A woman who says she was assaulted when Prince George’s County deputy sheriffs served an arrest warrant at her home is entitled to damages from the state of Maryland, the Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled.
In September 2006, according to testimony in the trial, two deputy sheriffs arrived at Kimberly Jones’ apartment in Greenbelt and asked for a person who didn’t live at the apartment. When one of the deputies asked to enter the apartment to check, Jones refused and asked to see the warrant, which the deputy didn’t have on him.
One of the deputies punched Jones, the deputies entered the apartment and Jones was pepper sprayed, beaten with a baton and had a portion of her hair pulled from her scalp, according to the trial testimony.
Jones sued the deputy sheriffs and the state. Her allegations in the lawsuit included that the state was negligent in how it trained the deputies in execution of arrest warrants. The jury found the state liable for
negligent training or supervision of the deputies, and Jones was awarded $200,000 in damages.
But a lower appeals court said there wasn’t enough evidence that the state breached any duty to Jones relating to negligent training and supervision, according to the court’s opinion. This court specifically criticized Jones’ case because it did not include expert or similar testimony to back up its claims.
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that expert testimony was not necessary in this case because the alleged breach of care can be understood using “common knowledge or experience.”
The Court of Appeals also ruled that Jones had presented enough evidence to cause a jury to believe that a standard of care was breached.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement can enter the home of the subject of an arrest warrant if officers believe the subject is there at the time. Police have to use a search warrant, rather than an arrest warrant, to enter the home of a third party where an arrestee is believed to be located, the Appeals Court decision said.
However, the deputies’ testimony during the Jones trial could have caused a jury to believe the deputies were taught they could enter any house if its address was on an arrest warrant — not just if the residence was that of the suspect — and they believed the suspect was there.
