CAROLYN HOWARD v. BEN CRUMLIN, et al.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Fader, November 28, 2018,
Police Officer Liability – An officer’s failure to make contact with a 911 caller does not make him liable for her subsequent death where there is no showing of malice, gross negligence, or a special duty to protect the victim.
Facts:
In 2014, Montgomery County Police received a 911 call from Nicole Enoch, who was staying in an apartment building in Silver Spring.
Officer Crumlin responded to the building and attempted to enter, but the front door was locked. Officer Crumlin left without making contact with Enoch.
“At some point, Ms. Enoch went to the roof of her apartment building and either jumped, fell, or was pushed off. Her body was discovered at 8:20 a.m. and she was pronounced dead at the scene.”
Enoch’s estate filed a lawsuit against Officer Crumlin as well as MCPD’s Chief of Police.
The circuit court dismissed the lawsuit and Enoch’s estate appealed.
Held: The Court held that neither MCPD nor Officer Crulim was liable for Enoch’s death.
Public Duty – A police officer’s obligation to the general public can’t be used to hold an individual officer liable for failing to protect a specific victim unless there was a special relationship between them.
Special Relationship – Police may be liable for failing to protect someone if police acted to protect that specific victim/group and the victim/group was induced to rely on that protection.
From the Case: “To give rise to a special relationship, Ms. Enoch would have had to have been aware of Officer Crumlin’s affirmative act so as to have been induced into specific reliance on him. Here, there are no allegations that Ms. Enoch was aware of Officer Crumlin’s existence, much less that she was aware of, or induced into specific reliance on, any affirmative act of his.”
Public Official Immunity – Police officers are protected from suit against use of discretion in the course of their duties. This does not apply to malicious or grossly-negligent action.
Discretion – “When applied to public officials, discretion is the power conferred upon them by law to act officially under certain circumstances according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others.”
Discretionary Act – An act is “discretionary” for immunity purposes if it involves an officer’s “personal judgment that includes, to more than a minor degree, the manner in which the police power of the State should be utilized.”
Public Official Immunity – A police officer responding to a call for service is “discretionary” in that it involves a decision about how best to handle the call.
From the Case: “Here, Officer Crumlin’s action at issue is his alleged failure to investigate further when he found that the entry to Ms. Enoch’s apartment building was locked. That action—a police officer’s determination regarding what degree of action or investigation might be necessary in responding to a particular situation—is a paradigmatic case of an action involving the exercise of personal judgment in determining the manner in which the State’s police power will be utilized.”
Gross Negligence – Gross negligence can involve an intentional failure to perform a duty in reckless disregard of the consequences, “utterly indifferent to the rights of others.”
From the Case: “The complaint does not even allege that either Officer Crumlin or Chief Manger had any knowledge regarding Ms. Enoch or her situation, nor does it identify what information might have been conveyed in the 911 call that could possibly have been communicated to Officer Crumlin. One cannot act in reckless disregard of consequences of which she or he is unaware.”
Officer Liability – Failure of a police officer to “protect the public… should be addressed not by a tort action but by criminal prosecution or administrative disposition.”