This case, Rodney v. Murphy, 24-C-05004405, was the first of three recent cases alleging mistreatment of persons arrested and taken to Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center ("Central Booking" or "CBIC") for booking and processing. (The other cases were JC-MD-0007: Jones v. Murphy, Case No. 1 ...
read more >
This case, Rodney v. Murphy, 24-C-05004405, was the first of three recent cases alleging mistreatment of persons arrested and taken to Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center ("Central Booking" or "CBIC") for booking and processing. (The other cases were JC-MD-0007: Jones v. Murphy, Case No. 1:05-cv-01287-CCB (D. Md. 2005) and JC-MD-0008: Maryland NAACP v. Baltimore City Police Department 1:06-cv-01863-CCB (D. Md. 2006).) Central Booking was opened in 1995 as the central location for booking and processing arrestees in Baltimore City. Operated by the Maryland Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, part of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, CBIC processed approximately 100,000 arrestees annually.
In Rodney v. Murphy, the Maryland Office of the Public Defender filed a petition for habeas corpus on April 22, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, on behalf of over 50 named persons who were Public Defender's clients detained in Central Booking and not taken before a Court Commissioner within 24 hours, as required by state law. On April 25, 2005 the Circuit Court (Judge John M. Glynn) certified the case as a class action, defining the class as all individuals arrested and detained in Central Booking and waiting to see a judicial officer as required by Maryland law. That same day, Judge Glynn also issued a temporary restraining order requiring Central Booking to bring each detainee before a judicial officer within 24 hours or release the individual.
In an unusual move, the City of Baltimore moved to intervene in the case on June 29, 2005, describing Central Booking as "dysfunctional" and lacking "appropriate or adequate management systems and practices to assure performance and accountability." The City claimed that, in its current state, Central Booking threatened the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Baltimore and interfered with the operation of the Police Department. Judge Glynn allowed the City to participate as amicus curiae, but reserved ruling on intervention.
The TRO was later extended to February 9, 2006, and thereafter extended again. The ultimate disposition of the case is not clear from the Court's docket, but the docket does indicate the case was dismissed by Court on September 15, 2006.
We have no further information on this matter.Dan Dalton - 02/12/2008