University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Sharp v. Baltimore City Police FA-MD-0001
Docket / Court 1:11-cv-02888-CCB ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Speech and Religious Freedom
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On August 29, 2011, plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore County, filed a complaint in Maryland State Circuit Court against the Baltimore City Police Department and three unnamed police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that the Police Department had a practice and policy of ... read more >
On August 29, 2011, plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore County, filed a complaint in Maryland State Circuit Court against the Baltimore City Police Department and three unnamed police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that the Police Department had a practice and policy of arresting and destroying the property of persons engaged in recording the public actions of police officers, in violation of Constitutional Rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It also amounted to a misapplication of the Wiretap Statute. Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction that would bar defendants from engaging in arrest and destruction of property for video recording police actions as well as compensatory damages.

Specifically, plaintiff claimed that he had used his cell phone to videorecord the police arresting his friend in a public place. Three police officers subsequently arrested and detained him for the filming, confiscated his phone, and wiped all video data from the device. This action destroyed not only the video of the arrest, but also images of plaintiff's children and other personal events.

On October 11, 2011, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court of Maryland.
On January 10, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest, arguing that the District Court should deny the Police Department's summary judgment motion.

On February 17, 2012, the District Court (Judge Benson Everett Legg) denied the Police Department's motion to dismiss the case or for partial summary judgment. In his opinion, Judge Legg noted that the First Amendment protected the plaintiff's right to photograph on-duty police officers in public, and that the defendants might have violated the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights by deleting videos from the plaintiff's phone if this was done without a legitimate reason. Judge Legg further recognized the factual dispute regarding the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim: whether the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the phone to the police officers or not. Whether the Police Department promulgated or was deliberately indifferent to an illegal practice was also under dispute. The parties started the discovery process.

Settlement talks were unsuccessful and discovery disputes continued over the course of 2013 and early 2014. However, on April 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal which included a settlement agreement. The settlement included awarding the plaintiff $25,000 in damages and $225,000 in attorneys fees. It further included an agreement that the Police Department would implement new policies concerning citizen recording of police activity.

On April 11, 2014, the stipulation of dismissal was granted by Judge Catherine C. Blake. The case was dismissed with prejudice subject to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the settlement agreement.

Emma Bao - 06/24/2013
Richard Jolly - 11/26/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Retaliation Prohibition
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
False arrest
Loss or damage to property
Pattern or Practice
Phone
Record-keeping
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
State law
Defendant(s) Baltimore City Police Department
Plaintiff Description Resident of Baltimore County, MD, detained by the police after video recording a public arrest of his friend.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
1:11-cv-2888 (D. Md.) 04/11/2014
FA-MD-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [Jury Trial Demanded] 08/29/2011
FA-MD-0001-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of Interest of the United States 01/10/2012
FA-MD-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum to Counsel re: Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dept et al. [Denying Motion to Dismiss] 02/17/2012 (D. Md.)
FA-MD-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Letter Order 02/17/2012 (D. Md.)
FA-MD-0001-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum to Counsel re: Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dept. et al. 11/13/2012 (D. Md.)
FA-MD-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting In Part and Denying in Motion to Quash 03/01/2013 (2013 WL 937903) (D. Md.)
FA-MD-0001-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement and Release 04/07/2014
FA-MD-0001-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting Stipulation of Dismissal] 04/08/2014 (D. Md.)
FA-MD-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Blake, Catherine C. (D. Md.) [Magistrate]
FA-MD-0001-0009 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Gauvey, Susan K. (D. Md.) [Magistrate]
FA-MD-0001-0007
Legg, Benson Everett (D. Md.)
FA-MD-0001-0003 | FA-MD-0001-0004 | FA-MD-0001-0006
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Borja, Mary E (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0002 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Delaney, Joshua (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0001
Jeon, Deborah A. (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-0002 | FA-MD-0001-0008 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Kohr, Benjamin J (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0002 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0001 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Ogletree, Rashida J (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0001 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0001
Simpson, Richard A (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0002 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0001
Smith, Craig Michael (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-0002 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Beck, Daniel C (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-0008 | FA-MD-0001-9000
Cooper, Lindsay Cohn (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-9000
Grimes, Mark H (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-9000
Lundy, Christopher Russell (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-9000
Lynch, Kara K. (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-9000
Nilson, George A. (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-0008
Sparaco, Daniel J (Maryland)
FA-MD-0001-9000
Other Lawyers Trepel, Samantha Kay (District of Columbia)
FA-MD-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -