ÿWPCp3 ™íäåêI¸ú0Zm€%=obgúâ[t†I×æÇÆ!Þb€_òPÖCA†XѶþKóç{ðØSW 3ï*â&›?Åþõ]Xÿï­ äj¾#ÚUÎúŠ3Êá´¸µìÒ¼²¬_#Õ˜°Ìxwîö¦q:$ØTž6#vͱ@íëû*„¼<•5ßuj¦µs™lÈ«ØὓÁ˜¦ÐáYŠ{«“Å~éüþÙ@$yBÂDNéT)}€I·»ÒÑmæ ~'{Œ—²oÏé³­rmÚ­ù›Ùõç‚èK#‰ÇXj+o|z(2pªÝz ZÈ ²d•Bþ»O¿YÔM-¼¤«;x¾0E Ífï}^Œ…ÆnÄ ŒðƒžcóÐëéh,5¨¦ƒfiUùMBÆ6Wm‘àµÚ¦+Š*¯T´#%rˆ 7|ìؘºÖ6a¡H– MM®7àWˆiN´ôË5_~+ö¯kÖhúâfV 30šÌD´™9b«ï3 Ô\û˜ ÿQ=bOi#’}(‘4tœÙu,À=}Ç})ý¯Š§mÅGÞ‹U­Ž8ý-í¾wêÐíæê µ*rª›:NË}zpcä¬.i˜]bÐ-å,P×’CŽ1#!®8Ï % 0( U2F5w@{4»ÏÞ mà÷Æÿ 0eÅE*­, 0lÙ 0DE E U16‰ Æ¿ 0e… ¢ê ŒŒ¸‘BIIÏ‹*Zv„ ú#$ÿ!%ë * ,¼ ,"Ü-Fþ-þ-þ-þ- BD.D.a.a.a.a.h0˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0 .Ñ  ÑÑ#€éXÿÿd#ÑX($¡¡<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular GE?G@GAGBGDCGEDGEGlzÁ(ment13|xEG4ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ I., II.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#)Þ2Quick I.Úƒ ÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€ Û £›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔOur€conclusion€that€the€evidence€sufficiently€raises€anÐ ° Ðinference€of€malice€within€the€meaning€and€context€of€our€previousÏdecisions€makes€it€unnecessary€for€us€to€decide€plaintiffððsÏcontentions€that€a€showing€of€lack€of€probable€cause€wouldÏconstitute€ð ðmalice€òòper€se,óóðð€or€that€there€is€some€alternative,€lessÐ X Ðstringent€standard€for€pleading€and€proving€malice€than€the€oneÏapplied€here.€€We€do€note,€however,€that€plaintiff€cites€noÏauthority€to€support€these€contentions.Ô#†X2XXX2Q#Ô((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<4šÛ 9Z+‹Courier New1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#,2Quick 1.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Û ˜›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔPublic€officials€generally€are€not€immune€from€civilÐ ° Ðliability€for€violations€of€an€individualððs€state€constitutionalÏrights.€€òòSee€Ashton€v.€Brownóó,€339€Md.€70,€118€(1995);€òòsee€also€CityÐ \¬ Ðof€District€Heights,óó€123€Md.€App.€at€517.€€As€discussed€òòinfraóó,€weÐ 8ˆ Ðconclude€that€plantiffs€have€neither€alleged€nor€profferedÏsufficient€evidence€to€raise€an€inference€that€any€of€these€sixÏmunicipal€defendants€committed€any€constitutional€violations.€ÏSince€only€the€City€may€be€held€vicariously€liable€for€anyÏconstitutional€violations€committed€by€Officer€Blakes,€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€these€six€defendants€was€appropriate€on€theÏclaim€for€violations€of€Thackerððs€state€constitutional€rights.€€Ô#†X2XXX2Q#Ô û›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€circuit€court€held€that€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà8 ` à[p]laintiff€merely€alleges€that€Cpl.€BlakesÏmay€have€been€racially€motivated€because€heÏand€[the€tenant]€are€of€a€different€race€thanÏPlaintiff.€€He€further€contends€that,€becauseÏCpl.€Blakes€conceded€in€his€depositionÏtestimony€that€Plaintiff€had€not€acceded€toÐ Š Ú  Ðthe€Cityððs€suggestion€that€its€officers€beÏemployed€in€a€part„time€capacity€to€provideÏadditional€security€for€the€apartment€complex,ÏCpl.€Blakes€thereby€admitted€an€evilÏmotivation€toward€Plaintiff.€€Nothing€in€Cpl.ÏBlakesðð€testimony,€or€that€of€any€otherÏwitness€proffered€by€Plaintiff,€establishesÏthat€linkage.€ ®›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔThe€defendants,€appellees€herein,€are€the€City€ofÐ ° ÐHyattsville;€Hyattsville€Mayor€Mary€Prangley;€the€City€Council€ofÏthe€City€of€Hyattsville;€Hyattsville€Police€Chief€Robert€T.€Perry;ÏCpl.€Gary€Blakes;€Cpl.€Gregory€Phillips,€who€was€at€the€arrestÏscene;€Pvt.€Limuel€Hunter,€also€present€for€the€arrest;€and€Sgt.ÏWayne€McCully,€a€duty€officer€who€was€not€at€the€scene.€€ForÏclarity,€we€shall€refer€to€the€appellants€and€appelleesÏcollectively€by€their€respective€roles€of€plaintiffs€and€defendantsÏin€the€trial€courts.€€Ô#†X2XXX2P#Ô€€ 8›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔThe€complaint€included€these€counts€on€behalf€of€Thacker:Ð ° Ðà  àÌà  àCount€I:à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àDefamationÐ\¬(#(# Ðà  àCount€II:à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àAssault€and€BatteryÐ2‚(#(# Ðà  àCount€III:€à0  àFalse€ArrestÐX(#(# Ðà  àCount€IV:€à0  àFalse€ImprisonmentÐÞ.(#(# Ðà  àCount€V:à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àMalicious€Prosecutionд (#(# Ðà  àCount€VI:à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àViolation€of€Civil€Rights€under€42€U.S.C.Ð Š Ú ÐSection€1983Ð (#(# Ðà  àCount€VII:à0  àViolation€of€Maryland€Declaration€of€RightsÐ#6 † (#(# à #Ðà  àCount€VIII:à0  àIntentional€Infliction€of€Emotional€Distressа(#(# ÐÌIn€addition,€one€count€was€asserted€on€behalf€of€both€Thacker€andÏappellant€Melvin€Berman,€as€general€partner€of€the€partnership€Ïthat€employed€Thacker€and€owned€the€apartment€complex:ÌÌà  àCount€IX:à0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àInterference€with€ContractÔ#†X2XXX2P#Ô Å›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€resident€was€not€interviewed€by€the€police.€€She€diedÐ ° Ðwithout€giving€an€admissible€statement. ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔDefendants€do€not€appear€to€contend€that€the€federal€courtððsÐ ° Ðdecision€precluded€plaintiffs€from€pursuing€their€state€law€claims.€ÏAs€a€general€rule,€when€a€federal€court€dismisses€federal€claims€onÏthe€merits€before€trial,€and€then€declines€to€exercise€itsÏsupplemental€jurisdiction€over€related€pendent€state€claims€thatÏwere€removed€along€with€the€federal€claims,€principles€of€òòresÐ Þ. Ðjudicata€óóor€claim€preclusion€do€not€bar€litigation€of€the€remandedÐ º  Ðstate€claims€in€state€court.€€òòSee€Durham€v.€Fields,óó€87€Md.€App.€1,Ð – æ Ð12,€òòcert.€denied,óó€323€Md.€308€(1991)€(ð ðThe€law€seems€clear€that€ððaÐ r  Ðrefusal€to€exercise€pendent€jurisdiction€over€a€state€claimÏfollowing€a€pretrial€dismissal€of€a€federal€claim€does€not€barÏlitigation€of€state€claims€in€the€state€courtðððð)€(citationÏomitted).€Ô#†X2XXX2P#Ô l›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔSection€5„507€provides:Ô#†X2XXX2P#ÔÐ ° ÐÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒAn€official€of€a€municipal€corporation,€whileÏacting€in€a€discretionary€capacity,€ò òwithoutÐ 2‚ Ðmalice,ó ó€and€within€the€scope€of€the€officialððsÐ f Ðemployment€or€authority€shall€be€immune€as€anÏofficial€or€individual€from€any€civilÏliability€for€the€performance€of€the€action.€€ÌÒ°` ìÒÒ°` ÞÒÌSection€5„507(b)(1)€(emphasis€added).€€This€section€is€identical€toÏformer€section€5„321,€its€predecessor€before€the€governmentalÏimmunities€subtitle€was€recodified€in€1997.€€òòSeeóó€1997€Md.€Laws,Ð þ N  ÐChap.€14,€ðð€9.Ô#†X2XXX2¾#Ô ØØ ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔMs.€Battleððs€affidavit€was€submitted€to€the€court€withÐ ° ÐThackerððs€post„hearing€memorandum.Ô#†X2XXX2P#Ô õ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔAlthough€we€found€no€Maryland€cases€specifically€recognizingÐ ° Ðthat€malice€may€be€shown€by€proof€of€a€financial€animus,€weÏconclude€that€sufficiently€specific€allegations€and€proffers€ofÏevidence€tending€to€show€that€the€disputed€arrest€was€motivated€orÏunduly€influenced€by€the€arresting€officerððs€private€financialÏreasons€might€raise€an€inference€of€malice.Ô#†X2XXX2Q#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ô€€òòCf.,€e.g.,€Caruso€v.Ð Þ. ÐAbbott,óó€284€P.2d€113,€116„17€(Cal.€App.€1955)€(ð ðIf€a€group€ofÐ º  Ðofficials€conspire€to€exceed€their€authority,€even€to€the€point€ofÏviolation€of€express€statutes€governing€their€conduct,€and€for€theÏsole€purpose€of€their€private€business€advantage,€they€cannotÏreasonably€expect€extension€of€the€shelter€of€official€immunity€toÏtheir€actsðð);€òòYoung€v.€Hansen,óó€249€N.E.2d€300,€304€(Ill€App.€1969)Ð î >  Ð(ð ða€public€official€may€not€hide€behind€the€cloak€of€immunity€if€heÏmaliciously€and€intentionally€misuses€the€powers€of€his€officeðð€toÏinterfere€with€plaintiffððs€business).€Ô#†X2XXX2#Ô á›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔ42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€imposes€civil€liability€on€anyone€ð ðwho,Ð ° Ðunder€color€of€any€statute,€ordinance,€regulation,€custom,€orÏusage,€of€any€State€.€.€.€.,€subjects,€or€causes€to€be€subjected,Ïany€.€.€.€person€.€.€.€to€the€deprivation€of€any€rights,Ïprivileges,€or€immunities€secured€by€the€Constitution€and€laws.ððÔ#†X2XXX2P#Ô Ñ  Ñ ²›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔDefendantsðð€federal€motion€to€dismiss€and€plaintiffsððÐ ° Ðopposition€are€not€in€the€record€before€us,€so€we€cannot€discernÏwhether€and€to€what€extent€the€issues€of€probable€cause,€malice,Ïand€qualified€immunity€were€discussed€as€grounds€for€the€requestedÏdismissal.€Ô#†X2XXX2P#Ô Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ <ØØÑ#€â€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ñ d ý›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔThe€qualified€immunity€provisions€of€the€Maryland€Tort€ClaimsÐ ° ÐAct€are€codified€atÔ#†X2XXX2P#Ô€Ô‡X2XXX2ÔMd.€Code€(1984,€1999€Repl.€Vol.),€ðð€12„105€ofÐ †Ö Ðthe€State€Government€Article;€and€Md.€Code€(1974,€1998€Repl.€Vol.),Ïðð€5„522€of€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article.Ô#†X2XXX2ø#Ô þ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X2XXXÔPlaintiffs€complain€that€the€circuit€courtððs€ruling€in€favorÐ ° Ðof€these€defendants€was€ð ðpremature.ðð€€At€the€summary€judgmentÏhearing,€counsel€complained€that€defendant€Police€Chief€Perry€hadÏnot€been€produced€for€deposition,€in€violation€of€the€circuitÏcourtððs€order.€€We€find€that€the€circuit€court€properly€concludedÏthat,€in€light€of€plaintiffsðð€failure€to€plead€or€proffer€anyÏspecific€facts€suggesting€that€Perry€or€any€of€the€defendants€otherÏthan€Blakes€participated€in€the€decision€to€arrest,€plaintiffs€wereÏnot€entitled€to€delay€a€ruling€on€the€motion€pending€suchÏdeposition.Ô#†X2XXX2Q#ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý›Ó  ÓÑ€0ÑÒì°ÒÑ€#P¨ÑÑ€%*"ÑÑ€&~ÑÓÓÌòòÓ  ÓREPORTEDóó€Ð \¬ ÐòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSÐ X ÐOF€MARYLANDóóÐ ´  ÐNo.€2131ÌSeptember€Term,€1999ÌòòÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ¸  ÐON€MOTION€FOR€RECONSIDERATIONÌÓ8ÓÓpÓßA€*) °°xddEìc<AßÐ d´  ÐÌÌROBERT€LEE€¢THACKER£,€ET€AL.ÌÌÓ¶Óv.ÌCITY€OF€¢HYATTSVILLE£,€ET€AL.ÌòòÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ #s ÐÓ  ÓÌWenner,*ÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔSonner,ÌAdkins,Ô_ÔÌÓ  ÓÌà @D àà @œ àà @ô àà @L àà @¤ àà @ü! àJJ.ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ó# ÐóóÌOpinion€by€Ô_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ô,€J.ÌÌòòÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ +!{# ÐÌ*Wenner,€J.,€participated€in€theÏhearing€and€conference€of€thisÏcase€while€an€active€member€ofÏthis€Court;€he€participated€inÏthe€adoption€of€this€opinion€as€aÏretired,€specially€assignedÏmember€of€this€Court.Ì_________________________________ÌÌÌÓ  ÓFiled:€ñEGñNovember€14,€2000ñEGñÌÌÌÐ µ-)2 ÐÑ 0#P¨Ñâ âÑ  ÑÑ8€2WXXdÖXXdÖ8Ñâ #âÑ  Ñâ #âÑ  ÑÒ°ìÒÓ  ÓÓÓÑ€+Ñà  àLike€a€chameleon,€the€common€legal€term€ð ðmaliceðð€must€beÏexamined€in€context.€€As€the€Court€of€Appeals€recently€observed€inÏan€analogous€case€involving€qualified€public€official€immunity,Ïð ð[¢t]he£€word€ððmaliceðð€has€been€a€troublesome€one€in€the€law,€becauseÏit€has€been€used€in€many€different€contexts.€.€.€.ðð€€òòShoemaker€v.Ð ` ° ÐSmith,óó€353€Md.€143,€161€(1999).€€This€wrongful€arrest€case€isÐ  h  Ðadditional€anecdotal€affirmation€of€that€troublesome€nature.€Ìà  àWe€must€resolve€a€series€of€ð ðmaliceðð€related€issues€in€thisÏappeal€from€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€appellees,€who€are€eightÏmunicipal€defendants.€€Because€the€Circuit€Court€for€PrinceÏGeorgeððs€County€concluded€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€ofÏmalice€to€defeat€the€presumption€of€qualified€immunity€afforded€toÏmunicipal€officials€under€Md.€Code€(1974,€1998€Repl.€Vol.),€ðð€5„507Ïof€the€Courts€&€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€(ð ðSection€5„507"),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€weÐ „Ô Ðwill€address€the€qualified€immunity€issue€first.€€In€doing€so,€weÏalso€must€consider€the€effects€of€an€order€by€Judge€AlexanderÏWilliams€of€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€District€ofÏMaryland,€dismissing€with€prejudice€the€federal€civil€rights€claimÐ 4!„" ÐÑ &~+Ñâ &âØØÑ8€2XXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ  Ñâ &âØØâ âÑ  Ñof€Robert€¢Thacker£,€appellant.€€We€shall€hold€that€(1)€the€federalÐ ° Ðcourtððs€decision€had€no€preclusive€effect€on€the€remanded€state€lawÏclaims€now€before€us;€(2)€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€raise€anÏinference€of€malice€against€the€arresting€officer;€(3)€the€cityÏemploying€the€arresting€officer€may€be€held€vicariously€liable€forÏhis€torts€and€constitutional€violations,€and€is€not€otherwiseÏimmune€from€liability€for€violations€of€the€Maryland€Constitution;Ïand€(4)€there€was€no€evidence€of€malice€against€the€other€sixÏmunicipal€defendants.€€Ìà  àAs€a€result,€we€must€review€the€undisputed€material€facts€toÏdetermine€whether€summary€judgment€was€appropriate€even€absent€suchÏqualified€immunity.€€Each€cause€of€action€must€be€consideredÏseparately,€because€the€respective€òòprima€facieóó€elements€andÐ À Ðdefenses€differ.€€We€shall€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€andÏremand€to€the€circuit€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.ÌÓ  Óò òBACKGROUND€OF€LEGAL€PROCEEDINGSÐ |Ì  ÐÓhÓÓ  ÓThe€Arrest€And€Complaintó óÐ D!”" ÐÓ»Óà  à¢Thacker£'s€arrest€for€disorderly€conduct€precipitated€theÏinstant€case.€€Thacker,€an€apartment€complex€manager,€requestedÏpolice€assistance€in€removing€from€the€property€management€officeÏa€tenant€who€was€disgruntled€over€Thackerððs€refusal€to€issue€him€aÏtemporary€parking€permit.€€In€the€ensuing€encounter€among€Thacker,ÏHyattsville€police€officers,€and€the€tenant,€Officer€Gary€¢Blakes£Ð h+¸&. Ðarrested€¢Thacker£.€€Additional€evidence€regarding€that€encounter€andÏarrest€is€reviewed€in€Part€III€of€this€opinion.Ìà  àAfter€the€disorderly€conduct€charge€was€òònolle€¢prossed£,óó€¢Thacker£Ð X Ðand€Melvin€Berman,€as€general€partner€of€the€partnership€thatÏemployed€¢Thacker£,€filed€a€complaint€against€¢Blakes£€and€seven€otherÏmunicipal€defendants.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€gravamen€of€the€complaint€was€thatÐ  h  ТThacker£€did€not€commit€any€crime,€that€¢Blakes£€made€defamatoryÏstatements€regarding€¢Thacker£,€and€that€the€arrest€was€wrongfullyÏmotivated€by€¢Blakes£ðð€dislike€of€¢Thacker£€and€his€desire€toÏretaliate,€intimidate,€humiliate,€and€harm€him.€€The€otherÏmunicipal€defendants€were€alleged€to€be€liable€under€theories€ofÏvicarious€liability,€negligent€training,€and/or€negligentÏsupervision.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Ì ÐÓ  Óò òFederal€Court€Proceedingsó óÐ ° ÐÓ­Óà  àThe€municipal€defendants€removed€the€entire€case€to€the€UnitedÏStates€District€Court€for€the€District€of€Maryland,€based€upon€aÏsingle€civil€rights€count€under€42€U.S.C.€section€1983€(theÏð ðsection€1983€claimðð).׃"@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€They€immediately€filed€a€preliminaryÐ | Ì Ðmotion€to€dismiss€the€complaint€under€Federal€Rule€of€CivilÏProcedure€12(b)(6).€€No€discovery€had€been€conducted.€€PlaintiffsÏfiled€an€opposition,€attaching€a€copy€of€¢Blakes£ðð€incident€report€toÏit.Ìà  àAt€the€motion€hearing,€without€prior€notice€to€¢Thacker£ððsÏattorney,€defense€counsel€urged€the€court€to€exercise€itsÏdiscretion€under€Rule€12(b)€to€convert€the€motion€to€dismiss€intoÏa€motion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€€I€do€note€that€while€theÏcomplaint€itself€is€fairly€limited€in€factualÏallegations,€the€plaintiff€has€attached€a€copyÏof€the€police€report€to€his€reply€memorandum,Ïthereby,€I€submit,€making€the€police€reportÏitself€in€essence€part€of€his€complaint.€€IÐ ¶ Ðthink€itððs€therefore€fair€to€refer€to€thatÏcomplaint.€ÌÌTHE€COURT:€Are€you€now€turning€this€into€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment?ÌÌ[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€It€is€in€practical€effect€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€based€upon€theÏadditional€material€supplied€by€the€plaintiff,Ïnot€the€defendant,€to€the€record.ÌÌTHE€COURT:€Does€[plaintiffsðð€counsel]€have€theÏright€to€receive€notice€of€this€and€anÏopportunity€to€supplement€his€response?€€WhatÏis€your€view€on€that?ÌÌ[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€I€would€respectfully€submitÏthat€the€defendant€is€under€no€obligation€toÏwarn€the€plaintiff€that€by€adding€additionalÏinformation€he€risks€converting€what€is€aÏmotion€to€dismiss€to€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€My€position€would€perhaps€have€beenÏclearer€had€I€submitted€affidavits€from€myÏclients,€but,€frankly,€I€didnððt€think€itÏnecessary.ÌÌÒ°` -ÒÒ°` ÒÓ;Óà  à¢Thacker£ððs€attorney€objected€that€he€was€not€prepared€for€aÏdispositive€evidentiary€motion,€and€that€the€police€report€wasÏneither€proffered€nor€admissible€for€the€truth€of€Officer€¢Blakes£ððÏstatements€therein.ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[PLAINTIFF'S€COUNSEL]:€Initially,€I€must€stateÏthat€I€was€prepared€today€to€argue€the€motionÏto€dismiss€and€not€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€And€it€is€very€clear€from€myÏpleading€that€the€purpose€of€attaching€theÏpolice€officerððs€report€was€only€for€theÏpurpose€of€showing€his€state€of€mind,€if€youÏwould,€for€purposes€of€arrest.€€We€certainly€Ïdo€not€admit€the€facts€that€are€alleged€inÏthat€report€and€I€make€that€clear€when€IÏattached€that€to€my€pleading€by€a€statement€toÏthat€effect.€€We€certainly€dispute€thoseÏfacts.€€Our€position€here€is€that€we€are€notÏhere€to€try€this€case.€€We€are€here€on€anÐ ú+J'/ Ðissue€of€whether€or€not€we€have€sufficientlyÏpled€facts€from€which€a€jury€can€reasonablyÏinfer€that€these€violations€have€occurred.ÌÌÒ°` ÜÒÒ°` ÎÒÓêÓà  àWithout€further€comment€on€converting€the€motion€to€dismiss,Ïthe€federal€court€proceeded€to€raise€the€issue€of€qualifiedÏimmunity.ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓTHE€COURT:€€Well,€what€is€the€purpose€ofÏhaving€submitted€a€copy€of€the€complaint€andÏyour€interpretation€of€that?€€What€was€theÏpurpose€of€that?ÌÌ[PLAINTIFF'S€COUNSEL]:€€To€show€that€theÏofficer€thought€that€it€was€his€responsibilityÏto€resolve€the€parking€problem,€and€he€thoughtÏthat€it€was€within€his€parameters€to€arrestÏMr.€¢Thacker£,€the€plaintiff,€by€virtue€of€theÏfact€that€he€would€not€stop€asking€him€toÏremove€the€tenant€from€his€office.ÌÌTHE€COURT:€€It€just€seems€to€me€that€itððs€aÏbuilt„in€qualified€immunity€defense.€€ItÏdoesnððt€matter€whether€in€fact€he€had€probableÏcause,€but€if€he€reasonably€and€objectivelyÏbelieved€that€he€had€the€right€to€arrest€himÏfor€disorderly€conduct,€I€think€the€game€isÏover.€€Thatððs€what€qualified€immunity€is.ÌÌ[PLAINTIFF'S€COUNSEL]:€Well,€I€would€think,ÏYour€Honor,€that€whether€or€not€it€wasÏreasonable€for€him€to€believe€such€is€the€juryÏquestion€.€.€.€.€[¢M]y£€point€is€that€theÏjustification€for€the€arrest€is€whatÏcompromises€the€whole€claim.€€If€there€areÏsufficient€facts€from€which€the€jury€canÏdetermine,€which€I€believe€there€is,€that€theÏofficer€was€not€reasonable€in€thinking€that€heÏcould€make€the€arrest€and€that€his€arrest€wasÏnot€justified,€which€we€claim€that€it€is€notÏjustified,€then€there€falls€the€probable€causeÏargument.Ì€ÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓAfter€noting€that€ð ðwe€have€not€even€developed€any€of€the€facts€inÏthis€case,ðð€¢Thacker£ððs€attorney€proffered€his€clientððs€anticipatedÐ ú+J'/ Ðtestimony€that€(a)€as€he€and€the€tenant€were€leaving,€OfficerÏ¢Blakes£€yelled€that€¢Thacker£€was€a€bad€manager,€and€(b)€¢Thacker£Ïresponded€by€yelling€out€the€door€that€ð ðIf€Iððm€a€bad€manager,Ïyouððre€a€bad€police€officer.ðð€€Ìà  àWithout€further€proffer,€argument,€or€ruling,€the€federalÏcourt€granted€defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€the€section€1983€claim.€ÏIn€accordance€with€his€ð ðclear€and€consistentðð€practice€of€decliningÏto€exercise€supplementary€jurisdiction€over€pendent€state€lawÏclaims,€Judge€Williams€remanded€the€remaining€state€law€claimsÏwithout€addressing€the€effect€his€ruling€would€have€on€thoseÏremanded€claims:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓWell,€Iððm€going€to€tell€you€what€Iððm€going€toÏdo,€counsel.€€Iððm€going€to€allow€you€to€goÏback€to€state€court.€€Iððm€going€to€remand€thisÏcase€back€to€the€state€court.€€Why?€€Because€IÏdonððt€believe€that€you€have€and€can€establish,Ïbased€on€the€pleadings€itself,€a€1983€action.Ï.€.€.€€But€based€on€the€document€that€youÏsubmitted,€based€on€my€reading€of€the€facts,Ïand€based€on€what€confronts€me€and€leaps€outÏat€me€right€now,€I€believe€that€all€over€thisÏcase€is€qualified€immunity.€.€.€.€€Based€onÏthe€facts€I€see€and€what€is€so€clear€to€me€asÏa€matter€of€law,€I€find€that€the€officers€hadÏa€¢bas[i]s£€to€arrest.€€They€had€probable€cause,Ïand€even€if€they€didnððt€have€probable€cause,Ïthey€objectively€and€reasonably€believed€theyÏhad€the€right€to€arrest,€which,€as€I€see€it,Ïthatððs€qualified€immunity.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€Fourth€Circuit€has€told€theseÏdistrict€court€judges€to€assess€qualifiedÏimmunity€as€early€as€we€can.€€I€have€doneÏthat.€€I€have€given€you€a€chance€to€talk€meÏout€of€it.€.€.€.€Iððm€dismissing€[the€1983Ïclaim]€with€prejudice.€€And€having€reviewedÏthe€complaint€that€you€have€submitted,€I€alsoÐ ú+J'/ Ðbelieve€that€as€an€alternative€ground€summaryÏjudgment€should€be€awarded.ÌÌà ¸ àIððm€going€to€remand€Counts€I,€II,€III,ÏIV,€V,€and€VII€[and€IX]€to€the€state€court€forÏyour€continued€litigation.€€I€will€not€offerÏan€opinion€at€all€on€those€counts.€€I€willÏleave€those€for€you€to€fight€in€the€stateÏsystem.€.€.€.€€I€will€remand€the€case€back€toÏstate€court,€again,€having€ruled€on€only€theÏone€claim.€€So,€your€complaint€is€stillÏviable,€counsel,€and€you€may€continue€yourÏsuit€back€in€.€.€.€Prince€Georgeððs€County.ÌÌÒ°` w,ÒÒ°` i,ÒÓ…,Óà  àIn€a€subsequent€written€order,€the€federal€court€granted€theÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€section€1983€count€with€prejudice,€denied€theÏmotion€with€respect€to€the€pendent€claims,€remanded€the€case€to€theÏcircuit€court,€and€ordered€the€case€closed.€€The€reasons€stated€inÏthat€order€are€as€follows:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓFor€the€reasons€stated€on€the€record€[at€theÏmotion€hearing],€a€reading€of€the€complaintÏindicates€that€the€three€individual€officersÏare€entitled€to€qualified€immunity,€and€thatÏno€federal€claims€lie€against€the€otherÏDefendants.€€Therefore,€Count€VI€must€beÏdismissed€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€Pro,€12(b)(6).ÌÌà ¸ àMoreover,€in€light€of€the€reportÏsubmitted€by€Plaintiffs€themselves,€and€havingÏheard€a€proffer€of€facts€offered€byÏPlaintiffsðð€counsel€at€the€hearing,€the€CourtÏalso€concludes€that€the€motion€could€beÏconverted€to€one€for€summary€judgment.€€UponÏreviewing€Plaintiffsðð€additional€evidence€andÏcounselððs€proffer,€the€Court€also€concludesÏthat€the€Defendants€would€be€entitled€toÏsummary€judgment.ÌÌÒ°` ž4ÒÒ°` 4ÒÓ¬4ÓPlaintiffs€did€not€appeal€the€order.ÌÌÐ ú+J'/ ÐÓ  Óò òCircuit€Court€Proceedings€After€Remandó óÐ ° ÐÓ8Óà  àAfter€remand,€defendants€immediately€attempted€to€use€JudgeÏWilliamsðð€order€to€dispose€of€all€the€state€law€claims.€€They€movedÏto€dismiss,€or€in€the€alternative€for€summary€judgment,€on€theÏgrounds€that€the€federal€court€had€granted€summary€judgment€basedÏupon€factual€findings€of€probable€cause,€lack€of€malice,€andÏqualified€immunity€under€federal€law,€and€that€the€federal€courtððsÏdecision€collaterally€¢estopped£€¢Thacker£€from€disputing€that€theyÏwere€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€under€Maryland€law.€ÏAlternatively,€they€argued€that€the€federal€court€made€a€factualÏfinding€of€probable€cause€that€necessarily€vitiated€the€assault€andÏbattery,€false€arrest,€false€imprisonment,€malicious€prosecution,Ïand€Maryland€Declaration€of€Rights€claims,€because€each€of€thoseÏcauses€of€action€requires€a€showing€of€lack€of€probable€cause.Ìà  àThe€circuit€court€denied€the€motion€after€hearing.€€In€doingÏso,€the€court€raised€questions€about€the€extent€and€impact€of€theÏfederal€courtððs€order:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓThe€problem€is€he€kind€of€went€back€and€forthÏabout€the€reason€why€he€was€dismissing€aÏFederal€claim€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà ¸ àNow,€the€question€is,€what€did€he€do€whenÏhe€decided€the€1983€case.€€If€he€made€aÏdetermination€as€a€fact€finder€that€there€wasÏð"ð€there€was€not€sufficient€evidence€to€supportÏthe€claim.€€That€is€not€really€what€a€MotionÏto€Dismiss€is.€€ÌÌà ¸ àA€Motion€to€Dismiss€is€supposed€to€beÏbased€solely€on€the€pleadings,€and€if€he€didÏit€on€the€basis€of€the€pleadings€alone,€then€IÐ ,f'/ Ðdonððt€think€heððs€made€a€finding€about€goodÏfaith€or€anything€else.€€I€donððt€know€how€heÏmade€this€determination.ÌÌÒ°` m<ÒÒ°` _<ÒÓ{<Óà  àRejecting€defense€counselððs€argument€that€the€narrativeÏpreceding€the€order€of€dismissal€established€that€Judge€WilliamsÏhad€made€conclusive€factual€findings€of€probable€cause€and€lack€ofÏmalice,€the€circuit€court€also€questioned€the€basis€of€the€federalÏcourt€order:€"Just€on€the€basis€of€the€report€he€did€that?€€TheÏreport€is€clearly€self„serving.€€How€can€you€do€that?"€€The€circuitÏcourt€declined€to€give€the€federal€order€any€preclusive€effect,€andÏdenied€defendantsðð€motion.€€Ìà  àAfter€conducting€substantial€discovery,€defendants€filed€aÏsecond€motion€for€summary€judgment,€accompanied€by€depositionÏtranscripts€and€the€same€federal€order€and€transcript.€€TheyÏrenewed€their€collateral€estoppel€arguments,€and€also€soughtÏjudgment€based€on€the€evidence€developed€in€discovery,€or€the€lackÏthereof.€€They€asserted€that€such€evidence€established€that€none€ofÏthe€officers€at€the€scene€had€acted€with€malice,€and€thatÏdefendants€were€otherwise€entitled€to€summary€judgment€on€each€ofÏthe€various€counts.€€Plaintiffs€opposed€the€motion.€€Ìà  àAt€the€motion€hearing,€the€circuit€court€quickly€disposed€ofÏthe€preclusion€arguments:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ.€.€.€[Y]ou€all€have€raised€res€judicata.€€AndÏthat€is€not,€and€I€have€already€said,€I€donððtÏsee€that€as€the€primary€issue€here.€€That€isÏonly€as€to€Count€6€on€the€federal€claim.ÌÒ°` áCÒÒ°` ïCÒÌÓýCÓThe€court€then€ruled€on€each€of€the€remanded€state€law€claims€òòinÐ ú+J'/ Ðseriatim:óóÐ ° ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓCount€I€(defamation):€summary€judgment€grantedÏas€to€all€defendants;ÌÌCounts€II€(assault€and€battery),€III€(falseÏarrest),€IV€(false€imprisonment),€and€VÏ(malicious€prosecution):€summary€judgmentÏgranted€as€to€all€defendants€except€BlakesÏ(taken€under€advisement);ÌÌCount€VII€(Md.€Declaration€of€Rights):€takenÏunder€advisement€as€to€all€defendants;€andÌÌCount€IX€(interference€with€contract):€summaryÏjudgment€granted€as€to€all€defendants.Ì€ÌÒ°` ‡EÒÒ°` yEÒÓ•EÓà  àAfter€post„hearing€briefing,€the€court€issued€a€writtenÏopinion€and€order€granting€summary€judgment€for€Blakes€and€theÏother€municipal€defendants€on€all€of€the€counts€taken€underÏadvisement.€€The€court€based€its€decision€on€its€conclusion€thatÏthere€was€insufficient€evidence€of€malice€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€of€qualified€immunity.€€Final€judgment€was€entered€onÏall€counts€in€favor€of€all€defendants.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÓ  Óò òDISCUSSIONÐ ¦ö ÐÓÓI.ÌÓÓStandard€Of€Reviewó óÐ R!¢" ÐÓ  Óà  àOnce€again,€we€shall€follow€familiar€principles€governing€Ïappellate€review€of€summary€judgment.€€Summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€when€there€is€no€dispute€of€material€fact€and€theÏmoving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Md.€RuleÏ2„501.€€Our€review€of€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€requires€us€toÏdetermine€whether€a€dispute€of€material€fact€exists,€and€whetherÐ v+Æ&. Ðthe€trial€court€was€ð ðlegally€correct.ðð€€òòHartford€Ins.€Co.€v.€ManorÐ ° ÐInn€of€Bethesda,óó€335€Md.€135,€144€(1994).€€Facts€necessary€to€theÐ h¸ Ðdetermination€of€a€motion€may€be€placed€before€the€court€byÏpleadings,€affidavit,€deposition,€answers€to€interrogatories,Ïadmissions€of€facts,€stipulations,€and€concessions.€€òòSee€Wood€v.Ð x È ÐPalmer€Ford,€óó47€Md.€App.€692,€694€(1981).€€We€will€review€the€"sameÐ 0 €  Ðinformation€from€the€record€and€decide€the€same€issues€of€law€asÏthe€trial€court."€€òòHeat€&€Power€Corp.€v.€Air€Prods.€&€Chems.,óó€320Ð ”ä  ÐMd.€584,€591„92€(1990).Ìà  àIn€doing€so,€we€are€mindful€of€important€limitations€on€theÏcourtððs€role.ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€resolving€whether€a€material€factÏremains€in€dispute,€the€court€must€accordÏgreat€deference€to€the€party€opposing€summaryÏjudgment.€€Even€where€the€underlying€facts€areÏundisputed,€if€those€facts€are€susceptible€ofÏmore€than€one€permissible€inference,€the€trialÏcourt€is€obliged€to€make€the€inference€inÏfavor€of€the€party€opposing€summary€judgment.€ÏThe€court€should€never€attempt€to€resolveÏissues€of€fact€or€of€credibility€of€witnessesÏð"ð€these€matters€must€be€left€€for€the€jury.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓpNÓòòLaws€v.€Thompson,óó€78€Md.€App.€665,€674,€òòcert.€denied,óó€316€Md.€428€Ð X!¨" Ð(1989)€(citation€omitted).€€For€these€reasons,€certain€types€ofÏclaims€are€usually€inappropriate€for€summary€judgment.€€The€CourtÏof€Appeals€recently€reminded€us€thatÌÓÓà  àà8 ` à[s]ummary€judgment€generally€is€inappropriateÏwhen€matters€ð"ð€such€as€knowledge,€intent€orÏmotive€ð"ð€that€are€ordinarily€reserved€for€theÏfact„finder€are€essential€elements€of€theÏplaintiffððs€case€or€of€the€defense[,]€.€.€.€.Ï[because]€'the€facts€concerning€theÐ B,’'/ Ðdefendant's€knowledge€and€conduct,€and€theÏcircumstances€in€which€they€existed,€€as€wellÏas€any€determinations€of€how€they€relate€toÏthe€legal€standard€.€.€.€are€best€left€forÏresolution€by€the€trier€of€fact€at€trial.'€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÆQÓòòBrown€v.€Dermer,óó€357€Md.€344,€355„56€(2000)€(quoting€òòFed.€Sav.€&Ð ´  ÐLoan€Ins.€Corp.€v.€Williams,óó€599€F.€Supp.€1184,€1213€(D.€Md.Ð l ¼ Ð1984)).€€Whether€a€municipal€official€is€entitled€to€qualifiedÏimmunity€because€the€discretionary€act€complained€of€was€performedÏð ðwithout€maliceðð€raises€the€type€of€intent€and€state€of€mind€issuesÏthat€are€less€likely€to€be€resolved€on€summary€judgment.€€òòSeeóóÐ (x  ÐòòShoemaker,óó€353€Md.€at€168.€€€€Ð à0 ÐÔ‡X2XXXÔò òÓÓÓ  ÓII.Ð ˜è ÐPropriety€Of€Summary€JudgmentÌOn€Grounds€Of€Qualified€ImmunityÌÌÓ]VÓÓKVÓòòà  àó óóóThe€circuit€court€held€that€all€of€the€defendants€wereÐ (x Ðentitled€to€qualified€immunity€under€section€5„507,€because€thereÏwas€ð ðan€absence€of€evidenceðð€that€Blakes,€the€arresting€officer,Ïacted€with€malice€in€making€the€decision€to€arrest€¢Thacker£.€€WeÏdisagree.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€shall€reverse€inÏpart,€affirm€in€part,€and€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Ìò òÓÓÓ  ÓA.Ð Ü$, & ÐEffect€Of€Federal€Court€OrderÌDismissing€The€Section€1983€ClaimÌòòÌÓÉXÓÓ·XÓà  àó óóóAs€a€threshold€question,€we€must€decide€whether€the€federalÐ n(¾#* Ðcourtððs€dismissal€of€the€section€1983€claim€had€any€preclusiveÏeffect€on€the€remanded€state€law€claims.€The€specific€questionÐ Æ+'. Ðraised€by€defendants€involves€collateral€estoppel€ð"ð€or€to€use€theÏmore€descriptive€term,€ð ðissue€preclusion.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†X2XXX2)V#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ԀР\¬ Ðà  àDefendants€contend€that€in€disposing€of€the€section€1983Ïclaim,€the€federal€court€made€factual€findings€of€probable€cause,Ïlack€of€malice,€and€qualified€immunity€under€federal€law,€and€that,Ïas€a€matter€of€law,€such€findings€establish€lack€of€malice€andÏqualified€immunity€under€section€5„507.€€Ô#†X2XXX2:[#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔAlternatively,€they€argueÐ ¸  Ðthat€the€federal€courtððs€finding€of€probable€cause€makes€itÏimpossible€to€establish€or€defend€the€state€law€claims€for€assaultÏand€battery,€false€arrest,€false€imprisonment,€maliciousÏprosecution,€and€violation€of€the€Maryland€Declaration€of€Rights.Ô#†X2XXX2Å\#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐ h¸ Ðà  àDefendants€correctly€point€out€that€when€a€federal€courtÏdisposes€of€a€federal€claim€before€trial,€collateral€estoppel€mayÏpreclude€the€plaintiff€from€relitigating€factual€issues€actuallyÏdecided€by€the€federal€court.€€Ô#†X2XXX21^#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ôð ðFederal€law€determines€theÐ h Ðpreclusive€effect€of€federal€orders€on€a€question€of€federal€law,Ïregardless€of€whether€the€court€applying€the€federal€judgment€isÐ pÀ  Ðstate€or€federal.ðð€€òòNutter€v.€Monongahela€Power€Co.,óó€4€F.3d€319,Ð ° Ð321€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1993).€€The€Fourth€Circuit€has€explained€thatÐ h¸ ÐÓÓà  àà8 ` à'[c]ollateral€estoppel€or€issue€preclusion€isÏpremised€on€the€notion€that€a€judgment€in€aÏprior€suit€"precludes€relitigation€of€issuesÏactually€litigated€and€necessary€to€theÏoutcome€of€the€first€action.'"€€òòUnited€StatesÐ l ¼ Ðv.€Wight,óó€819€F.2d€485,€487€(4th€Cir.€1987)Ð H ˜  Ð(quoting€òòParklane€Hosiery€Co.€v.€Shore,óó€439Ð $ t  ÐU.S.€322,€326€n.€5,€99€S.€Ct.€645,€649€n.5Ï(1979)).€Once€a€court€decides€an€issue€of€lawÏor€fact€necessary€to€its€judgment,€thatÏdecision€can€be€binding€upon€a€party€to€it€ifÏthe€party€was€given€a€"'full€and€fairÏopportunity'€to€litigate€that€issue€in€theÏearlier€case."€€òòAllen€v.€McCurry,óó€449€U.S.€90,Ð T Ð94-95,€101€S.€Ct.€411,€414-15€(1980)Ï(citations€omitted)).Ð ` x` x ÐÌÔ#†X2XXX2o_#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÓ aÓòòFullerton€Aircraft€Sales€&€Rentals€Ô#†X2XXX2qd#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ôv.€Beech€Aircraft€Corp.,óó€842Ð b² ÐF.2d€717,€720€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1988).€Ô#†X2XXX2ïd#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐ j Ðà  àThe€ð ðelementsðð€of€collateral€estoppel€reflect€this€fundamentalÏconcern€for€fairness.ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àFor€collateral€estoppel€to€apply,€theÏproponent€must€establish€that:€(1)€the€issueÏsought€to€be€precluded€is€identical€to€oneÏpreviously€litigated;€(2)€the€issue€must€haveÏbeen€actually€determined€in€the€priorÏproceeding;€(3)€determination€of€the€issueÏmust€have€been€a€critical€and€necessary€partÏof€the€decision€in€the€prior€proceeding;€(4)Ïthe€prior€judgment€must€be€final€and€valid;Ïand€(5)€the€party€against€whom€estoppel€isÏasserted€must€have€had€a€full€and€fairÏopportunity€to€litigate€the€issue€in€theÏprevious€forum.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ%fÓòòSedlack€v.€Braswell€Svcs.€Group,óó€134€F.3d€219,€224€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1998).Ð Ò("$+ ÐIn€this€case,€Ô#†X2XXX2Še#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ôthese€elements€have€not€been€satisfied.Ð Š*Ú%- Ðà  àFirst,€the€issue€considered€by€the€federal€court€was€notÐ 6,†'/ Ðð ðidenticalðð€to€the€qualified€immunity€issue€addressed€by€theÏcircuit€court.€€Ô#†X2XXX2i#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔIn€òòShoemaker,€supraóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€recentlyÐ \¬ Ðheld€that€Maryland€law€governing€qualified€immunity€from€state€lawÏclaims€is€not€ð ðidenticalðð€to€federal€law€governing€qualifiedÏimmunity€from€section€1983€claims.€€This€difference€arises€fromÏfundamental€differences€in€the€history,€objectives,€underlyingÏpolicies,€and€standards€governing€qualified€immunity.€Ì€ÓÓà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€[Supreme]€Court€found,€fromÐ pÀ  Ðexperience€that€the€subjective€componentÏexacted€too€high€a€price€by€forcing€governmentÏofficials,€in€too€many€instances,€to€devoteÏtime€and€energy€in€defending€non„meritoriousÏlitigation,€diverting€their€attention€fromÏtheir€official€duties.€.€.€.€[T]he€Court€notedÏthat€'the€judgments€surrounding€discretionaryÏaction€almost€inevitably€are€influenced€by€theÏdecisionmakerððs€experiences,€values,€andÏemotions,'€and€that€those€variables€'explainÏin€part€why€questions€of€subjective€intent€soÏrarely€can€be€decided€by€summary€judgment.'€ÏòòHarlow€v.€Fitzgerald,óó€[457€U.S.€800,€816,€102Ð Nž ÐS.€Ct.€2727,€2737€(1982)].€€The€subjectiveÏelement€of€good€faith,€or€lack€of€malice,€wasÏthus€incompatible€with€the€desire€thatÏinsubstantial€claims€should€not€proceed€toÏtrial€.€.€.€.€Accordingly,€the€CourtÏeliminated€that€element€from€the€calculus€andÏre„articulated€the€remaining€objectiveÏelement.€€The€new€standard€for€immunity€underÏðð€1983€was€stated€thusly:€'governmentÏofficials€performing€discretionary€functions,Ïgenerally€are€shielded€from€liability€forÏcivil€damages€insofar€as€their€conduct€doesÏnot€violate€clearly€established€statutory€orÏconstitutional€rights€of€which€a€reasonableÏperson€would€have€known'.€.€.€.€€The€good€andÏevil€intentions€of€the€official€play€no€directÏrole€in€this€analysis.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓòkÓòòId.óó€at€159.€€The€òòShoemakeróó€Court€then€contrasted€the€objectiveÐ 6+†&. Ðfederal€standard€for€qualified€immunity€with€Marylandððs€subjective,Ïmalice„based€standard.ÌÓ]oÓà  àà8 ` àThat€is€not€the€test€for€determining€theÏqualified€immunity€under€the€State€Tort€ClaimsÏAct,€however.€€Unlike€the€judicially„fashionedÏpurely€objective€tests€for€immunity€under€ððÏ1983,€the€General€Assembly€has€made€clear€thatÏState€personnel€do€òònotóó€enjoy€immunity€under€ððÐ 6 †  Ð5„522(b)€if€they€act€with€malice.€.€.€.€€[T]heÏSupreme€Court€has€clearly€and€expresslyÏeliminated€malice,€which€it€regarded€as€theÏembodiment€of€subjectivity,€from€the€immunityÏdoctrine.€€In€enacting€the€State€Tort€ClaimsÏAct,€the€General€Assembly€just€as€clearly€andÏexpressly€retained€the€subjective€element€forÏimmunity€purposes.€€In€doing€so,€it€hasÏprovided€a€greater€separation€betweenÏsubstantive€liability€and€immunity€and€simplyÏstruck€a€different€balance.€€The€LegislatureÏhas€decided€that,€when€State€personnel€actÏmaliciously,€they€.€.€.€must€bear€the€risk.€ÏThe€predominant€and€laudable€public€policy€isÏto€discourage€State€personnel€from€acting€withÏmalice€in€the€performance€of€their€publicÏduties.€€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓwrÓòòId.óó€at€160„61.€€Based€on€such€differences,€the€òòShoemakeróó€CourtÐ n Ðconcluded€that€a€federal€court€decision€based€on€qualified€immunityÏunder€federal€law€is€not€entitled€to€any€preclusive€effect€inÏsubsequent€state€court€proceedings€involving€qualified€immunityÏunder€the€Maryland€Tort€Claims€Act.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X2XXX2Ij#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ô€Ô#†X2XXX2ˆx#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔòòId.óó€at€162.€Ô#†X2XXX2Ëx#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ô€€Ð Ú"*$ Ðà  àWe€see€no€reason€why€òòShoemakerððsóó€distinctions€and€conclusionsÐ ’$â& Ðwould€not€be€equally€applicable€in€a€case€involving€qualifiedÐ J&š!( Ðimmunity€for€municipal€officials€under€section€5„507.€€Indeed,€theÐ ° ÐòòShoemakeróó€Court€explicitly€relied€upon€section€5„507€cases,Ð \¬ Ðincluding,€òòinter€alia,óó€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòDavis€v.€DiPino,€óó99Ð d ÐMd.€App.€282€(1994),€òòrevððd€on€other€grounds,óó€337€Md.€642€(1995).€Ð Ì  ÐIn€òòDavisóó,€we€distinguished€the€meaning€of€ð ðmaliceðð€in€the€contextÐ „ Ô Ðof€public€official€immunity€under€section€1983€from€the€meaning€ofÏð ðmalice"€in€the€context€of€municipal€official€immunity€underÏsection€5„507.€€òòId.óó€at€290.€€Ð ”ä  Ðà  àBecause€Judge€Williams€clearly€applied€the€objective€federalÏstandard€for€qualified€immunity,Ô#†X2XXX2y#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ô€we€hold€that€his€decision€that€theÐ øH Ðdefendants€were€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€from€section€1983Ïliability€did€not€collaterally€estop€plaintiffs€from€litigatingÏwhether€defendants€were€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€fromÏliability€under€Maryland€tort€law.€€€Ô#†X2XXX2*}#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐ ¨ø Ðà  àBut€defendants€have€a€second€issue€preclusion€arrow€in€theirÏquiver.€€They€also€urge€us€to€give€preclusive€effect€to€the€federalÏcourtððs€statements€regarding€probable€cause.€€After€carefullyÏreviewing€the€record,€however,€we€conclude€that€the€issue€ofÏprobable€cause€to€arrest€was€not€ð ðactually€determinedðð€as€aÏð ðcritical€and€necessary€partðð€of€the€federal€courtððs€decision€toÏdismiss,€and€even€if€it€had€been,€plaintiffs€did€not€have€a€ð ðfullÏand€fair€opportunity€to€litigate€the€issueðð€in€federal€court.€€WeÏexplain.Ìà  àThe€federal€courtððs€order€is€one€of€dismissal,€and€isÐ `+°&. Ðspecifically€predicated€upon€the€allegations€of€the€complaint:ÌÔ#†X2XXX2†~#ÔÓÓà  àà8 ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€on€the€record€[at€theÐ \¬ Ðmotion€hearing],€ò òa€reading€of€the€complaintÐ 2‚ Ðindicates€that€the€three€individual€officersÏare€entitled€to€qualified€immunity,ó ó€and€thatÐ úJ Ðno€federal€claims€lie€against€the€otherÏDefendants.€€Therefore,€ò òCount€VI€[underÐ ´  ÐSection€1983]€must€be€dismissed€under€Fed.€R.ÏCiv.€Pro.€12(b)(6).ó ó€€(Emphasis€added.)€€Ô‡X2XXX2Ô€Ð| Ì ` x` x ÐÌÓŸÓÔ#†X2XXX2~ƒ#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ôà  àUnderstandably,€defendants€prefer€to€construe€the€federalÐ 6†  Ðcourtððs€decision€as€a€summary€judgment€predicated€upon€conclusiveÏfactual€findings€favorable€to€their€cause.€€Indeed,€defendants€didÏurge€the€court€to€convert€their€motion€to€dismiss׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€a€motion€forÐ :Š Ðsummary€judgment,€and€the€federal€court€stated€in€its€order€that€itÏð ðcouldðð€convert€the€motion,€and€that€if€it€did€so,€defendantsÏð ðwould€beðð€entitled€to€summary€judgment€based€on€the€police€reportÏand€proffer€of€Thackerððs€testimony.€€Notwithstanding€the€effectÏthat€statement€may€have€had€on€the€partiesðð€evaluations€of€theirÏrespective€positions€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€suchÏhypothetical€language€is€not€the€ð ðfatal€weaponðð€that€defendantsÏwish€it€to€be.€€Ìà  àWe€specifically€reject€defendantsðð€contention€that€the€federalÏcourt€converted€the€motion€to€dismiss€into€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment.€€There€are€well€established€guidelines€for€suchÐ ž%î ' Ðconversions.€€Ô#†X2XXX2÷ƒ#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐ ° Ðà  àà8 ` àÓÓUnder€Rule€12(b)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure,€when€matters€outside€the€pleadingsÏare€submitted€with€a€motion€to€dismiss€forÏfailure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€canÏbe€granted€under€Rule€12(b)(6),€'the€motionÏshall€be€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgmentÏand€disposed€of€as€provided€in€Rule€56.€.€.€.'€ÏIn€interpreting€the€requirements€of€this€rule,Ïthis€court€has€held€that€the€term€'reasonableÏopportunity'€requires€that€all€parties€beÏgiven€ð ðððsome€indication€by€the€court€.€.€.Ïthat€it€is€treating€the€12(b)(6)€motion€as€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment,ðð€with€theÏconsequent€right€in€the€opposing€party€to€fileÏcounter€affidavits€or€pursue€reasonableÏdiscovery.ðð€ÓâˆÓÔ#†X2XXX2–ˆ#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐæ6` x` x ÐòòGay€v.€Wall,óó€761€F.2d€175,€177€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1985)€(citations€omitted).Ð ’â Ðà  àDefendants€contend€that€the€alleged€conversion€occurredÏð ðinadvertently,ðð€as€a€result€of€plaintiffsðð€submission€of€theÏpolice€report€with€his€opposition€to€the€motion,€albeit€forÏexpressly€limited€purposes.€€Such€an€ð ðinadvertentðð€or€ð ðunilateralððÏconversion€is€not€possible,€because€Rule€12(b)€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àdoes€not€provide€that€a€motion€to€dismissÏsupported€by€materials€outside€the€pleadingsÏshall€be€treated€as€one€for€summary€judgmentÏwhen€'filed'€with€the€court€or€when€'served'Ïon€a€party.€€Rather,€the€rule€expressly€statesÏthat€a€motion€to€dismiss€supported€by€suchÏmaterials€'shall€be€treated'€as€a€summaryÏjudgment€motion€only€when€the€materials€'areÏpresented€to€and€not€excluded€by€the€districtÏcourt.'Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÊÓòòFinley€Lines€Joint€Protective€Bd.€v.€Norfolk€Southern€Corp.,óó€109Ð Ø'(#* ÐF.3d€993,€995€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1997).€Only€the€district€court€canÐ )à$, Ðð ðeffectively€excludeðð€such€materials,€and€may€do€so€by€refusing€toÐ <+Œ&. Ðconsider€them€in€ruling€on€the€motion.€€òòId.óó€at€996.€€In€this€case,Ð ° Ðit€is€clear€from€the€express€language€of€the€order€that€the€courtÏdid€not€consider€the€police€report€in€ruling€on€the€motion€toÏdismiss.€€Thus,€the€court€effectively€excluded€the€report€byÏfailing€to€consider€it.€Ô#†X2XXX2â‹#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐ l ¼ ÐÔ#†X2XXX2’#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ôà  àWe€also€note€that€defendantsðð€construction€of€the€order,€as€aÐ  h  Ðsummary€judgment€on€a€converted€motion€to€dismiss,€would€require€usÏto€conclude,€which€we€do€not,€that€Judge€Williams€abused€hisÏdiscretion,€in€violation€of€clear€federal€standards€governing€suchÏconversions.ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` à[N]otification€that€a€Rule€12(b)(6)€motion€mayÏbe€converted€is€only€one€of€the€requirementsÏof€Rule€12.€€Once€notified,€a€party€must€beÏafforded€a€'reasonable€opportunity€forÏdiscovery'€before€a€Rule€12(b)(6)€motion€mayÏbe€converted€and€summary€judgment€granted.Ô#†X2XXX2r’#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔТò` x` x ÐÌÔ#†X2XXX2•#ÔÓÓÓÔ‡X2XXX2ÔòòGay,óó€761€F.2d€at€177.€In€òòGayóó,€the€Fourth€Circuit€held€thatÐ Nž Ðconversion€of€a€motion€ð ðwhen€the€plaintiff€had€barely€begunÏdiscoveryðð€was€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óó€Ô#†X2XXX2Ž•#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔWe€find€itÐ ² Ðsignificant€that€the€plaintiff€in€òòGayóó€had€far€more€notice€of€theÐ j º! Ðcontemplated€conversion,€more€opportunity€for€discovery,€and€moreÏopportunity€to€file€a€substantive€evidentiary€opposition€to€summaryÏjudgment€than€the€plaintiffs€in€this€case€had€for€the€brief€timeÏthat€they€were€in€federal€court.€€Ìà  àAccordingly,€defendantsðð€reliance€on€the€paragraph€of€theÏorder€regarding€summary€judgment€is€misplaced.€€Ô#†X2XXX2¤–#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔReading€the€orderÐ ~*Î%- Ðas€a€whole,€we€conclude€that€the€court€recognized€that€conversionÐ *,z'/ Ðwould€be€inappropriate€at€the€preliminary€stage€of€the€case,€butÏincluded€the€summary€judgment€language€in€the€order€as€dictumÏproviding€an€ð ðearly€evaluationðð€of€the€case€in€accordance€with€theÏrecommendations€of€the€Fourth€Circuit.€€By€ordering€dismissal€onÏthe€complaint,€expressly€preserving€plaintiffsðð€right€to€litigateÏthe€pendent€state€claims€in€circuit€court,€and€using€conditionalÏlanguage€to€signal€that€the€case€might€be€amenable€to€summaryÏjudgment,€it€appears€that€Judge€Williams€stayed€within€the€confinesÏof€the€motion€to€dismiss,€while€simultaneously€providing€such€aÏnonbinding€evaluation.€€Ô#†X2XXX2Ø#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÐ ¼  Ðà  àÔ#†X2XXX2ê›#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔFor€these€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€order€reflects€theÐ h¸ Ðfederal€courtððs€considered€decision€not€to€convert€the€motion,€andÏnot€to€make€any€conclusive€findings€of€fact€with€respect€to€whatÏthe€evidence€might€be€expected€to€show€if€the€motion€were€convertedÏto€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Thus,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏcourtððs€decision€and€or€its€statements€regarding€probable€causeÏconstitute€ð ðactually€determinedðð€ð ðfindings€of€factðð€that€wereÏð ðessentialðð€to€the€courtððs€decision€to€dismiss.€Ô#†X2XXX2Mœ#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ô€Ô#†X2XXX2¯ž#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔNor€could€we€sayÐ !l" Ðin€the€circumstances€of€this€case€that€ð ðthe€party€against€whomÏestoppel€is€asserted€.€.€.€had€a€full€and€fair€opportunity€toÏlitigate€the€issue€in€the€previous€forum.ðð€€Ô#†X2XXX2òž#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2ÔòòSedlackóó,€134€F.3d€atÐ  &p!( Ð224.€€Ìà  àFor€all€of€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€circuit€courtÏproperly€declined€to€give€the€federal€courtððs€decision€orÐ 0+€&. Ðstatements€regarding€probable€cause€any€preclusive€effect.€Ô#†X2XXX2 #ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ô€As€aÐ ° Ðresult,€we€must€Ô#†X2XXX2Q¡#ÔÔ‡X2XXX2Ôproceed€to€consider€whether€the€circuit€court€erredÐ \¬ Ðin€concluding€that€the€defendants€were€entitled€to€qualifiedÏimmunity.Ìò òÓÓÓ  ÓB.Ð ` ° ÐPropriety€Of€Circuit€Court€JudgmentÌOn€Qualified€Immunity€GroundsÌòòÌÓ€¢ÓÓn¢Óó óóóÔ#†X2XXX2½¡#Ôà  àThere€is€no€dispute€that€all€of€the€municipal€defendants€wereÐ òB  Ðpublic€officials€acting€in€their€respective€discretionaryÏcapacities,€and€that€under€section€5„507,€they€are€immune€fromÏcivil€liability€for€their€discretionary€actions€in€the€absence€ofÏmalice.€€òòSee€City€of€District€Heights€v.€Denny,óó€123€Md.€App.€508,Ð ¢ò Ð516€(1998).€€Ô‡X2XXX2ÔThe€sole€issue€is€whether€the€circuit€court€erred€inÐ Zª Ðconcluding€that€there€was€no€genuine€dispute€of€material€fact€as€toÏwhether€Officer€Blakes€and€the€other€municipal€defendants€actedÏwith€malice€in€arresting€Thacker.€òòò òÐ ^® ÐÓÓÓ„Óóó1.Ð  Z ÐEvidence€Regarding€The€Arrest€òòÐ î> ÐÌÔ#†X2XXX2º¤#ÔÓó¥Óóóó óÓã¥ÓÓ  Óà  àOur€òòde€novoóó€review€of€summary€judgment€requires€us€to€examine€Ð ¸ ! Ðthe€evidence€regarding€the€encounter€between€Thacker€and€Blakes.€ÏThe€record€shows€that€Thacker€is€the€property€manager€of€Ager€RoadÏStation€Apartments€(ð ðAger€Roadðð)€in€Hyattsville,€Maryland.€€ThackerÏis€white.€€A€majority€of€Ager€Road€tenants€are€Latino€or€African„¼American.€€Ìà  àOn€January€17,€1997,€a€dispute€arose€between€Thacker€andÐ Ì*&- ÐGerald€Grimes,€an€African„American€resident€of€Ager€Road,€whenÏThacker€refused€Grimesðð€request€for€a€temporary€parking€permit.€€AtÏapproximately€5:45€p.m.,€after€Grimes€refused€to€leave€the€propertyÏmanagerððs€office,€Thacker€instructed€Lorraine€Battle,€the€residentÏmanager€working€in€the€office,€to€call€the€Hyattsville€PoliceÏDepartment.Ìà  àOfficers€Gary€Blakes,€Gregory€Phillips,€and€Limuel€HunterÏresponded€to€the€call.€€Thacker€testified€that€he€advised€BlakesÏthat€he€wanted€Grimes€to€leave€the€office.€€According€to€Thacker,Ïthe€following€ensued:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓOfficer€Blakes€also€talked€to€[Grimes].€€IÏlistened€for€a€little€while€and€then€I€.€.€.Ïsaid€I€really€need€to€go.€€I€told€him€I€needÏto€close€the€office€and€I€told€him€I€had€to€goÏsomewhere€.€.€.€.€And€Officer€Blakes€got€aÏlittle€upset€because€of€the€fact€that€IÏwouldnððt€give€[Grimes]€a€parking€permit.€€HeÏtried€to€talk€me€into€giving€[Grimes]€aÏparking€permit€and€I€explained€to€him€why€IÏcouldnððt€give€[Grimes]€a€parking€permit.€.€.€.ÏAnd€Officer€Blakes€waved€his€hands€in€front€ofÏme€and€said€weððre€not€getting€anywhere€.€.€.Ïand€that€I€was€a€bad€manager€and€.€.€.€heÏlooked€at€Mr.€Grimes€and€said,€ððWe€know€why€heÏwonððt€give€you€a€parking€permit.ðð€€And€I€askedÏhim€to€leave€because€he€was€being€belligerentÏto€me.€€He€was€saying€I€was€a€bad€manager€andÏhim€and€Mr.€Grimes€walked€out.€€I€believe€hisÏarm€was€around€Mr.€Grimes'€shoulder,€tellingÏhim€that€I€was€a€bad€manager€and€going€out€ofÏthe€office€bad„mouthing€me€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€this€point,€Iððm€still€behind€theÏcounter€when€the[y]€went€out€of€the€office€andÏI€went€to€the€door€and€I€opened€the€door€and€IÏsaid,€ððIf€Iððm€a€bad€manager,€then€youððre€a€badÏpolice€officer.ðð€€At€that€time,€he€turnedÏaround€and€he€said€if€I€said€one€more€word,Ð ú+J'/ Ðthat€he€was€going€to€arrest€me.€€And€I€toldÏhim€that€if€Iððve€done€something€to€be€arrestedÏfor,€then€to€arrest€me.€€And€he€came€towardsÏme€and€arrested€me.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àThacker€also€testified€that€he€felt€pressured€from€the€time€heÏstarted€working€at€Ager€Road€a€year€and€a€half€earlier€to€hire€andÏpay€for€off„duty€uniformed€police€officer€to€provide€more€patrolsÏof€the€complex,€but€that€he€had€objected,€and€refused€to€do€so.€€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àI€had€talked€to€police€officers€aboutÏpatrolling€more€of€the€property€more€often€.€.Ï.,€and€theyððd€always€send€another€sergeant€orÏlieutenant€in€that€is€in€charge€of€the€paidÏofficers.€€Thatððs€where€I€had€my€biggestÏproblem,€because€I€was€asking€for€protectionÏfor€my€property€.€.€.€and€I€was€being€asked€toÏpay€for€that€service€and€I€didnððt€believe€inÏextortion.€€Thatððs,€what€I€thought€it€was.€€ItÏwas€extortion.ÓıÓ€€Ð ` x` x ÐAlthough€Thacker€never€hired€any€off„duty€officers,€when€he€wasÏaway€for€two€weeks,€the€owner€who€was€covering€for€him€ð ðhad€to€haveÏthe€police€there€.€.€.€and€hired€the€police€for€extra€protection.ðð€Ìà  àMs.€Battle€stated€in€her€affidavit׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€Thacker€was€ð ðnot€outÐ Ä Ðof€control,ðð€and€raised€his€voice€only€in€response€to€OfficerÏBlakesðð€comments.€€Thacker€did€not€yell,€scream,€curse,€or€useÏprofanity.€€She€further€stated€that€Thacker€never€went€any€fartherÏoutside€than€the€front€steps€of€the€office.€€After€she€heard€BlakesÏtell€Thacker€that€he€was€under€arrest,€she€went€to€the€door€and€sawÏBlakes€handcuffing€Thacker€at€the€front€steps.Ð Ì'#* Ðà  àOfficer€Blakes€testified€that€he€had€responded€to€calls€fromÏThacker€on€previous€occasions.€€Although€he€had€no€prior€conflictsÏwith€Thacker,€Blakes€testified€that€based€on€his€past€experiencesÏwith€Thacker,€he€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àthought€that€Mr.€Thacker€was€unfair€to€hisÏtenants€.€.€.€.€[H]eððs€not€allowed€his€tenantsÏto€speak,€his€harshness€with€them€.€.€.€.€WeÏdeal€with€a€lot€of€resident€managers€withÏcomplexes€the€size€of€Mr.€Thackerððs,€larger,Ïsmaller,€and€nowhere€in€my€ð"ð€at€that€time€itÏwould€be€eight€years€of€law€enforcement€I€haveÏever€seen€a€resident€manager€talk,€treat€hisÏtenants€the€way€Mr.€Thacker€does.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ¹·ÓBlakes€admitted€calling€Thacker€a€ð ðbad€managerðð€during€the€incidentÏpreceding€the€arrest,€but€testified€that€the€comment€reflected€hisÏpast€experiences€in€dealing€with€Thacker€rather€than€thisÏparticular€experience€in€dealing€with€the€dispute€between€ThackerÏand€Grimes.€Ìà  àOfficer€Blakesðð€recollection€of€the€events€that€eveningÏdiffers€from€Thackerððs.€€Blakes€testified€that,€upon€learning€thatÏGrimes€was€a€tenant,€he€advised€Grimes€that€he€would€have€to€leaveÏthe€office.€€Blakes€further€testified€that€Thacker€followed€GrimesÏand€him€outside,€where€the€following€occurred:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[Thacker]€was€screaming€at€me€going€.€.€.€youÏgot€to€learn€how€to€do€your€damm€job.€€AtÏwhich€time€I€turned€around€to€Mr.€Thacker€andÏtold€him€he€needs€to€quiet€down€or€he€will€goÏback€inside€his€office,€as€we€continue€walkingÏout€towards€the€cruiser.€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€then€got€out€on€the€public€sidewalkÏand€we€stepped€down€on€the€curb.€€Mr.€ThackerÏcontinued€walking€on€the€sidewalk€towards€us,Ð ú+J'/ Ðsteadily€screaming€at€us€.€.€.€.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€lady€identified€as€Miss€Battle€hadÏalso€came€outside€and€she€was€standing€on€theÏtwo€steps€that€leads€up€to€the€sidewalk.€€AndÏas€I€looked€at€Mr.€Thacker€I€could€also€see€anÏelderly€female€in€the€apartment€above€theÏrental€office€with€her€hands€folded,€her€headÏleaning€and€just€looking€at€us.ÌÌà ¸ àI€told€[Thacker]€a€second€time€that€weÏdid€what€you€said,€we€left€the€office,€at€thisÏtime€you€need€to€quiet€down€or€go€back€insideÏyour€office€or€youððre€going€to€be€subject€toÏarrest.€€At€which€time€he€replied€this€is€myÏdamned€property,€thereððs€not€a€damned€thingÏyou€can€do€to€me.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€whole€time€this€is€going€on€weððreÏsteady€walking€back€towards€the€back„upÏcruisers€that€were€parked€in€the€street.€€IÏhad€then€got€to€the€back€of€my€cruiser.€€Mr.ÏThacker€continued€proceeding€towards€us€and€IÏsaid€this€is€your€last€warning,€if€you€do€notÏcalm€down€and€go€back€into€your€office,€youÏwill€be€locked€up.€€And€he€said€you€canððt€do€aÏdamned€thing€to€me.€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€which€time€I€instructed€Mr.€ThackerÏthat€he€was€under€arrest.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àBlakes€placed€Thacker€against€a€wall,€handcuffed€him,€andÏinstructed€Officer€Hunter€to€transport€him€to€the€police€station.€ÏBlakes€alone€made€the€decision€to€arrest€and€charge€Thacker€withÏdisorderly€conduct.Ìà  àPhillips€and€Hunter€did€not€participate€in€the€conversationsÏwith€Thacker,€or€the€decision€to€arrest€and€charge€Thacker.€€BothÏsigned€the€incident€report€prepared€by€Blakes.€€Sgt.€McCullyððs€onlyÏinvolvement€was€to€sign€Blakesðð€report€as€a€designated€supervisor.€Ìà  àOfficer€Blakes€stated€that€Thacker€had€created€a€publicÐ ú+J'/ Ðdisturbance€through€ð ð[h]is€loud€voice,€his€profanity€had€alreadyÏmade€one€tenant€come€to€the€window€and€almost€had€an€audience.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€HeÐ \¬ Ðalso€prevented€us€from€even€beginning€to€complete€or€answer€theÏquestions,€the€additional€questions€that€Mr.€Grimes€had.ðð€Ìà  àTenant€Grimes€testified€that€he€had€difficulty€talking€toÏBlakes€because€Thacker€kept€interrupting.€€When€Thacker€askedÏBlakes€and€Grimes€to€leave,€they€did€so.€€Grimes€testified€that€heÏdid€not€hear€Blakes€say€that€Thacker€was€a€bad€property€manager.€ÏHe€testified€that€Thackerððs€demeanor€was€ð ðvery€belligerentðð€andÏð ðvery€abusive.ðð€When€Grimes€and€Blakes€left€the€office,€ThackerÏfollowed€them€down€the€sidewalk,€and€ð ðcontinued€the€[verbal]€abuseððÏand€profanity.€€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àWell,€we€were€walking€out€of€the€office€.€.€.Ï[W]e€were€still€on€the€property,€not€on€theÏstreet,€by€the€sidewalk€.€.€.€.€€He€was€rightÏbehind€us€and€kept€saying€.€.€.€just€get€out€.Ï.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àAnd€as€Sergeant€Blakes€said,€look,€youÏdonððt€have€to€address€me€like€that.€€You€donððtÏhave€to€speak€to€me€like€that.€€I€respectedÏyou.€€I€heard€what€you€have€to€say.€€AndÏ[Thacker]€said€I€donððt€care€about€you€.€.€.€.Ïand€he€was€being€very€abusive.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à.€.€.€.€And€Sergeant€Blakes€said,€look,€sir,Ïif€you€continue€like€that€Iððm€going€to€arrestÏyou.€€And€[Thacker]€said€you€canððt€arrest€me€.Ï.€.€and€that€was€it.€€Then€[Blakes]€arrestedÏhim.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÈÓGrimes€also€testified€that€Ms.€Battle€never€came€out€of€the€office.òòò òÔ‡X2XXX2ÔÓÓÐ ¢(ò#+ ÐÓ  Óóó2.Ð ° ÐQualified€Immunity€Claim€Of€Officer€BlakesòòÐ ”ä ÐÌóóó óÔ#†X2XXX2ŒË#ÔÓÒËÓÓ«ËÓà  àAppellant€Thacker€argues€that€the€circuit€court€erred€inÐ ^® Ðgranting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€arresting€officer€Blakes€onÏthe€basis€of€qualified€immunity,€because€there€is€sufficientÏevidence€from€which€a€jury€might€infer€that€Blakes€acted€withÏmalice€in€making€the€decision€to€arrest€Thacker.€€We€agree,€andÏexplain€our€evidentiary€reasons.€€Ìà  àThis€Court€has€recognized€that€granting€police€officersÏqualified€immunity€is€necessary€ð ðto€permit€police€officers€.€.€.€toÏmake€the€appropriate€decisions€in€an€atmosphere€of€greatÏuncertainty.€€The€theory€is€that€holding€police€officers€liable€inÏhindsight€for€every€injurious€consequence€of€their€actions€wouldÏparalyze€the€functions€of€law€enforcement.ðð€€òòWilliams€v.€PrinceÐ Â ÐGeorgeððs€Co.óó,€112€Md.€App.€526,€543€(1996).€ð ðUnquestionably,€theÐ zÊ Ðactions€of€police€officers€within€the€scope€of€their€lawÏenforcement€function€are€quintessential€discretionary€acts.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð Þ. Ðat€550.€€Ìà  àFor€these€reasons,€the€General€Assembly€created€qualifiedÏimmunity€as€a€ð ðsafe€harborðð€for€certain€governmental€acts.€€SectionÏ5„507€establishes€limited€immunity€for€municipal€officials,Ïincluding€police€officers,€for€discretionary€acts€committed€withoutÏmalice.€€In€the€qualified€immunity€context,€the€Court€of€AppealsÏrecently€affirmed€that€ð ðmaliceðð€has€an€ð ðactual€maliceðð€meaning,€andÏrequires€a€determination€of€whether€the€arresting€officerððsÐ J,š'/ Ðð ðconduct,€given€all€of€the€existing€and€antecedent€circumstances,Ïwas€motivated€by€ill€will,€[or]€by€an€improper€motive€.€.€.€.Ï[T]hat€motive€or€animus€may€exist€even€when€the€conduct€isÏobjectively€reasonable.ðð€€òòShoemakeróó,€352€Md.€at€164.€€Malice€can€beÐ ´  Ðestablished€by€proof€that€the€officer€ð ð'intentionally€performed€anÏact€without€legal€justification€or€excuse,€but€with€an€evil€orÏrancorous€motive€influenced€by€hate,€the€purpose€being€toÏdeliberately€and€willfully€injure€the€plaintiff.'ðð€€òòId.€óóat€163Ð pÀ  Ð(quoting€òòLeese€v.€Baltimore€Countyóó,€64€Md.€App.€442,€480€(1984),Ð (x  Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€305€Md.€106€(1985)).€€Ð à0 Ðà  àIn€a€wrongful€arrest€case,€the€arrestee€has€the€burden€ofÏpleading€and€proving€that€the€arresting€officer€acted€with€malice.€ÏòòSee€Davisóó,€99€Md.€App.€at€290„91.€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,Ð ð@ Ðinferences€arising€from€the€evidence€presented€by€an€arresteeÏchallenging€a€claim€of€qualified€immunity€must€be€drawn€in€favor€ofÏthe€arrestee,€and€against€summary€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€òòOkwa€v.€Harper,Ð P Ðóó____€Md.€____,€2000€WL€1036284,€No.€129,€Sept.€Term€1999,€slip€op.Ð ¸  Ðat€5€(filed€July€28,€2000).€€Ìà  àBecause€the€question€of€ð ðmaliceðð€turns€on€the€arrestingÏofficerððs€motive€and€intent,€we€are€mindful€of€oft„repeatedÏadmonitions€against€resolution€of€such€issues€on€summary€judgment.€ÏIndeed,€in€three€recent€decisions,€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversedÏsummary€judgments€in€cases€involving€ð ðintentðð€and€ð ðcredibilityððÏissues.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€357€Md.€at€367„68€(reversing€summary€judgmentÐ l+¼&. Ðon€basis€of€dispute€as€to€whether€landlord€had€notice€of€flaking,Ïloose,€or€peeling€lead€paint,€and€as€to€whether€reasonably€prudentÏlandlord€would€have€investigated€and€corrected€condition);€òòPittmanÐ X Ðv.€Atlantic€Realty€Co.,óó€òò__€óóMd.€__,€2000€WL€95992,€No.€103,€Sept.Ð À  ÐTerm€1999,€slip€op.€at€11€(filed€July€12,€2000)€(reversing€summaryÏjudgment€granted€after€trial€court€improperly€excluded€plaintiffððsÏaffidavit€contradicting€prior€deposition€testimony,€because€courtÏmay€not€resolve€credibility€issue€raised€by€that€affidavit);€òòOkwa,Ð |Ì  Ðsupra,óó€slip€op.€at€7€(reversing€summary€judgment€granted€onÐ 4„  Ðqualified€immunity€grounds,€because€court€improperly€madeÏcredibility€assessment€based€on€arresting€officersðð€version€ofÏdisputed€events€surrounding€arrest).€€Specifically,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€has€recognized€that€claims€of€qualified€public€officialÏimmunity€usually€present€questions€for€the€fact„finder.€€òòÐ œì ÐÓÓóóà0  àà8` (#(#àWhen€a€trial€court,€faced€with€a€motion€for€summaryÐ H˜ Ðjudgment€laden€with€disputes€of€material€factÏbearing€on€issues€of€malice€.€.€.€resolves€thoseÏdisputes€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€denies€theÏmotion,€the€State€qualified€immunity€issue€isÏordinarily€not€conclusively€resolved.€€In€reviewingÏthe€evidence€against€the€appropriate€standard€ofÏproof,€rather€than€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€theÏplaintiff,€the€court€may€reach€a€very€differentÏconclusion.€€Because€the€determination€of€malice,Ïin€particular,€involves€findings€as€to€theÏdefendantððs€intent€and€state€of€mind,€there€is€muchÏless€likelihood€of€it€presenting€an€'abstract€issueÏof€law.'òòÐ&'v")` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓlÝÓà0  àà ° àShoemaker,€óó353€Md.€at€168.ÐØ(($+(#(# Ðà  àBut€plaintiffs€may€not€rely€upon€the€mere€existence€of€such€anÏintent,€motive,€or€state€of€mind€issue€to€defeat€summary€judgment.€Ð <,Œ'/ ÐBecause€a€defendantððs€subjective€intent€is€an€element€of€theÏplaintiffððs€claim,€the€plaintiff€must€point€to€specific€evidenceÏthat€raises€an€inference€that€the€defendantððs€actions€wereÏimproperly€motivated€in€order€to€defeat€the€motion.€€That€evidenceÏmust€be€sufficient€to€support€a€reasonable€inference€of€ill€will€orÏimproper€motive.€€òòSee€Clea€v.€City€of€Balt.,€óó312€Md.€662,€677„78Ð  \  Ð(1988);òò€Lovelace€v.€Anderson,€óó126€Md.€App.€667,€693,€òòcert.€granted,óóÐ Ä  Ð355€Md.€610€(1999).€€Ìà  àThe€Court€of€Appealsðð€most€recent€qualified€immunity€decisionÏis€instructively€analogous€to€the€case€at€bar.€€In€òòOkwaóó,€òòsupraóó,€Ð Ô$ Ðthe€disputed€arrest€occurred€after€an€airline€ticket€agent€refusedÏto€accept€Mr.€Okwaððs€ticket€for€an€international€flight.€€When€OkwaÏrefused€to€leave€the€ticket€counter,€Maryland€TransportationÏAuthority€officers€arrived,€and€then€ordered€him€to€leave€theÏairport€terminal.€€Okwa€refused,€and€a€verbal€dispute€arose.€€TheÏofficers€arrested€Okwa€for€disorderly€conduct,€and,€based€on€hisÏconduct€after€the€arrest,€also€charged€him€with€assault€andÏresisting€arrest.€€After€a€trial€court€acquitted€him€on€allÏcharges,€Okwa€filed€a€complaint€against€the€arresting€officers,Ïalleging€that€his€verbal€protests€did€not€constitute€disorderlyÏconduct,€and€that€the€arrest€was€motivated€by€the€arrestingÏofficersðð€racial€prejudice€and€an€ð ðextreme€and€overzealous€desireÏto€punish€Mr.€Okwa€for€failing€to€obey€immediately€theirÏinstructions€to€walk€away€from€the€ticket€counter€and€exit€theÐ H+˜&. Ðterminal.ðð€€òòId.,óó€slip€op.€at€7.€€The€trial€court€granted€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment€in€favor€of€the€arresting€officers.Ìà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€reversed,€finding€that€there€wereÏdifferent€versions€of€the€events€leading€up€to€the€arrest,Ïincluding€inconsistencies€in€the€arresting€officersðð€accounts.€ÏAfter€reviewing€the€record,€the€òòOkwaóó€Court€held€that€the€trialÐ  h  Ðcourtððs€decision€was€predicated€upon€improper€weighing€of€disputedÏevidence€and€inferences.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àBased€on€[the€arresting€officersðð]€version€ofÏthe€story,€a€fact€finder,€if€given€theÏopportunity,€could€conclude€that€[theÏarresting€officers]€acted€without€malice€.€.€.€Ï.€Apparently€this€is€the€version€of€eventsÏthat€the€trial€judge€opted€to€believe.€€TheÏtrial€judge€necessarily€determined€[theÏarresting€officersðð]€accounts€of€theÏaltercation€to€be€more€credible€and€based€hisÏruling€on€them.€€This€was€an€error.€€TheÏsummary€judgment€process€is€not€properly€anÏopportunity€for€the€trial€court€to€giveÏcredence€to€certain€facts€and€refuse€to€creditÏothers.€.€.€.€€Because€disputed€material€factsÏexist€in€the€record,€or€inferences€ofÏmalicious€conduct€may€be€drawn€from€[theÏarresteeððs]€version€of€the€facts,€the€[tort]Ïcounts€were€not€amenable€to€disposition€viaÏsummary€judgment.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÝéÓòòId.óóÐ à"0$ ÐÓÓà  àÓmíÓOn€occasion,€this€Court€also€has€considered€whether€anÏarresteeððs€proffered€evidence€that€a€police€officer€acted€withÏmalice€in€making€an€arrest€was€sufficient€to€overcome€a€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€In€òòTown€of€Port€Deposit€v.€Petetitóó,€113€Md.€App.Ð œ)ì$, Ð401,€òòcert.€denied,€óó346€Md.€27€(1997),€an€off„duty€police€officerÐ T+¤&. ÐÑ%*#Ñâ %âÑÑÑ  Ñâ %âÑ  Ñdriving€his€own€vehicle€saw€several€people€throw€rocks€at€theÏplaintiffððs€vehicle€and€then€saw€the€plaintiffððs€vehicle€strikeÏanother€person€while€driving€away.€€The€officer€followed€theÏplaintiff,€who€increased€his€speed.€€The€officer€subsequently€firedÏseveral€shots€at€the€plaintiffððs€truck.€€When€he€stopped,€theÏofficer€pointed€his€gun€at€the€plaintiff€and€detained€him.€€BasedÏon€these€facts,€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€theÏofficerððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€because€whether€the€officerÏacted€with€malice€was€a€question€for€the€jury.€€In€doing€so,€weÏexplained:€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àFrom€[the€officerððs]€conduct,€an€inference€canÏbe€drawn€that€he€became€enraged€at€whatÏappeared€to€him€to€be€grossly€reckless€conductÏby€[the€arrestee],€endangering€others€on€theÏhighway,€and€that€he€fired€at€[the€arrestee]Ïwith€the€intention€of€injuring€him.€€Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€418.Ð B’ ÐÌÓÉñÓà  àWe€reached€a€similar€result€in€òòNelson€v.€Kenny,€óó121€Md.€App.Ð ôD Ð482€(1998).€€In€òòNelsonóó,€a€teacher€intervened€in€a€fight€between€twoÐ ¬ü Ðstudents.€€After€interviewing€the€students€and€the€teacher,€aÏpolice€officer€placed€the€teacher€under€arrest.€€We€held€thatÏseveral€undisputed€facts€ð ðcould€give€rise€to€a€reasonable€inferenceÏof€actual€malice€on€[the€police€officerððs]€part.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€494.€Ð h%¸ ' ÐSpecifically,€the€record€revealed€that€the€arresting€officer€didÏnot€witness€the€altercation€and€ð ðappeared€to€respond€willingly€toÏ[one€of€the€studentððs€parents]€demand€that€[the€officer]€arrestÏ[the€teacher],ðð€even€though€that€demand€ð ðwas€put€in€overtly€racialÐ $,t'/ Ðterms€that€indicated€animus€on€[the€parentððs]€part.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€WeÐ ° Ðconcluded:€ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓIt€would€not€be€unreasonable€for€a€fact„finderÏ.€.€.€to€interpret€[the€officerððs]€arguablyÏeager€compliance€with€[the€parentððs]€raciallyÏmotivated€request€to€mean€that€she€shared€inÏher€hostility€and€was€acting€out€of€racialÏanimus€and€hatred€herself.€€Furthermore,€[theÏofficerððs]€failure€to€interview€Mrs.€Thomas,Ïwho€was€identified€by€[the€teacher]€who€inÏfact€touched€[the€student]€and€who€was€knownÏto€[the€officer],€could€be€interpreted€by€aÏfact„finder€to€substantiate€that€her€actionsÏtoward€[the€teacher]€were€motivated€by€racialÏbias€and€hostility.€€Finally,€[the€officerððs]Ïconduct€in€standing€guard€outside€theÏclassroom€door€as€[the€teacher]€retrieved€herÏpurse,€escorting€her€to€the€police€cruiser€inÏfront€of€her€co„workers,€handcuffing€her€inÏthe€parking€lot€before€a€group€of€spectators,Ïand€telling€her€that€she€would€have€aÏpermanent€criminal€record€when€that€was€notÏthe€case€could€be€construed€by€a€fact„finderÏas€calculated€and€designed€to€humiliate€andÏembarrass€[the€teacher].ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€€Ð $t Ðà  àBut,€we€also€have€recognized€that€summary€judgment€is€properÏwhen€ð ðthere€was€not€a€scintilla€of€evidence€that€the€arrestingÏofficers€harbored€ill€will€or€an€evil€motive€toward€appellant.ðð€ÏòòWilliamsóó,€112€Md.€App.€at€551.€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€the€plaintiffððs€motherÐ à"0$ Ðhad€previously€reported€her€car€stolen.€€At€some€point€after€theÏvehicle€was€recovered,€the€plaintiff€was€driving€the€vehicle€whenÏa€police€officer€ran€a€check€on€the€car€and€found€that€it€was€stillÏreported€stolen.€€The€police€officer€stopped€the€plaintiff,€pulledÏhis€gun,€and€ordered€the€plaintiff€to€put€his€hands€in€the€air.€Ð H+˜&. ÐWhen€a€backup€officer€arrived,€one€of€the€officers€ð ðputÏ[plaintiffððs]€hands€behind€[his]€back,€and€somebody€put€their€kneeÏin€[his]€back,€and€hold€[sic]€[his]€shoulder;€they€eased€[him]Ïdown,€they€didnððt€rough€[him]€up,€or€anythingðð€before€handcuffingÏhim.€€òòIdóó.€at€535.€€Once€the€officer€discovered€that€the€vehicle€wasÐ ` ° Ðnot€stolen,€he€released€the€plaintiff€and€ð ðgave€[the€plaintiff]€hisÏcard;€he€said€call€me€if€you€have€any€trouble.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€535„36.€€InÐ Ä  Ðthese€circumstances,€we€held€that€there€could€be€no€inference€thatÏthe€officer€acted€with€malice,€because€there€was€ð ðno€expression€ofÏhostility€of€the€officers€nor€any€physical€harm€inflicted,€andÏindeed,€the€record€reflects€conciliation,€accommodation,€and€evenÏan€apologetic€attitude€on€the€part€of€the€arresting€officer.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ,| Ðat€550„51.Ìà  àTo€evaluate€the€propriety€of€summary€judgment€in€this€arrestÏcase,€we€look€first€to€the€evidence€cited€by€the€circuit€court€inÏdeciding€that€Officer€Blakes€was€entitled€to€qualified€immunity.€ÏIn€its€memorandum€opinion,€the€circuit€court€specifically€rejectedÏThackerððs€argument€that€the€evidence€raised€an€inference€thatÏBlakes€had€both€a€racial€animus€and€a€financial€animus.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€OurÐ ì"<$ Ðreview€of€the€same€evidence€leads€us€to€a€reach€a€differentÏconclusion.Ìà  àIn€support€of€his€claim€that€there€was€a€racial€motivation€forÏthe€arrest,€Thacker€alleged€more€than€ð ðmerely€that€Officer€BlakesÏand€Mr.€Grimes€were€of€a€different€race€than€[p]laintiff.ðð€€ThereÏwas€evidence€that€Blakes€disliked€the€way€Thacker,€who€was€white,Ïtreated€Ager€Road€tenants,€the€majority€of€whom€were€either€LatinoÏor€African„American.€€There€was€evidence€to€suggest€that€BlakesÏbecame€frustrated€when€Thacker€refused€his€attempts€to€mediate€theÏparking€dispute,€and€that€Blakes€left€the€management€office€withÏhis€arm€around€Mr.€Grimes.€€There€was€undisputed€evidence€thatÏBlakes€stated€to€the€African„American€tenant,€ð ð[w]e€know€why€heÏwonððt€give€you€a€parking€permit,ðð€and€that€Thacker€understood€theÏcomment€to€be€ð ðracial.ðð€€It€was€also€undisputed€that€Blakes€madeÏthe€decision€to€arrest€shortly€after€Thacker€responded€to€BlakesððÏcomment.€à ` àÐ Ä Ðà  àIn€òòNelsonóó,€we€recognized€that€an€inference€of€malice€may€beÐ pÀ  Ðraised€by€evidence€that€reasonably€could€be€interpreted€to€suggestÏthat€the€decision€to€arrest€was€motivated€or€unduly€influenced€byÐ Ô"$$ Ðthe€arresting€officerððs€racial€hostility€and€animus.€€òòSee€Nelsonóó,Ð ° Ð121€Md.€App.€at€494„95.€€Here,€it€would€not€be€unreasonable€for€aÏfact„finder€to€conclude€that€Blakes€believed€Thacker€was€raciallyÏprejudiced,€and€that€he€had€acted€on€that€prejudice€byÏdiscriminating€against€tenants€generally,€by€discriminating€againstÏGrimes€in€particular,€and/or€by€resisting€Blakesðð€attempts€toÏresolve€this€or€other€disputes.€€A€jury€could€reasonably€infer€fromÏthe€evidence€that€Officer€Blakes€acted€out€of€racial€animus€byÏmaking€an€arguably€quick€and€unlawful€arrest€on€the€basis€of€hisÏanger€and€hostility€toward€Thackerððs€perceived€racial€prejudice€andÏdiscriminatory€conduct.€€Ìà  àSimilarly,€we€conclude€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€fromÏwhich€a€fact„finder€could€infer€that€the€arrest€was€motivated€byÏthe€arresting€officerððs€financial€animus€toward€the€arrestee.òò׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð xÈ ÐóóThere€was€evidence€that€Thacker€had€refused€repeated€suggestions€byÐ $t ÐHyattsville€police€officers€that€off„duty€police€officers€be€hiredÐ Ð  Ðto€provide€extra€security€for€the€apartment€complex,€and€consideredÏthe€suggestions€to€be€ð ðextortion.ðð€€In€addition,€there€was€evidenceÏthat€Blakes€was€aware€of€Thackerððs€refusals€to€hire€off„dutyÏofficers,€and€that€Blakes€himself€earned€extra€money€working€as€anÏoff„duty€security€officer.€€From€the€evidence€presented€to€theÏcircuit€court,€a€jury€might€conclude€that€Thackerððs€arrest€wasÏmotivated€by€ill€will€or€spite€arising€from€Thackerððs€refusal€toÏhire€Hyattsville€officers€for€off„duty€work,€or€a€desire€toÏintimidate€Thacker€into€acceding€to€such€employment.Ìà  àIn€doing€so,€we€emphasize€that€it€is€not€necessary€forÏplaintiffs€to€prove€that€Blakes€actually€admitted€any€ð ðevilÏmotivation,ðð€either€to€defeat€summary€judgment€or€to€prevail€atÏtrial.€€The€circuit€court€correctly€noted€that€Blakesðð€admissionÏthat€he€was€aware€of€plaintiffsðð€refusal€to€hire€off„duty€officersÏdid€not€constitute€an€admission€of€ð ðevil€motivation,ðð€and€thatÏthere€was€no€other€testimony€that€specifically€ð ðestablishes€thatÏlinkage.ðð€€The€lack€of€such€evidence,€however,€is€not€necessarilyÏgrounds€for€summary€judgment.€€ð ðActual€malice€does€not€always€haveÏto€be€shown€with€specificity;€it€can€be€inferred.ðð€€òòLeeseóó,€64€Md.Ð È"$ ÐApp.€at€480.€Neither€admissions€nor€testimonial€ð ðlinkageðð€areÏessential€to€plaintiffsðð€case,€because€it€is€the€role€of€the€fact„¼finder,€examining€and€weighing€all€of€the€evidence,€to€ð ðestablishÏlinkageðð€between€the€evidence,€the€inference,€and€the€findings€ofÏfact.€€òòSee€Okwa,€supraóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€Indeed,€ð ðestablishingÐ 0+€&. Ðlinkageðð€by€drawing,€examining,€and€resolving€inferences€from€theÏevidence€is€the€ultimate€task€of€any€fact„finder.€€Ìà  àWe€also€find€merit€in€plaintiffsðð€contention€that,€beyond€theÏlimited€evidence€cited€by€the€circuit€court€in€its€memorandumÏopinion,€there€is€additional€evidence€that€may€support€an€inferenceÏof€malice€in€this€case.€€A€fact„finder€may€consider€a€history€ofÏanimosity€or€ð ðpersonality€conflictðð€in€evaluating€the€arrestingÏofficerððs€actions.€€òòSee€Leese,€óó64€Md.€App.€at€480„81.€€In€thisÐ d´  Ðcase,€Blakes€admitted€that,€based€on€his€past€experiences€inÏresponding€to€calls€from€Thacker,€he€disliked€Thacker,€disapprovedÏof€the€way€he€dealt€with€Ager€Road€tenants,€and€felt€that€he€wasÏthe€worst€manager€he€had€seen€in€his€eight€years€on€the€policeÏforce.€€He€disagreed€with€and€tried€to€change€Thackerððs€decisionÏnot€to€issue€the€parking€permit.€€The€testimony€of€Thacker,€Battle,Ïand€Grimes€could€be€interpreted€to€suggest€that€Blakesðð€decision€toÏarrest€resulted€from€his€dislike€of€Thacker,€or€from€his€anger€andÏfrustration€at€Thackerððs€actions,€and€not€because€of€any€publicÏdisturbance.€€€When€all€of€the€evidence€is€considered€in€context,Ïa€fact„finder€could€conclude€that,€even€if€Blakes€did€not€have€anyÏspecific€racial€or€financial€animus,€nevertheless,€he€made€theÏdecision€to€arrest€out€of€ð ðill€will€and€spiteðð€toward€Thacker,€inÏreaction€to€what€he€perceived€to€be€Thackerððs€disagreeableÏpersonality,€unfair€management,€and/or€disrespectful€conduct.€€ð ðSoÏlong€as€a€reasonable€inference€may€be€drawn€one€way€or€the€other,Ð 0+€&. Ð.€.€.€there€is€a€dispute€of€fact€that€takes€the€case€to€the€jury.ðð€ÏòòNelsonóó,€121€Md.€App.€at€495.€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àIn€addition€to€these€disputed€inferences€of€ð ðmotive,ðð€ourÏreview€of€the€record€also€reveals€a€number€of€disputes€regardingÏfacts€that€a€jury€might€consider€material€in€determining€whetherÏBlakes€acted€with€malice,€and€that€require€a€fact„finder€to€resolveÏcritical€questions€of€credibility.€€òòSee€Okwa,€supraóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€Ð Ä  ÐFor€example,€whether€Blakesðð€comment€that€ð ð[w]e€know€why€he€wonððtÏgive€you€the€permitðð€was€intended€to€be€an€accusation€of€racialÏdiscrimination€may€require€credibility€judgments.€€Further,€thereÏare€numerous€factual€disputes€regarding€Thackerððs€actions€afterÏBlakes€and€the€tenant€left€the€office,€including€what€Thacker€saidÏ(e.g.,€single€comment€or€multiple€taunts),€what€Officer€Blakes€saidÏ(single€arrest€warning€or€multiple€warnings),€Thackerððs€demeanorÏ(e.g.,€ð ðnever€out€of€controlðð€or€loud,€yelling,€profane,Ïð ðbelligerent,ðð€and€persistent),€what€Thacker€did€(e.g.,€stayed€onÏthe€office€steps€or€closely€followed€behind€Blakes€and€Grimes€toÏthe€police€cruisers),€whether€and€when€Ms.€Battle€came€out€of€theÏoffice€(e.g.,€not€at€all,€after€the€arrest,€or€before€the€arrest),Ïand€whether€Thacker€created€a€disturbance€(e.g.,€nobody€there€toÏdisturb€or€disturbing€Grimes€and€elderly€resident€at€window).€€Ìà  àThese€factual€disputes€involve€several€witnesses,€and€raiseÏclassic€credibility€issues€of€bias,€perception,€and€reliability.€ÏClearly,€the€resolution€of€these€questions€could€materially€affectÐ <+Œ&. Ða€fact„finderððs€decision€on€the€question€of€malice.€€If€resolved€inÏThackerððs€favor,€as€it€must€be€on€summary€judgment,€such€evidenceÏcould€support€his€contention€that€malice€can€be€inferred€from€anÏarrest€that€was€so€lacking€in€probable€cause€and€legalÏjustification€as€to€render€Officer€Blakesðð€stated€belief€in€itsÏexistence€unreasonable€and€lacking€in€credibility.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€Okwa,Ð  \  Ðsupra,€óóslip€op.€at€11€(ð ðA€measure€of€distinction€exists€betweenÐ Ä  Ðacceptable€assertiveness€and€disorderly€conduct.€€We€think€thatÏ[the€arrestee€is]€entitled€to€have€a€fact„finder€resolve€thisÏdistinctionðð).Ìà  àFor€these€reasons,€Office€Blakes€was€not€entitled€to€summaryÏjudgment€on€the€basis€of€qualified€immunity.€€Accordingly,€afterÏconsidering€the€qualified€immunity€claims€of€the€other€municipalÏdefendants,€we€must€proceed€to€consider€whether€summary€judgment€inÏBlakesðð€favor€was€appropriate€on€alternate€grounds.ÌÓÓò òÓ  Ó3.Ð Ü, ÐØ€ØImmunity€Claims€Of€The€Cityó óÐ À Ðà @ à€€òòò òÐ ¤ô  ÐÓd$ÓÓO$Óà  àó óóóIf€¢Blakes£€acted€with€malice,€which€remains€to€be€determined,Ð z Ê! Ðthen€the€City€of€¢Hyattsville£€(ð ðCityðð)€may€be€held€vicariouslyÏliable€for€the€torts€of€its€employee.òò€€See,ò ò€ó óe.g.,€Town€of€PortÐ Ò#"% ÐDeposit,óó€113€Md.€App.€at€420„23€(municipality€may€be€vicariouslyÐ ° Ðliable€when€police€officerððs€intentional€conduct€constitutes€aÏconstitutional€tort);€òòWilliamsóó,€112€Md.€App.€at€548€(under€LocalÐ d ÐGovernment€Tort€Claims€Act,€claim€may€be€made€against€municipalityÏbased€on€judgment€against€employee);€€¢CJ£€ðð€5„303(b)€(ð ða€localÏgovernment€shall€be€liable€for€any€judgment€against€its€employeeÏfor€damages€resulting€from€tortious€acts€or€omissions€committed€byÏthe€employee€within€the€scope€of€employmentðð);€¢CJ£€ðð€5„303(e)€(localÏgovernment€may€assert€employeeððs€common€law€or€statutory€defense€orÏimmunity€when€claim€against€it€is€premised€on€employeeððs€tortiousÏconduct,€and€ð ðmay€.€.€.€be€held€liable€to€the€extent€that€aÏjudgment€could€have€been€rendered€against€such€an€employeeðð).ÏWhether€the€claims€that€have€been€asserted€against€the€City€basedÏon€the€allegations€of€¢Blakes£ðð€intentional€torts€are€premature€dueÏto€the€lack€of€a€judgment€against€¢Blakes£€is€a€question€that€was€notÏraised€in€or€decided€by€the€trial€court,€and€therefore€is€notÏbefore€us€in€this€appeal.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€óóMd.€Rule€8„131(a)€(appellateÐ ˆØ  Ðcourt€may€not€decide€issue€not€raised€in€or€decided€by€trialÏcourt);òò€Bishop€v.€State€Farm,óó€360€Md.€225,€233„34€(2000)€(afterÐ ì"<$ Ðreversing€grant€of€summary€judgment,€appellate€court€generally€ñGññ=Gñmñ=Gññ>Gññ?Gñjudgment€might€have€been€granted€onÏother€grounds€not€reached€by€the€trial€court")€(quoting€òòñ?Gññ@Gñ¢Gresser£€v.Ð ü'L#* ÐAnne€Arundel€County,óóñ@GññAGñ€349€Md.€542,€552€œ(1998)ñAGññDGñ)ñDGññAGñ;›€ñAGññ@Gñòòñ@Gññ?Gññ8Gñòòñ8Gññ?GñDavis€v.€¢DiPino£,€óó337Ð ´)%, ÐMd.€642,€648„49€(1995)€(when€appellate€court€determines€that€trialÐ l+¼&. Ðcourt€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€because€there€was€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€court€should€reverse€and€remandÏthe€case€for€further€proceedings,€and€should€not€¢sua£€¢sponte£€raiseÏand€grant€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€uponÏwhich€relief€may€be€granted€on€grounds€first€raised€on€appeal).Ìò òÓ\ÓÓ  Ó4.Ð  \  ÐQualified€Immunity€Claims€Of€Other€Defendantsó óÐ ð @  ÐÓ /ÓÌÓó.Óà  àPlaintiffs€cannot€rely€on€the€same€evidence€presented€againstÏBlakes€to€establish€an€inference€that€the€other€defendants€actedÏwith€malice.€€Under€section€5„507,€each€municipal€official€isÏindependently€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€for€discretionary€actsÏperformed€without€malice.€€Thus,€plaintiffs€cannot€rely€uponÏvicarious€liability€principles,€but€must€proffer€evidence€to€showÏthat€each€one€of€these€defendants€acted€with€malice.€€The€problemÏfor€plaintiffs,€however,€is€that€there€is€no€evidence€whatsoeverÏthat€any€of€these€defendants€participated€in€the€decision€toÏarrest,€which€is€the€only€specific€discretionary€act€about€whichÏThacker€has€proffered€sufficient€evidence€to€survive€summaryÏjudgment.Ìà  àThere€is€no€evidence€that€either€of€the€other€two€officers€atÏthe€scene€participated€in€the€decision€to€arrest€Thacker.€ÏPlaintiffs€cannot€rely€upon€pure€speculation,€or€the€routine€arrestÏpractice€of€ð ðcommand€and€cover,ðð€to€conjure€up€a€maliciousÏconspiracy€to€arrest€claim.€€Indeed,€that€sort€of€speculativeÏhypothesizing€is€precisely€what€the€qualified€immunity€defense€isÐ ,f'/ Ðdesigned€to€curtail.€€Ìà  àSimilarly,€there€is€no€evidence€that€any€of€the€otherÏmunicipal€defendants€acted€with€malice.׃0×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€circuit€courtÐ X Ðproperly€concluded€that€plaintiffs€had€failed€to€state€any€facts€orÏoffer€any€evidence€to€support€their€bare€allegations€of€negligentÏsupervision,€negligent€training,€and€negligent€retention.€€We€noteÏthat,€in€any€event,€evidence€of€such€negligence€would€notÏconstitute€evidence€of€malice,€and,€therefore,€would€not€beÏsufficient€to€prevent€summary€judgment€on€qualified€immunityÏgrounds.€€Ìà  àIn€the€absence€of€any€specific€evidence€of€malice,€or€of€anyÏallegation€of€constitutional€violations׃ì ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€the€part€of€theseÐ d Ðmunicipal€officials,€summary€judgment€was€appropriate.€€For€theseÏreasons,€we€affirm€the€circuit€courtððs€entry€of€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€appellees€Prangley,€Perry,€Phillips,€Hunter,€McCully,€andÏthe€City€Council.€€Ìò òÓ  ÓÓÓIII.Ð ` ° ÐPropriety€Of€Summary€JudgmentÌIn€The€Absence€Of€Qualified€ImmunityÌÌÓj8Óó óÓ^8Óà  àApart€from€its€finding€of€qualified€immunity,€the€circuitÐ ð@  Ðcourt€found€alternative€grounds€to€grant€summary€judgment€on€manyÏcounts€of€the€complaint.€€Because€we€have€held€that€Officer€BlakesÏand€the€City€were€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€on€qualifiedÏimmunity€grounds,€we€must€determine€whether€either€of€theseÏdefendants€was€entitled€to€summary€judgment€on€such€alternateÏgrounds.€€We€shall€address€each€claim€separately.ÌÓbÓò òÓÛbÓA.Ð ¤ô ÐDefamationÌÌÓà:Óó óÓÍ:ÓÓ  Óà  àAppellant€Thacker€complained€that€he€was€defamed€becauseÐ P  ÐOfficer€Blakes€ÌÓÓà  àà8 ` àtold€[Thacker]€he€was€a€bad€manager,€orderedÏhim€to€ððshut€upðð,€told€him€he€would€beÏarrested€if€he€didnððt€shut€up,€madeÏthreatening€and€disparaging€gestures,€and€didÏotherwise€by€conduct€and€words€disparage,€andÏslander,€intimidate,€frighten,€ridicule€him€inÏthe€presence€of€his€office€staff,€the€tenant,Ïbystanders€and€each€other,€all€of€whichÏstatements€are€untrue.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ·;ÓAt€the€summary€judgment€hearing,€the€circuit€court€granted€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€all€defendants€on€the€defamation€claim,Ïbecause€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€allegedly€defamatoryÐ \,¬'/ Ðstatements€were€ð ðoverheard€by€anybody€that€actually€changed€theirÏopinion€of€Thacker€as€a€result€of€what€was€said.ðð€€Ìà  àOn€appeal,€Thacker€does€not€offer€any€reason€why€this€ð ðlack€ofÏdamageðð€ruling€is€erroneous,€but€instead€argues€only€that€ð ðaÏreasonable€inference€from€Blakesðð€comments€.€.€.€is€that€[Thacker]Ïwouldnððt€give€[Grimes]€the€parking€permit€because€Grimes€was€blackððÏand€that€Blakes€ð ðhad€stated€the€defamatory€words€in€the€presence€ofÏGrimesðð€and€another€resident.€€We€shall€affirm€the€unchallengedÏð ðlack€of€damageðð€ruling.€€Ìà  àTo€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€defamation,€Ð ¼  ÐÓÓà  àà8 ` àthe€plaintiff€must€allege€that€(1)€theÏdefendant€made€a€defamatory€communication,Ïi.e.,€that€he€communicated€a€statement€tendingÏto€expose€the€plaintiff€to€public€scorn,Ïhatred,€contempt,€or€ridicule€to€a€thirdÏperson€who€reasonably€recognized€the€statementÏto€be€defamatory;€(2)€that€the€statement€wasÏfalse;€(3)€that€the€defendant€was€at€fault€inÏcommunicating€the€statement;€and€(4)€that€theÏplaintiff€suffered€harm.€€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓö@ÓòòAgora,€Inc.€v.€Axxess,€Inc.,óó€90€F.€Supp.2d€697,€701€(D.€Md.€2000);Ð ¦ö Ðòòseeóó€òòRosenberg€v.€Helinskióó,€328€Md.€664,€675€(1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ^ ®! Ð509€U.S.€924,€113€S.€Ct.€3041€(1993).€Ìà  àBlakesðð€comment€allegedly€insinuating€racial€prejudice€is€aÏderogatory€opinion.€€Although€there€is€no€ð ðwholesale€defamationÏexception€for€anything€that€might€be€labeled€as€ððopinionðð,ðð€theÏSupreme€Court€has€recognized€that€if€a€statement€is€not€provable€asÏfalse€or€is€not€reasonably€interpretable€as€stating€facts,€then€itÏcannot€form€the€basis€of€a€defamation€suit.€€òòMilkovich€v.€LorainÐ ,n'/ ÐJournal€Co.óó,€497€U.S.€1,€18,€110€S.€Ct.€2695,€2705€(1990).€€InÐ ° ÐMaryland,€when€a€statement€is€made€in€the€form€of€an€opinion,€itÏbecomes€actionable€"only€if€it€implie[s]€the€allegation€ofÏundisclosed€facts€as€the€basis€for€the€opinion."€€€òòPeroutka€v.Ð À  ÐStrengóó,€116€Md.€App.€301,€323€(1997).€€In€òòPeroutkaóó,€we€explainedÐ x È Ðthat€when€a€defendantÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓbases€his€expression€of€a€derogatory€opinionÏon€the€existence€of€ððfactsðð€that€he€does€notÏstate€but€that€are€assumed€to€be€true€by€bothÏparties€to€the€communication,€and€if€theÏcommunication€does€not€give€rise€to€theÏreasonable€inference€that€it€is€also€based€onÏother€facts€that€are€defamatory,€he€is€notÏsubject€to€liability,€whether€the€assumedÏfacts€are€defamatory€or€not.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€at€323„24€(quoting€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€566€cmt.€cÐ 8ˆ Ð(1976)).Ìà  àEven€if€we€assume€that€Blakesðð€opinion€implied€that€ThackerÏrefused€the€tenantððs€request€for€a€parking€permit€because€theÏtenant€was€African„American,€¢Thacker£€still€has€not€alleged€orÏproffered€evidence€that€he€suffered€any€injury€as€a€result€of€thisÏparticular€comment.€€The€gravamen€of€Thackerððs€injury€allegationsÏis€that€Thacker€was€harmed€by€the€ò òòòarrestóóó ó,€and€not€by€an€accusationÐ ø"H$ Ðof€racial€prejudice.€€Thacker€has€asserted€other€causes€of€actionÏseeking€compensation€for€damages€allegedly€caused€by€the€arrest.€ÏSince€there€is€no€ð ðdefamation€by€arrestðð€cause€of€action€inÏMaryland,€the€circuit€court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€Blakes€and€the€City€on€the€defamation€claim.Ð t+Ä&. ÐœñCGñ€€ñCGññBGñÌÌñBGñ›ÓÓò òñBGñÐ ° ÐÐ ° ÐÐ ° ÐÐ ° ÐñBGñÓ  ÓB.Ð ° ÐAssault€and€Battery,€False€Arrest,€ÌFalse€Imprisonment,€And€Malicious€ProsecutionÌó óÌÓ MÓÓ—LÓà  àBecause€the€sole€grounds€for€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏBlakes€on€these€five€counts€was€the€circuit€courtððs€erroneousÏfinding€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€malice,€Blakes€and€the€CityÏwere€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€on€these€counts.€€We€shallÏreverse€the€judgment€entered€in€favor€of€Blakes€and€the€City€onÏthese€counts,€and€remand€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.€€ÌÓÓò òÓ  ÓC.Ð æ6 ÐViolation€Of€Maryland€Declaration€of€RightsÌÌó óÓYOÓÓDOÓà  àBlakes€is€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€on€this€count€forÐ ’â Ðconstitutional€violations,€because€material€disputes€of€fact€remainÏas€to€whether€Blakes€is€entitled€to€the€qualified€immunity€affordedÏunder€section€5„507.€€Ìà  àThe€City€has€no€immunity€in€tort€actions€based€on€violationsÏof€the€Maryland€Constitution.òò€€See€Housing€Authority€of€¢Balt£.€Cityóó,Ð î> Ðòòsupra,€óóslip€op.€at€1.€Ð ¦ ö! Ðò òÓÓÓ  ÓD.ó óÐ ^"®# Ðò òIntentional€Infliction€Of€Emotional€Distressó óÐ B#’$ ÐÌÓ½QÓÓ«QÓà  àPlaintiffs€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏthe€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress,€becauseÏð ðunder€these€circumstances,€the€extent€of€Thackerððs€emotionalÏdistress,€albeit€with€instructions€of€the€court€as€to€the€severityÏnecessary€to€support€the€tort€of€intentional€infliction€ofÐ ¬+ü&. Ðemotional€distress,€is€a€matter€of€finding€of€fact€for€the€jury€.Ï.€.€.ðð€Ìà  àTo€support€a€òòprima€facieóó€claim€for€intentional€infliction€ofÐ X Ðemotional€distress,€a€plaintiff€must€show:€(1)€the€conduct€isÏintentional€or€reckless;€(2)€the€conduct€is€extreme€and€outrageous;Ï(3)€there€is€a€causal€connection€between€the€wrongful€conduct€andÏthe€emotional€distress;€(4)€the€emotional€distress€is€severe.€€òòSeeÐ Ä  ÐHarris€v.€Jonesóó,€281€Md.€560,€566€(1977).€€Ð |Ì  Ðà  àIn€order€for€distress€to€be€sufficiently€severe€to€state€aÏclaim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotion€distress,€ð ðtheÏplaintiff€[must]€show€that€he€suffered€a€òòseverelyóó€disablingÐ ŒÜ Ðemotional€response€to€the€defendantððs€conduct,ðð€and€that€theÏdistress€was€so€severe€that€ð ðno€reasonable€man€could€be€expected€toÏendure€it.ðð€€òòHarrisóó,€281€Md.€at€570„71€(citation€omitted).€€ForÐ œì Ðexample,€in€òòCaldor€v.€Bowdenóó,€330€Md.€632€(1993),€the€Court€ofÐ T¤ ÐAppeals€rejected€a€plaintiffððs€claim€that€his€emotional€distressÏwas€severe€when€the€proffered€evidence€showed€only€that€as€theÏplaintiff€was€removed€from€a€store€in€handcuffs,€he€was€ð ðupset"€andÏ"embarrassed,ðð€but€that€after€the€arrest,€he€ð ðcontinued€to€do€theÏsame€things€that€he€did€prior€to€the€incident.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€642„644.Ð ¼$ & Ðà  àSimilarly,€Thacker€has€failed€either€to€plead€or€profferÏevidence€to€show€that€his€emotional€distress€was€severe.€€HisÏclaims€of€fear€during€the€arrest,€and€subsequent€humiliation€andÏdistrust€of€the€police€fall€far€below€the€requisite€pleadingÐ x+È&. Ðstandard€for€this€claim.€€Moreover,€in€light€of€the€undisputedÏevidence€that€Thacker€has€continued€his€employment€at€Ager€Road,Ïand€the€complete€lack€of€any€evidence€that€he€could€not€continueÏwith€his€normal€life€activities€or€that€he€sought€any€professionalÏtreatment€for€his€alleged€distress,€we€shall€affirm€summaryÏjudgment€on€this€count€of€the€complaint.Ìò òÓ  ÓÓÓE.Ð ¸  ÐInterference€With€Contractó óÐ œì  ÐÌÓÜ[ÓÓÐ[Óà  àThe€sole€count€pled€on€behalf€of€appellant€Melvin€Berman,€asÏgeneral€partner€of€the€partnership€that€owns€Ager€Road€and€employsÏThacker,€is€a€claim€for€intentional€interference€with€contract.€ÏThacker€and€Berman€contend€that€the€defendants€interfered€withÏtheir€contractual€relationships€by€causing€the€partnership€to€payÏlegal€fees€for€Thackerððs€defense€of€the€disorderly€conduct€chargeÏand€otherwise€damaging€it€in€the€affairs€of€its€business.€€Ìà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€has€long€recognized€the€tort€ofÏintentional€interference€with€contract€or€with€other€economicÏrelations€in€a€commercial€context.€€Unlike€some€jurisdictions,€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€has€"required€not€only€a€specific€purpose€toÏinterfere,€but€also€that€the€interfering€conduct€be€independentlyÏwrongful€or€unlawful.ðð€òòGeduldig€v.€Posneróó,€129€Md.€App.€490,€506„07Ð f%¶ ' Ð(1999)(citing€òòAlexander€&€Alexander€v.€B.€Dixon€Evander€&€Assocs.óó,Ð 'n") Ð336€Md.€635,€657€(1994)).€Ìà  àThe€circuit€court€properly€recognized€that€the€mere€allegationÏthat€Ager€Road€incurred€legal€expenses€to€provide€Thacker€withÐ .,~'/ Ðcounsel€is€not€sufficient€to€state€an€actionable€claim€forÏinterference€with€contract€or€prospective€economic€advantage.€ÏPlaintiffs€have€not€alleged€in€the€complaint€that€any€particularÏcontract€or€relationship€was€interfered€with,€much€less€anyÏallegation€or€proof€of€wrongful€interference€or€intent€toÏinterfere.€€Instead,€the€count€reads€more€like€a€hybrid€ð ðdefamationÏby€false€arrestðð€claim,€which,€even€if€it€existed,€would€beÏcompletely€covered€by€plaintiffsðð€other€claims€for€false€arrest,Ïfalse€imprisonment,€and€malicious€prosecution.€€We€shall€affirmÏsummary€judgment€on€this€count.€€ÌÒ¡°Òò òÓÓJUDGMENT€FOR€APPELLEES€MAYOR€MARYÐ h¸ ÐPRANGLEY,€CITY€COUNCIL€OF€THE€CITYÏOF€HYATTSVILLE,€POLICE€CHIEFÏROBERT€T.€PERRY,€CPL.€GREGORYÏPHILLIPS,€PVT.€LIMUEL€HUNTER,€AND€ÌSGT.€WAYNE€McCULLY€AFFIRMED.Ì€ÌJUDGMENT€FOR€APPELLEES€CPL.€GARYÏBLAKES€AND€CITY€OF€HYATTSVILLEÏAFFIRMED€AS€TO€COUNTS€I,€VIII,€ANDÏIX,€AND€REVERSED€AS€TO€COUNTS€II,ÏIII,€IV,€V,€AND€VII,€AND€REMANDEDÏFOR€FURTHER€PROCEEDINGS€CONSISTENTÏWITH€THIS€OPINION.Ì€ÌCOSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLANTS€ANDÏAPPELLEES,€BLAKES€AND€CITY€OFÏHYATTSVILLE€EQUALLY.ó óÐ Œ$Ü% ÐÓTcÓÒ°¡Ò€