Wilson v. Detweiler

DARRYL T. WILSON Plaintiff, v. OFFICER ENOS DETWEILER, et al. Defendants

CIVIL No. BPG-20-869

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 28, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Beth P. Gesner, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

The above-referenced case was referred to the undersigned for all proceedings with the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Local Rule 301.4. (ECF No. 19). Currently pending are defendants' Detweiler and Brown's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 28) plaintiff's Opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Opposition”) (ECF No. 31), and defendants' Detweiler and Brown's Reply to plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (“Reply”) (ECF No. 32). No hearing is deemed necessary. Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons discussed herein defendants' Detweiler and Brown's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court considers the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, which is the plaintiff in this case. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). On October 18, 2018, defendants Officer Enos Detweiler and Officer Jakob Brown (collectively, “the defendants”) arrived at 106 Mike Court, Elkton Maryland (“the house”), in response to a call from plaintiff's wife, Megan Wilson, about a physical altercation. (ECF No. 28-3 at 23:7-8). While en route to plaintiff's house, dispatch informed defendants over the radio that there was a protective order against plaintiff that needed to be served by the sheriff's department. (Id. at 24:18-20). Additionally, Officer Greg Brown informed defendants over the radio that Ms. Wilson had filed criminal charges for second degree assault against plaintiff and that there was a warrant for plaintiff's arrest. (Id. at 24:2225:10; ECF No. 28-4 at ¶¶ 4, 5).

When defendants arrived at the house, and after Ms. Wilson opened the door, defendants began their exchange with plaintiff by asking him to step outside. (ECF No. 31-11, def. Brown video, at 1:17).^[1] The events thereafter were captured on defendants' body-worn cameras and videos of the encounter have been provided to, and reviewed by, the court. Defendants entered the house, where plaintiff was in a room with Ms. Wilson and a young child. (Id.) For several minutes, plaintiff and defendants discussed the protective order that needed to be served on plaintiff and how it would affect plaintiff's ability to stay in the house. (Id. at 1:18-5:50). During this time, Ms. Wilson and the child left the room. (Id. at 2:27-2:32). Despite defendants' many requests that plaintiff leave the house, plaintiff refused to leave multiple times. (Id.) Defendants asked for plaintiff's identification several times, which plaintiff said was in his car. (Id. at 5:48). Defendants asked plaintiff to step outside and get his identification, and advised plaintiff that he would need to remain outside after retrieving his identification until he was served with the protective order. (Id. at 5:48-5:50).

After plaintiff stated that defendants could not keep him from re-entering the house, defendant Brown told plaintiff to turn around and put his hands behind his back. (Id. at 5:50-5:56). Plaintiff backed away from defendants with his arms in the air. (Id. at 5:53-5:56). Defendant Brown repeated the instruction for plaintiff to turn around and put his hands behind his back five more times as defendants approached plaintiff and attempted to place plaintiff's hands behind his back. (Id. at 5:56-6:18). Plaintiff continued to hold his arms up, asked defendants not to touch him, and subsequently asked why defendants were touching him and “being physical” with him. (Id.) Defendants said that plaintiff was “not complying.” (Id. at 6:17). Defendants stated twice more that plaintiff should put his hands behind his back, and plaintiff said that defendants were “attacking [him] in his own home.” (Id. at 6:18-6:36). At this point, the body-worn camera footage does not clearly depict what happens as both officers were moving during this time, but both defendants and plaintiff agree that defendant Brown grabbed plaintiff and took him to the ground with his head and chest pointed down. (ECF No. 28-5 at 71:18-19; ECF No. 31-4 at 44:15-16). Plaintiff maintains that he hit the side of his head on the floor. (ECF No. 31-4 at 16-17). This series of events took place over approximately one and a half minutes. (ECF No. 31-11, def. Brown video, at 6:36-8:02). Defendant Brown said that he took plaintiff to the ground “because [plaintiff] was pulling away from [defendants]. He wasn't giving us his hands and complying. And then at one point he was pushing or pulling us into the kitchen area.” (ECF No. 28-5 at 71:2172:2). Plaintiff testified that he “was trying to step away from [defendants]” and “pulling in the opposite direction.” (ECF No. 28-2 at 46:10-14, 47:2-8). When defendants' body-worn camera footage becomes clear again, it depicts plaintiff lying face-down on the floor with his hands handcuffed behind his back. (Id. at 8:03). Defendants then walked plaintiff outside to a police cruiser. (Id. at 9:00-9:25).

Plaintiff was not informed of the warrant for his arrest prior to being arrested, but defendants mentioned the warrant multiple times after the arrest, once before plaintiff and defendants walked outside to the police cruiser and twice after plaintiff and defendants were standing outside by the police cruiser. (Id. at 8:30, 10:00, 13:30). Defendant Brown transported plaintiff to the Elkton Police Department. (ECF No. 28-5 at 84:22-85:2). Plaintiff advised, after arriving at the police department, that he needed medical attention. (Id. at 85:6-7). Plaintiff received care at Union Hospital, where he reported that he received an x-ray and a CT scan, but did not recall being told he had any fractures or sprains.^[2] (Id. at 87:10-11; ECF No. 31-4 at 78:715). Plaintiff “did [his] own physical therapy directly after, ” but did not see a doctor and begin professional physical therapy until June 2020, after this lawsuit was filed. (Id. at 80:1-13).

Defendant Detweiler filed three criminal charges against plaintiff subsequent to plaintiff's arrest: 1) “willfully failing to obey a reasonable and lawful order” pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-201(c)(3); 2) obstructing and hindering a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties; and 3) intentionally resisting a lawful arrest pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 9-408(b)(1). (ECF No. 28-8). Defendant Detweiler's Statement of Probable Cause contained a description of the defendants' interaction with plaintiff, defendants' attempt to place plaintiff under arrest, and plaintiff's resistance to that arrest. (Id. at 3-4). The Statement of Probable Cause did not mention that defendants did not inform plaintiff of the active warrant prior to plaintiff's arrest. On March 4, 2019, plaintiff had a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Cecil County and was acquitted on all three charges. (ECF No. 31-3).

Plaintiff filed this complaint on April 1, 2020, naming defendants Detweiler, Brown, the Town of Elkton, and the Elkton Police Department. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's complaint included 12 counts: Count 1 - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) for unlawful search and seizure against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 2 - § 1983 for malicious prosecution against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 3 - battery against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 4 - false arrest against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 5 - false imprisonment against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 6 - Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 24 against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 7 - Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 26 against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 8 - malicious prosecution against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 9 - abuse of process against defendants Detweiler and Brown; Count 10 - intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants Detweiler, Brown, Town of Elkton, and Elkton Police Department; Count 11 - negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against defendants Town of Elkton and Elkton Police Department; and Count 12 - indemnification against defendants Town of Elkton and Elkton Police Department. (Id.)

Defendants Detweiler and Brown filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal or for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 6), which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed Count 9 - abuse of process and Count 10 - intentional infliction of emotional distress without prejudice and dismissed Count 1 - § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure and Count 2 -§ 1983 for malicious prosecution against defendants Detweiler and Brown in their official capacities with prejudice. (ECF No. 14). Defendants Town of Elkton and the Elkton Police Department filed a Motion to Partially Dismiss or, Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) which the court granted, dismissing the counts against the Elkton Police Department with prejudice and the counts against the Town of Elkton without prejudice. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

Therefore the remaining defendants are Detweiler and Brown and the remaining counts are: Count 1 - § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure; Count 2 - § 1983 for malicious prosecution; Count 3 - battery under state law; Count 4 - false arrest under state law; Count 5 - false imprisonment under state law; Count 6 - claim for violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 24 protections against unlawful incarceration; Count 7 - claim for violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 26 protections against arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force; and...