Preview:

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 0048

September Term, 2000

KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND, ET AL.

Eyler, Deborah S., Adkins, Krauser, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Filed: August 30, 2001

Complaining that he was wrongfully arrested on suspicion of cutting the seat of a taxi cab in which he was riding, Kamran Tavakoli-Nouri, appellant, filed suit Court for Prince George's County pro se in the Circuit false arrest, false

for of

imprisonment,

intentional

infliction

emotional

distress,

invasion of privacy, violations of his "Legal Rights and Civil Rights," and national origin discrimination. He named as

defendants (now appellees), Troopers Kevin Sinai and William Reaves of the Maryland State Police, the State of Maryland, the Maryland State Police, and the Motor Vehicle Administration (the "MVA"). Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and that the troopers were statutorily immune from civil liability. After a hearing, the circuit court Appellant unsuccessfully

granted appellees' motion to dismiss.

moved to alter or modify judgment, and then noted this appeal. We have consolidated and rephrased the questions appellant presented for our review. I. Did the trial court err in concluding that appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against any of the appellees? Did the trial court err in concluding that, alternatively, Troopers Sinai and Reaves had statutory immunity to all of

II.

appellant's claims? Although we agree that appellant failed to state any claims arising from the decision to arrest and search appellant, we conclude that the complaint adequately alleges facts sufficient to assert a claim that the force used to make the arrest was so excessive that it violated his constitutional rights under

Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

Appellant

should have been given an opportunity to amend his complaint to set forth a separate count regarding his improper manner of arrest allegations. We shall vacate the judgment of the circuit court, and remand so that appellant has an opportunity to do so. FACTS According to appellant's complaint, on August 25, 1998, he took a taxi cab to the MVA building in Beltsville, Maryland, planning to obtain a "Driver's License or Non-Driver ID card." While appellant was talking to an MVA supervisor, Trooper Kevin Sinai, who was a "security guard of that MVA office[,]

approached [him] from behind and forcibly pulled [his] wrists behind his back and placed handcuffs on his wrists" without explanation. When appellant asked why he was being arrested,

Sinai "refused to respond and failed to state a reason . . . ." Along with Sinai, four more State police troopers "surrounded [appellant] at [the] MVA counter . . . and K. Sinai dragged

2

[appellant] while being handcuffed to a room at the other end of the large hall of [the] MVA office . . . ." Appellant alleged

that the troopers improperly "us[ed] unreasonable and excessive force in brutally making [the] . . . [a]rrest . . . and dragging him across [the] MVA hall in handcuffs . . . and conducting intrusive interrogations and unlawful searches in violation of . . . all of [his] rights." In the room, Trooper Reaves, "who was supervisor of the State Troopers present[,] conducted an unlawful and intrusive body search and search of [appellant's] briefcase," and emptied the contents of appellant's shorts on a table. Trooper Reaves He told

then handcuffed appellant to a chair in the room.

appellant "that [the] taxi driver who had brought him to MVA had called police claiming that a cut on the seat of his taxi was allegedly caused by him." "Although thorough searches of [appellant's] briefcase and body . . . proved that [appellant] did not have any sharp object with which he could have cut [the] seat," the troopers

"continued detaining [appellant] . . . ."

A second search of

the briefcase confirmed that appellant was not carrying a sharp object. Despite the lack of any sharp object, appellant was then questioned about his "life and his past and future plans and .

3

. . his address and his intention for residing at that address and . . . why [he] needed [a] Driver's License." Appellant

responded that he was living temporarily in the Econo Lodge Motel in College Park, Maryland until he could "find[] permanent housing." The officers then called the manager of Econo Lodge After an hour, they released The taxi driver never filed

to verify appellant's address. appellant without charging him. charges against appellant. Appellant complained,

unsuccessfully,

to

the

trooper's

supervisor and to the Governor's office.

The Maryland State

Treasurer denied his claims under the Maryland Tort Claim Act in June 1999. He filed this suit on August 10, 1999.

As a result of this incident, appellant claims, he was "obstructed . . . from obtaining a [d]river's [l]icense or State issued ID card that was most needed for [cashing checks] and [other] transaction[s], and deprived . . . [of] being able to ride his personal . . . vehicle ." In and [forced] to use the public "State

transportation

addition,

because

Troopers gave [her] . . . the idea that [he] was in trouble with [the] law . . . , the manager of the Econo Lodge evicted him and called a nearby [inn] to advise them not to rent to appellant." Appellant had to move to another motel where the rate was more than $100 per week higher. Finally, appellant claims he

4

"suffered emotional distress and anguish and lack of sleep." DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in granting appellees' motion to dismiss his complaint. "In considering a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2), a court must assume the truth of all wellpleaded material facts and all inferences that can be drawn from them." Rossaki v. NUS Corp., 116 Md. App. 11, 18 (1997). The

material facts setting forth the cause of action "`must be pleaded with sufficient by specificity. the pleader Bald will assertions not and

conclusory

statements

suffice.'"

Adamson v. Correctional Med. Svcs., Inc. , 359 Md. 238, 246 (2000) (quoting Bobo v. State, 346 Md. 706, 708-09 (1997)). On appeal, we view the well-pleaded facts of the complaint "in the light most favorable to the appellant," Parker v.

Kowalsky & Hirschhorn, P.A., 124 Md. App. 447, 458 (1999), to determine whether the trial court was legally correct in

dismissing the complaint.

Adamson, 359 Md. at 246.

"The grant

of a motion to dismiss is proper [only] if the complaint does not disclose, on its face, a legally sufficient cause of

action."

Rossaki, 116 Md. App. at 18 (citation omitted). I. Sufficiency Of Allegations

5

Appellant's complaint names five different causes of action

Download Tavakoli-Nouri v. State.pdf

Maryland Law