Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : CRAIG L. MORROW : v. JOHN S. FARRELL, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination civil rights case is Defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is Local Rule 105.6. For reasons that follow, the : Civil Action No. DKC 2001-1221 :

deemed necessary.

court shall grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. I. Background The following facts are uncontroverted or in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Craig L. Morrow became a Prince George's County police officer in June, 1989, eventually achieving the rank of Corporal. In June, 1997, Plaintiff was working in the Sexual On or about June

Assault Unit, Criminal Investigations Division.

23, 1997, Plaintiff was assigned to investigate an alleged second degree rape. The victim, Felicia McCarthy, had been examined at

Prince George's Hospital on June 21, 1997 and interviewed on that date by Officer Sherry Prince and Corporal Candice Santos of the sexual assault unit.

Plaintiff telephoned McCarthy on June 24, 1997, to discuss the case, at which time he found out that no photographs had been taken of her injuries. According to Plaintiff, the taking of such

photographs was standard procedure to preserve evidence and Cpl. Santos had violated standard operating procedures in failing to take photographs. At Plaintiff's request, McCarthy came to the Criminal At this

Investigations Division for an interview and follow-up.

time, she advised Plaintiff that she still had abrasions and/or bite marks on several areas of her body and was concerned that no photographs had been taken. When McCarthy requested that

photographs be taken, Plaintiff was unable to find an evidence technician or female officer. Though he informed McCarthy that he

was uncomfortable taking the photographs himself, McCarthy declined to take the photographs herself and Plaintiff took six photographs of McCarthy's neck, breasts and vaginal area. The photographs were taken in a private interview room and subsequently placed with the case file in the filing cabinet where Plaintiff kept his active case files. McCarthy subsequently complained and an internal investigation was undertaken by the Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") of the Prince George's County Police Department. On or about September

11, 1997, IAD issued a report of the investigation and in November 1997, Plaintiff was formally charged with a violation of General

2

Order 1-103, "Unbecoming Conduct" and General Order 1-201.10, "Individual Dignity." As a result, Plaintiff was suspended and

placed in a position where he would not be in contact with the public. After reviewing the results of a fitness for duty

examination, the Medical Advisory Board found Plaintiff fit for duty. However, Chief Farrell informed Plaintiff he would not be

returned to duty. After an Administrative Hearing Board ("AHB") was conducted on or about February 12, 1998, Plaintiff was found guilty of violating both General Orders for his conduct in taking the

photographs of McCarthy.

In an April 9, 1998, report which

included a number of findings of fact, the majority of the AHB recommended termination of Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff was Plaintiff's

terminated by Chief Farrell effective May 1, 1998.

petition appealing the AHB findings to the Prince George's County Circuit Court was dismissed on September 8, 1999. 1. McCarthy filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff, Cpl. Santos and Prince George's County on or about July 19, 1999, in Prince George's County Circuit Court. The case concluded with a grant of Paper no. 9, ex.

summary judgment in favor of the defendants on technical grounds.1 Plaintiff alleges that undisputed facts from that case demonstrate

Summary judgment was entered on the ground that McCarthy did not provide notice under the Local Government Tort Claims Act. Paper no. 11, at 2. 3

1

that McCarthy did not consider Plaintiff's conduct improper at the time and that she did not go through the process of making her complaint until contacted by IAD. Paper no. 9, at 4, Ex. 2.

Plaintiff brings the pending case to gain redress for injuries allegedly incurred in the process of being disciplined and The

terminated by the Prince George's County Police Department. only Defendants remaining in the case are John S.

Farrell,

individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Prince George's County Police, and Prince George's County. Plaintiff has three counts remaining against Defendants.2 Count I, though stated inartfully, is for employment discrimination and violation of equal protection under 42 U.S.C.

Download Craig L. Morrow v. John S. Farrell, et al..pdf

Maryland Law