ÿWPC[N )”Ò¶Á !©È½÷‰Èý±Ö£ä L3e¯ïøv1°¾ÍŠÏûÔüú`Ykù€ÏêÀ¶iû=/\yk€Ø<ø/a^“CL þa*ƒ»yAj›hɵœànjhÀàKZØw ¶ZìðSuÄêq b©ßf&SœA|‡½Z+ÏìqS¾3"@ez´Ø0)û-ØsKöò~‹'—–ß‘8ø92Òmy@*ÿ"“µ¥ÏˆÌÞFCôMïÞïŸ> l'ßÂRÍp¥ˆ—À;¯L¢4ï8PzŸ­v€}‡vYœŸR§6f¶"¡† «áfâùѯWöfÏ1bÂË싉¢Ržœµ¹+¼¾j?øÿ,ëÐyçã c™%:¯µà½¢ÍÐÛ„š®WÌÀþ ·Rs¬Z®'é±)$fZóŠNósx¡‹ÂŒm‘WG ¨ƒn0¦ÚmM:ºªÌ€)òqŠvk#R1JuW8õ`G©VüšÝqæO-˜¦èKˆö¹mzìœjßr©nðl›ËΦäú§á*"\‡üråý›p‡œd½²ÁâÈ —eðq«¯+Z +…!UN°"þ"#Æ# 0eä# ÆI$ 0 e%Æt% 0g:& ¡&"§&É&"Þ&"'""'"D'"f'"ˆ'"ª'"Ì' Aî'-‹( B¸( 0»Õ( 0)"* D+3* 0K^*Æ©*"o+"‘+"³+"Õ+"÷+",";,"],A,"À-"â-•3]™4›ö5P‘7má?NA5cA˜B°B°B<ÆBæD¨èDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDèDFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF~¢H; J˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(=4Ø$¡¡ÓÓÔ€,Š…‹XXÔÓ  Ó $ U% & ( D) v* r+ U, - v. rlzÁ(xG%€èj3|x. BÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÙÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€McGriff€admitted€that€the€bulletin€may€have€said€ð ðsevenðð€males,€but€that€he€heardÐ ° Ðð ðseveralðð€rather€than€ð ðseven.ðð€Catterton€recalled€the€message€as€ð ða€group€of€black€maleÏjuveniles€inside€the€vacant€dwelling€discharging€firearms.€€Thatððs€exactly€how€the€dispatcherÏput€it€to€me.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 6Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€At€oral€argument€in€this€Court,€counsel€for€petitioner€conceded€that€the€officers€hadÐ ° Ða€right€to€be€in€the€building.€€Although€that€concession€could€be€taken€as€negating€theÏcontention€that€the€officers€should€have€waited€for€additional€back„up,€we€shall€not€decideÏthe€issue€on€the€basis€of€such€a€concession,€because€the€issue€is€one€of€law€and€is€tooÏimportant€to€be€side„stepped€in€that€manner. 7Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€òòBroweróó€Court€remanded€the€case€for€precisely€that€determination.€€òòSee€¢Brower£Ð ° Ðv.€¢Inyo£€Countyóó,€884€F.2d€1316€(9th€Cir.€1989). ±Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€Petitioner€denied€hearing€any€announcement€by€the€police€of€their€presence€or€anyÐ ° Ðdirection€for€persons€in€the€apartment€to€reveal€themselves.€€He€also€claimed€that€theÏapartment€door€was€unlocked€when€he€and€his€friends€entered.€€Those€two€matters€were€inÏdispute.- ù- IÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€òòSee€Carter€v.€Buscheróó,€973€F.2d€1328€(7th€Cir.€1992);€òòJaffee€v.€Redmondóó,€51€F.3dÐ ° Ð1346€(7th€Cir.€1995),€òòaffððd€on€other€groundsóó,€518€U.S.€1,€116€S.€Ct.€1923,€135€L.€Ed.€2d€337Ð ° Ð(1996);€òòTom€v.€Voidaóó,€963€F.2d€952€(7th€Cir.€1992);€Plakas€v.€¢Drinski£,€19€F.3d€1143€(7thÐ ° ÐCir.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€820,€115€S.€Ct.€81,€130€L.€Ed.€2d€34€(1994). ‚Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€Officer€Catterton€testified€that€the€flashlight€was€an€18,000€candle€power€halogenÐ ° Ðflashlight.€€Officer€McGriff€agreed€that€the€flashlight€was€powerful€enough€to€illuminate€theÏkitchen€wall€from€a€distance€of€ten€feet. ¨Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ_Ôòò¢Batson£Ô_Ô€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€¢S.Ct£.€1712,€€90€Ô_Ô¢L.Ed£Ô_Ô.2d€69€(1986),€is€a€caseÐ ° Ðthat€prohibits€the€exercise€of€peremptory€strikes€on€a€racially€motivated€basis.ÌÌ€ mÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€In€light€of€our€conclusion€regarding€the€issue€framed,€we€need€not€consider€whetherÐ ° ÐOfficer€¢McGriff£€would€enjoy€public€official€immunity€even€if€the€jury€had€properly€foundÏhim€grossly€negligent.ô\  `&Times New Roman ¡Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔOur€cases€make€clear€that,€because€its€meaning€depends€upon€the€context€andÐ ° Ðcircumstances€in€which€it€is€used,€the€word€"jurisdiction"€is€equivocal.€òòMoore€v.€Ô_Ô¢McAllister£óóÔ_Ô,Ð ° Ð216€Md.€497,€507,€141€A.2d€176,€182€(1958).€€Indeed,€€"Juridically,€jurisdiction€refers€toÏtwo€quite€distinct€concepts:€€(Ô_Ô¢i£Ô_Ô)€the€power€of€a€court€to€render€a€valid€decree,€and€(ii)€theÏpropriety€of€granting€the€relief€sought."€€€òòId.óó€(citing€1€Pomeroy,€Equity€Jurisprudence€(5thÐ ° Ðed.1941),€ðððð€129-31);€€òòFirst€Federated€Commodity€Trust€Corp.€v.€Commissioner€ofÐ °  ÐSecurities€for€Marylandóó,€272€Md.€329,€334,€322€A.2d€539,€543€(1974).€€òòSeeóó€òòMaryland€Ô_ÔBdÔ_Ô.Ð °  Ðof€Nursing€v.€Ô_Ô¢Nechay£óóÔ_Ô,€347€Md.€396,€405,€701€A.2d€405,€410€(1997);€€Ô_Ôòò¢Kaouris£Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_Ô¢Kaouris£óóÔ_Ô,Ð °  Ð324€Md.€687,€708,€598€A.2d€1193,€1203€(1991).€€The€former€concept€involves€jurisdictionÏin€its€fundamental€sense.€òòSeeóó€Ô_Ôòò¢McAllister£óóÔ_Ô,€216€Md.€at€507,€141€A.2d€at€182.€€€€ !Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔIn€fairness,€it€should€be€noted€that€the€petitioner€did€not€cite€the€relevant€cases€¢orrgue£Ð ° Ðthem,€either. !Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€fairness,€it€should€be€noted€that€the€petitioner€did€not€cite€the€relevant€cases€orÐ ° Ðargue€them,€either.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  ØØ1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#-†2Quick 1.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€ÛA, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#.2Quick A.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Ûa, b, c,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 56#.¦4Quick a. ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€ÛH_ Ñ À ÑÑ À Ñ Ñ ý Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ4032 I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ d(k(2õ9$¤¤Ý ƒ4Ø!ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(Y3X”$££Ý ƒ4Ø!ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ 7Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›As€the€majority€opinion€notes,€at€5,€Petitioner€testified€that€he€heard€no€verbalÐ ° Ðcommands€given€by€the€officers€at€any€time€before€he€was€shot. Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñ Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›As€to€rebuttal€evidence,€this€Court€has€explained€that:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à[r]ebuttal€evidence€'includes€any€competent€evidence€which€explains,€or€is€aÏdirect€reply€to,€or€a€contradiction€of,€any€new€matter€that€has€been€brought€intoÏthe€case€by€the€defense.'€€€Our€cases€are€clear€that€the€question€of€whatÏconstitutes€rebuttal€testimony€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt,€and€that€the€court's€ruling€should€be€reversed€only€where€shown€to€beÏboth€'manifestly€wrong€and€substantially€injurious.'€€€Even€if€the€trial€courtÏclearly€rules€that€certain€testimony€is€not€rebuttal€evidence,€the€court€mayÏnonetheless€exercise€its€discretion€to€vary€the€order€of€proof€and€admit€it€asÏpart€of€the€case€in€chief€at€the€rebuttal€stage€in€order€to€meet€the€requirementsÏof€a€particular€case,€so€long€as€this€action€does€not€impair€the€ability€of€theÏdefendant€to€answer€and€otherwise€receive€a€fair€trial.€€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHuffington€v.€Stateóó,€295€Md.€1,€14,€452€A.2d€1211,€1217€(1982)(citing€òòState€v.€Heppleóó,€279Ð ° ÐMd.€265,€270„72,€368€A.2d€445,€448„49€(1977)).Ô‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔ ‹Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›I€agree€with€the€majority€opinion€(at€24,€n.5)€that€we€should€not€dispose€of€this€latterÐ ° Ðcontention€by€construing€a€statement€made€by€Petitioner's€counsel€at€oral€argument€beforeÏus€as€a€concession€of€abandonment€of€the€issue.€ SÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€trial€judge's€ruling€on€the€motion€in€limine€became€the€overruling€substantiveÐ ° Ðbasis€for€his€evidentiary€rulings€on€the€same€or€related€evidence€when€offered€at€trial. ‘Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›I€note€that€Respondent€explained€that€part€of€his€conduct€regarding€assumption€of€Ð ° Ðthe€ready€position,€with€his€weapon€drawn€and€aimed€at€ð ðcenter€mastðð€of€the€kitchen€closet,Ïas€an€example€of€his€training€at€the€Police€Academy. FÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›I€note€additionally€that€the€purpose€of€allowing€a€civil€suit€based€on€tort€allegations,Ð ° Ðas€compared€to€violations€of€oneððs€civil€rights,€differs.€€Ô‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔÔ#†ŠÞ‹XXÄs?#ÔInÔ‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔ€Ô#†ŠÞ‹XXÄsƒ#ÔòòAshton,€óó339€Md.€at€105,€660€A.2dÐ ° Ðat€464,€we€explained€the€distinction€and€why€public€official€immunity€is€accorded€underÏsome€tort€claims,€but€not€for€violations€of€the€Constitution€of€Maryland:Ì€Ìà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€purpose€of€a€negligence€or€other€ordinary€tort€actionÏis€not€specifically€to€protect€individuals€against€governmentÏofficials€or€to€restrain€government€officials.€€The€purpose€ofÏthese€actions€is€to€protect€one€individual€against€anotherÏindividual,€to€give€one€person€a€remedy€when€he€is€wrongfullyÏinjured€by€another€person.€€Issues€of€governmental€immunity€inÏthis€context€concern€whether,€and€to€what€extent,€as€a€policyÏmatter,€a€governmental€official€or€entity€is€to€be€treated€like€anÏordinary€private€party.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€constitutional€provisions€like€ArticlesÏ24€or€26€of€the€Maryland€Declaration€of€Rights,€or€Article€III,Ïðð€40,€of€the€Maryland€Constitution,€are€specifically€designed€toÏprotect€citizens€against€certain€types€of€unlawful€acts€byÏgovernment€officials.€€To€accord€immunity€to€the€responsibleÏgovernment€officials,€and€leave€an€individual€remediless€whenÏhis€constitutional€rights€are€violated,€would€be€inconsistent€withÏthe€purpose€of€the€constitutional€provisions.€€It€would€also€...Ïlargely€render€nugatory€the€cause€of€action€for€violation€ofÏconstitutional€rights€recognized€in€[Maryland].Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  à(citing€òòCleaóó,€312€Md.€at€684„85,€541€A.2d€at€1314)(other€citations€and€internalÐ ° Ðquotations€omitted).€€ÌÔ‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔ cÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›CJP€ðð€5„605€is€inapplicable€on€its€face€to€Respondent€as€he€was€acting€at€the€timeÐ ° Ðalleged€in€Petitioner's€Complaint€within€the€boundaries€of€Baltimore.€Ô‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔ Ñ ý Ñ +Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€€The€parties€to€the€instant€suit€have€not€briefed€or€argued€the€application€of€CJP€ððÐ ° Ð5„522€(b).šÔ‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔ ØØ Ñ À Ñ 2Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›ð ðMcGriff€admitted€that€the€bulletin€may€have€'seven'€males,€but€that€heard€ð ðseveralððÐ ° Ðrather€than€'seven'.ðð€€Maj.€op.€at€3,€n.1. ÜÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Petitioner€was€hospitalized€twenty„eight€days€due€to€the€wound€inflicted. žÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›As€explained€by€the€majority,€at€13„14,€the€trial€judge's€evidentiary€ruling€at€thisÐ ° Ðpoint€in€the€trial€was€correct€for€at€least€one€of€the€reasons€given,€i.e.,€the€questions€wentÏbeyond€the€scope€of€Respondent's€direct€examination€of€Sgt.€Wilson. Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€other€ground€was€that€the€proffered€testimony€would€violate€the€court's€rulingÐ ° Ðon€the€motion€in€limine.€€The€majority€is€to€be€commended,€at€the€least,€for€not€sweeping€theÏimportant€issues€raised€by€Petitioner€under€the€rug€of€the€purely€technical€evidentiary€basesÐ ° U Ðfor€the€trial€court's€rulings.€€òòSee€alsoóó,€n.7€infra. tÝ ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›This€reading€of€òòGrahamóó€largely€formulated€Respondentððs€argument€that€the€policeÐ ° Ðguidelines€in€this€case€are€per€se€inadmissible.€€I€shall€discuss€this€òòinfraóó.€Ô‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔ 1Ý ƒ/õ9$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€òòDeeringóó€Court€may€have€subsequently€clarified€the€holding€of€òòCarteróó.€òòSee€óó183Ð ° ÐF.3d€at€650.€€òòDeeringóó€explains:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€òòCarteróó,€.€.€.€,€we€indicated€that€the€proper€inquiry€is€whetherÐ ° Ðthe€force€used€was€reasonable€in€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€not€ð ðwhether€it€was€reasonable€for€the€police€toÏcreate€the€circumstances.ðð€€At€1331.€€Reading€òòCarteróó€in€theÐ °  Ðcontext€of€other€cases,€however,€we€think€the€most€that€can€beÏsaid,€for€purposes€of€our€case,€is€that€òòCarteróó€reinforces€theÐ °  Ðconcept,€which€we€will€discuss€later,€that€the€deputies€did€notÏneed€to€consider€all€feasible€alternatives€in€serving€the€warrantÏon€Deering.€€But€that€is€not€the€same€as€saying€that€any€specificÏalternative€is€per€se€reasonable.€€Ô‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔÝ ƒ4Ø!ÝÓÓÔ€ŠÞ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›ØØÓÓÑ  ÑÌòò¢Taurrance£€Richardson€v.€Horace€¢McGriff£óóÐ ° ÐNo.€142,€Sept.€Term,€1999ÌÌ(1)à0  àIn€action€based€on€excessive€force€used€by€police€officer,€reasonableness€of€the€forceÐ ° Ðused€must€be€judged€from€perspective€of€reasonable€officer€on€the€scene€facing€theÏcircumstances€presented€at€the€time€the€force€was€used;€jury€not€permitted€to€second„¼guess€reasonableness€of€antecedent€conduct€remote€from€the€confrontation.Ð (#(# ÐÌ(2)à0  àòòBatsonóó€challenge€waived€unless€made€before€jury€is€sworn.Ð #° (#(# #ÐÓjÓÑ„°ÑÑX°ÑÒX°ÒØØÑ8€ÄsXXd슊d8ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÔ‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔCircuit€Court€for€Baltimore€CityÐ „ ÐCase€#97010042/CL222114Ô#†ŠÞ‹XXÄs‡#ÔÐ pì ÐÒͰÒÔ‡XÄsX‹ŠÞÔà@''-&àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€MARYLANDÔ#†ŠÞ‹XXÄs8#ԈР\Ø ÐÌà0 % àà Í àà@ÅÅ;&%€%%€%àóóNo.€142ˆÐ HÄ ÐÌà@??4&àSeptember€Term,€1999ˆÌ______________________________________ÌÌÌà@§§4&àTAURRANCE€RICHARDSONˆÌÌÌà@ÔÔ=&àv.ˆÌÌÌà@ii7&àHORACE€¢MCGRIFF£ˆÌÌ______________________________________ÌÌà % àBell,€C.J.Ìà % à¢Eldridge£Ìñ ñà % àñ ññ ñ€€€€€€€€€ñ ñ*ñ ñ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ñ ñ¢Rodowsky£ñ ñ£££££££££ñ ñÌà % àRakerÌà % àWilnerÌà % àCathellÌà % àHarrell,ÌÌà % àà } à€€€JJ.Ì______________________________________ÌÌà@ww4&àOpinion€by€Wilner,€J.ˆÌà@¶¶(&àEldridge€and€Harrell,€JJ.,€concur€in€part€andˆÌà@¦¦6&àdissent€in€part;ˆÌà@4&àBell,€C.J.,€dissentsˆÌ______________________________________ÌÌà % àFiled:ñ! ñ€€€November€15ñ! ññ" ññ! ñ€ñ! ññ" ññ# ñ,€œ2000ñ# ññ" ññ! ñ2000ñ! ññ" ñ›ÌÌ*Rodowsky,€J.,€now€retired,€participated€in€theÏhearing€and€conference€of€this€case€while€an€activeÏmember€of€thisñ ñ€ñ ññ ñ€ñ ññ ñcñ ññ ñCñ ñourt;€after€being€recalledÏpursuant€to€the€Constitution,€Article€IV,€SectionÏ3A,€he€also€participated€in€the€decision€andÏadoption€of€this€opinion.Ð H/Ä+,¢ Ðñ ñÐ  „ Ðñ ñÒ°ÍÒѰ„ÑѰXÑÒ°XÒÑ  ÑÓÓÑ€ÑÑ8€ÄsŠXdìXXdì8Ñà  àOn€the€evening€of€January€12,€1996,€petitioner€and€six€of€his€friends€broke€into€aÐ ° Ðvacant€apartment€at€the€Middle€Branch€Apartment€development€in€Baltimore€City€and€hadÏa€party.€€Someone€reported€the€intrusion€to€the€police,€as€a€result€of€which€Officers€McGriffÏand€Catterton€responded.€€They€entered€the€then„darkened€apartment€and€began€to€searchÏit.€€We€shall€describe€the€ensuing€events€in€greater€detail€below,€but€suffice€it€to€say€here€thatÏpetitioner€hid€in€a€kitchen€closet,€that€he€refused€to€come€out€when€the€police€announcedÏtheir€presence€and€called€upon€him€to€do€so,€that€he€was€holding€a€vacuum€cleaner€pipe€inÏhis€hand,€that€it€was€extremely€dark€in€the€kitchen,€that€when€Officer€Catterton€quicklyÏopened€the€closet€and€Officer€McGriff€shined€his€flashlight€inside,€McGriff€saw€whatÏappeared€to€him€to€be€a€man€holding€a€large€weapon€and€lowering€it€into€firing€position,€andÏthat,€in€self„defense,€he€fired€at€petitioner€and€severely€wounded€him.Ìà  àPetitioner€sued€Officers€McGriff€and€Catterton,€the€City€of€Baltimore,€the€State€ofÏMaryland,€and€the€Police€Commissioner€of€Baltimore€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€BaltimoreÏCity,€alleging€the€violation€of€his€rights€under€Articles€24€and€26€of€the€MarylandÏDeclaration€of€Rights€and€several€common€law€torts.€€After€a€winnowing€both€before€andÏduring€trial,€with€which€we€are€no€longer€concerned,€the€claims€against€Officer€McGriff€forÏbattery,€gross€negligence,€and€violation€of€rights€under€Article€26€were€submitted€to€the€jury,Ïwhich€returned€a€verdict€in€the€officerððs€favor.€€Petitioner€appealed€the€judgment€entered€onÏthose€claims,€and,€in€an€unreported€opinion,€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€affirmed.€€WeÏgranted€òòcertiorarióó€to€consider€whether€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€precluding€petitioner€fromÐ °*&& Ðintroducing€evidence€of€certain€Baltimore€City€police€regulations,€guidelines,€and€trainingÐ °,((¢ Ðprocedures€pertaining€to€the€use€of€deadly€force,€(2)€a€supplemental€instruction€to€the€juryÏimproperly€precluded€the€jury€from€considering€the€officerððs€actions€prior€to€the€opening€ofÏthe€closet€door,€(3)€the€court€erred€in€denying€petitioner€the€opportunity€to€examine€a€policeÏsergeant€concerning€police€training€and€reasonable€alternatives€to€Officer€McGriffððs€actions,Ïand€(4)€the€court€erred€in€failing€to€sustain€petitionerððs€objection,€under€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,Ð °  Ð476€U.S.€79,€106€S.€Ct.€1712,€90€L.€Ed.€2d€69€(1986),€to€the€striking€of€certain€African„¼Americans€from€the€jury.€€Finding€no€error,€we€shall€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏSpecial€Appeals.ÌÌà@èè%ìàòòBACKGROUNDóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àAlthough€the€parties€disagree€on€some€of€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€it,€most€ofÏthe€evidence€presented€was€not€in€dispute.€€We€shall€recite€that€evidence€as€presented€andÏnote€those€few€instances€where€there€was€a€significant€dispute.Ìà  àPetitioner€and€his€friends,€all€of€whom€lived€in€the€immediate€vicinity,€gathered€in€theÏapartment€around€9:00€in€the€evening.€€Although€petitioner€claimed€they€entered€theÏapartment€to€get€warm€ð"ð€an€objective€that€could€have€been€achieved€had€they€simply€goneÏto€their€respective€homes€ð"ð€their€apparent€purpose€was€to€smoke€marijuana€which,Ïaccording€to€petitioner,€all€save€himself€proceeded€to€do.€€Petitioner€was€20;€the€twoÏyoungest€members€of€the€group€were€13.€€The€group€congregated€in€the€kitchen.€€After€about€Ð  °($$ Ðan€hour,€one€of€the€boys€noticed€the€police€outside,€and€everyone€panicked.€€After€turningÏout€the€kitchen€light,€petitioner€and€three€of€his€friends€hid€in€a€folding„door€closet,Ïpetitioner€taking€with€him€a€vacuum€cleaner€pipe€with€which€he€had€been€playing.€€DuringÏhis€recitation€of€the€event,€petitioner€never€mentioned€any€shots€having€been€fired€from€theÏapartment.Ìà  àMcGriff€stated€that,€about€10:00,€he€received€a€call€for€ð ðseveral€males,€thatððs€the€wayÏI€heard€it,€in€a€vacant€apartment,€shots€fired.ðð׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€went€to€the€rear€of€the€building€andÐ °  Ðobserved€ð ðan€open,€vacant€apartment,€which€was€dark€and,€you€know,€the€door€was€ajar.ðð€ÏHe€did€not€enter€the€building€at€that€point,€but€instead€called€for€ð ðanother€unit€with€aÏflashlight,ðð€and€waited€for€that€unit€ð"ð€Officer€Catterton€ð"ð€to€arrive.€€McGriff€explainedÏthat€he€and€Catterton€were€ð ðside€partnersðð€who€often€responded€to€calls€together,€backingÏeach€other€up,€and€that€they€had€canvassed€many€vacant€apartments€together.€€CattertonÏconfirmed€that€he€and€McGriff€were€familiar€with€the€apartment€development€and€had,€onÏa€number€of€occasions,€discovered€vacant€apartments€there€that€had€been€broken€into.€ÏCatterton€said€that€homeless€persons€often€broke€into€the€vacant€apartments,€and€that€theÏusual€procedure€in€investigating€apparent€break„ins€was€to€enter€the€apartment,€make€certainÏthat€no€one€was€there,€and€ensure€that€the€plumbing€was€intact.€€Scrappers,€he€said,€wouldÐ °$  Ðcome€in€and€steal€the€copper€pipes.€€If€everything€was€in€order,€they€would€notify€theÏmanagement€that€the€apartment€had€been€broken€into€and€keep€an€eye€on€it€for€a€few€days.Ìà  àThe€officers€first€searched€an€upper€apartment€and€then€turned€their€attention€toÏApartment€T,€at€the€terrace€level.€€McGriff€noticed€that€the€door€was€ajar€and€that€it€hadÏsigns€of€forced€entry.€€He€said€that,€at€first,€he€and€Catterton€thought€this€was€an€ð ðaverageððÏcall€that€was€probably€false,€but€nonetheless€required€investigation.€€Catterton€said,€however,Ïthat,€even€in€the€vestibule,€he€could€smell€the€odor€of€marijuana€that€seemed€to€be€comingÏfrom€Apartment€T,€and€he€suggested€to€McGriff€that€that€apartment€be€checked.€€CattertonÏadded€that€his€intent€was€not€so€much€to€confront€armed€individuals€as€to€determine€whetherÏthere€were€any€victims.€€It€had€been€his€experience€that€ð ðdischarging€calls€are€often€followedÏor€lead€to€the€discovery€of€a€victim.ððÌà  àMcGriff€said€that,€upon€entering€the€apartment,€he€announced€their€presence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° ÐCatterton€said€that€the€odor€of€marijuana€€grew€as€they€entered.€€He€also€confirmed€that€theyÏannounced€their€presence.€€Hearing€no€response,€they€began€a€systematic,€room„to„roomÏsearch,€in€Cattertonððs€words,€ð ðto€ascertain€if€there€was€someone€secreting€themselves€or€aÏvictim€possibly€inside€of€the€apartment.ðð€€Catterton€€said€that,€although€the€apartment€wasÏdark,€ð ðit€wasnððt€so€dark€that€you€couldnððt€see.€€There€was€enough€light€to€navigate€by,ððÐ °$  Ðnoting€that€some€street€light€entered€the€apartment€through€the€windows.€€It€was€stipulated,Ïhowever,€that,€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€the€kitchen€was€ð ðextremely€dark.ðð€€CattertonÏexplained€that€they€did€not€look€for€light€switches€because,€in€his€experience,€it€was€betterÏnot€to€change€the€environment.€€The€eyes,€he€said,€become€accustomed€to€the€dark,€but€whenÏlights€are€turned€on,€ð ðyouððre€blinded€temporarily.€.€.€.€If€it€takes€two€seconds€or€ten€secondsÏfor€your€eyes€to€adjust,€itððs€detrimental.ðð€€At€first,€McGriff€said,€they€did€not€even€enter€theÏkitchen,€but€merely€ð ðflashlightedðð€it.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Seeing€nothing,€they€turned€to€leave,€but€then€heardÐ °  Ða€ð ðbumpðð€come€from€the€room.€€Petitioner€confirmed€that€there€was€some€kind€of€ð ðboomððÏbefore€the€officers€entered€the€kitchen.Ìà  àUpon€hearing€the€ð ðbump,ðð€McGriff€and€Catterton€walked€inside€the€kitchen€andÏnoted€that€there€was€no€place,€other€than€the€closet,€for€a€person€to€hide.€€McGriff€obtainedÏthe€flashlight€from€Catterton,€who€moved€out€of€the€line€of€possible€fire€and€put€his€hand€atÏthe€top€of€where€the€closet€door€folded,€preparing€to€pull€the€door€open.€€McGriff€got€intoÏa€position€where€he€would€be€able€to€see€into€the€closet€when€the€door€was€opened,€drew€hisÏpistol€and€aimed€it€at€the€center€mast€of€the€closet.€€He€then€announced:€ð ðAll€right.€€WeððreÏgetting€ready€to€open€the€closet.€€Police.€€Come€on€out.ðð€€Although€petitioner€denied€hearingÏany€such€warning,€Catterton€confirmed€the€second€warning,€recalling€that€ð ðwe€againÏannounced€our€presence€and€said,€ððCome€out€of€the€closet.ðððð€€Hearing€no€response,€CattertonÐ °&"" Ðpulled€the€closet€door€open,€and,€according€to€McGriff,€ð ðimmediately€my€flashlight€struckÏthe€light€of€the€object,€which€I€thought€was€a€barrel€of€a€big€weapon.€€And€all€I€saw€was€aÏglimmer,€and€what€I€perceived€as€someone€coming€towards€me,€and€I€fired.ðð€€He€continued,Ïœð ð[a]nd›€the€weapon€fell€to€the€ground.€€I€took€my€right€foot€and€I€slid€the€weapon€behind€me,Ïand€I€just€stood€there€covering€the€closet.€€I€couldnððt€speak€or€nothing.€€I€was€just€ð"ð€heartÏstopped€and€everything.€€I€was€totally€afraid.ðð€€Catterton€said€that€he€did€not€know€whetherÏMcGriff€was€the€one€who€was€shot€ð"ð€that€he€was€rigid,€his€eyes€being€ð ðas€big€as€paperÏplates.ðð€€McGriff€added€later:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð[¢M]y£€flashlight€immediately€silhouetted€off€of€the€pipe,€and€IÏshot.€€But€at€the€time€I€didnððt€know€it€was€a€pipe.€€It€looked,€inÏthis€position,€it€looked€like€somebody€was€grasping€a€weapon,Ïand€I€thought€he€was€getting€ready€to€lower€it€and€fire€upon€me.€ÏAnd€thatððs€when€I€shot.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àÌà@ ìàòòCONSIDERATION€OF€ANTECEDENT€EVENTSˆÐ ° Ðà  àóóThe€first€three€issues€raised€by€petitioner€may€be€considered€together.€€As€part€of€hisÐ ° Ðcontention€that€Officer€McGriff€acted€negligently€and€used€unnecessary,€unreasonable,€andÏexcessive€force,€petitioner€urged€that€McGriff€was€remiss€in€entering€the€apartment€late€atÏnight,€in€the€dark,€facing€the€prospect€of€seven€armed€men,€without€additional€back„up,€andÏthat€he€was€also€remiss€in€not€turning€on€the€kitchen€light€before€having€Catterton€open€theÏcloset.€€In€support€of€those€positions,€he€desired€to€offer€into€evidence€certain€guidelines€andÏregulations€of€the€Baltimore€City€Police€Department€and€the€testimony€of€Sergeant€¢Laron£Ð °*&& ÐWilson,€and€he€objected€to€a€supplemental€instruction€to€the€jury€directing€it€not€to€considerÏwhether€McGriff€should€have€called€for€additional€back„up€or€turned€on€the€kitchen€lights.€ÏThe€evidence€was€excluded€and€the€instruction€was€given.€€We€shall€recite€the€relevantÏprocedural€background€with€respect€to€each€of€those€matters,€but€they€all€hinge€on€whetherÏit€was€appropriate€for€the€jury€to€be€allowed,€essentially,€to€second„guess€the€decisions€byÏOfficers€McGriff€and€Catterton€to€enter€and€search€the€apartment€alone€and€to€open€theÏcloset€door€without€first€turning€on€the€kitchen€light.€€The€òòBatsonóó€issue,€of€course,€is€entirelyÐ °  Ðseparate.Ìà  àTo€set€the€stage€for€the€discussion€of€the€first€three€issues,€it€is€important€to€keep€inÏmind€the€context.€€As€to€each€of€the€three€claims€against€Officer€McGriff€ð"ð€battery,€grossÏnegligence,€and€violation€of€rights€under€Article€26€of€the€Declaration€of€Rights€ð"ð€theÏcommon€issue€was€whether€Officer€McGriff€acted€reasonably€when€the€closet€door€wasÏopened€and€he€saw€what€he€regarded€as€an€armed€man€about€to€fire€on€him.€€There€was€noÏdispute€that,€by€shooting€petitioner,€McGriff€intentionally€caused€a€harmful€touching€andÏthus€a€battery.€€His€defense€was€self„defense€ð"ð€that€the€touching€was€not€unlawful€ð"ð€whichÏbrought€into€issue€whether€the€deadly€force€was€reasonable€and€used€only€as€a€last€resort.€ÏTo€prove€gross€negligence,€petitioner€was€required€to€prove€that€McGriffððs€conductÏamounted€to€a€reckless€and€wanton€disregard€of€his€rights,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€to€establish€a€violation€ofÐ °&"" Ðhis€rights€under€Article€26€ð"ð€the€State€counterpart€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€ð"ð€petitionerÏhad€to€show€that€McGriff€did€not€act€with€objective€reasonableness,€from€the€perspective€ofÏa€reasonable€officer€on€the€scene.€€Clearly,€by€shooting€petitioner,€McGriff€effected€aÏð ðseizureðð€of€him€for€purposes€of€Article€26.Ìà  àTo€make€the€requisite€showings,€petitioner€wanted€to€present€to€the€jury€and€have€theÏjury€determine€that€(1)€the€entire€confrontation€could€have€been€avoided€if€McGriff€andÏCatterton€had€not€entered€the€apartment€in€the€first€place€without€additional€back„up,€and€(2)ÏMcGriff€would€not€have€mistaken€the€unarmed€petitioner€for€an€armed€person€had€he€turnedÏon€the€kitchen€light€before€opening€the€closet.€€The€reasonableness€of€McGriffððs€conduct,Ïhe€contended,€had€to€take€into€account,€and€indeed€was€governed€by,€this€antecedent€conductÏwhich,€in€his€view,€violated€established€police€procedure.€€He€urges€that€the€evidence€soughtÏto€be€presented€established€the€violation€and€that€the€supplemental€instruction€precluded€theÏjury€from€considering€it.ÌÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òòòPolice€Guidelines€and€Regulationsó óóóˆÐ °  Ðà  àOfficer€McGriff€filed€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€to€exclude€ð ðany€evidence€relating€to€anyÐ °" Ðalleged€violations€of€police€procedure€preceding€the€arrest€of€Plaintiff,ðð€on€the€grounds€thatÏ(1)€such€evidence€was€not€probative€on€the€issue€of€whether€McGriff€used€unreasonableÏforce,€and€(2)€the€evidence€in€question€consisted€of€police€ð ðguidelines,ðð€not€commands€orÏinjunctions,€and€left€a€great€deal€of€discretion€in€the€officer.€€Essentially,€the€motion€wasÐ °*&& Ðbased€on€lack€of€relevance.€€The€documentary€evidence€sought€to€be€excluded€consisted€ofÏnine€pages€of€single„spaced€guidelines€issued€by€the€Baltimore€City€Police€Department€onÏthe€use€of€deadly€force€and€13€pages€of€single„spaced€rules€and€regulations€concerning€aÏwide€range€of€police€conduct€and€behavior.€€Most€of€the€rules€and€regulations,€which€coverÏthe€entire€gamut€of€police€conduct,€from€being€courteous€and€fulfilling€financial€obligations,Ïto€saluting€superior€officers,€to€refraining€from€publicly€criticizing€public€officials,€to€theÏcircumstances€when€gambling,€drinking,€and€smoking€is€not€permitted,€have€no€discernibleÏrelevance€to€any€issue€in€the€case.€€Even€the€guidelines€on€the€use€of€deadly€force€includeÏstandards€dealing€with€matters€wholly€inapposite€to€this€case€ð"ð€guidelines€on€shooting€òòatóóÐ ° Ðvehicles,€shooting€òòfromóó€vehicles,€killing€dangerous€animals,€and€chasing€suspects.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€rules€and€regulations€relating€to€firearms€require€police€officers€to€be€suitablyÏarmed€when€on€duty€and,€although€they€place€conditions€on€the€use€œof›€firearms€to€preventÏthe€escape€of€felons€and€prohibit€their€use€to€prevent€the€escape€of€misdemeanants,€theyÏexpressly€permit€officers€to€use€their€firearms€in€self„defense.€€The€guidelines€dealing€withÏdeadly€force€that€petitioner€particularly€stressed€provide,€in€pertinent€part,€that€officers€mayÏuse€deadly€force€ð ðonly€as€a€last€resort,ðð€that€they€ð ðshould€try€to€avoid€putting€themselves€inÏa€situation€where€they€have€no€option€but€to€use€deadly€force,ðð€that€they€should€ð ð[¢t]ry£€to€useÏother€less€deadly€means,ðð€and€that€they€should€ð ð[w]ait€for€[a]€sufficient€number€of€officersÏto€handle€¢situation[s£]€without€undue€force.ðð€€Consistent€with€the€rules€and€regulations,€theÏguidelines€expressly€allow€the€use€of€firearms€in€self„defense€and€state€that€ð ð[t]he€attackedÐ °*&& Ðofficer€is€the€person€who€has€to€evaluate€the€potential€seriousness€of€the€attack€andÏdetermine€an€appropriate€level€of€response,ðð€the€only€caveat€being€that€ð ð[t]he€evaluation€andÏresponse€must€be€reasonable€from€the€perspective€of€a€reasonable€police€officer€similarlyÏsituated.ððÌà  àMcGriff€argued€that,€in€the€context€sought€to€be€used€by€petitioner,€these€guidelinesÏand€regulations€were€irrelevant€and€misleading.€€He€suggested€that€petitioner€wanted€the€juryÏto€determine€that€McGriff€had€violated€some€of€those€guidelines€but€urged€that€petitionerÏhad€offered€no€evidence€that€any€were,€in€fact,€violated.€€In€that€regard,€he€noted€that€all€ofÏthe€guidelines€cited€by€petitioner€were€discretionary€ð ðand€left€to€the€officersðð€determinationÏon€the€scene€as€the€events€unfold.ðð€€McGriff€added€that€ð ðif€the€plaintiff€could€come€in€hereÏand€...€point€to€a€hard€and€fast€rule€where€youððre€supposed€to€do€A,€and€youððre€notÏsupposed€to€do€B,€C,€or€D,€thatððs€one€thing.€€But€when€he€comes€in€and€brings€in€guidelines,Ïwhich€give€a€range€of€things€that€the€police€officers€are€allowed€to€do€.€.€.€this€is€not€aÏviolation€of€a€hard€and€fast€rule.ððÌà  àNoting€the€statement€that€deadly€force€should€be€used€only€as€a€last€resort,€petitionerÏurged€that€he€be€permitted€to€elicit€from€McGriff€his€acceptance€of€that€proposition€and€ð ðthatÏhe€doesnððt€just€go€in,€like€a€cowboy,€and€shoot€first€and€ask€questions€later.ðð€€There€was,€ofÏcourse,€òònoóó€evidence€that€McGriff€did€any€such€thing.€€Petitioner€also€said€that€he€wanted€toÐ °&"" Ðcross„examine€McGriff€about€the€admonition€to€ð ðwait€for€a€sufficient€number€of€officers€toÏhandle€situations€without€undue€force.ðð€€At€no€time€during€the€hearing,€however,€didÐ °*&& Ðpetitioner€suggest€that€he€was€prepared€to€offer€any€evidence€(1)€that€additional€back„up€wasÏimmediately€available,€(2)€how€much€back„up€would€have€been€reasonable€in€light€of€theÏofficersðð€previous€experience€and€what€they€had€been€told€was€the€situation,€(3)€whether,Ïgiven€the€prospect€of€there€being€a€victim€in€the€building,€it€would€have€been€reasonable€forÏthe€two€officers€to€wait,€or€(4)€how€the€situation€in€the€kitchen€would€have€played€out€anyÏdifferently€if€additional€officers€had€joined€the€search€of€the€house.€€The€court€granted€theÏmotion€on€relevance€grounds,€noting€that€there€were€no€allegations€in€the€complaint€that€theÏsuit€was€based€on€a€violation€of€any€police€orders,€regulations,€or€guidelines.Ìà  àPetitioner€does€not€really€suggest€otherwise.€€None€of€the€actions€pled,€and€certainlyÏnone€that€were€submitted€to€the€jury,€were€based€on€the€violation€of€any€orders,€regulations,Ïor€guidelines.€€Instead,€at€least€as€the€argument€unfolded€in€this€Court,€petitioner€was€seekingÏto€use€this€material€only€as€a€basis€for€claiming€that€Officers€McGriff€and€Catterton€shouldÏnot€have€entered€the€apartment€in€the€first€place,€without€some€undefined€additional€back„up,Ïor,€once€there,€they€should€have€turned€on€the€kitchen€lights.€€The€excluded€evidence€wasÏthus€relevant,€if€at€all,€only€in€those€regards.ÌÌà@YYìàò òòòTestimony€by€Sergeant€Wilsonó óóóˆÐ °$  Ðà  àSergeant€Laron€Wilson,€Officer€McGriffððs€immediate€supervisor€on€the€night€of€theÏevent,€went€to€the€scene€upon€the€report€of€the€shooting.€€In€a€pre„trial€deposition,€he€recalledÏthat€in€a€post„event€critique€that€he€had€with€various€squad€members,€not€including€McGriff,Ð °*&& Ðhe€pointed€out€that€an€alternative€would€have€been€to€secure€the€scene€and€wait€forÏadditional€officers€and€a€canine€unit€and€that€ð ðin€light€of€the€fact€that€it€came€out€as€sevenÏpeople€inside€the€apartment€and€in€light€of€the€fact€that€it€came€out€shots€fired,€seven€againstÏtwo€is€not€very€good€odds.ðð€€When€asked€about€his€personal€experiences€in€similarÏsituations,€Sergeant€Wilson€said€that€ð ð[s]ometimes€Iððve€gone€forward.€€It€depends€on€whatÏthe€specific€situation€is,ðð€adding€that€ð ðthereððs€no€general€order€that€specifically€covers€this.ðð€ÏHe€continued,€in€his€deposition,€that€the€only€relevant€general€order€was€that€dealing€withÏthe€use€of€deadly€force€and€that€ð ðOfficer€McGriff€acted€in€accordance€with€the€generalÏorder.ððÌà  àSergeant€Wilsonððs€views€first€surfaced€at€trial€during€the€testimony€of€OfficerÏMcGriff.€€Petitioner€indicated€an€intent€to€ask€McGriff€on€cross„examination€whether€heÏagreed€with€Sergeant€Wilson€that€ð ðodds€of€seven€against€two€are€not€good€odds.ðð€€WilsonÏhad€not€yet€testified,€and€neither€his€deposition€nor€any€other€report€of€his€was€in€evidence.€ÏThe€court€sustained€an€objection€on€the€ground€of€hearsay.€€Wilson€was€later€called€as€a€factÏwitness€by€McGriff.€€The€substance€of€his€testimony€was€his€observation€of€McGriff,€at€theÏscene,€as€being€shaken,€and€recounting€McGriffððs€statement€to€him€that€McGriff€thought€theÏvacuum€cleaner€pipe€was€a€shotgun€and€ð ðI€thought€I€was€done.ðð€€Petitioner€indicated€anÏintent€to€cross„examine€Sergeant€Wilson€about€the€training€police€officers€get€with€regardÏto€the€use€of€deadly€force,€and€McGriff€objected.€€The€court€sustained€the€objection€on€theÏdual€grounds€that€such€an€examination€would€violate€the€òòin€limineóó€ruling€and€that€it€wouldÐ °*&& Ðexceed€the€scope€of€direct€examination.€€Petitioner€then€asked€Wilson€whether€McGriffððsÏactions€were€reasonable.€€In€defending€against€McGriffððs€objection,€petitioner€referencedÏWilsonððs€deposition€testimony€that€seven€against€two€is€not€good€odds€and€that€anÏalternative€would€have€been€to€secure€the€scene€and€await€additional€units.€€The€courtÏsustained€the€objection€on€the€ground€that€the€inquiry€exceeded€the€scope€of€directÏexamination.Ìà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€defense€case„in„chief,€which€ended€with€Sergeant€WilsonððsÏbrief€testimony,€petitioner€called€Wilson€as€a€rebuttal€witness€and€offered€to€the€court€thatÏWilson€would€testify€that€police€officers€are€trained€to€use€deadly€force€only€as€a€last€resortÏand€to€wait€for€a€sufficient€number€of€officers€to€handle€situations€without€undue€force.€€HeÏalso€indicated€an€intent€to€question€Sergeant€Wilson€as€to€whether€there€were€reasonableÏalternatives€ð ðbesides€entering€the€building€that€evening.ðð€€The€court€sustained€McGriffððsÏobjection€on€the€dual€grounds€that€the€proffered€testimony€would€violate€the€òòin€limineóó€rulingÐ ° Ðand€was€not€proper€rebuttal,€in€that€it€did€not€purport€or€serve€to€rebut€any€new€matterÏintroduced€by€the€defense.Ìà  àApart€from€whether€the€òòin€limineóó€ruling€was€correct,€which€we€shall€consider€below,Ð °" Ðthese€evidentiary€rulings€were€valid€on€the€more€technical€grounds€relied€upon€by€the€court.€ÏSergeant€Wilsonððs€out„of„court€statement,€recounted€in€his€deposition,€that€two€against€sevenÏis€not€good€odds€was€not€in€evidence€when€petitioner€sought€to€have€McGriff€confirm€itÏthrough€cross„examination;€petitioner€was€indirectly€offering€that€out„of„court€statement€forÐ °*&& Ðits€truth€which,€under€the€hearsay€rule,€he€is€not€permitted€to€do.€€The€proposed€cross„¼examination€of€Sergeant€Wilson€was€properly€disallowed€because€it€exceeded€the€scope€ofÏdirect€examination,€and€that€same€inquiry€was€impermissible€on€rebuttal€because€it€did€notÏtend€or€purport€to€rebut€any€new€matter€introduced€by€McGriff.€€Those€calls€were€within€theÏdiscretion€accorded€to€a€trial€court.€€òòSmallwood€v.€Stateóó,€320€Md.€300,€307,€577€A.2d€356,Ð °  Ð359€(1990);òò€Huffington€v.€Stateóó,€295€Md.€1,€14,€452€A.2d€1211,€1217€(1982).Ð °  ÐÌà@ ìàò òòòThe€Jury€Instructionóóó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àWithout€objection,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€an€officer€may€use€deadlyÏforce€when€the€officer€has€reason€to€believe€that€the€person€is€posing€a€significant€threat€ofÏdeath€or€serious€physical€injury€to€the€officer€or€others€and€that€ð ð[t]he€reasonableness€orÏexcessiveness€of€any€force€is€a€matter€to€be€determined€in€light€of€all€of€the€circumstancesÏas€they€appeared€to€the€officer€at€the€time.ðð€€The€court€added,€again€without€objection,€that€Ïreasonableness€was€to€be€judged€on€an€objective€basis€ð"ð€ð ðwhether€a€reasonable€policeÏofficer€under€the€same€or€similar€circumstances€could€have€believed€that€the€force€used€wasÏreasonable.ðð€€Those€instructions€essentially€parroted€the€police€guidelines€particularlyÏdesired€by€petitioner.€€Without€objection,€the€court€then€advised€that,€in€making€theÏdetermination€of€reasonableness,€the€€jury€ð ðmust€look€at€this€judgment€not€by€way€ofÏhindsight,€which€is€always€20/20,€but€rather€under€the€circumstances€as€they€existed€at€thatÏmoment.ððÐ °*&& Ðà  àWhen€the€jury€returned€with€a€question€whether,€in€determining€the€reasonablenessÏof€McGriffððs€actions,€it€was€restricted€ð ðto€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€instant€of€theÏshootingðð€or€could€consider€ð ðthe€general€circumstances€leading€up€to€the€shooting€(òòe.g.Ð ° Ðcalling€for€back„up,€lightsóó)ðð€(emphasis€added)€the€court€revisited€the€question.€€At€that€point,Ð °  Ðcounsel€for€petitioner€urged€that€the€jury€consider€ð ðall€circumstances,ðð€noting€that€the€juryÏð ðmay€conclude€that€Officer€McGriff€should€not€have€entered€the€apartment€building€in€theÏfirst€place€in€light€of€the€fact€that€he€and€Officer€Catterton€were€outnumbered€and€where€theÏseverity€of€the€call€was€at€issue.ðð€€The€court€rejected€that€notion€and€iterated€itsÏdetermination€that€the€jury€was€not€to€base€its€decision€on€hindsight€but€on€ð ðthe€situation€thatÏconfronted€the€officer€at€that€moment.ðð€€It€continued:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðAs€I€said,€you€donððt€use€hindsight.€€You€donððt€say,€well,€if€theyÏcalled€for€more€back„up€and€waited€for€more€back„up,€it€mightÏhave€been€different.€€You€donððt€say,€well,€if€they€had€put€onÏmore€light,€it€might€have€been€different.€€You€donððt€analyze€itÏthat€way.€€You€analyze€it€that€here€is€the€situation,€that€whateverÏthe€light€was,€the€light€was.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àÌà@aa&ìàò òòòAnalysisóóó óˆÐ °! Ðà  àThe€principal€issue€underlying€petitionerððs€complaint€about€the€òòin€limineóó€ruling€andÐ °# Ðthe€supplemental€instruction€is€whether,€in€determining€the€necessity€and€objectiveÏreasonableness€of€Officer€McGriffððs€conduct€when€the€closet€door€was€opened€by€OfficerÏCatterton,€€the€jury€should€have€been€permitted€to€consider€whether€the€officers€violated€anyÏpolice€guidelines€or€regulations€in€entering€the€apartment€without€additional€back„up€andÐ °+'' Ðin€failing€to€turn€on€the€kitchen€lights.€€The€question€is€thus€one€of€permissible€focus:€€is€theÏjury€limited€to€considering€only€the€circumstances€contemporaneous€with€the€ð ðseizureðð€ð"ð€Ïwhat€immediately€faced€McGriff€when€the€closet€was€opened€ð"ð€or€was€it€entitled€toÏconsider€as€well€the€reasonableness€of€the€officerððs€antecedent€conduct?Ìà  àThe€touchstone€of€the€analysis€is€òòGraham€v.€Connoróó,€490€U.S.€386,€109€S.€Ct.€1865,Ð °  Ð104€L.€Ed.€2d€443€(1989),€where€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€an€ð ðexcessive€forceðð€claimÏagainst€police€officers€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€œis›€to€be€judged€under€Fourth€AmendmentÏjurisprudence,€rather€than€under€notions€of€substantive€due€process.€€The€inquiry€thusÏfocuses€on€the€objective€reasonableness€of€the€officerððs€conduct.€€Because,€the€Court€held,Ïthe€test€of€reasonableness€ð ðis€not€capable€of€precise€definition€or€mechanical€application,ððÏits€proper€application€ð ðrequires€careful€attention€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€eachÏparticular€case.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€396,€109€S.€Ct.€at€1872,€104€L.€Ed.€2d€at€455,€quoting€in€part€fromÐ ° ÐòòBell€v.€Wolfishóó,€441€U.S.€520,€559,€99€S.€Ct.1861,€1884,€60€L.€Ed.€2d€447,€481€(1979).€€InÐ ° Ðthat€regard,€and€with€uncanny€relevance€to€this€case,€the€Court€concluded€thatÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð[¢t]he£€ððreasonablenessðð€of€a€particular€use€of€force€must€beÏjudged€from€the€perspective€of€a€reasonable€officer€on€theÏscene,€rather€than€with€the€20/20€vision€of€hindsight.€.€.€.€TheÏcalculus€of€reasonableness€must€embody€allowance€for€the€factÏthat€police€officers€are€often€forced€to€make€split„secondÏjudgments€ð"ð€in€circumstances€that€are€tense,€uncertain,€andÏrapidly€evolving€ð"ð€about€the€amount€of€force€that€is€necessaryÏin€a€particular€situation.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€396„97,€109€S.€Ct.€at€1872,€104€L.€Ed.€2d€at€455„56.Ð °)%% ÐÌÓ¿wÓà  àThat€principle,€announced€in€the€context€of€a€ðð€1983€claim€for€the€violation€ofÐ °+'' ÐFederal€Constitutional€rights,€is€the€appropriate€one€to€apply€as€well€to€petitionerððs€claimÏunder€Article€26€of€the€Maryland€Declaration€of€Rights€and€for€the€common€law€claims€ofÏbattery€and€gross€negligence.€€We€have€long€recognized€that€Article€26€is€òòin€pari€materiaóóÐ ° Ðwith€the€Fourth€Amendment€and€that€decisions€of€the€Supreme€Court€interpreting€theÏFederal€right€are€entitled€to€great€respect€in€construing€the€State€counterpart.€€òòSee€GadsonÐ °  Ðv.€Stateóó,€341€Md.€1,€8€n.3,€668€A.2d€22,€26€n.3€(1995);€òòDiPino€v.€Davisóó,€354€Md.€18,€43,€729Ð °  ÐA.2d€354,€367„68€(1999).€€In€any€event,€we€have€adopted€essentially€the€same€principle€asÏa€matter€of€State€common€law.€€In€òòBoyer€v.€Stateóó,€323€Md.€558,€589,€594€A.2d€121,€136Ð ° Ð(1991),€we€recognized€that€ð ð[a]€police€officerððs€conduct€should€be€judged€not€by€hindsightÏbut€should€be€viewed€in€light€of€how€a€reasonably€prudent€officer€would€respond€faced€withÏthe€same€difficult€emergency€situation.ððÌà  àIn€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€that€jurisprudence€also€controls€petitionerððs€actionsÏfor€battery€and€gross€negligence.€€œSelf„defense›€is€a€defense€to€the€common€law€tort€ofÏbattery.€€òòBaltimore€Transit€Co.€v.€Faulkneróó,€179€Md.€598,€600,€20€A.2d€485,€487€(1941)€(ð ðIfÐ ° Ðan€injury€was€done€by€a€defendant€in€justifiable€self„defense,€he€can€neither€be€punishedÏcriminally€nor€held€responsible€for€damages€in€a€civil€actionðð).€€It€is€therefore€the€guidepostÏagainst€which€petitionerððs€evidentiary€and€jury€instruction€claims€must€be€examined.Ìà  àThe€extent€to€which€a€jury,€in€an€excessive€force€case,€may€consider€events€antecedentÏto€the€Constitutional€seizure€of€the€plaintiff€has€arisen€in€a€number€of€cases,€in€a€number€ofÏdifferent€contexts.€€All€of€the€courts€look€to€òòGraham€v.€Connoróó€for€guidance,€but€there€isÐ °*&& Ðsome€disagreement€on€how€the€pronouncements€in€that€case€are€to€be€applied.€€To€someÏextent,€the€disagreement€may€be€more€the€product€of€context€and€factual€predicate€thanÏdoctrinal€split€and€thus€would€be€consistent€with€the€observation€in€òòGrahamóó€that€the€test€ofÐ ° Ðreasonableness€ð ðis€not€capable€of€precise€definition€or€mechanical€applicationðð€and€ð ðrequiresÏcareful€attention€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€particular€case.ðð€€òòGraham€v.€Connor,Ð °  Ðsupraóó,€490€U.S.€at€396,€109€S.€Ct.€at€1872,€104€L.€Ed.€2d€at€455.Ð °  Ðà  àThe€case€closest€in€point€is€òòSchulz€v.€Longóó,€44€F.3d€643€(8th€Cir.€1995),€where€theÐ °  Ðpolice€were€called€by€the€parents€of€the€plaintiff,€a€paranoid€schizophrenic€with€a€history€ofÏhospitalizations€for€mental€health€treatment,€to€deal€with€aberrant€behavior€by€the€plaintiff.€ÏWhen€the€two€officers€arrived€at€the€parentsðð€home,€the€plaintiff€was€in€the€basement,€whereÏhe€had€erected€a€barricade.€€The€officers€stood€at€the€landing€of€the€basement€steps€andÏspoke€with€the€plaintiff,€attempting€to€convince€him€to€go€to€the€hospital.€€At€some€point,Ïthe€plaintiff€picked€up€and,€for€a€while,€held€on€to,€a€hatchet€which,€when€he€laid€it€down,Ïthe€police€were€able€to€seize.€€That€caused€the€plaintiff€to€become€incensed,€and€he€beganÏthrowing€bricks€at€the€officers.€€When€that€assault€ceased,€one€officer€attempted€to€get€overÏthe€barricade€to€subdue€the€plaintiff,€believing€that€the€plaintiff€then€posed€a€threat€to€theirÏsafety.€€Unfortunately,€the€officer€became€entangled€in€the€barricade.€€The€plaintiff,€in€theÏmeanwhile,€obtained€a€double„bladed€axe€and€began€advancing€on€the€officer,€holding€theÏaxe€with€both€hands€in€a€cocked€position.€€The€other€officer,€with€gun€drawn,€ordered€theÏplaintiff€to€drop€the€axe,€and€when€the€plaintiff€continued€his€advance€and€was€within€sixÐ °*&& Ðto€eight€feet€of€the€trapped€officer,€his€partner€fired.Ìà  àThe€plaintiff€sued€the€officers€under€ðð€1983€and€complained€on€appeal€about€theÏgranting€of€a€motion€òòin€limineóó€excluding€evidence€that€(1)€the€officers,€by€their€own€actions,Ð ° Ðcreated€the€need€to€use€force,€(2)€they€should€have€responded€in€a€different€manner,€such€asÏwaiting€for€a€SWAT€team,€and€(3)€they€should€have€used€a€lesser€degree€of€force.€€The€trialÏcourt€excluded€the€evidence,€as€the€court€did€in€this€case,€on€the€ground€that€it€was€irrelevantÏto€whether€any€seizure€of€the€plaintiff€was€unreasonable,€and€the€appellate€court€found€noÏerror.€€As€to€the€evidence€questioning€whether€the€officers€had,€themselves,€created€the€needÏfor€deadly€force,€the€court,€quoting€from€òòGrahamóó,€made€clear€that€reasonableness€must€beÐ ° Ðjudged€from€the€perspective€of€a€reasonable€officer€òòon€the€sceneóó,€rather€than€with€20/20Ð ° Ðhindsight.€€The€òòGrahamóó€Courtððs€use€of€language€such€as€ð ðat€the€momentðð€and€ð ðsplit„secondÐ ° Ðjudgmentðð€were€ð ðstrong€indicia€that€the€reasonableness€inquiry€extends€only€to€those€factsÏknown€to€the€officer€at€the€precise€moment€the€officers€effectuate€the€seizure.ðð€€òòSchulz,Ð ° Ðsupraóó,€44€F.3d€at€648.€€Similarly,€responding€to€the€complaint€that€the€officers€should€haveÐ ° Ðproceeded€differently€and€used€lesser€force,€the€court€noted€that€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏð ðdoes€not€allow€this€type€of€ððMonday€morning€quarterbackðð€approach€because€it€onlyÏrequires€that€the€seizure€fall€within€a€range€of€objective€reasonableness.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€649.€€TheÐ °$  Ðcourt€held:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThe€Fourth€Amendment€inquiry€focuses€not€on€what€the€mostÏprudent€course€of€action€may€have€been€or€whether€there€wereÏother€alternatives€available,€but€instead€whether€the€seizureÏactually€effectuated€falls€within€a€range€of€conduct€which€isÐ °+'' Ðobjectively€ððreasonableðð€under€the€Fourth€Amendment.€ÏAlternative€measures€which€20/20€hindsight€reveal€to€be€lessÏintrusive€(or€more€prudent),€such€as€waiting€for€a€supervisor€orÏthe€SWAT€team,€are€simply€not€relevant€to€the€reasonablenessÏinquiry.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óóÐ °  ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€U.S.€Courts€of€Appeal€for€the€Second,€Fourth,€Sixth,€Seventh,€Ninth,€and€TenthÏCircuits€have€reached€similar€conclusions,€as€have€appellate€courts€in€South€Dakota€andÏWashington.€€In€òòGreenidge€v.€Ruffinóó,€927€F.2d€789€(4th€Cir.€1991),€a€police€officer€workingÐ °  Ðon€the€vice€squad€observed€a€woman€believed€by€her€to€be€a€prostitute€enter€a€car€and,€onÏfurther€surveillance,€witnessed€an€unlawful€sex€act€being€committed€in€the€car.€€The€officerÏopened€the€car€door,€identified€herself,€and€ordered€the€passengers€to€place€their€hands€inÏview.€€When€neither€complied,€she€drew€her€weapon€and€repeated€the€order.€€At€that€point,Ïthe€male€passenger€reached€behind€the€seat€for€a€long€cylindrical€object,€which€the€officerÏbelieved€to€be€a€shotgun,€and€she€shot€the€man.€€The€object€was,€in€fact,€a€woodenÏnightstick.€€The€passenger€sued€under€ðð€1983,€and,€on€appeal€from€an€unfavorable€judgment,Ïcomplained€about€the€exclusion€of€evidence€that€the€officerððs€failure€to€employ€back„up€andÏto€use€a€flashlight€violated€police€procedure.€€As€here,€he€urged€that€the€excluded€evidenceÏwas€probative€of€the€reasonableness€inquiry€as€it€showed€that€the€officer€recklessly€createdÏthe€dangerous€situation.Ìà  àThe€Fourth€Circuit€court€read€òòGrahamóó€as€contradicting€the€plaintiffððs€claim€that,€inÐ °($$ Ðdetermining€reasonableness,€ð ðthe€chain€of€events€ought€to€be€traced€backward€to€theÐ °*&& Ðofficerððs€misconduct€of€failing€to€comply€with€the€standard€police€procedures€for€night„timeÏprostitution€arrests,ðð€concluding€instead€that€ð ðevents€which€occurred€before€Officer€RuffinÏopened€the€car€door€and€identified€herself€to€the€passengers€are€not€probative€of€theÏreasonableness€of€Ruffinððs€decision€to€fire€the€shot,ðð€that€those€events€ð ðare€not€relevant€andÏare€inadmissible.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€792.€€The€court€adopted€the€then„existing€view€of€the€SeventhÐ °  ÐCircuit€court€that€liability€under€an€objective€reasonableness€standard€must€be€determinedÏexclusively€upon€an€examination€and€weighing€of€the€information€that€the€officer€possessedÏimmediately€prior€to€and€at€the€moment€she€fired€the€shot,€citing€òòFord€v.€Childersóó,€855€F.2dÐ ° Ð1271€(7th€Cir.€1988)€and€òòSherrod€v.€Berryóó,€856€F.2d€802€(7th€Cir.€1988)€(en€banc).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÐ ° ÐòòElliott€v.€Leavittóó,€99€F.3d€640€(4th€Cir.€1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€521€U.S.€1120,€117€S.€Ct.€2512,Ð ° Ð138€L.€Ed.€2d€1015€(1997),€confirming€òò¢Greenidge£óó.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Second€Circuit€affirmed€the€rejection€of€evidence€inÏsupport€of€a€hindsight€analysis€in€òòSalim€v.€Proulxóó,€93€F.3d€86€(2d€Cir.€1996).€€The€officer,Ð ° Ðwhile€attempting€to€arrest€a€14„year„old€juvenile€delinquent€who€had€escaped€from€a€trainingÏfacility,€was€attacked€by€a€group€of€the€delinquentððs€friends€and€family.€€As€the€officer€andÏthe€delinquent€tussled€on€the€ground,€the€delinquent€removed€the€officerððs€weapon€and€wasÏholding€the€barrel.€€Fearful€that€the€youth€would€gain€control€of€the€gun,€the€officer€fired,Ïkilling€the€child.€€Rejecting€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€that€the€officer€created€the€situation€inÏwhich€the€use€of€deadly€force€became€necessary€by€violating€various€police€procedures,€suchÏas€failing€to€carry€a€radio€or€call€for€back„up€and€failing€to€disengage€when€attacked€by€theÐ °*&& Ðfriends€and€family€members,€the€court€held€that€the€officerððs€actions€leading€up€to€theÏshooting€were€ð ðirrelevant€to€the€objective€reasonableness€of€his€conduct€at€the€moment€heÏdecided€to€employ€deadly€forceðð€and€that€the€reasonableness€inquiry€ð ðdepends€only€upon€theÏofficerððs€knowledge€of€circumstances€immediately€prior€to€and€at€the€moment€he€decidedÏto€employ€deadly€force.ððÌà  àIn€òòScott€v.€Henrichóó,€39€F.3d€912€(9th€Cir.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€515€U.S.€1159,€115€S.Ð °  ÐCt.€2612,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€855€(1995),€officers,€responding€to€a€report€of€shots€being€fired€atÏa€motel,€banged€on€the€door€of€the€appropriate€unit€and€announced€their€presence.€€WhenÏthe€door€opened,€the€officers€saw€a€man€holding€a€gun,€which€he€pointed€at€them.€€One€ofÏthe€officers€fired€and€killed€the€man.€€On€appeal€from€a€summary€judgment€for€the€officers,Ïthe€plaintiff€contended€that,€under€police€guidelines,€the€officers€should€not€have€attemptedÏto€seize€the€plaintiff€immediately€but€instead€should€have€developed€a€tactical€plan,€calledÏfor€assistance,€and€tried€to€get€him€to€surrender.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€court€rejected€theÏargument€and€concluded€that€those€kinds€of€guidelines€were€irrelevant.Ìà  à€òòSee€also€Dickerson€v.€McClellanóó,€101€F.3d€1151,€1162€(6th€Cir.€1996)€(ð ðinÐ °  Ðreviewing€plaintiffððs€excessive€force€claim,€we€limit€the€scope€of€our€inquiry€to€the€momentsÏpreceding€the€shootingðð);€òò¢Plakas£€v.€Drinskióó,€19€F.3d€1143€(7th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.Ð °$  Ð820,€115€S.€Ct.€81,€130€L.€Ed.€2d€34€(1994)€(limiting€the€reasonableness€inquiry€to€theÏmoments€force€was€used);€òòCole€v.€Boneóó,€993€F.2d€1328,€1334€(8th€Cir.€1993)€(ð ðthe€issue€isÐ °($$ Ðwhether€the€government€official€violated€the€Constitution€or€federal€law,€not€whether€heÐ °*&& Ðviolated€the€policies€of€a€state€agencyðð);€òòBella€v.€Chamberlainóó,€24€F.3d€1251,€1256€(10thÐ ° ÐCir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€1109,€1155€S.€Ct.€898,€130€L.€Ed.€2d€783€(1994)€(ð ðwe€scrutinizeÐ ° Ðonly€the€seizure€itself,€not€the€events€leading€to€the€seizure,€for€reasonableness€under€theÏFourth€Amendmentðð);€òò¢Sevier£€v.€City€of€Lawrence,€Kan.óó,€60€F.3d€695,€699€(10th€Cir.€1995)Ð °  Ð(ð ðif€the€preceding€events€are€merely€negligent€or€if€they€are€attenuated€by€time€or€interveningÏevents,€then€they€are€not€to€be€considered€in€an€excessive€force€caseðð);€òò¢Yellowback£€v.€CityÐ °  Ðof€Sioux€Fallsóó,€600€N.W.2d€554,€559„60€(S.D.€1999)€(no€error€in€excluding€police€manualÐ °  Ðregarding€use€of€force€and€handling€of€mentally€unstable€persons€to€establish€availability€ofÏalternative€strategies);€òòEstate€of€Lee€ex€¢rel£.€Lee€v.€City€of€Spokaneóó,€2€P.3d€979,€985€(Wash.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€2000)€(rejecting€plaintiffððs€argument€that€ð ðexcessive€force€may€be€found€whereÏpolice€conduct€òòprecedingóó€the€use€of€force€is€unreasonable€and,€thereby,€òòcreatesóó€the€situationÐ ° Ðrequiring€deadly€forceðð).Ìà  àThis,€indeed,€is€the€only€sensible€approach,€especially€in€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase.€The€jury€had€before€it€òòuncontradictedóó€evidence€that€Officers€Catterton€and€McGriffÐ ° Ðregarded€this€as€a€routine€call,€much€like€many€they€had€received€and€investigated€in€theÏpast.€€When€McGriff€arrived€at€the€scene,€he€did€òònotóó€enter€the€building€alone;€he€called€andÐ °" Ðwaited€for€back„up.€€His€information€was€that€there€were€ð ðseveralðð€men€in€the€building;ÏCatterton€was€told€that€there€was€ð ða€groupðð€of€juveniles.€€The€report€that€shots€had€been€firedÏcaused€concern€that€there€may€be€a€victim€lying€helpless€in€the€building€ð"ð€a€concern€borneÏout€by€Cattertonððs€previous€experience.€€This€was€òònotóó,€in€other€words,€a€situation€where,€asÐ °*&& Ðnow€argued,€they€expected€to€confront€seven€armed€men.€€There€was€no€evidence€of€that€inÏthe€record.€€The€jury€might,€perhaps,€question€the€immediate€decision€by€Officer€McGriffÏto€fire€his€gun€when€the€closet€door€was€opened,€but€it€would€have€been€sheer€hindsightÏspeculation€to€find€that€it€was€unreasonable,€by€reason€of€any€police€guideline€or€regulationÏcited€by€petitioner,€for€the€two€officers€to€enter€the€building€and€search€it.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€this€record,Ð °  Ðthe€admonition€in€the€guidelines€to€ð ð[¢w]ait£€for€[a]€sufficient€number€of€officers€to€handleÏ¢situation[s£]€without€undue€forceðð€and€Sergeant€Wilsonððs€òòpost€hocóó€critique€had€utterly€noÐ °  Ðrelevance;€nor,€through€an€expansive€jury€instruction,€could€the€jury€be€allowed€to€speculateÏthat€Officers€¢McGriff£€and€¢Catterton£€should€not€have€entered€the€building.€€They€clearly€wereÏwhere€they€had€a€right€to€be,€doing€what€they€had€a€right€to€do.Ìà  àA€similar€circumstance€exists€with€respect€to€the€lights.€€Officer€Catterton€explainedÏwhy€they€did€not€turn€on€the€lights:€€if€they€turned€on€the€lights,€they€would€be€temporarilyÏblinded.€€The€jury€did€not€have€to€believe€that€explanation,€but€there€was€no€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.€€No€evidence€was€even€offered,€much€less€admitted,€of€any€directive€in€theÏguidelines€or€regulations€calling€for€officers€to€turn€on€the€lights€in€that€situation.Ìà  àApart€from€the€lack€of€a€proper€evidentiary€record€in€this€case€to€permit€the€jury€toÏconsider€these€antecedent€circumstances,€we€need€to€consider€where€such€an€approach€wouldÐ °$  Ðlead.€€McGriff€was,€in€fact,€in€the€building.€€The€lights€were€not€turned€on.€€Whether€eitherÏof€those€circumstances€òòin€hindsightóó€could€be€regarded€as€negligent€or€imprudent,€theyÐ ° Ðexisted€and,€at€the€crucial€moment,€could€not€be€changed.€€At€the€moment€Catterton€openedÏthe€closet€door€and€McGriff€saw€what€appeared€to€him€to€be€an€armed€man€lowering€hisÏweapon€to€firing€position,€òòwhat€was€he€to€do?€óó€€Under€petitionerððs€approach,€McGriff€wouldÐ °  Ðhave€been,€at€that€split„second€moment,€faced€with€the€impossible€choice€of€either€defendingÏhimself€and,€in€so€doing,€risking€liability€for€any€harm€inflicted€on€petitioner€because€of€pastÏevents€or€decisions€that€were€then€uncorrectable,€or€taking€no€defensive€action€and€puttingÏhis€life€in€immediate€and€mortal€danger€in€order€to€save€his€pocketbook.€€The€law€cannotÏreasonably€put€officers€in€that€situation.Ìà  àThe€dissent€relies€upon€òòDeering€v.€Reichóó,€183€F.3d€645€(7th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€___Ð ° ÐU.S.€___,€120€S.€Ct.€532,€145€L.€Ed.€2d€412€(1999),€òòSt.€Hilaire€v.€City€of€Laconiaóó,€71€F.3dÐ ° Ð20€(1st€Cir.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€518€U.S.€1017,€116€S.€Ct.€2548,€135€L.€Ed.€2d€1068€(1996),Ð ° ÐòòAbraham€v.€Rasoóó,€183€F.3d€279€(3d€Cir.€1999),€and,€to€some€extent€òòBrower€v.€Inyo€Countyóó,Ð ° Ð489€U.S.€593,€109€S.€Ct.€1378,€103€L.€Ed.€2d€628€(1989)€to€urge€a€different€approach.€ÏòòBroweróó,€in€our€view,€is€wholly€inapposite.€€Although€òòDeeringóó€comes€close€to€supportingÐ °" Ðpetitionerððs€position,€the€other€cases€are,€to€a€large€extent,€distinguishable,€but,€as€withÏòòDeeringóó,€to€the€extent€that€they€differ€from€the€approach€of€the€other€Federal€and€StateÐ °&"" Ðcourts,€we€reject€them€as€unsound€and€not€in€keeping€with€the€holdings€and€pronouncementsÏof€òòGraham€v.€Connoróó.Ð °*&& Ðà  àòòBrower€v.€Inyo€Countyóó€arose€from€a€€20„mile€high„speed€police€chase.€€In€an€effortÐ ° Ðto€stop€the€fleeing€vehicle€(and€its€occupant),€the€police€set€up€a€most€unusual€and€dangerousÏroadblock.€€They€placed€an€18„wheel€truck€completely€across€the€road,€behind€a€curve,€andÏaimed€headlights€from€a€police€cruiser€in€such€a€way€as€to€blind€the€driver€on€his€approach.€ÏThe€driver€was€killed€when€he€crashed€into€the€truck,€and€his€heirs€sued€the€county,€allegingÏexcessive€force€in€executing€a€seizure.€€The€only€issue€before€the€Supreme€Court€wasÏwhether€there€had,€in€fact,€been€a€seizure€ð"ð€the€Ninth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€hadÏdismissed€the€action€on€the€ground€that€there€had€been€no€seizure€ð"ð€and,€in€addressing€thatÏissue,€the€Court€necessarily€looked€to€all€of€the€circumstances€of€the€roadblock,€not€just€theÏfact€that€it€existed.€€The€holding€was€that€it€is€ð ðenough€for€a€seizure€that€a€person€be€stoppedÏby€the€very€instrumentality€set€in€motion€or€put€in€place€in€order€to€achieve€that€result.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ° Ðat€599,€109€S.€Ct.€1382,€103€L.€Ed.€2d€637.€€Inferentially,€of€course,€that€required€someÏinquiry€into€the€antecedent€circumstances€and€intent€of€the€police€in€establishing€theÏroadblock.€€Here,€there€is€no€dispute€that€petitioner€was€seized€when€shot€by€OfficerÏMcGriff;€the€question€is€whether€the€seizure€was€reasonable,€a€matter€not€addressed€inÏòò¢Brower£óó.¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ףР°" Ðà  àIn€òòSt.€Hilaireóó,€the€decedent€was€killed€by€police€officers€in€the€execution€of€a€searchÐ °$  Ðwarrant.€€The€police€had€reason€to€believe€that€St.€Hilaire€was€armed€and€dangerous,€andÐ °&"" Ðthey€devised€a€scheme€to€approach€him€when€he€left€his€place€of€work,€with€a€uniformedÏofficer€known€to€St.€Hilaire€in€the€lead.€€The€scheme€went€awry€when€St.€Hilaire€was€ableÏto€leave€the€building€and€get€into€his€car€before€the€officers€could€approach.€€Instead€of€theÏuniformed€officer€being€in€the€lead,€an€officer€in€plain€clothes€ran€toward€the€car€brandishingÏa€gun.€€There€was€a€dispute€of€fact€whether€he€or€any€of€the€other€officers€identifiedÏthemselves.€€As,€in€the€courtððs€words,€St.€Hilaire€ð ðlooked€up€and€saw€a€stranger€dressed€inÏjeans€and€a€t„shirt,€approach€his€open€car€passenger€window,€pointing€a€.357€magnumÏrevolver€toward€him,ðð€his€eyes€widened€and€he€reached€for€his€own€gun,€at€which€point€heÏwas€shot€in€the€neck€and€eventually€died.€€His€widow€sued€under€ðð€1983,€alleging,€amongÏother€things,€excessive€force.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants,Ïwhich€the€appellate€court€òòaffirmedóó.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€principal€issue€at€the€appellate€level€was€whether€the€officers€enjoyed€immunityÏagainst€the€ðð€1983€claim.€€The€plaintiff€made€two€arguments:€€(1)€that€no€reasonable€officerÏcould€believe€that€the€law€allowed€him€to€surprise€a€suspect€on€a€dead„run,€in€plain€clothes,Ïwith€gun€drawn,€at€close€range,€and€without€identifying€himself€as€a€police€officer,€whenÏexecuting€a€warrant,€and€(2)€that€there€was€a€genuine€dispute€whether€the€shooter,€DetectiveÏGunter,€reasonably€believed€that€he€was€acting€in€self„defense€when€he€shot€St.€Hilaire.€€TheÏsecond€claim€the€appellate€court€dismissed€summarily€as€being€without€merit.€€As€to€the€first,Ïthe€trial€court€had€found€immunity€on€the€basis€that€St.€Hilaireððs€Fourth€Amendment€rightsÏdid€not€attach€until€the€moment€of€seizure,€which€was€when€he€was€shot,€and€that€there€wasÐ °*&& Ðno€obligation€on€the€part€of€the€police€to€avoid€creating€circumstances€where€the€use€ofÏdeadly€force€becomes€necessary.Ìà  àThe€appellate€court€rejected€the€defendantsðð€assertion€that€their€actions€need€to€beÏexamined€for€reasonableness€only€at€the€moment€of€the€shooting.€€Following€its€earlierÏdecision€in€òòHegarty€v.€Somerset€Countyóó,€53€F.3d€1367€(1st€Cir.€1995),€the€court€determinedÐ °  Ðthat€it€could€consider€all€of€the€surrounding€circumstances.€€It€is€important€to€note€that€theÏð ðsurroundingðð€circumstances€at€issue€were€those€immediately€preceding€the€actual€shooting,Ïnot,€as€here,€discretionary€guidelines€dealing€generally€with€the€use€of€deadly€force.€€It€is€alsoÏworth€noting€that€the€court€expressly€rejected€the€notion€that€the€police€have€someÏaffirmative€duty€to€reduce€the€risk€of€violence,€observing€that€such€a€contention€ð ðcreates€aÏrisk€that€the€ððdutyðð€is€so€broadly€defined€that€it€gives€inadequate€notice€of€what€would€violateÏthe€duty.ðð€€òòSt.€¢Hilaire£óó,€òòsupraóó,€71€F.€3d€at€27.€€The€court€ultimately€concluded€that€the€officersÐ ° Ðdid€not€violate€any€clearly€established€law€and€that€ð ð[t]he€judgment€Detective€Gunter€madeÏin€that€split€second€was€at€the€very€least€reasonable,€and€it€is€not€the€role€of€the€court€toÏsecond„guess€the€decision.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€28.Ð °  Ðà  àòòAbraham€v.€Rasoóó€also€arose€from€a€summary€judgment.€€Abraham,€a€suspected€shop„Ð °" Ðlifter,€was€shot€by€Raso€as€he€attempted€to€leave€the€mall€parking€lot€in€his€car.€€RasoÏclaimed€that€she€acted€in€self„defense,€in€that,€while€she€was€standing€in€front€of€the€carÏordering€Abraham€to€stop,€he€attempted€to€run€over€her.€€There€was€some€evidence€that€sheÏdeliberately€placed€herself€in€front€of€the€car;€there€was€other€evidence€that€she€was€not€inÐ °*&& Ðfront€of€the€car€at€all€but€instead€shot€Abraham€from€the€side.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏsummary€judgment€without€regard€to€the€self„defense€claim€on€the€ground€that€Rasoððs€actionÏwas€objectively€reasonable€because,€in€attempting€to€flee,€Abraham€posed€an€immediateÏthreat€of€physical€harm€to€the€public.€€The€appellate€court€determined€that€there€wereÏgenuine€disputes€of€material€fact€bearing€on€whether€Abraham€posed€such€a€threat,€and,€inÏthe€course€of€that€analysis,€concluded€that€it€could€not€limit€its€examination€to€the€veryÏmoment€when€Abraham€was€struck€by€the€bullet€and€thus€seized.€€Rather,€it€held€that€ð ðall€ofÏthe€events€transpiring€during€the€officersðð€pursuit€of€Abraham€can€be€considered€inÏevaluating€the€reasonableness€of€Rasoððs€shooting.ðð€€òòAbraham€v.€Rasoóó,€183€F.3d€€at€292.€€TheÐ ° Ðcourt€noted,€however:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðWe€are€not€saying,€of€course,€that€all€preceding€events€areÏequally€important,€or€even€of€any€importance.€€Some€events€mayÏhave€too€attenuated€a€connection€to€the€officerððs€use€of€force.€ÏBut€what€makes€these€prior€events€of€no€consequence€areÏordinary€ideas€of€causation,€not€doctrine€about€when€the€seizureÏoccurred.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓIdóó.€€As€in€òòSt.€Hilaireóó,€the€circumstances€at€issue€were€contemporaneous€with€€the€seizure.Ð ° Ðà  àIn€òòDeeringóó,€the€victim,€an€elderly€man€with€some€history€of€emotional€problems,Ð °! Ðbacked€his€vehicle€into€a€motorcycle,€tipping€the€cycle.€€The€damage€was€minor€and€theÏcycle€owner€offered€to€settle€for€the€cost€of€the€gasoline€that€leaked€from€the€cycle,€butÏDeering€refused€and€so€was€charged€with€misdemeanor€property€damage.€€When€he€failedÏto€appear€in€court€for€his€initial€appearance,€a€bench€warrant€was€issued.€€Later€that€night,Ïthree€armed€deputy€sheriffs€wearing€bulletproof€vests€drove€to€Deeringððs€farmhouse,€whichÐ °+'' Ðwas€in€a€rural€area€in€a€different€county,€stealthily€approached€it,€peered€inside€and€saw€thatÏDeering€was€sleeping,€and€knocked€on€the€door.€€When€Deering€awoke€and€asked€who€wasÏthere,€the€sheriffs€identified€themselves.€€Deering€then€picked€up€his€shotgun,€went€into€theÏyard,€and€fired€at€one€of€the€officers.€€After€ordering€Deering€to€put€the€gun€down,€anotherÏsheriff€fired€11€shots€at€him,€killing€him.€€Deeringððs€personal€representative€sued€the€sheriffsÏunder€ðð€1983.€€The€actions€against€two€of€the€officers€were€dismissed;€the€jury€found€inÏfavor€of€the€third,€and€the€Seventh€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€òòaffirmedóó.Ð °  Ðà  àThe€broad€issue€considered€by€the€appellate€court€was€whether€the€jury€could€considerÏð ðthe€totality€of€the€circumstancesðð€in€determining€whether€the€sheriffððs€actions€wereÏreasonable,€and€the€court€held€that€the€jury€not€only€could,€but€effectively€did,€consider€thoseÏcircumstances.€€The€more€precise€issue€was€ð ðwhat€circumstancesðð€the€jury€could€consider€Ïð"ð€whether€they€extended€beyond€the€precise€moment€when€Deering€fired€his€weapon€andÏwould€include€ð ðthe€fact€that€the€deputies€decided€to€serve€the€warrant€in€the€middle€of€theÏnight€on€an€elderly€man€living€alone€in€a€rural€farmhouse.ðð€€òò¢Deering£óó,€òòsupraóó,€183€F.3d€at€650.€Ð ° ÐThe€case€law,€the€court€noted,€including€some€of€its€own,¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€pointed€to€the€fact€that€what€wasÐ °  Ðrelevant€was€what€the€deputy€knew€òòat€the€timeóó€about€Deering,€including€the€warrant,€theÐ °" Ðcrime€allegedly€committed€by€Deering,€and€the€deputyððs€perception€of€danger.€€The€jury€hadÐ °$  Ðheard€evidence€about€the€incident€with€the€motorcycle€(ð ðwhich€would€allow€them€toÏunderstand€that€the€deputies€were€not€looking€for€a€serial€murderer€when€they€went€to€theÏfarmhouseðð),€about€how€the€deputies€approached€the€farmhouse,€how€dark€it€was,€and€aboutÏDeeringððs€response.€€They€were,€in€the€courtððs€view,€ð ðallowed€to€hear€sufficient€informationÏabout€the€situationðð€and€ð ðhad€a€sufficient€basis€on€which€to€evaluate€Reichððs€response€toÏDeeringððs€firing€the€shot.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€652.€€It€is€of€particular€interest€that€the€court€found€no€errorÐ °  Ðin€the€jury€instructions,€including€an€instruction€that€the€deputies€ð ðdid€not€need€to€use€ððallÏfeasible€alternativesðð€to€avoid€the€situation€which€developed.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellate€court,Ð ° Ðquoting€from€one€of€its€earlier€decisions,€òòPlakas€v.€Drinskióó,€òòsupraóó,€19€F.3d€1143,€1148,Ð ° Ðiterated€that€ð ð[t]here€is€no€precedent€in€this€Circuit€(or€any€other)€which€says€that€theÏConstitution€requires€law€enforcement€officers€to€use€all€feasible€alternatives€to€avoid€aÏsituation€where€deadly€force€can€justifiably€be€used.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€652„53.Ð ° Ðà  àòòDeeringóó€did€hold€that€the€officerððs€knowledge€of€antecedent€circumstances€wasÐ ° Ðrelevant€in€determining€the€reasonableness€of€his€actions.€€The€dissent€seizes€upon€a€singleÏstatement€by€the€òòDeeringóó€court€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€totality€of€the€circumstances€cannot€be€limited€toÐ °  Ðthe€precise€moment€when€Deering€discharged€his€weapon.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€649.€€That€statement€needsÐ °" Ðto€be€read€in€context,€however.€€The€point€that€the€court€was€making€was€that€ð ðwhat€DeputyÏReich€knew€at€the€time€ð"ð€about€Deering,€his€crime,€and€the€warrant,€and€his€perception€ofÏthe€danger€he€and€the€other€deputies€were€in€ð"ð€was€relevant€to€the€evaluation€of€theÏreasonableness€of€his€conduct.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€652.€€Read€in€that€context,€the€determination€that€theÐ °*&& Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances€must€take€account€of€the€full€knowledge€possessed€by€theÏofficers€is€not€remarkable,€and€it€certainly€cannot€be€taken€as€a€broad€authority€for€plaintiffsÏto€invite€20/20€hindsight€second„guessing.€€The€antecedent€events€at€issue€in€òòDeeringóó€wereÐ ° Ðthe€circumstances€that€led€the€sheriffs€to€confront€Deering€ð"ð€not€some€police€guidelinesÏdealing€in€general€fashion€with€avoiding€the€need€for€deadly€force€whenever€possible.€€AsÏin€òòDeeringóó,€there€was€no€transgression€of€the€underlying€principle€here.€€The€jury€wasÐ °  Ðinformed€of€all€relevant€antecedent€events€leading€up€to€the€shooting€ð"ð€how€the€officersÏcame€to€be€there€and€what€they€did€upon€entering€the€building.€€What€the€jury€was€notÏallowed€to€do€was€second„guess,€in€hindsight,€the€officersðð€decision€to€enter€and€search€theÏapartment€without€additional€back„up€and€without€turning€on€the€kitchen€light.Ìà  àFor€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€excluding€the€evidenceÏsubject€to€the€òòin€limineóó€ruling,€in€excluding€the€evidence€sought€to€be€extracted€fromÐ ° ÐSergeant€Wilson,€or€in€giving€the€supplemental€instruction.ÌÌà@"ìàòòTHE€òòBATSONóó€ISSUEóóˆÐ °  Ðà  àJury€selection€commenced€on€the€morning€of€Friday,€May€1,€1998€and€was€concludedÏthat€afternoon,€after€a€lunch€break.€€The€voir€dire€and€selection€proceeding€were€notÏrecorded.€€The€transcript€records€only€the€following:ÌÓÓà@NN!ìàð ðòòAFTERNOON€SESSIONˆÐ °($$ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àóó(Prospective€jurors€present€in€courtroom€upon€resuming)а)%%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Good€afternoon,€ladies€and€gentlemen.а+''` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€JURORS:€Good€afternoon,€Your€Honor.Ð ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(Voir€dire€examination€of€the€prospective€jurorsÏcontinued).Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€Madam€Clerk,€you€may€swear€the€jury€in€at€thisÏtime,€please.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(A€jury€was€selected,€sworn€and€duly€impaneled).ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àAt€that€point,€the€court€excused€those€prospective€jurors€not€selected€and€calledÏcounsel€to€the€bench,€where€an€unrecorded€conference€ensued.€€Following€that€conference,Ïthe€court€excused€the€jurors€until€Monday€morning.€€After€the€jurors€left,€the€court€recountedÏthat,€at€the€unrecorded€bench€conference,€counsel€for€petitioner€ð ðindicated€that€he€wantedÏto€raise€a€òòBatsonóó€challenge€at€this€time.ðð€€The€court€then€heard€petitionerððs€objection€to€theÐ ° Ðstriking€by€McGriff€of€five€African„American€jurors.€€The€court€found€from€the€mereÏstriking€of€those€jurors,€leaving€a€jury€with€one€African„American€and€five€non„African„ÏAmerican€jurors,€that€petitioner€had€presented€a€prima€facie€showing€ð ðthat€would€requireÏdefense€counsel€to€justify€each€of€their€strikes.ðð€€Defense€counsel€then€proceeded€to€give€aÏfacially€race„neutral€reason€for€each€of€those€strikes,€following€which€the€court€found€thatÏMcGriff€had€a€valid€basis€for€each€of€the€five€peremptory€challenges€under€review.Ìà  àPetitioner€complains€that€the€court€erred€in€sustaining€the€peremptory€challenges.€€TheÏproblem€is€that€he€waited€too€long€to€register€his€objection.€€In€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,€313€Md.€50,Ð °%!! Ð69,€542€A.2d€1267,€1276€(1988),€we€concluded€that€ð ð[a]€òòBatsonóó€objection€is€timely€if€theÐ °'## Ðdefendant€makes€it€no€later€than€when€the€last€juror€has€been€seated€and€before€the€jury€hasÏbeen€sworn.ðð€€Requiring€such€an€objection€to€be€made€before€the€jury€is€sworn€isÐ °+'' Ðpermissible.€€See€òòFord€v.€Georgiaóó,€498€U.S.€411,€422,€423,€111€S.€Ct.€850,€857,€112€L.€Ed.Ð ° Ð2d€935,€948„49€(1991),€declaring€the€requirement€that€any€òòBatsonóó€claim€be€raised€before€theÐ ° Ðadministration€of€the€oath€to€the€jurors€to€be€ð ða€sensible€ruleðð€and€holding€that€ð ða€state€courtÏmay€adopt€a€general€rule€that€a€òòBatsonóó€claim€is€untimely€if€it€is€raised€for€the€first€time€.€.€.Ð °  Ðafter€the€jury€is€sworn.ðð€€The€Federal€courts€have€consistently€held€that€a€òòBatsonóó€objectionÐ °  Ðis€waived€if€not€made€during€the€voir€dire€process,€and€some€have€specified€that€theÏobjection€must€be€made€before€the€venire€is€excused.€€òòSee€Morning€v.€Zapata€Protein€(USA),Ð °  ÐInc.óó,€128€F.3d€213,€215„16€(4th€Cir.€1997)€(upholding€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€ofÐ ° Ðappellantððs€òòBatsonóó€challenge€because€appellant€raised€the€challenge€after€the€venire€wasÐ ° Ðexcused);€òòU.S.€v.€Maserattióó,€1€F.3d€330,€335€(5th€Cir.€1993)€(ð ðTo€be€timely,€the€òòBatsonóóÐ ° Ðobjection€must€be€made€before€the€venire€is€dismissed€and€before€the€trial€commencesðð);ÏòòU.S.€v.€Parhamóó,€16€F.3d€844,€847€(8th€Cir.€1994)€(ð ð[A]€òòBatsonóó€objection€must€be€made€atÐ ° Ðthe€latest€before€the€venire€is€dismissed€and€before€the€trial€commencesðð);€òòGovernment€ofÐ ° ÐVirgin€Islands€v.€Forteóó,€806€F.2d€73,€75„76€(3d€Cir.€1986)€(holding€that,€because€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€failed€to€make€any€objection€at€the€close€of€voir€dire,€he€ð ðwaivedðð€his€òòBatsonóóÐ °  Ðclaim);€òòsee€also€Dias€v.€Sky€Chefs,€Inc.óó,€948€F.2d€532,€534€(9th€Cir.€1991)€(ð ðòòBatsonóóððÐ °" Ðobjections€must€occur€as€soon€as€possible,€preferably€before€the€jury€is€swornðð);€òòU.S.€v.Ð °$  ÐChandleróó,€996€F.2d€1073,€1102€(11th€Cir.€1993)€(noting€that€ð ð[¢a]n£€objection€is€timely€if€itÐ °&"" Ðis€made€during€voir€direðð).ÌÐ  °*&& Ðñ) ñÑ€÷*Ññ) ññ- ñÑ€G÷*Ññ- ñà  àBecause€petitionerððs€òòBatsonóó€claim€was€not€made€timely,€it€has€been€waived.Ð ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àJUDGMENT€AFFIRMED,€WITH€COSTS.ñ$ ñÐ À(#À(# ÐÌÌÌÌÌDissenting€Opinion€follows:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ °*&& ÐÑ÷*&Ñâ âØ$Øâ âÑ  Ññ$ ññ% ñÔ_ÔÑ8€ÄsXXdìŠXdì8ÑÑ  ÑÌñ% ññ( ññ% ñÌñ% ññ% ñÌñ% ññ% ñÌñ% ññ( ññ% ñDissenting€opinion€Ô_Ôby€Bell,€C.€J.ÌÌà  àI€join€most€enthusiastically€in€all€but€Part€D€of€Judge€Ô_Ô¢Harrell£Ô_Ôððs€well€reasoned€andÏstated€opinion€and,€thus,€share€his€and€Judge€Ô_Ô¢Eldridge£Ô_Ôððs€rejection€of€the€majorityððs€refusalÏto€allow€the€petitioner€to€offer€evidence€of€the€violation,€by€the€respondent€police€officer,Ïof€police€departmental€guidelines€as€evidence€bearing€on€the€respondentððs€civil€liability€forÏthe€injuries€to€the€petitioner€that€his€actions,€alleged€by€the€petitioner€to€have€been€grosslyÏnegligent,€caused€him€to€suffer.€€This€separate€opinion€is€prompted€by€the€majorityððsÏdisposal€of€the€petitionerððs€Ô_Ôñ% ññ* ññ% ñ¢ñ% ññ* ññ% ñ¢Batson£ñ% ññ* ññ% ñ£ñ% ññ* ññ* ñØØñ* ññ% ñÔ_Ôñ% ññ* ññ% ñ¢ñ% ññ* ññ% ñ׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€challenge€to€the€respondentððs€exercise€of€his€peremptoryÐ ° Ðchallenges€on€a€procedural€and€purely€technical€ground.€€€The€ground€of€decision€€not€raised,Ïor€argued,€by€either€party€and€was€not€the€basis€for€the€Court€of€Special€Appealsðð€decision.€Ï€€Moreover,€the€òòÔ_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ôóó€issue€was€one€of€the€issues€on€which€we€granted€certiorari;€althoughÐ ° Ðit€was€specifically€argued€in€the€petitionerððs€Petition€for€Certiorari,€we€did€not€exclude€itÏfrom€our€grant€of€the€petition.Ìà  àThe€majority€refuses€to€review€the€merits€of€the€petitionerððs€Ô_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ô€challenge€becauseÏit€was€made€after€the€jury€was€sworn,Ô‡£bÞ£‹ŠÞÔÔ‡£V£££bÞÔ€opining,€Ð °$  ÐÓÓà8  àð ðThe€problem€is€that€[the€petitioner]€waited€too€long€to€register€hisÐ à&0"" Ðobjection.€€In€Ô#†Š4  ‹££Ví #ÔÔ‡£V£ ‹Š4 ÔÔ#†£bÞ£££V #ÔÔ‡£V£££bÞÔòòStanley€v.€Stateóó,€313€Md.€50,€69,€542€A.2d€1267,€1276Ð ð'@##  Ð(1988),€we€concluded€that€ð ð[a]€òòÔ_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ôóó€objection€is€timely€if€the€defendantÐ ° Ðmakes€it€no€later€than€when€the€last€juror€has€been€seated€and€before€theÏjury€has€been€sworn..ðð€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à__€Md.€__,€__,€__€A.2d€__,€__€(2000)€[slip.€op.€at€__].ÌÌà  àMaryland€Rule€Ô#†£bÞ£££V9 #ÔÔ#†ŠÞ‹££bÞ÷ #Ô8-131Ô‡£bÞ£‹ŠÞÔÔ‡£V£££bÞÔ,€in€pertinent€part,€provides:ÓÓÔ#†Š4  ‹££Vd#ÔÔ#†ŠÞ‹ ‹Š4 ƒ#ÔÐ  ` ÐÓ  Ó*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÓ  Óà8  àð ð(b)€In€Court€of€Appeals--Additional€Limitations.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð(1)€òòPrior€Appellate€Decisionóó.€€Unless€otherwise€provided€byÐ @  Ðthe€order€granting€the€writ€of€certiorari,€in€reviewing€a€decisionÏrendered€by€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€or€by€a€circuit€courtÏacting€in€an€appellate€capacity,€the€Court€of€Appeals€ordinarilyÏwill€consider€only€an€issue€that€has€been€raised€in€the€petitionÏfor€certiorari€or€any€cross-petition€and€that€has€been€preservedÏfor€review€by€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€Whenever€an€issue€raisedÏin€a€petition€for€certiorari€or€a€cross-petition€involves,€eitherÏexpressly€or€implicitly,€the€assertion€that€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error,€the€Court€of€Appeals€may€consider€whetherÏthe€error€was€harmless€or€non-prejudicial€even€though€theÏmatter€of€harm€or€prejudice€was€not€raised€in€the€petition€or€inÏa€cross-petition.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓÓThis€case€came€to€us€from€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals,€which€reviewed€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€City.€€€€In€that€court€neither€party€raised€the€timeliness€of€theÏÔ_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ô€ruling€and,€in€any€event,€the€intermediate€appellate€court€decided€the€issue€on€theÏmerits.€€€€Whatððs€more,€as€already€mentioned,€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€Ô_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ô€rulingÏœwas€one€of€the€issues€presented,€and€argued,€in€the€petition€for€certiorari€that€the€petitionerÏfiled.€€And€this€Court€granted€certiorari€to€review€that€issue,€among€others;€we€veryÏpointedly€did€not€ð ðotherwise€provide[]€by€the€order€granting€the€writ€of€certiorari.ðð€€€›Clearly,Ð @+&& Ðthe€petitioner€is€entitled€to€a€decision€on€the€merits€of€this€issue.€€€€This€is€especially€so€sinceÏan€outcome€favorable€to€the€petitioner€will€avoid€the€result€the€majority€reaches€on€the€issuesÏit€does€decide€on€the€merits,€for€it€would€mean€that€the€petitioner€gets€his€new€trial€anyway.Ìà  àI€do€not€contend€that€the€Ô_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ô€challenge€was€timely€under€our€cases.€€€€At€this€stageÏof€the€proceedings,€that€really€is€not€the€point.€€€Where€this€Court€grants€certiorari€on€anÏissue,€it€is€the€cert.€€petition€to€which€we€look€to€determine€preservation,€not€what€happenedÏin€the€trial€court,€particularly€when€the€appellate€court€that€initially€reviewed€the€issueÏdecided€it€notwithstanding,€and€perhaps€despite,€the€procedural€default.€€A€proceduralÏdefault€such€as€that€here€at€issue€does€not€implicate€fundamental€jurisdiction¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€and,€so,€is€notÐ ° Ðraisable€at€any€time,€even€for€the€first€time€in€this€Court.€€€But,€as€already€mentioned€moreÏtimes€than€necessary,€I€suspect,€it€was€this€Court€that€decided€to€review€the€very€issue€thatÏthe€majority€now€wants€to€avoid€on€this€really€technical€ground.Ìà  àI€would€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€on€the€Ô_Ôòò¢Batson£óóÔ_Ô€issue.€Ð ° ÐThe€latest€cases€to€explicate€Maryland€law€on€the€subject€are€òòGilchrist€v.€Stateóó,€340€Md.€606,€Ð ° Ð667€A.2d€876€(1995)€and€òòHarley€v.€Stateóó,€341€Md.€395,€671€A.2d€15€(1996).€€See€alsoÐ ° ÐòòÔ_Ô¢Purkett£Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔElemÔ_Ôóó,€€514€U.S.€765,€115€S.€Ct.€1769,€131€L.€Ed.2d€834€€(1995),€discussed€byÐ ° Ðboth€òòGilchristóó€and€òòHarleyóó.€€€Neither€case€was€cited,€not€to€mention€discussed,€by€theÐ ° Ðintermediate€appellate€court.€€€In€fact,€the€only€òòÔ_Ô¢Batson£Ô_Ôóó€case€mentioned€was€òòStanley€v.€Stateóó,Ð °  Ð313€Md.€50,€542€A.2d€1267€(1988).€€€More€important,€the€courtððs€discussion€of€the€issueÏprovides€no€basis€for€any€belief€that€the€trial€court,€or€the€intermediate€appellate€court,€forÏthat€matter,€were€aware€of€or€appreciated€the€application€of€òòÔ_Ô¢Purkett£Ô_Ôóó€to€the€facts€of€the€case.ñ& ñ¢×ƒ×ñ& ññ& ñ׃×ñ& ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ףР°  ÐIt€is€clear€to€me€that,€whether€the€reasons€offered€by€the€respondent€were€race€neutral€or€not,Ïthe€trial€court€simply€did€not€appreciate€its€role€in€the€process€and€certainly€did€not€properlyÏapply€the€test€explicated€in€Ô_Ôòò¢Purkett£óóÔ_Ô,€òòseeóó€514€U.€S.€at€767„68,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1770„71,€131€L.Ð ° ÐEd.€2d€at€839,€clarified€in€the€context€of€this€Stateððs€Ô_Ôòò¢Batson£óóÔ_Ô€jurisprudence€in€òòGilchristóó,€òòseeóóÐ ° Ð340€Md.€at€619„20,€667€A.2d€at€885„86€(Ô_ÔChasanowÔ_Ô,€J.€concurring)€and€applied€in€òòHarleyóó,Ð ° Ðòòseeóó€341€Md.€at€402,€671€A.2d€at€19.€€Ð ° ÐÌÌà  àñ% ññ+ ñÌÌÐ °&"" ÐÑG÷**Ñâ GâØØâ GâÑ  ÑÌñ+ ññ, ñÒX°ÒÔ% €! ÔÑ€E¸GÑÑ  ÑÑ€"sQBÑÑ€H?cCÑÑ€&dODÑÑ€#¸FÑÑ€-ú+ÑDissenting€and€Concurring€Opinion€¢vy£€¢Harrell£,€J.:ÌÌÒ°XÒÑ€$dOÑÑ€%dO ÑÑ€'dO ÑÑ€(dO ÑÑ€)dOÑÑ€*dOÑÑ  ÑÑ€+dOÑÑ€1dOÑÑ€5dOÑÑ€6dO ÑÑ€7dOÑÑ€8dOÑÑ€9dOÑÑ€:dOÑÑ€;dOÑÑ€<dOÑÑ€>dOÑà  àI€respectfully€dissent€in€part€and€concur€in€part€with€the€majority€opinion€in€this€case.€ÏJudge€¢Eldridge£€joins€in€this€opinion€and€Chief€Judge€Bell€joins€in€all€save€Part€III,€D.Ìà@­­)ìàI.ˆÌà  àI€first€note€a€few€points€regarding€the€majority's€recitation€of€the€material€factsÏadduced€at€trial.€€Despite€Officer€¢McGriff£'s€testimony€offered€during€his€defense,€as€to€whatÏhe€recalled€hearing€in€the€police€dispatcher's€bulletin€that€sent€him€to€the€apartment€buildingÏin€the€first€œinstance,ñ, ññ. ñØØñ. ññ, ñ›×ƒJ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€he€acknowledged€earlier€in€the€trial,€as€an€adverse€witness€during€theÐ ° ÐPetitioner's€case„in„chief€and€without€qualification,€that€he€had€responded€ð ðto€a€call€of€sevenÏmales€in€a€vacant€apartment,€shots€fired.ðð€€He€followed€that€acknowledgment€with:ÌÓÓà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€So,€in€response€to€the€report€of€shots€fired€by€sevenÏmales€in€a€dark€apartment€building€on€a€dark€evening,€you€and€OfficerÏ¢Catterton£€went€in€alone€to€confront€these€seven€individuals.€€Is€that€correct?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€¢McGriff£]:€€That€is€correct.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€And€you€and€Officer€¢Catterton£€had€only€one€flashlightÏbetween€the€two€of€you,€correct?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€¢McGriff£]:€€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ °&"" ÐÓÓUpon€confronting€the€closed€kitchen€closet€door,€Officer€¢McGriff£,€again€while€testifying€asÏâ âan€adverse€witness€during€Petitioner's€case„in„chief,€acknowledged€that€the€leveling€of€hisÏweapon€and€aiming€at€ð ðcenter€mastðð€was€how€ÜÜhe€was€ð ðtrained€at€the€Police€Academy.ðð€€HeÏelaborated€that€the€training€referred€to€was:€€ð ð[¢i]n£€the€use€of€deadly€force.€€I€didn't€know€atÏthe€time€I€was€going€to€be€using€deadly€force.€€I€was€in€a€ready€position,€as€we€were€trained,Ïto€be€in€a€ready€position.ðð€€Called€upon€to€estimate€how€much€time€passed€between€OfficerÏ¢Catterton£€opening€the€closet€door€and€the€firing€of€his€weapon€into€Petitioner's€abdomen,׃K×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  ÐOfficer€¢McGriff£€stated€ð ð[¢a]nywhere£€from€three€to€six€seconds.ððÌà  àPetitioner€testified€during€his€case„in„chief€that€he€did€not€have€the€vacuum€cleanerÏtube€in€his€hands€at€any€time€that€he€was€hiding€in€the€kitchen€closet€with€his€friends.€€AfterÏhe€was€shot,€Petitioner€recalled€that€someone,€presumably€who€had€not€been€hiding€in€theÏcloset,€turned€on€the€kitchen€lights.Ìà  àPetitioner€sought€to€introduce,€as€evidence€of€Respondentððs€lack€of€reasonablenessÏin€shooting€Petitioner,€the€written€guidelines€regarding€the€police€use€of€deadly€force,€asÏdelineated€in€a€Baltimore€Police€Department€Training€Bulletin€(Vol.€20,€No.€1)€issued€by€theÏPolice€Commissioner€on€2€May€1995.€€Although€there€was€much€in€the€Bulletin€that€had€noÏfacial€relevance€to€Petitioner's€claims,€the€following€points€are€not€so€easily€dismissed:Ìà8  àII.€General€Rules€for€Using€Deadly€ForceÐ Ð Ð  ÐÝ‚.ÿÝÝ  Ýà  àà8 ` àÝ‚.2ÝÚƒÚAÚ  Ú.à0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOfficers€must€use€deadly€force€only€as€a€last€resort.݃.2Ð2Ýۀیа$ ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÓÓà  àà0 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à1.€€€€€€€€Officers€should€try€to€avoid€putting€themselves€in€aÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€situation€where€they€have€no€option€but€to€use€deadlyÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€force.Ð °($$ ÐÑ-ú+,Ñâ -âÑ8€ÄsXXdìXXdì8Ñâ -âÑ  Ñœà  àà ` àà8 ¸ à2.à  àTry€to€use€other€less€deadly€means:а¸ ¸  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*ÌÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àd.à0hÐ Ð àTalk€to€suspects€in€a€manner€consistent€withÐ ° Ðtraining€which€will€convince€them€to€comply€withÏorders.òò[óó׃=×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òò]óó€Ð° hÐ hÐ  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà  àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€€Ìà  àÌà8  àIII.€€Confronting€a€SuspectÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌØ€ØÝ‚.ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àÝ‚.à8ÝÚƒÚAÚ  Ú.à0¸ Ð Ð àÝ  ÝIf€officers€have€a€reasonable€belief€that€there€is€a€threat€of€deathÐ °  Ðor€serious€injury€to€themselves€or€others,€they€may€draw€theirÏweapons.€Ýƒ.à89ÝۀیР¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚.ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àÝ‚.T:ÝÚƒÚBÚ  Ú.à0¸ Ð Ð àÝ  ÝOfficers€should€keep€their€fingers€off€the€trigger€and€below€theÐ ° Ðtrigger€guard€òòuntil€they€are€prepared€to€shoot€and€the€threat€toÐ ° Ðtheir€lives€or€the€lives€of€someone€else€is€IMMEDIATE€and€theÏpotential€for€serious€injury€or€death€is€IMMINENT.óó݃.T:‡:Ýۀیа¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  àà ` à*à0¸ (#(#àà0¸ (#¸ (#à*à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à*à0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à*à0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#à*а (# (# ÐÌà8  àIV.€.€.€.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àà ` à*à0¸ (#(#àà0¸ (#¸ (#à*à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à*à0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à*à0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#à*а (# (# ЀÌà8  àà ` àD.€à0¸ Ð Ð àMembers€of€this€department€shall€not€use€firearms€in€theÐ ° Ðdischarge€of€their€duty,€except€in€the€following€cases:Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÝ‚-†ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àÝ‚-†?ÝÚƒÚ1Ú  Ú.à0Ð Ð àÝ  ÝIn€self„defense,€or€to€defend€another€person€(unlawfullyÐ °! Ðattacked)€from€death€or€serious€injury.[]à8@¤Ð Ð àà  àà x à݃-†?B?ÝۀیР°" ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦‚@ÝÚƒÚaÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝThe€attacked€officer€is€the€person€who€has€toÐ °# Ðevaluate€the€potential€seriousness€of€the€attackÏâ âand€determine€an€appropriate€level€of€response.€Ýƒ .¦‚@Í@Ýۀیа%!!hÐ hÐ  ÐÑ$dO-Ñâ $âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ $âÑ  ÑŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦uBÝÚƒÚbÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝThe€evaluation€and€response€must€be€reasonableÐ ° Ðfrom€the€perspective€of€a€reasonable€policeÏofficer€similarly€situated.€Ýƒ .¦uBÀBÝۀیРhÐ hÐ  Ðâ âŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦õCÝÚƒÚcÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝThere€is€no€requirement€that€an€actual,€specificÐ ° Ðinjury€be€inflicted.€€It€is,€however,€required€thatÏthe€potential€for€such€injury€be€present€and€theÏthreat€must€be€immediate.€Ýƒ .¦õC@DÝۀیРhÐ hÐ  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦¤EÝÚƒÚdÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝWhen€police€officers€have€done€everything€theyÐ °  Ðreasonably€can€to€avoid€using€deadly€force€andÏbelieve€the€use€of€deadly€force€is€the€only€way€toÏprevent€serious€injury€to€themselves€or€someoneÏelse,€deadly€force€is€justified.€Ýƒ .¦¤EïEÝۀیРhÐ hÐ  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐÝ‚-†ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  à€à0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àÝ‚-†ÌGÝÚƒÚ2Ú  Ú.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àÝ  Ý[]To€effect€the€arrest€or€to€prevent€the€escape,€whenÐ °  Ðother€means€are€insufficient,€or€a€person€whom€theÏofficer€has€probable€cause€to€believe:݃-†ÌGHÝۀیРРР ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  à€à0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àа¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àHas€committed€a€felony€involving€the€use€or€threat€ofÏdeadly€force€or€serious€physical€injury;€òòandóó€Ð°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWho€poses€an€òòimminentóó€threat€of€death€or€seriousÐ ° Ðphysical€injury€to€the€officer€or€others.[]Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌØ€ØÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦vKÝÚƒÚaÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝWhen€other€means€are€insufficient€can€includeÐ ° Ðbut€is€not€limited€to:݃ .¦vKÁKÝۀیРhÐ hÐ  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à(1)à0ÀÐ Ð àUsing€the€radio€to€direct€other€units€toÐ ° Ðprevent€suspectððs€escape;Ð ÀÐ ÀÐ  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à(2)à0ÀÐ Ð àòòKnowingóó€the€suspectððs€identity€òòandóó€that€heÐ °  Ð/she€poses€no€imminent€threat€to€anyone€inÏthe€immediate€vicinity€of€the€area€ofÏescape;Ð ÀÐ ÀÐ  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à(3)à0ÀÐ Ð àChallenging€the€suspect€to€halt;а$ ÀÐ ÀÐ  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à(4)à0ÀÐ Ð àPursuing€suspects€until€it€becomesÐ °%!! Ðobvious€that€capturing€them€is€unlikelyÏand/or€further€pursuit€is€likely€to€endangerÏthe€officer€or€others.Ð ÀÐ ÀÐ  ÐÌÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦rPÝÚƒÚbÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝThe€probable€cause€standard€allows€officers€to€actÐ °*&& Ðin€situations€without€having€absolute€knowledgeÐ °+'' ÐÑ*dO.Ñâ *âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ *âÑ  Ñthat€a€violent€felony€has€occurred€but€requiresÏthat€their€actions€be€based€on€more€than€mereÏsuspicion.€€Ýƒ .¦rP½PÝۀیРhÐ hÐ  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ .¦ÿÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÝ‚ .¦¥RÝÚƒÚcÚ  Ú.à0hÐ Ð àÝ  ÝBoth€the€element€of€the€officerððs€probable€causeÐ ° Ðto€believe€a€dangerous€felony€has€been€committedÏòòandóó€the€element€that€the€offender€poses€anÐ °  Ðimminent€threat€to€the€officer€or€others€in€theÏimmediate€vicinity€of€the€crime€must€be€presentÏbefore€an€officer€can€use€deadly€force€to€arrest€theÏoffender€or€prevent€his€escape.€Ýƒ .¦¥RðRÝۀیРhÐ hÐ  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à(1)à0ÀÐ Ð àUsing€deadly€force€to€stop€an€escapingÐ °  Ðsuspect€must€be€based€on€a€specific€threatÏof€imminent€danger€and€not€on€a€generalÏthreat€to€the€community€because€of€theÏviciousness€of€the€crime.€Ð ÀÐ ÀÐ  ÐÌà8  àà ` àà ¸ à*à0Ð Ð àà0hÐ Ð à*à0ÀhÐ hÐ àà0ÀÐ ÀÐ à*à0pÐ Ð àà0ÈpÐ pÐ à*аÈÐ ÈÐ  ÐÌà8  àà ` àà ¸ à[]NOTE:€à0hÐ Ð àWhere€feasible,€the€officer€should€give€verbalÐ ° Ðwarning€prior€to€shooting€at€the€felon.€€There€are,Ïhowever,€situations€when€the€issuance€of€aÏwarning€would€be€detrimental€to€the€safety€of€theÏofficers€or€others.€€In€such€a€case,€the€officer€needÏnot€give€warning€if€to€do€so€would€increase€theÏrisk€to€himself€or€others.€Ð hÐ hÐ  Ð(Emphasis€in€original).ÌÌÓÓà  àAnticipating€that€Petitioner€would€attempt€to€offer€such€evidence€at€trial,€RespondentÏfiled€a€pre„trial€motion€in€limine€seeking€to€prohibit€Petitioner€from€introducing€evidenceÏof€any€alleged€violations€of€police€procedure.€€Respondent's€written€motion,€althoughÏspecifically€alluding€to€the€2€May€1995€Training€Bulletin€and€€ð ðthe€Rules€and€RegulationsÏpublished€June€24,€1988,ðð€did€not€limit€its€request€for€relief€only€to€those€items.€€In€grantingÏthe€motion,€the€trial€judge€reasoned:Ð °*&& ÐÑ+dO/Ñâ +âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ +âÑ  ÑÓÓà8  àà ` àI€have€reviewed€again€the€complaint,€and€I€donððt€see€any€allegations€inÏthe€complaint€that€this€suit€is€based€upon€a€violation€of€police€orders,€policeÏregulations,€police€guidelines,€and€that€as€a€result€of€the€defendantsðð€failing€toÏobserve€and€follow€police€orders,€rules,€regulations,€guidelines,€whatever€theyÏmay€be,€the€defendant€(sic)€had€been€harmed.€€I€donððt€see€that€at€all€in€theÏcomplaint.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€fact,€the€final€paragraph€of€the€complaint,€Paragraph€23,€says€this:€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à*à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#à*à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à*à0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à*à0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#à*а  (# (# ЀÌà8  àà ` àð ðAt€all€times€relevant€hereto,€the€actions€of€defendants€in€(a)€brutallyÏassaulting€Richardson,€(b)€filing€false€criminal€charges€against€Richardson,Ïand€(c)€subjecting€Richardson€to€humiliation€on€the€face€of€a€lack€of€probableÏcause€were€all€performed€by€defendants€without€warrant€or€justification,Ïwithout€probable€cause€and€were€negligent,€wanton,€malicious€and€reckless.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThese€are€the€reasons€given€for€the€wrongful€acts€of€the€defendants,Ïthat€they€acted€in€this€manner.€€There€is€not€a€single€count€in€the€complaintÏlabeled€violation€of€police€orders,€regulations,€guidelines,€et€cetera.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€think€what€this€comes€to€is,€as€I€think€has€been€acknowledged€byÏcounsel,€an€effort€to€prove€that€the€acts€of€the€defendants€were€wrongfulÏsimply€because€they€didnððt€comply€with€certain€orders.€€And€that€there€is€noÏemphasis€in€the€case,€from€what€I€read€the€complaint€as€being,€that€by€reasonÏof€the€failure€of€the€defendants€to€follow€rule€this,€rule€that,€order€this,€orderÏthat,€it€caused€harm€to€the€defendant.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€think€to€try€to€bring€it€in,€in€the€manner€that€the€plaintiff€proposes,Ïwould€be,€first€of€all,€causing€a€trial€within€a€trial,€and€that€we€would€get€veryÏbogged€down€into€the€whole€history€import€of€these€orders€and€regulations.€ÏAnd€then€we€get€into€guidelines,€and€plaintiffððs€counsel€is€suggesting€thatÏguidelines€donððt€give€any€discretion€because€they€use€the€words€ð ðshallðð€andÏð ðmust.ðð€€And,€you€know,€are€guidelines,€guidelines€as€the€word€implies€orÏdoes€it€mean€nothing€when€it€says€guidelines€because€the€words€ð ðshallðð€andÏð ðmustðð€be€used€certain€times.€€And€we€get€into€those€semantics,€and€theÏimportance€and€significance€of€those€semantics.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€somewhat€akin,€it€seems€to€me,€that€the€plaintiff€is€seeking€to€haveÏthis€be€a€res€ipsa€loquitur€type€of€situation,€that€the€jury€be€told,€ladies€andÐ °+'' ÐÑ1dO0Ñâ 1âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ 1âÑ  Ñgentlemen,€this€is€an€order€from€the€Police€Department;€this€is€a€regulation,Ïand€if€you€find€that€the€defendants€did€not€file€a€report,€and€write€a€reportÏexactly€when€and€where€they€were€supposed€to,€that€proves€their€guilt.€€ThatÏproves€that€they€were€negligent,€that€they€were,€you€know,€whatever€theÏvarious€counts€may€be,€and€the€jury€be€told,€failure€to€obey€regulations€orÏorders€imposes€liability€on€the€defendants,€and€I€donððt€think€thatððs€so.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€think€further€to€bring€this€into€the€case,€could€very€easily€tend€toÏconfuse€the€jury€and€obfuscate€the€real€issues€that€have€been€raised€by€theÏplaintiff,€and€it€is€for€these€reasons€that€I€grant€the€motion.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àAs€the€majority€also€notes€(Maj.€op.€at€11„13),€Petitioner€sought€to€adduce€testimonyÏfrom€Officer€McGriff's€and€Officer€Catterton's€immediate€supervisor,€Sergeant€LaronÏWilson.€€After€unsuccessfully€attempting€to€elicit€the€desired€information€in€cross„¼examination€of€Sergeant€Wilson€when€he€testified€for€the€defense,׃L×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Petitioner€later€calledÐ ° ÐSergeant€Wilson€as€a€rebuttal€witness.€€In€order€to€appreciate€the€full€backdrop€against€whichÏSergeant€Wilson€was€called€in€rebuttal,€one€needs€to€appreciate€also€Petitioner's€earlierÏefforts€at€cross„examination€of€Officer€McGriff€when€he€testified€during€the€defense€case„in„¼chief.€€Prior€to€that€cross„examination,€counsel€for€the€parties€approached€the€bench.€ÏPetitioner's€counsel€informed€the€trial€judge€that€he€intended€to€ask€Respondent€threeÏquestions.€€First,€he€would€ask€respondent€ð ðif€he€believed€his€actions€were€reasonable€on€theÏnight€of€January€12,€1996.ðð€€Second,€he€would€ask€if€a€reasonable€ð ð[a]lternative€would€haveÏbeen€to€secure€the€scene€and€wait€for€additional€officers€to€arrive.ðð€€Third,€PetitionerððsÐ °%!! ÐÑ5dO1Ñâ 5âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ 5âÑ  Ñcounsel€would€ask€ð ð[w]ould€you€agree€with€your€superior,€Sergeant€Wilson,€that€odds€ofÏseven€against€two€are€not€good€odds[?]ððÌà  àThe€trial€judge€permitted€Petitioner€to€ask€the€first€two€questions€because€theyÏaddressed€the€issue€of€reasonableness,€but€not€the€third.€€The€court€€reasoned:ÌÓÓà8  àThe€Court:€€I€see€no€objection€to€any€of€the€questions€except€the€one€aboutÏSergeant€Wilson.€€Because€it€seems€to€me€thatððs€hearsay.€€You€donððt€haveÏSergeant€Wilson€in€evidence€here.€€He€hasnððt€testified.€€You€donððt€have€anyÏreport€of€Sergeant€Wilson€thatððs€in€evidence.€€So,€it€just€seems€to€me€thatððsÏhearsay,€and€that€nobody€was€here€to€say€that€this€was€what€Sergeant€WilsonÏhad€to€say.€€Is€that€not€true?€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€Thatððs€true.€€Sergeant€Wilson€will€be€testifying.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court:€He€will€be?€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€He€will€be.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court:€Well,€I€donððt€ð"ð€well,€whoððs€calling€him?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€I€was€going€to€call€him,€but€[Respondent's€counsel]Ïindicated€that€she€was€going€to€be€calling€him.€€So,€I€am€going€to€examine€himÏon€those€points.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Respondent's€Counsel]:€I€will,€I€do€intend€at€this€point€to€call€him,€but€theÏpoint€is,€itððs€not€in€evidence€now.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court:€The€point€is€what?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Respondent's€Counsel]:€The€point€is€that€thereððs€no€evidence€of€that€now.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Court:€Yes.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Respondent's€Counsel]:€Heððs€going€to€be€referring€to€something€that€no€oneÏhas€talked€about.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ °*&& Ðà8  àThe€Court:€I€can€not€allow€that€question,€because€we€have€nothing€in€evidenceÏâ ânow€to€allow€that€question€to€be€asked.€€And€although€Sergeant€Wilson€mayÏbe€called,€I€donððt€know€what€heððs€going€to€say,€and€maybe€what€the€defenseÏwould€like€him€to€say,€heððs€not€going€to€be€able€to€say.€€There€may€beÏobjections€or€things€of€that€nature.€€So,€I€donððt€think€that€I€can€allow€thatÏquestion€but€that's€the€only€one€that€I€find€€fault€with,€because€I€don't€think€itÏviolates€the€ruling€I€made€with€respect€to€the€motion€in€limine€because€theÏheart€and€soul€of€this€is€reasonableness.€€And€I€think€the€questions€reallyÏaddress€reasonableness.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€ensuing€cross„examination€of€Officer€McGriff€by€Petitioner's€counsel€proceededÏthusly:€ÌÓÓà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Officer€McGriff,€you€indicated€that€when€youÏresponded€to€the€call,€you€thought€it€was€an€average€call.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€You€also€indicated€that€you€had€received€a€report€ofÏseveral€males;€shots€fired.€€Is€that€correct?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Actually,€wasn't€the€report€that€you€received€was,Ïseven€males,€shots€fired?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€I'm€not€disputing€that.€€I'm€just€saying€what€I€recall.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Okay.€€And€you€considered€that€to€be€an€average€call?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Did€you€believe€your€actions€were€reasonable€on€theÏnight€of€January€12,€1996?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Did€you€have€any€other€reasonable€alternative€besidesÏentering€the€apartment€building€that€evening?а+''Ð Ð  ÐÑ6dO3Ñâ 6âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ 6âÑ  ÑÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€No.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Would€a€reasonable€alternative€have€been€to€secure€theÏscene€and€wait€for€additional€officers€to€arrive?Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€No.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Even€with€the€report€of€seven€males,€shots€fired?Ð Ð Ð  ЀÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€Yes.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€You€testified€that€when€you€entered€the€apartment,€youÏreasonably€assumed€that€there€were€light€switches,€correct?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€Light€switches,€actual€switches€that€you€flip€up,€yeah.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Petitioner's€Counsel]:€€Okay.€€Did€you€or€Officer€Catterton€at€any€timeÏactivate€any€of€those€light€switches?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Officer€McGriff]:€€No,€we€didn't.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àWhen€Petitioner€ultimately€called€Sergeant€Wilson€as€a€rebuttal€witness,€the€trialÏcourt,€in€the€face€of€Respondentððs€objection,€refused€to€permit€Sergeant€Wilson€to€respondÏto€questions€regarding€police€training€and€the€identification€of€reasonable€alternativesÏRespondent€might€have€taken.€€One€of€the€grounds€relied€on€by€the€trial€judge€for€thisÏrestriction€was€that€Petitionerððs€proffer€of€what€Sergeant€Wilson€would€say€was€not€properÏrebuttal€evidence€because€the€testimony€would€be€unresponsive€to,€and€beyond€the€scope€of,Ïany€matter€presented€by€the€defense€in€its€case„in„chief.׃o×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€basis€for€this€aspect€of€theÐ °%!! ÐÑ%dO4Ñâ %âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ %âÑ  ÑCourt's€ruling€seems€to€be€that,€although€the€Respondent€had€been€permitted€to€answerÏPetitionerððs€questions€on€cross„examination€during€the€defense€case„in„chief€as€to€whetherÏhe€thought€he€had€any€reasonable€alternatives,€defense€counsel€had€not€initiated€that€line€ofÏinquiry€in€her€direct€examination€of€Respondent.׃?×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  Ðà  àAt€the€close€of€trial,€the€judge€instructed€the€jury€on€three€counts€„„€battery,€grossÏnegligence,€and€violation€of€Petitionerððs€constitutional€rights€under€Article€26€of€theÏMaryland€Constitution.€€The€instructions,€in€pertinent€part,€were€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àWith€respect€to€battery,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€under€our€law€a€batteryÏis€the€intentional€touching€of€a€person€without€that€personððs€consent.€ÏTouching€includes€the€intentional€putting€into€motion€of€anything€whichÏtouches€another€person€or€touches€something€that€is€connected€with€or€inÏcontact€with€another€person.€Ð Ð Ð  ЛÐ ° Ðà8  àà ` àIn€order€to€be€a€battery,€the€touching€must€be€harmful€or€offensive.€€AÏtouching€is€harmful€if€it€causes€physical€pain,€injury€or€illness.€€A€touch€isÏoffensive€if€it€offends€the€other€personððs€reasonable€sense€of€personal€dignity.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€this€case,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÏproof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€was€justified€in€committingÏa€battery€on€the€plaintiff.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€count€of€gross€negligence,€a€person€is€liable€forÏgross€negligence€when€that€person€acts€with€wanton€or€reckless€disregard€forÏhuman€rights€or€the€rights€of€others.€€Police€officers€are€not€immune€fromÏliability€for€gross€negligence.€€And€I€emphasize€that€is€the€gross€negligence€isÏthe€count€and,€again,€I€say€to€you€that€gross€negligence€is€when€one€acts€withÏwanton€or€reckless€disregard€for€the€rights€of€others€or€the€individualÏinvolved.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€this€case,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€because€the€defendants€were€actingÏin€their€capacity€as€law€enforcement€officers,€they€are€entitled€under€the€lawÏto€certain€protections€against€civil€liability€to€enable€them€to€do€their€jobsÏproperly.€€This€protection€insulates€them€from€liability€unless€you€find€thatÏthey€acted€maliciously.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àNow,€I€say€they.€€Thereððs€one€defendant€remaining€now,€so€the€theyÏshould€be€he.€€If€I€used€they,€now€it€is€just€the€one€defendant,€he.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àTherefore,€before€you€can€consider€any€award€for€the€actions€of€theÏdefendants,€you€must€find€as€a€fact€that€his€actions€were€malicious.€€To€proveÏmalice,€the€plaintiff€must€make€a€factual€showing€that€the€defendant€actedÏwithout€legal€justification€or€excuse,€but€with€an€evil€or€rancorous€motiveÏinfluenced€by€hate,€the€purpose€being€to€willfully€injure€the€plaintiff.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àEven€if€you€find€that€the€defendant€officer€was€over€zealous,€you€mustÏstill€find€in€favor€of€the€defendant€officer€unless€you€further€find€that€suchÏactions€were€done€out€of€malice€as€I€have€defined€it€for€you.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€you€do€not€find€that€the€officer€acted€in€this€manner,€then€you€mustÏreturn€a€verdict€for€the€defendant€officer.€€If€you€do€find€that€the€officer€actedÏin€this€manner,€then€you€must€consider€the€other€elements€of€the€wrong€withÏwhich€he€is€charged;€the€wrong€in€this€case€was€negligence.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÐ °+'' ÐÑ'dO6Ñâ 'âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ 'âÑ  Ñà8  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€plaintiffððs€claim,€the€count€of€violation€of€theÏplaintiffððs€constitutional€rights,€the€particular€provision€of€the€ConstitutionÏthat€the€plaintiff€is€claiming€a€violation€of€and€that€his€rights€were€violated€isÏArticle€26€of€the€Constitution.€€And€Article€26€of€the€Constitution€says€this.€ÏAnd€as€I€say,€Iððm€talking€about€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€Maryland.€ÏYou€can€have€violations€of€Federal€constitutional€rights,€violations€of€StateÏconstitutional€rights€or€both.€€Itððs€just€this€one€provision€thatððs€involved€in€thisÏcase.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àArticle€26€says€this:€That€all€warrants€without€oath€or€affirmation€toÏsearch€suspected€places€or€to€seize€any€person€or€property€are€grievous€andÏoppressive,€and€all€general€warrants€to€search€suspected€places€or€toÏapprehend€suspected€persons€without€naming€or€describing€the€place€or€theÏperson€in€special€are€illegal€and€ought€not€to€be€granted.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àArticle€26€of€the€Maryland€Constitution€protects€individuals€fromÏ¢warrantless£€seizures.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àPolice€officers€have€no€immunity€for€violation€of€the€Maryland€StateÏConstitution.€€A€plaintiff€may€recover€compensatory€damages€for€violation€ofÏthe€State€Constitution€regardless€of€the€presence€or€absence€of€malice.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àArticle€26€of€the€Maryland€Constitution€protects€Maryland€residentsÏfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€in€the€same€manner€as€the€FourthÏAmendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhen€a€police€officer€shoots€an€individual,€he€has€seized€theÏindividual.€€Whether€the€shooting€is€reasonable€under€the€MarylandÏDeclaration€of€Rights€depends€upon€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€eachÏparticular€case,€including€the€severity€of€the€crime€at€issue,€whether€theÏsuspect€poses€an€immediate€threat€to€the€safety€of€the€officer€or€others,€andÏwhether€he€is€actively€resisting€arrest€or€attempting€to€evade€arrest€by€flight.€¼à ` àÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€would€also€advise€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€that€under€our€law€anÏofficer€may€use€deadly€force€when€he€has€reason€to€believe€that€the€plaintiffÏwas€posing€a€significant€threat€of€death€or€serious€physical€injury€to€the€officerÏor€others.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ °*&& ÐÑ(dO7Ñâ (âѰ°ÑѰ°Ñâ (âÑ  Ñà8  àà ` àIn€determining€whether€the€force€used€by€any€of€the€police€officers€wasÏâ âexcessive,€I€would€instruct€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€that€police€officers€inÏthe€performance€of€their€duties€are€entitled€to€use€such€force€as€is€reasonableÏand€necessary€in€order€to€accomplish€their€lawful€purpose.€€TheÏreasonableness€or€excessiveness€of€any€force€is€a€matter€to€be€determined€inÏlight€of€all€of€the€circumstances€as€they€appeared€to€the€officer€at€that€time.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€would€further€advise€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€that€in€determiningÏwhether€force€was€excessive€or€not,€you€must€judge€it€upon€an€objective€basis.€ÏThat€is,€whether€a€reasonable€police€officer€under€the€same€or€similarÏcircumstances€could€have€believed€that€the€force€used€was€reasonable.€€AndÏI€would€point€out€to€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€that€you€must€look€at€thisÏjudgment€not€by€way€of€hindsight,€which€is€always€20/20,€but€rather€under€theÏcircumstances€as€they€existed€at€that€moment.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌNo€pertinent€exceptions€to€these€instructions€were€taken.ÌÌÓÓà  àDuring€jury€deliberations,€the€trial€judge€received€a€note€from€the€jury€asking€whetherÏð ð[¢i]n£€determining€the€reasonableness€of€the€defendantððs€actions,€do€we€restrict€ourÏconsideration€to€the€circumstances€surrounding€€the€instant€of€the€shooting,€or€should€weÏalso€consider€the€general€circumstances€leading€up€to€the€shooting€(e.g.€calling€for€back„up,Ïlights)?ðð€€In€addition€to€reiterating€his€earlier€instructions,€the€trial€judge€further€responded:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àTo€be€very€specific,€if€I€may,€about€your€question,€and€your€question,Ïreally,€I€think€is€directed€at€one€point,€are€there€surrounding€circumstances.€ÏDo€you€consider€the€matter€of€calling€for€a€back„up,€which€occurred€outsideÏthe€house€before€the€officers€went€in.€€Do€you€consider€what€lights€they€didÏor€did€not€turn€on,€what€lights€they€used€or€did€not€use.€€And€my€answer€toÏthat€is,€you€do€not€consider€those€particular€factors€that€you€have€enumerated.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àYou€look€at€the€circumstances€as€they€existed€at€the€moment€the€forceÏwas€used,€which€means€in€the€posture€of€this€case€when€Officer€¢Catterton£,Ïnow€Detective€and€then€Officer€¢Catterton£,€opened€the€closet€door€and€what€theÏcircumstances€were€at€that€time,€as€you€found€them€to€be€when€that€door€wasÏopened,€because€that€is€when€the€excessive€force€was€used.€€Those€were€theÏcircumstances€that€were€present.€Ð°+''Ð Ð  М‡à8  àà ` àAs€I€said,€you€donððt€use€hindsight.€€You€donððt€say,€well,€if€they€calledÏfor€more€back„up€and€waited€for€more€back„up,€it€might€have€been€different.€ÏYou€donððt€say,€well,€if€they€had€put€on€more€light,€it€might€have€beenÏdifferent.€€You€donððt€analyze€it€in€that€way.€€You€analyze€it€that€here€is€theÏsituation,€that€whatever€the€light€was,€the€light€was.€€And€you€are€not€toÏsecond€guess€the€officers€with€respect€whether€they€should€have€put€on€moreÏlight€or€less€light;€they€should€have€called€for€more€back„up;€they€shouldnððtÏhave€gone€in€the€house€until€they€got€more€back„up,€but€rather€here€they€areÏin€that€situation,€and€when€that€door€was€opened€to€the€closet,€those€were€theÏcircumstances€and€that€is€when€excessive€force€was€used.€€And€that€is€whatÏyou€are€to€consider.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€trial€judge€then€summarized€that€his€clarification€applied€both€to€the€battery€countÏand€to€the€count€relating€to€violation€of€Article€26€of€the€Declaration€of€Rights.€€PetitionerÏexcepted€to€the€aforesaid€limiting€instruction.€€The€jury€ultimately€found€that€RespondentÏwas€not€liable€on€any€of€the€counts.€Ìà  àPetitioner€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€not€admitting€the€police€guidelines€regarding€the€use€of€deadly€force,€not€allowingÏSergeant€Wilson€to€testify€that€Respondent€had