explaining that “because it is clear” that the plaintiff’s Article 24 claim was “based on an alleged arrest without proper justification,” the court applied “the same standard in assessing this claim as is applicable to an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (citing Dett, 391 Md. at 92 )
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “because it is clear” that the plaintiff’s Article 24 claim was “based on an alleged arrest without proper justification,” the court applied “the same standard in assessing this claim as is applicable to an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (citing Dett, 391 Md. at 92 )
- holding that “even when the language is unambiguous, it is useful to review the legislative history of the 37 statute to confirm that interpretation and to eliminate another version of legislative intent alleged to be latent in the language.”
- noting that “it is a common maxim of statutory construction that related statutes governing the same subject are to be construed together and harmonized”
- explaining that even in instances “when the language is unambiguous, it is useful to review legislative history of the statute to confirm that interpretation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*154 ADKINS, J.,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. I would hold that the arrest was not valid for the reasons set forth in the opinion authored by Judge Kehoe for the Court of Special Appeals.