records. After making initial appearances in the state court, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on July 21, 2006. There, the case was initially assigned to Judge Richard D. Bennett before being re-assigned to Judge Catherine C. Blake.

The claims in this suit fell into three groups. First, the plaintiffs accused the BPD, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the Mayor individually, current and former BPD commissioners, and individual police officers of conducting or otherwise participating in allegedly unlawful arrests. Second, the plaintiffs asserted claims against the State of Maryland, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Commissioner of the Division of Pretrial Detention, current and former wardens at the Central Booking and Intake Center (CBIC) and CBIC officers for allegedly unlawful strip searches and “over detentions.” Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that the Baltimore City loitering ordinance was unconstitutional as applied, or in the alternative unconstitutional on its face.

In addition to the particular claims, the plaintiffs sought to represent a class of “arrestees who were (1) arrested by the Police Department without probable cause and (2) released without charges after being booked at CBIC.” The plaintiffs sought only equitable relief on behalf of the putative class. The individual plaintiffs moved to certify the putative class on April 25, 2008, but the court did not act on that motion before the parties agreed to settle the case.

On July 28, 2006, the BPD, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and Martin O’Malley filed a motion to dismiss (or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment). And on September 27, 2006, the BPD moved to dismiss or for summary judgment as to one particular putative class representative. On December 1, 2006, Judge Blake granted in part and denied in part the July 28 motion to dismiss, and likewise granted in part and denied in part the September 27 motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Judge Blake agreed that BPD was entitled to sovereign immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims for damages and that the City was shielded by “governmental immunity” from the plaintiffs’ tort claims. However, Judge Blake found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded their unlawful arrest claims. Finally, Judge Blake determined that discovery was necessary before it could be ascertained whether the plaintiffs’ claim about BPD’s interpretation of the loitering ordinance required certification of the question to Maryland state court under Pullman. The parties thus proceeded to discovery.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint on January 4, 2008; the plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on February 27, 2008. This amended complaint added two new plaintiffs and updated the information for several existing plaintiffs. It also removed all references to a desire to represent a putative class in the complaint. Finally, the amended complaint added and removed certain defendants. For example, the complaint was updated to reflect the fact that Baltimore had elected a new mayor and that the BPD had hired a new commissioner.

The plaintiffs together moved to settle the case pursuant to an agreed upon order on June 25, 2010. In the settlement, the BPD committed to new policies and expanded training. The parties intended that these interventions would ensure that BPD officers knew the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment limits on their authority and that officers would address low-level offenses without escalating to arrest whenever possible. The settlement also required the BPD to implement a new system of data collection and monitoring, overseen by an independent auditor for a term of three years. This auditor would confirm that data collected by the BPD reflected compliance with the Constitution and the BPD’s agreed upon internal reforms. Finally, the agreement included payment of $630,000 by the municipal-level defendants for attorneys’ fees and damages.

Judge Blake granted the motion for settlement and the court marked the case closed on June 29, 2010. An interim report, filed in 2012, found that the City and BPD had not fully complied with the settlement. But the parties’ auditor filed a final required report on December 31, 2014. In that report, the auditor found substantial compliance with the terms of the settlement, which terminated the court’s injunction as expressed in the settlement agreement.