Preview:

Benson v. State, N o. 7, Sept. Term 200 5. Opinion by Harrell, Jr. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS - ARTICLE 14 - NO AID, CHARGE, TAX, BURTHEN OR FEES OUGHT TO BE RATED OR LEVIED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE - ARTICLE 8 - SEPARATION OF POWER S POWER TO SET RATE OF TAX OR CHARGE - DAMAGES - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - MARYLAND TORT CLAIMS ACT - CONSTITUTIONAL TORT A monetary commission remitted to the State by the State-selected vendors of collect telephone call services placed by inmates in State correctional facilities is authorized by statute, but the statute does not specify the particular rate of the commission. The rate of the commission was set by an Executive action. Such an arrangement does not v iolate Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights, which prov ides that "no aid, charge, tax, burthen or fees ought to be rated or levied, under any pretense, without the consent of the Leg islature." Althoug h a private right of action seeking injunctive relief may lie for an alleged violation of Article 14, and the monetary commission in the present case is a "charge" or "fee[]" under the Article, the Legislature consented to its imposition when it authorized the imposition of a commission on telephone services in order to finance the Inmate Welfare Fund and granted broad authority to the pertinent Executive agency to regulate the operation of the telecommunications systems in State facilities. Neither Article 8 (separation of powers) nor Article 14 require th e Legislature to set the amount or rates of charges/taxes. Because a violation of Article 14 is not a constitutional tort for which damages may be sought, the procedural requirements of the Maryland Tort Claims Act do not apply to Article 14 claims. The telephone commission in the present case does not violate the Consumer Protection Act becau se the A ct does not gov ern the S tate Go vernm ent's ac tivities in th e prese nt case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 7 September Term, 2005

CRY STAL A. BEN SON , et al. v. STAT E OF M ARY LAN D, et al.

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J.

Filed: December 7, 2005

We issued a writ of certiorari to the Court of Spec ial Appeals, before it decided the appeal in this case, to consider several questions: 1. Whether the State of Maryland violates Articles 8 and/or 14 of the Declaration of Rights or the Maryland Consumer Protection A ct (CPA), or is subject to the common law actions of unjust enrichment or for money had and received, when the State receives a commission on charges collected from collect phone calls made by prison inmates where the authoriz ing statute fails to establish the specific rate of commission to be remitted to the State. Whether the notice provisions of the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) are satisfied when a claimant: (a) brings an action on b ehalf of a class of p laintiffs; (b) fails to state the specific amount of damages sought, yet the Office of the State Treasurer (Treasure r) could po ssibly ascertain the amount of dama ges by investig ation; and, (c) files a claim in court seeking injunctive relief one month after giving notice of the claim to the Treasurer when the claim su bmitted to the Treasurer sought dam ages only. Whether the Circuit Court erred in denying post-judgment motions seeking permission to advance additional allegations beyond those asserted in Appellants' last amended class action complaints. I. A. Background Prison inmates who satisfy the security requirements of their respective correctional facilities are permitted to make non-emergency telephone ca lls, but only on a c ollect call basis.1 Code of Ma ryland Regu lations (CO MAR )

Download Benson v. State.pdf

Maryland Law