Lancaster v. Bd. of Educ. of Balt. Cnty.

COURTNEY LANCASTER, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of her Minor Child, Student Doe, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. GLR-20-3685

United States District Court, D. Maryland

September 13, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

George L. Russell, III United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Board of Education of Baltimore County (the “Board”), Jason Feiler Lauren Stuart, Kelly Rudd Saffran, and Nina Martin's (the “individual Board Defendants”) (collectively, the “Board Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 32), and Defendants Baltimore County Maryland (the “County”), Baltimore County Police Department (“BCPD”), and Officer Jennifer Peach's (“Officer Peach”) (collectively, the “County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33). The Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2021). For the reasons outlined below, the Court will grant the Motions in part and deny the Motions in part without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Factual Background

This action arises from a series of incidents relating to a virtual classroom session attended by Plaintiff Student Doe (“Student Doe”), ^[2] an elementary school student. Student Doe's teacher believed he had weapons displayed in the background of his video feed, and this belief ultimately resulted in a police search of Student Doe's home. Student Doe's mother, Plaintiff Courtney Lancaster, filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendants' actions violated various state tort laws and statutes and federal and state constitutional provisions.

At all relevant times, Student Doe was a fifth-grade student at Seneca Elementary School (“Seneca”). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 43, ECF No. 27). He had attended Seneca for five years. (Id. ¶ 96). Student Doe's mother, Courtney Lancaster, was an active member of the PTA. (Id.). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Seneca students turned to remote learning classes using Google Meet. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34). The Board “never requested the consent of any parents . . . for their [children] to participate in ‘remote learning' via ‘Google Meet, '” nor did it request parental consent to view into students' homes. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36). Additionally, the Board did not restrict who could access the Google Meet. (Id. ¶ 37). Furthermore, the Board did not implement policies regarding the setting in which a student could attend class, except that as part of the class attendance policy, the Board required that cameras be on at all times during class. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 129).

On June 1, 2020, Student Doe was attending a remote learning class session using Google Meet from Lancaster's house in Rosedale, Maryland. (Id. ¶ 42, 45). At 10:56 a.m., “[u]nbeknownst to Student Doe, ” his background was partially visible to his teacher, Nina Martin. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 46). In Student Doe's background were “two archery bows, two bundled sets of arrows, [and] two BB guns.” (Id. ¶ 47). The two BB guns were a “‘Red Rider' BB gun, and an Airsoft Gun.” (Id.). The Airsoft gun had an orange muzzle on it, as required by law. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 61). When Martin noticed the BB gun and the Airsoft gun, she requested Student Doe change his background. (Id. ¶¶ 52-54). Student Doe complied, though he did not understand why his teacher made the request. (Id. ¶ 55). Prior to the request, Student Doe never mentioned or handled the toys in question, nor did he threaten anyone with them. (Id. ¶ 56).

Screenshots were taken of Student Doe without Student Doe or Lancaster's knowledge or consent.^[3] (Id. ¶¶ 57, 59). Martin reported Student Doe to the Seneca Elementary school administration, who in turn presented the screenshots to Kelly Rudd^[4]Saffran, the school's assigned Department of School Safety manager. (Id. ¶ 65-66). Approximately thirty minutes after the screenshots were taken, Vice Principal Lauren Stuart called Student Doe's father to ascertain where Student Doe was. (Id. ¶ 68). Stuart lied to Student Doe's father and said the purpose of asking for Student Doe's location was because Student Doe was having a network connectivity issue. (Id. ¶ 69). Student Doe's father responded that Student Doe was at his mother's house. (Id. ¶ 70). Lancaster never received a call from Stuart or any other Board Defendant. (Id. ¶ 71). At 11:31 a.m., “Principal Jason Feiler called the Baltimore County Police Department” and told them that there was a ‘“shotgun' or a ‘rifle'” in Student Doe's background. (Id. ¶¶ 73-74). During the phone call, Feiler acknowledged the student was not on school property; stated that students must still follow the same rules that they would have had they been in the building;^[5] stated that the object “did not have a ‘Nerf gun look to it”'; shared the assumption that the weapons belonged to Lancaster; and lied to the police by stating that Student Doe ducked down so everyone in the classroom could view his background. (Id. ¶¶ 75-78).

At 11:49 a.m., Officer Kevin Thomas^[6] arrived at Lancaster's home, described to Lancaster that there was a report of weapons in the home, and asked for permission to enter. (Id. ¶¶ 81-84). Body camera footage shows that both Lancaster and Officer Thomas were surprised that Officer Thomas was called to the home. (Id. ¶ 82). Lancaster shared with Officer Thomas that her son had toy guns, and Officer Thomas, with Lancaster's permission, went upstairs to take a look. (Id. ¶¶ 86-87). Officer Thomas immediately recognized the BB gun and the Airsoft gun to be toys, noted that they “were not loaded with any projectiles, which were safely stored in another location, ” and “expressed his satisfaction that [Student Doe and Lancaster] were aware of firearm safety and that these toys were safely stored.” (Id. ¶¶ 86, 91-92). Officer Thomas put Student Doe, who had been frightened, at ease and apologized for bothering Lancaster and Student Doe. (Id. ¶¶ 88-89). Shortly afterwards, a second officer arrived and “deferred to Officer Thomas' judgment that the call was meritless, ” therefore finding that there were no violations of law at Plaintiffs' home. (Id. ¶¶ 93-94).

At 12:20 p.m., Lancaster spoke with Laura Herzog, Student Doe's homeroom teacher. (Id. ¶ 97). Herzog stated that a parent noticed the “guns” and Martin reported the incident to the school administration. (Id.). This was the first time that Lancaster had heard this version of events. (Id.). At 12:45 p.m., Lancaster spoke with Feiler and Stuart, who relayed that the school safety officer made a determination that the toys were weapons. (Id. ¶ 98). Feiler and Stuart did not share with Lancaster that the school had called Student Doe's father, nor did they share the allegation that Student Doe had ducked to provide a better view of the “weapons.” (Id.).

The following day, on June 2, 2020, Lancaster emailed the Executive Director of School Support for Seneca Elementary, Jane Licther, and Superintendent Dr. Darryl L. Williams. (Id. ¶ 99). Licther, in response, held a conference call with Lancaster and Student Doe's father, in which she acknowledged that the only evidence of the incident were the photographs taken of Student Doe, which she said would be released to them. (Id. ¶ 100). One June 3, 2020, Lancaster spoke with Saffran. (Id. ¶ 101). Saffran relayed that she had firearms training from the Baltimore County Police but did not state how she identified the toys as guns. (Id.). Further, she stated to Lancaster and Student Doe's father that the photographs would be released to them, although she refused to turn them over herself. (Id.).

Between June 12 and 13, 2020, “Fox 45 Baltimore (‘WBFF') ran a follow-up story about the Occurrence at least 4 times.” (Id. ¶ 104). Prior to the follow-up story, “Officer Jennifer Peach of the Baltimore County Police Department delivered a falsified report of the incident to Fox 45 with the knowledge that the report was false . . . and had nothing to do with the June 1, 2020, incident.” (Id. ¶ 105). Although no report regarding the incident was ever completed, Peach shared a falsified report with Fox 45 Baltimore which stated: “Police report: suspicious condition. Principal (she) received e-mail from teacher about child playing with toy gun during virtual class. Teacher told child he would be removed from class if he would not stop playing with it.” (Id. ¶¶ 106-07). According to Plaintiffs, however, “the principal was male, there was a verbal report (not an e-mail), and no one (even falsely) accused Student Doe of playing with a toy gun. Finally, Student Doe was unaware that there was any issue at all - let alone a teach[er] telling him that he would be removed from class for playing with a gun.” (Id. ¶ 108). Officer Peach appeared on camera at Fox 45 Baltimore “after the description of the false report [and] attempt[ed] to justify the police presence at the Lancaster home on June 1, 2020” and provided a false statement without acknowledging that the “underlying basis of her justification was based on falsehoods.” (Id. ¶ 109).

To gather additional information about these events, Plaintiffs sent a request to Board and Police Defendants under the Maryland Public Information Act, Md. Code Ann., Gen. Prov. § 4-101 et seq. (“PIA”). (Id. ¶ 131). Defendants denied Plaintiff's request. (Id. ¶¶ 132-45). Plaintiffs assert that due to the events underlying this lawsuit, they “still experience the emotional and psychological effects of the betrayal by the School System, the infringement upon their privacy and Constitutional Rights, and the reputational harm, harm to standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish caused by the defamatory statements casting them as liars and criminals.” (Id. ¶ 146).

B. Procedural History

...