Carey v. Wolford

’ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHRISTOPHER JAMES CAREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

* Civil No, 22-0782-BAH

EMILY WOLFORD ef .

Defendants.

* * * * * * ° & * * * x

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Christopher James Carey (“Plaintiff”) filed this suit against Police Officers Emily

Wolford, B. Remmers, and Michael Leatherman of the Baltimore County Police Department

(collectively “Defendants”), alleging constitutional civil rights claims as well as common faw tort □

claims arising out of a traffic stop in December 2020. ECF 11. Pending before the Court is

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF 39. Plaintiff filed an opposition, ECF 42, and

Defendants filed a reply, ECF 45. All filings includé memoranda of law and exhibits.' The Court

has reviewed all relevant filings and finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md.

2023), Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

ECF 39, is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND '

Plaintiff brought this case based on events that unfolded at a traffic stop on December 11,

2020. ECF 11, at 3. As Plaintiff was driving in Baltimore County just before 10:30 AM that

1 The Court references all filings by their respective ECF numbers and page numbers by the ECE-

generated page numbers at the top of the page.

morning, Officer Wolford relayed Plaintiff's license plate to the police dispatcher and learned that

Plaintiff's registration was. expired and that, despite Plaintiff's car displaying Toyota emblems, it

was registered as a Lexus. ECF 39-2, at 1 J 3; Def..Ex. A., ECF 16 (Def. Ex. 16A”),? at 00:00-

00:24. Officer Wolford pulled Plaintiff over at 10:25 AM based on this information. ECF 39-2,

at 1 4; ECF 16-4, at 1. Officer Leatherman responded as a backup officer and arrived at the stop

at 10:29 AM, ECF 16-4, at 1.

Officer Leatherman approached Plaintiff’s car and spoke to. Plaintiff for several minutes .

about his expired registration and license, as well as the discrepancy between the make of his car

listed on his expired registration and the emblems on the car. Def. Ex. A., ECF 7 (“Def. Ex. TA”),

at 00:30-01:43; Def. Ex. B, ECF 7 (“Def. Ex. 7B”),’ at 00:00-00:58. Plaintiff was compliant and

‘cooperative, and admitted that he knew his license was expired. Def. Ex. 7A, at 00:30-1:43. □

During this time, Officer Leatherman walked back and forth several times between Plaintiff's car

and Officer Wolford, who remained in her vehicle. See id at 00-01:43 (showing Officer

‘Leatherman twice walking back and forth between Officer Wolford’s car and Plaintiffs car).

Communications between Officer Wolford and dispatch revealed that Maryland Motor Vehicle

Administration (““MVA”) had no record of Plaintiff having a license, only that he was eligible for

license, ECF 16-7, at 1.

At approximately 10:32 AM, Office Leatherman unsuccessfully attempted to read the

? This piece of evidence was received by the Court as a physical exhibit and is an audio recording

of conversation between Officer Wolford and dispatcher. Def. Ex. 16A.

3 This piece of evidence was received by the Court as a physical exhibit and shows footage from

Officer Leatherman’s body camera beginning at 10:29 AM. Def. Ex. 7A.

‘4 This piece of evidence was received by the Court as a physical exhibit and shows footage from .

Officer Leatherman’s body camera beginning at 10:31 AM. Def. Ex. 7B.

vehicle identification number (“VIN”) underneath the vehicle’s front windshield. Def. Ex. 7B., at

00:58-01:09; see also ECF -16-9, at 2 § 7 (describing the time corresponding to the beginning of

each body camera video). He asked Plaintiff if he had anything else with the VIN on it. Jd. at

01:05-01:09. Plaintiff searched his center console and glove compartment, removing the

unaffixed front license plate’ and an expired vehicle registration card, the latter of which Plaintiff

provided to Officer Leatherman. Id. at 01:09-01:52. Upon further inquiry from Officer

Leatherman, Plaintiff explained that the vehicle was registered in his mother’s name, and Officer

Leatherman informed him that the registration was expired. Def. Ex. C., ECF 7 (“Def. Ex. 7C”),®

at 00:35-00:57. Officer Wolford entered a Traffic Violation Warning for Plaintiff related to his

- expired registration. ECF 42-1, at 1-2.

At approximately 10:41 AM, Officer Leatherman asked Plaintiff if he had an insurance

card. Def. Ex. 7C, at 00:57-01:02. Plaintiff did not have an insurance card on hand, but called

his mother and then informed Officer Leatherman that his mother would send the insurance policy

number to Plaintiff's phone, Jd, at 01:02-02:45. At approximately 10:47 AM, Plaintiffs mother

returned the call and Plaintiff handed the phone to Officer Leatherman. Jd. at 07:23-08:20.

Plaintiffs mother explained that the car was registered in her name and that the vehicle was insured

through State Farm. Jd. at 08:20-08:35. She stated she would contact her insurance agent and

‘have them send the information to Plaintiff s phone. /d. at 08:50-09:32.,

As the investigation into the issue of the vehicle’s insurance status was ongoing, Officer

> The vehicle was not displaying a front license plate, see Def. Ex. D, ECF 16 (“Def. Ex. 16D”),

‘at 02:02-02:08, as required by Maryland law. Md. Code Ann., Transp, § 13-411(a) (“On a vehicle

for which two registration plates are required, one plate shall be attached on the front and the other

on the rear of the vehicle.”).

® This piece of evidence was received by the Court as a physical exhibit and shows footage from

Officer Leatherman’s body camera beginning at 10:40 AM. Def. Ex. 7C.

Remmers was dispatched to the scene for a canine snift inspection at approximately 10:36 AM.

ECF 16-4, at 1. Upon Officer Remmers’s arrival seven minutes later, Officer Leatherman asked

‘Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle, and Plaintiff cooperated. Def. Ex. 7C, at 03:38-03:50. At

_ approximately 10:44 AM, Officer Remmers began the canine sniff inspection of Plaintiff

vehicle. Jd. at 03:50-04:00; Def. Ex. D, ECF 16 (Def Ex. 16D”),’ at 00:50-00:55. At the same

‘time, Officer Wolford informed Plaintiff that MVA records showed that he did not have a license

and that his vehicle registration expired several years ago. Def. Ex. 7C, at 03:55-04:10.: She asked

Plaintiff if someone could come pick him up, to which he responded “no.” Jd. at 04:50-04:55.

This conversation about Plaintiff's registration and license continued throughout the canine sniff.

See id, at 03:55-05:45. After the canine officer alerted on Plaintiff’s vehicle (indicated by sitting

next to the car), Officer Wolford began searching Plaintiff's vehicle. Def. Ex. 7D, at 02:23-02:30;

Def, Ex. 7C, at 07:22-13:41; ECF 16-6, at 2 | 8. Officer Leatherman asked Plaintiff if he could

search him, and Plaintiff raised his arms above his head and said, “Sure, go for it.” Def. Ex. 7C,

at 13:45-13:50. □

In total, the traffic stop lasted approximately thirty-two minutes. See ECF 16-4, at 1. No

contraband was found in Plaintiff's vehicle or person. See Def. Ex. 7C, at 14:40-14:52. The -

officers allowed Plaintiff to leave with a verbal warning and instructed him to resolve the problems

with his license and the vehicle’s registration with the MVA. Jd. at 14:40-17:06.

Plaintiff instituted this action on April 1, 2022, filing an eight-count complaint against

Baltimore County, Maryland, and four parties related to the Baltimore County Police Department

? This piece of evidence was received by the Court as a physical exhibit and shows footage from

Officer Remmers’s body camera beginning at 10:43 AM. Def. Ex. 16D.

4 , .

(BCPD).2 ECF 1. The defendants named in Plaintiff's original complaint filed a motion to

dismiss, which this Court granted. See ECF 7; ECF 10, at 15. In granting the motion, this Court

dismissed Plaintiff's original Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, ECF 10, at

15, and Plaintiff subsequently filed the operative six-count amended complaint against only the

current Defendants. ECF 11. Defendants moved to dismiss, ECF 16, and this Court denied the

motion. ECF 29. □

. Plaintiff's amended complaint brings six counts against Defendants. ECF 11, at 7-11.

Counts two,” four, five, and six allege violations of Plaintiff's right to be free from unreasonable

searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and its corollary in the Maryland State

‘Constitution, Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, against all Defendants; count one

alleges battery against Officer Leatherman alone;!° and count three alleges false imprisonment

against all Defendants. /d. Defendants now move for summary judgment on all counts. ECF 39.

Plaintiff's original Complaint asserted claims against two additional defendants, Baltimore

‘County, Maryland, and Melissa R. Hyatt, who was Chief of Police for the BCPD at the time of the

traffic stop. ECF 1, at 1-2 98-9. Pursuant to this Court’s Memorandum Order dated

November 15, 2022, Baltimore County and Hyatt were dismissed as parties to this action with the

consent of Plaintiff, ECF 10, at 15.

° As explained in this Court’s opinion addressing Defendants’ motion to dismiss, “illegal

detention” is not a tort in Maryland. See ECF 28, at 3 n.3. Therefore, the Court construes this

count, which is based on violations of the “[Fourth] Amendment . . . and the laws of Maryland,”

ECF 11, at 8, as stating a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation and a violation of Article 26 of

Maryland Declaration of Rights.

10 As explained in this Court’s opinion denying Defendants’ prior motion to dismiss, assault claims

in Maryland are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, barring any assault claim resulting

from the events that occurred on December 11, 2020, as Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this

action on April 1, 2022. See ECF 28, at 2 n.2 (citing Md. Code Ann.., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-105,

and ECF 1). As such, count one is construed only as a claim for battery, which is a tort distinct

from assault under Maryland law. Jd. (citing Ford v. Douglas, 799 A.2d 448, 450-51 (Md. App.

2002),

,

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment should be granted

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The relevant inquiry is “whether

the.evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a [trier of fact] or whether

. it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson vy, Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).

“Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing □□□□□

has the burden of showing that a genuine factual dispute exists.” Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Jireh

House, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 3d 369, 373 (E.D. Va. 2022) (citing Matsushita Elec, Indus. Co. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986). “A dispute is genuine if‘a reasonable jury could return

a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Libertarian Party of Va v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir.

2013) (quoting Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir, 2012)). “A fact

‘is material if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. (quoting

Anderson, 477 US. at 248), Accordingly, “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute

between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original).

The Court must view the evidence in the li ght most favorable to the nonmoving party and

draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) (per

‘curiam); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007), and the Court “may not make credibility

determinations or weigh the evidence,” Progressive Am. ins. Co., 603 F. Supp. 3d at 373 (citing

Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007)). For this reason, summary

judgment ordinarily is inappropriate when there is conflicting evidence because it is the function

of the factfinder to resolve factual disputes, including matters of witness credibility. See Black &

Decker Corp. v. United States, 436 F.3d 431, 442 (4th Cir. 2006); Dennis v. Columbia Colleton

‘Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir, 2002).

At the same time, the Court must “prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from

proceeding to trial.” Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir.

2003) (quoting Drewitt v, Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 2003)). “The existence of a mere

. Scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party as well as conclusory allegations or denials,

without more, are insufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion.” Progressive Am. Ins.

603 F. Supp. 3d at 373 (citing Tom v. Hosp. Ventures LLC, 980 F.3d 1027, 1037 (4th Cir.

2020)).

Il. ANALYSIS

Defendants claim that they are entitled to summary judgment because (1) the initial traffic

stop was legal; (2) the stop was not impermissibly lengthened; (3) the canine officer alerted on the

car, rendering the subsequent searches of the vehicle and Plaintiffs person reasonable; and (4)

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.'' ECF 39-1, at 9-25, Plaintiff argues that the

canine search impermissibly extended the stop, that the searches of Plaintiff and his vehicle were

unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that Plaintiff did not consent to the search of his

person. ECF 42, at 2-6.

Each of Plaintiffs claims rest upon whether Defendants’ actions. were reasonable under

11 Defendants also argue that Officer Remmers is entitled to summary judgment on all counts

separately, as there are no allegations or evidence that he was involved in the stop beyond

conducting the legal canine sniff. ECF 39-1, at 23. Plaintiff does not dispute this argument beyond

disputing the redsonableness of the canine sniff. See ECF 42, at 2-8 (making no argument that

Officer Remmers was in any way involved in the underlying events beyond serving as the canine

handler). Because the Court finds that the canine sniff did not impermissibly extend the stop and

was therefore reasonable, as explained below, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of

. Officer Remmers.

the Fourth Amendment. This applies to his claims brought under the United States Constitution,

of course, but it applies with equal force to his claims brought under the Maryland Constitution.

Birchead v, State, 566 A.2d 488, 492 (Md. 1989) (“Article 26 of the Maryland Constitution is in

pari materia with the [F]ourth [A]mendment.” (citation omitted)). Similarly, under Maryland law,

“[flalse imprisonment, false arrest, and assault and battery"! [by a law enforcement officer] ‘can

only occur when there is no legal authority or justification for the arresting officer’s actions.”

Hines v. French, 852 A.2d 1047, 1055 (Md. App. 2004) (quoting Williams v, Prince George's

Cnty., 685 A.2d 884, 898 (Md. App. 1996)). As such, though this Court would typically address

‘the issue of qualified immunity before beginning a constitutional analysis, the Court will today

dive headfirst into the question of whether Defendants’ actions were reasonable under the Fourth

Amendment, See Rochon vy, City of Angola, 122 F.3d 319, 320 (Sth Cir. 1997) (“If the court finds.

‘no constitutional injury, it need not address the issue of qualified immunity.” (citation omitted)).

A. Defendants’ initial stop of Plaintiff was lawful, and it was not unreasonably

extended by the dog sniff.

A traffic stop “constitutes a ‘seizure’ under the Fourth Amendment and is thus subject to a

reasonableness requirement.” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996)).. A traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth

Amendment if (1) it was “legitimate at its inception” and (2) “the officer’s actions during the

seizure were reasonably related in scope to the basis for the traffic stop.” United States v. Bowman,

884 F.3d 200, 209 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting first United States v, Hill, 852 F.3d 377, 381 (4th Cir.

2017), then quoting United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2015)), Plaintiff

2 This axiom does not apply when the tort claim is based upon a claim of excessive force. See

Williams v. Prince George’s Cnty., 685 A.2d 884, 898 (Md. App. 1996). Here, though, Plaintiff

bases his battery claim solely on the unreasonableness of the search; there are no allegations of

excessive force. See ECF 11, at

concedes that the initial traffic stop in this case was constitutional. See ECF 42, at 2

(acknowledging that the “stop [was] at first constitutional”. Thus, whether the stop violated

Plaintiff?s Fourth Amendment rights turns on whether Defendants’ “actions during the seizure

were reasonably related in scope to the basis for the traffic stop.” Bowman, 884 F.3d at 209.

During a traffic stop, “an officer's mission includes ‘ordinary inquiries incident to [the □

traffic] stop.’” Rodriguez v. United States, 5375 U.S. 348, 355 (2015) (alteration in Rodriguez)

(quoting I/linois v. Caballes, 543 US. 405, 408 (2005)). These “ordinary inquiries” include tasks

such as “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against

the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.” Jd. A “dog sniff,”

however. is not part of these “ordinary inquiries,” and is reasonable only if the officer either.

.. develops reasonable suspicion to believe that the dog sniff will lead probable cause of a crime or,

as is relevant here, if the dog sniff does not prolong the length of the traffic stop. See id. at □□□□

5 8, Ifan officer develops probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present either in

the car or on the person of one of the occupants of the car, the officer is justified in conducting a

search, and doing so does not impermissibly expand the bounds of the stop. See United States v..

Palmer, 820 F.3d 640, 651-52 (4th Cir. 2016).

Here, the evidence demonstrates that Defendants were still engaged in “ordinary inquiries”

related the traffic stop when the dog sniff occurred, and thus, the dog sniff did not prolong the

‘duration of the stop. Even though Officer Wolford had already written a warning for Plaintiff

regarding his expired registration, Defendants were waiting on Plaintiff to provide information

relating to the car’s insurance when the dog sniff occurred and were still waiting when the dog

‘alerted. See Def. Ex. TC, at 07:23-09:32 (showing that Plaintiff's mother did not call Plaintiff

regarding the car insurance until roughly 10:47 AM and that she stated she was still waiting on her

insurance agent to send her the information); Def. Ex. 7D, at 02:23-02:30 (showing that the canine

officer alerted on the car at roughly 10:45 AM). Plaintiff does not dispute that he was waiting for

his mother to send him information relating to the insurance policy during the dog sniff, and the

‘evidence leaves no room for debate on this point, See ECF 42, at 1-8 (failing to address the issue

of the phone call and the insurance inquiry at all). As such, the dog sniff did not lengthen the time

of the stop and did not render the stop unreasonable.

B. Defendants’ searches of both Plaintiff and the vehicle were reasonable.

Plaintiff concedes that once the canine officer altered on the car, the subsequent search of

the car was reasonable. ECF 42, at 5 (“If the Court finds the length of [Plaintiff's] detention

"reasonable, then, admittedly, the search of [Plaintiff's] car was constitutional based on the dog

sniffalert.”). Plaintiff asserts, however, that Defendants did not have probable cause to search his

person and that he did not consent to such a search, rendering it unreasonable. /d. The Court need

not determine whether Plaintiff voluntarily consented to the search of his person because

Defendants had probable cause to search Plaintiff,

Where the driver is the sole occupant of the vehicle, courts have found that a positive alert

. from a drug detection dog provides probable cause for the search of that individual. See State v.

Funkhouser, 782 A.2d 387, 402 (Md. App. 2001). Officer Remmers’s worn body camera footage

shows that the dog “alerted” on the car sitting by the driver’s side front door, following a “head

snap” and “repeated, excited interest in the door seams,” all of which was “behavior [that] would

'3 The Supreme Court has made clear that the reliability of a dog sniff alert need not be taken as a

given. See Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 247-48 (2013). When the reliability of the canine in

question is challenged, probable cause is only established if the totality of the circumstances

surrounding the alert, including evidence of the dog’s training and certification, “would make a

reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime.”

Id. at 248. Here, Plaintiff has not called into question the sufficiency of the dog’s alert, so the

Court need not. delve into the canine officer’s qualifications. See ECF 42, at 2-8 (raising no

question relating to the reliability of the dog sniff). -

10

indicate to any BCPD K-9 officer that the dog had alerted to the presence of drugs in the car and

that an interior search of the car was appropriate.” Def. Ex. 16D, at 01:20-2:30; ECF 16-6, at 2]

8. Accordingly, Defendants had probable cause to search Plaintiff's person, and doing so did not

violate his rights.

IV. CONCLUSION - -

In total, the traffic stop lasted approximately thirty-two minutes. See ECF 16-4, at 1. Based

on the undisputed record evidence, Defendants’ actions were routine measures under the

‘¢ircumstances and there is no evidence to suggest that the traffic stop exceeded the permissible

length. The officers’ actions were reasonably related to investigating the issues with Plaintiff's

registration, and the basis for the stop mushroomed into other inquiries that each took time. The

‘searches of Plaintiffs vehicle and his person were each based on probable cause and were

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Therefore, each of Plaintiffs claims fail, and summary

judgment must be entered in favor of Defendants on all counts.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 39, is

GRANTED. .

A separate implementing Order will issue.

Dated: July 29, 2024 is

Brendan A. Hurson

United States District Judge