Md. NAACP Branches v. Dep't of Md. State Police

/

II'IMIII Jlllllillllllllllilllllllllllll

PP-MD-001-001

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE

)

OF NAACP BRANCHES, on behalf of )

itself, its members, and the plaintiff

)

class,

)

c/o Herbert H. Lindsey, President

)

35 Beyda Court

)

Baltimore, Maryland 21236

)

)

GARY D. RODWELL, on behalf of himself and )

all other persons similarly situated,

)

8412 Brunswick Place

)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19153

)

)

JOHNSTON E. WILLIAMS, on behalf of

)

himself and all other persons

)

similarly situated,

)

118 Ashby Road

)

Upper Darby, Pennsylvania 19082

)

)

JAMES E. ALSTON, JR., on behalf of himself )

and all other persons similarly

)

situated,

)

3806 Gateway Terrace

)

Burtonsville, Maryland 20866

)

) YANCEY AND ALESHIA TAYLOR, on behalf )

of themselves, their minor son,

)

Yancey Taylor, Jr., and all other

)

persons similarly situated,

)

70 Overland Avenue

)

Amityville, New York 11701

)

)

GEORGE W. TAYLOR, JR., on behalf of

)

himself and all other persons

)

similarly situated,

)

222 Andover Place

)

Robbinsville, New Jersey 08691

)

Civil Action No. CCB-98-1098

(

ZOOOZ: 'D'

(

*3\N

(

s suosjad jaqjo JJE pnc

jo jiuqaq uo 'SNV3W *S NHOf

PLLOZ sndinB3 ££001

(

suosjad jaqjo n^ pnc jpsnirq

( jo Jieqaq no ''HT 'NOSHSLLLVd *H (HAVO

3T96

suosasd jaqjo jp pire jo j ^ q s q uo 'AHXHOIlVa HOHO3D

I09ZZ

(

J39JJS ipnos JSBH 8X1

(

(

A]JB[iuiis suosjsd jgqjo \\v

jo jpnpq uo 'I O9VNnOV VDD3N

P09LZ

ILUIS suosjsd jgqjo \\e jo jpnpq uo 'H3^7VM ' a NOS1HN

suosjsd jsqjo \\v
jo j^qaq uo 'HVlinaSV dVMVf
81980 uoung i\\
suosjsd jsqjo iq jo jfeqsq uo '^QOD 'V DIHH

KENNETH R. JEFFRIES, on behalf of

)

himself and all other persons

)

similarly situated,

)

1000 Perry Street, N.E.

)

Apartment 12

)

Washington, D.C. 20017

)

YVONNE DAVIS, on behalf of herself

)

and all other persons similarly

)

situated,

)

10531 Beacon Ridge Drive

)

Mitchellville, Maryland 20721

)

DIANA DESMOINES, on behalf of

)

herself and all other persons

)

similarly situated,

)

250 South Reynolds Street

)

Unit 1003

)

Alexandria, Virginia 22304

)

WILLIAM M. BERRY, on behalf of

)

himself and all other persons

)

similarly situated,

)

4347-C Hewitt Street

)

Greensboro, NC 27407

)

VERNA A. BAILEY, on behalf of herself and )

all other persons similarly situated,

)

215 B Third Street North

)

Brigantine, New Jersey 08203

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

DEPARTMENT OF MARYLAND STATE

)

POLICE

)

Serve on:

)

J. Joseph Curran

)

200 St. Paul Place

)

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

)

DAVID B. MITCHELL, individually and in his )

official capacity as Secretary of the

)

Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

JESSE GRAYBILL, individually and in his

)

official capacity as Commander of

)

the Field Operations Bureau of the

)

Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

GEORGE H. HALL, individually and in his )

official capacity as Commander of

)

the Northern Region of the Field

)

Operations Bureau of the Department )

of Maryland State Police,

)

Barrack D Bel Air

)

1401 Bel Air Road

)

Bel Air, Maryland 21014

)

)

VERNON BETKEY, individually and in his

)

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Police Barrack Commander,

)

Barrack D Bel Air

)

1401 Bel Air Road

)

Bel Air, Maryland 21014

)

)

KEVEN L. GRAY, individually and in his

)

official capacity as a Maryland State

)

Police Barrack Commander,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

JOHN E. APPLEBY, individually,

)

236 Drexel Drive

)

Bel Air, Maryland 21014

)

GEORGE P. BRANTLY, individually and in )

his official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper.

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

) BERNARD M. DONOVAN, individually and )

in his official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

STEVEN W. DULSKI, individually and in

)

his official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

MELVIN FIALKEWICZ, individually

)

c/o Maryland State Police

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

JOHN R. GREENE, individually and in his

)

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

ERIC HARBOLD, individually and in his )

official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

STEVEN L. HOHNER, individually and in

)

his official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

Barrack D Bel Air

)

1401 Bel Air Road

)

Bel Air, Maryland 21014

)

)

CLIFFORD T. HUGHES, individually and

)

in his official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

DAVID B. HUGHES, individually and in his )

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

MICHAEL T. HUGHES, individually and in )

his official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

STEVEN O. JONES, individually and in his )

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

JAMES E. NOLAN, individually and in his

)

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

PAUL J. QUILL, individually and in his

)

official capacity as a Maryland State

)

Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

MARK A. RHINEHART, individually and in )

his official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

CHRISTOPHER TIDEBERG, individually and )

in his official capacity as a

)

Maryland State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

ERNEST S. TULLIS, individually and in his )

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

MICHAEL D. WANN, individually and in his )

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

BILLY WHITE, individually and in his official )

capacity as a Maryland State Trooper, )

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

)

JOHN L. WILHELM, individually and in his )

official capacity as a Maryland

)

State Trooper,

)

Barrack M JFK Memorial Highway

)

15 Turnpike Drive

)

Perryville, Maryland 21903

)

JOHN AND JANE DOES, NUMBERS ONE )

through TEN, individually and in their )

official capacities as

)

Maryland State Troopers,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

Defendants.

)

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND I. Nature of the Case
1. This is a class action lawsuit seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the Maryland State Police and its officers and officials, for engaging in a continuing pattern and practice of race-based stops, detentions, and searches of minority motorists traveling Interstate 95 through Maryland. Plaintiffs are a non-profit civil rights organization and the class of innocent minority motorists who — due to defendants' custom and practice of discrimination — unlawfully and unreasonably have been detained and/or searched, ostensibly for drugs or weapons.. Claims are brought pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §[§] 1983, [1985, and 1986,] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 et seq., and Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1367, and 2201. 3. Venue is proper in the Northern Division of the District of Maryland, as the
8

conduct out of which this action arose occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
HI. Parties A. Plaintiffs
4. Plaintiff Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches (hereafter, "the NAACP") is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to eradication of race-based discrimination throughout Maryland and to securing equal protection of the laws for all persons. Individual members of the Maryland NAACP and its branches, including plaintiffs Gary D. Rodwell and James E. Alston, Jr., regularly travel Interstate 95 and other Maryland roadways, and at various times have been stopped and detained by Maryland State Police troopers. The NAACP brings this action [on behalf of itself and its members, and] as organizational representative for its members and for the class of minority motorists being subjected to race-based discrimination by the Maryland State Police. The NAACP participates as a plaintiff only for the purposes of securing declaratory and injunctive relief.
5. Individual named plaintiffs Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey and Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo I, George Daughtry, David H. Patterson, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, and Verna Bailey are minority motorists who regularly travel Interstate 95 through Maryland. Each of these plaintiffs has been stopped along Interstate 95, detained based upon race and/or national origin rather than legal justification, and/or searched [at least once] by Maryland State Police troopers. Furthermore, each was found to be carrying no contraband.

That is, despite lengthy detentions and extensive searches, each of the individual named plaintiffs was found to be innocent of carrying illegal drugs or weapons. These named plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as representatives for the class of all similarly situated minority motorists.
6. Plaintiff Gary D. Rodwell is a 42-year-old African-American male, currently residing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A graduate of Howard University, Mr. Rodwell has completed his doctoral course work at the University of Southern California, and is working on his doctoral dissertation in education. He is employed as Executive Director of the Alliance Organizing Project, a non-profit organization located in Philadelphia that focuses on education reform. Because this plaintiffs young son attends elementary school in Baltimore and Mr. Rodwell accompanies his son to school twice a month, he regularly travels Interstate 95 between his home in Philadelphia and his son's school in Baltimore. Mr. Rodwell also leads his son's Cub Scout troop, and regularly travels to Baltimore for troop meetings.
7. Plaintiff Johnston E. Williams is a 34-year-old Liberian citizen and permanent U.S. resident living in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. A graduate of Colgate University, with a degree in public administration, Mr. Williams is employed as a case worker with the Delaware County Department of Human Services. Because he has friends and family in the Washington, D.C. area, Mr. Williams often travels Interstate 95 between Philadelphia and Washington.
8. Plaintiff James E. Alston, Jr. is a 38-year-old African-American male, residing in Burtonsville, Maryland. Mr. Alston currently is employed as a Military Claims Clerk for the U.S. Department of the Army, at Fort Myer, Virginia. Additionally, Mr. Alston attends
10

college in the evening at the University of Maryland in College Park. As a resident of Maryland and Montgomery County, Mr. Alston regularly travels Interstate 95 between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore.
9. Plaintiffs Yancey and Aleshia Taylor are an African-American married couple in their late 30s, residing primarily in Amityville, New York. Because Mr. and Mrs. Taylor have a second home in Charlotte, North Carolina, they often travel Interstate 95 through Maryland, between their two residences. They bring this action on their own behalf, on behalf of their minor son, Yancey Taylor, Jr., who travels with them, and as class representatives.
10. Plaintiffs George W. Taylor, Jr. and Eric A. Cook are African-American males who reside near Trenton, New Jersey. Mr. Taylor, who is 24, works as a Production Supervisor for Technigraph, a company that manufactures graphic arts equipment. Mr. Cook, who is 25, works two jobs: He is a management employee with the United Parcel Service, and also works for W.W. Granger, an industrial supplies company. Because Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cook both reside near Trenton but have family and friends in Baltimore and in Norfolk, Virginia, they regularly travel together through Maryland on Interstate 95.
11. Plaintiff Jawad Abdullah is a 42-year-old Trinidadian man residing legally in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Abdullah holds a master's degree in engineering and a bachelor's degree in physics, and currently is working toward his Ph.D. in engineering at Morgan State University. Mr. Abdullah is employed as a Crime Lab Technician with the Baltimore City Police Department. As a Maryland resident, he regularly drives on the roads and highways of this state, including Interstate 95, to go to and from school and for other reasons.
11

12. Plaintiff Nelson D. Walker is a 24-year-old Liberian man and permanent U.S. resident who lives in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Walker is employed as a computer technician at the IBM corporation, and attends college at Shaw University, where he is in his senior year. Because Mr. Walker resides in North Carolina but has family in Philadelphia, he periodically travels through Maryland on Interstate 95.
13. Plaintiff Mecca Agunabo I is a Jamaican national and permanent U. S. resident who lives in Raleigh, North Carolina, and attends college at Shaw University. Mr. I frequently travels Interstate 95 through Maryland, to go to New Jersey for recording sessions of his band and to New York to visit friends and family living there.
14. Plaintiff George Daughtry is a 26-year-old African-American man who resides in Randallstown, Maryland. A graduate of Morgan State University, Mr. Daughtry is employed as a Regional Supervisor with the Maryland Department of Human Resources. As a resident of Randallstown and Baltimore County, Mr. Daughtry regularly travels through Maryland on Interstate 95 and other roads and highways.
15. Plaintiff David H. Patterson, Jr. is a 30-year-old African-American male, currently residing in Largo, Maryland. A graduate of Coppin State College with a degree in criminal justice studies, plaintiff Patterson is a Captain in the United States Army. Captain Patterson was stationed until late July of 1998 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, where he commanded a company of 396 men and women. In late July, plaintiff transferred to Baltimore, where he teaches Military Science and supervises ROTC recruiting at Morgan State University. As a Maryland resident, Captain Patterson regularly travels Interstate 95 to commute to work and to visit friends, family, and
12

co workers. 16. Plaintiff John S. Means is a 33-year-old African-American man who
resides in Washington, D.C. A graduate of Tuskegee University, Mr. Means is employed as a cartographer at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (N1MA), a federal agency in Bethesda. Because he resides in Washington, D.C, but has friends and family in Maryland and the northeast, Mr. Means sometimes travels Interstate 95 through Maryland.
17. Plaintiff Kenneth Jeffries is a 33-year-old African-American man residing in Washington, D.C. Mr. Jeffries is employed as a biologist at the National Institutes of Health, hi Bethesda. Because he resides in Washington, D.C, but has friends and family La Maryland, Mr. Jeffries often travels Interstate 95 between Washington and Baltimore.
18. Plaintiff Yvonne Davis is a 48-year-old African-American woman, residing La Mitchellville, Maryland. Ms. Davis works as a registered nurse. As a resident of Maryland and Prince George's County, and because she has family in Delaware, Ms. Davis periodically travels Interstate 95 between Washington, D.C. and Delaware.
19. Plaintiff Diana Desmoines is a 36-year-old African-American woman, residing in Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Desmoines works as a consultant for a travel agency hi Washington, D . C , and is required to travel frequently for her job. She regularly travels on Interstate 95 in Maryland, to and from the Baltimore-Washington International Airport hi connection with her work and for other purposes.
20. Plaintiff William M. Berry is a 28-year-old African-American male who
13

resides in Greensboro, North Carolina. Mr. Berry is employed as the manager of a restaurant and is a member of the North Carolina National Guard. Mr. Berry lives in North Carolina, but his girlfriend until recently resided in New Jersey, and he visited her often there. Because of this, Mr. Berry regularly has traveled through Maryland on Interstate 95.
21. Plaintiff Verna Bailey is a 41-year-old African-American woman who resides in Brigantine, New Jersey. Ms. Bailey is a graduate of Widener University, and works for the Atlantic City Board of Education. Because this plaintiff lives in New Jersey, but has a sister who lives in Cockeysville, Maryland and friends in Virginia Beach, she periodically travels through Maryland on Interstate 95 between her home, Maryland, and Virginia.
B. Defendants 22. Defendant Department of Maryland State Police (MSP), headquartered in Pikesville, Maryland, is charged with patrolling Maryland state highways, including Interstate 95, to conduct traffic control and drug interdiction activities. MSP receives federal funds through grants from the United States Department of Justice, including a 1995 grant of $1.7 million under the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1994. MSP receives further, ongoing, federal assistance through its use of the National Crime Information Center. As such, MSP is a recipient of federal financial assistance legally and contractually required to conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory manner, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. MSP is named as a defendant
14

herein only as to plaintiffs' claims under Title VI and its implementing regulations. 23. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon
Betkey, and Keven L. Gray (collectively, the "supervisory defendants") hold supervisory positions within the MSP, directly or indirectly supervising the trooper defendants. They have established, implemented, and/or enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and practices that have caused the injuries of the named plaintiffs, and, in doing so, the supervisory defendants evinced deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' legal rights. Among other things, the supervisory defendants have knowingly allowed MSP troopers, including the trooper defendants, to target motorists for stops and searches on the basis of race. In addition, the supervisory defendants have implemented an unconstitutional policy allowing MSP troopers to detain and search motorists and vehicles by use of dogs, based only on the troopers' subjective desire to search. The actions of the supervisory defendants of which the plaintiffs complain all were taken under color of state law.
24. Defendant David B. Mitchell is Secretary of the Department of Maryland State Police, holding the rank of Colonel. In this capacity, defendant Mitchell is responsible for supervision of all operations and all functions of the Maryland State Police. He is the commanding officer of all Maryland troopers, including those troopers named as individual defendants herein. He is responsible for the training and supervision of all troopers, and for setting and enforcing policy for the Maryland State Police agency. Defendant Mitchell is named as a defendant both in his official and in his individual capacities.
25. Defendant Jesse Graybill holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and is Commander of MSP's Field Operations Bureau. In this capacity, defendant Graybill
15

oversees and supervises MSP's 23 barracks and all uniformed troopers and generally is responsible for the patrol function of the Maryland State Police. Defendant Graybill is named as a defendant both in his official and in his individual capacities.
26. Defendant George Hall is a Major with the MSP and serves as Commander of the Northern Region of MSP's Field Operations Bureau. In this capacity, defendant Hall oversees operations of all MSP barracks in the state's northern region, including the J.F.K. Barrack, North East Barrack, Bel Air Barrack, and Golden Ring Barrack. Additionally, Major Hall was responsible for creation of a computer database used by MSP to track interactions between 1-95 motorists and troopers working from the J.F.K. Barrack, and he monitors MSP compliance with the Settlement Agreement entered between MSP and minority motorists in the federal lawsuit captioned Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil Action No. CCB-93-468. Defendant Hall is named as a defendant both in his official and in his individual capacities.
27. Defendant Vernon Betkey, a Lieutenant with the MSP, at times pertinent to this action, has been employed as the Barrack Commander for MSP's J.F.K. and Bel Air Barracks. As Barrack Commander, Lt. Betkey was and is responsible for day-to-day operation of these barracks, including supervision of all troopers working from the barracks, and implementation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and the anti-discrimination policies promulgated thereunder. Defendant Betkey is named as a defendant both in his official and in his individual capacities.
28. Defendant Keven L. Gray holds the rank of MSP Lieutenant. At times pertinent to this action, he has been employed as the Barrack Commander for MSP's J.F.K.
16

Barrack. As Barrack Commander, Lt. Gray was and is responsible for day-to-day operation of the barrack, including supervision of all troopers working from the barrack, implementation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and the anti-discrimination policies required thereunder. Defendant Gray is named as a defendant in both his official and individual capacities.
29. Defendants John E. Appleby, George P. Brandy, Bernard Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John Wilhelm, and John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten (collectively, the "trooper defendants"), are, or were at times pertinent to this action, Maryland State Troopers. The actions of the trooper defendants of which the plaintiffs complain all were taken under color of state law. The trooper defendants have conducted traffic control and drug interdiction activities along Maryland roads and highways, including Interstate 95, at times pertinent to this action. By unjustly and illegally using race, ethnicity, and/or national origin as a basis for carrying out these activities, each of the trooper defendants has furthered MSP's overall pattern and practice of racially discriminatory law enforcement, and thereby injured the plaintiffs, as set forth below. In addition, certain of the trooper defendants have acted pursuant to the unconstitutional MSP policy and practice allowing troopers to detain and search motorists and vehicles by dogs, based only on a trooper's subjective desire to search. Each of the trooper defendants has acted under the supervision of one or more of the supervisory defendants. Each trooper defendant is named as a defendant in his or her
17

individual capacity. In addition, each current trooper is named as a defendant in his or her official capacity.
IV. Facts Giving Rise to This Action A. Discrimination by defendants toward all plaintiffs and the class
(1) The onset and continuing nature of MSP discrimination against minority motorists in highway drug interdiction
30. The Maryland State Police have relied upon race in conducting highway drug interdiction activities and, in so doing, have engaged in an unabated, continuing pattern and practice of discrimination, since at least 1988. For example, testimony of an MSP trooper, recounted in a published decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals,1 shows that as of 1988, MSP policy allowed and encouraged troopers to detain and search motorists based on matches with a race-based "drug courier profile" that explicitly targeted "1) young, black males wearing expensive jewelry; 2) driving expensive cars, usually sports cars; 3) carrying beepers; and 4) in possession of telephone numbers."
31. On information and belief, this "profile" continued in use by the MSP until at least 1992, when the Maryland Court of Appeals in the published decision referred to in the preceding paragraph ruled that MSP reliance on a match with the profile to stop and search a motorist was unconstitutional.
32. Also in 1992, MSP's Criminal Intelligence Division issued a "Confidential Criminal Intelligence Report," on which Maryland law enforcement personnel, including
xDerricott v. State, 327 Md. 582, 585, 611 A.2d 592, 594 (Md. 1992). 18

MSP troopers, relied to make race-based stops and searches. This report, dated April 27, 1992, encouraged police operating in Allegany County to target African-Americans, on the alleged grounds that the county "is currently experiencing a serious problem with the incoming flow of crack cocaine," and that "[t]he dealers and couriers (traffickers) are predominantly black males and black females." MSP troopers in Allegany County relied on this report to conduct an illegal, race-based detention and search of Robert L. Wilkins and his family on May 8, 1992. The abusive treatment of the Wilkins family gave rise to the Wilkins v. Maryland State Police litigation, which was filed in February 1993.
33. Nevertheless, MSP troopers continued to use race as a basis for stopping, detaining, and searching motorists. For example, in July 1993, MSP trooper Michael Lewis2 testified in the criminal case of State of Maryland v. Ware, i:hat he decided to search Mr. Ware for drugs in significant part because Mr. Ware was a young, African-American male. Incredibly, Trooper Lewis testified that he considered race on a daily basis in his drug interdiction work. Very recently, the MSP has assigned Trooper Lewis to train other law enforcement officers on the Eastern Shore in his methods of conducting highway drug interdiction.
34. On July 12, 1994, a year after Lewis's testimony in the Ware case and while the Wilkins v. Maryland State Police litigation was pending, Charles and Etta Carter, an elderly African-American couple, were stopped on Interstate 95, detained for more than two hours, and subjected to extensive dog and hand searches by MSP troopers Paul J. Quill,
2At the time of this testimony and continuing to date, Trooper Lewis was assigned to drug interdiction in Wicomico County. He has, at times pertinent to this action, been detailed to a drug interdiction team operating on the Lower Eastern Shore.
19

Steven L. Hohner, and John E. Appleby. The Carters filed suit against MSP and its officials in 1996, claiming that their detention and search were based upon race. In 1997, just before the scheduled trial of the case, the defendants settled the suit by payment of a substantial monetary sum to Mr. and Mrs. Carter.
35. Beginning in 1990 and continuing until June 1996, MSP operated a specialized highway drug interdiction team, called the "Special Traffic Interdiction Force" or "STIF," along Interstate 95 in northeastern Maryland. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the STIF was made up of six Caucasian troopers working out of MSP's JFK Barrack, including defendants John E. Appleby, Bernard Donovan, Steven L. Hohner, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, and John L. Wilhelm. In late May of 1996, a nationally-circulated Associated Press investigative analysis reported that STIF members searched African-American motorists four times as often as they did whites. A month later, MSP disbanded the STIF.
(2) Discriminatory stops and searches conducted bv MSP since 1995 36. At the start of January 1995, the defendants and the plaintiffs reached a settlement in the Wilkins litigation. Among other remedies, including a substantial monetary payment to Mr. Wilkins and his family, the settlement requires Maryland State Police to maintain and produce to the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union detailed information concerning all motorist stops on Maryland roadways in which consent to search is requested or a search is performed by a drug-detecting dog. 37. The vast majority of motorists traveling Interstate 95, some 93%, violate traffic laws by exceeding the posted speed limit, thus making themselves eligible for
20

traffic stops by police. 38. White motorists account for about 75% of the traffic and of the traffic
exceeding the posted speed limit along Interstate 95 through northeastern Maryland. Black motorists constitute about 17%, and other minorities about 5% of both categories.
39. However, MSP's Wilkins data show that between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997, about 70% of the people that MSP troopers stopped and searched on Interstate 95 were black, and about 77% were minority. Only about 23% were white.
40. According to the MSP data, the vast majority of innocent travelers who were stopped and searched (i.e., those who were found not to be carrying any contraband) on 1-95 in this period were blacks and other minorities — about 67% and 76%, respectively.
41. Racial disparities in searches conducted by the MSP's STIF were even more glaring. Between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996 (when the force was officially disbanded), 70% of the people searched by STIF members were African-Americans, and about 80% were minorities. Only 20% were white.
42. The MSP's Wilkins data also reveal a racially discriminatory pattern and practice in motorist stops that MSP troopers conducted on Interstate 95.
43. In addition to targeting motorists of minority races for stop, detention, and search, plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that MSP troopers target motorists traveling in cars with out-of-state license plates and motorists traveling to or from states other than Maryland.
44. Minority travelers, including certain of the named plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class, have been deterred and discouraged from driving Maryland
21

roadways and Interstate 95 in particular, as a result of MSP targeting of minorities and

out-of-state motorists. Consequently, defendants' policies and practices serve as an

actual barrier to plaintiffs' right to travel.

(3) Discrimination bv individual trooper defendants since 1995

45. The MSP's Wilkins records show glaring racial disparities in searches

conducted by the trooper defendants herein. These records show the following pattern for

Interstate 95 searches between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997 (except as is

otherwise indicated):

Defendant
John E. Appleby3 George P. Brantly Bernard M. Donovan Steven W. Dulski Melvin Fialkewicz4 John R. Greene Eric Harbold Steven L. Hohner Clifford T. Hughes3 David B. Hughes

Percentage of Searches Percentage of Searches That Were of Minorities That Were of Blacks

85.3% 78.6% 100% 78.6% 100% 88.2% 70% 81.8% 90% '86.8%

75% 71.4% 100% 78.6% 100% 76.5% 70% 79.2% 60% 82.8%

3These numbers reflect defendant Appleby's searches between January 1, 1995 and September 30, 1996. He was suspended in September 1996, following his arrest for stealing money from motorists on 1-95 that he had stopped and searched. He subsequently pled guilty to criminal charges, and the MSP terminated him. 4For reasons unknown to plaintiffs, defendant Fialkewicz's employment by the MSP ended sometime before 1997. The MSP's Wilkins reports reflect no searches by him after the second quarter of 1995. 5MSP Wilkins records reflect searches by defendant Clifford T. Hughes only from June 1996. Accordingly, these percentages reflect searches between then and December 31, 1997.
22

Michael T. Hughes6
Steven 0 . Jones
James E. Nolan Paul J. Quill Mark A. Rhinehart7 Christopher Tideberg
Ernest S. Tullis Michael D. Wann Billy White8 John L. Wilhelm

85.5% 78.9% 80.5% 74.4% 83.4% 73.8% 97.8% 83.3% 59.1% 56.5%

82.6% 62% 77.9% 59% 66.7% 71.4% 97.8% 83.3% 54.5% 32.6%

46. Statistical analysis shows an egregiously discriminatory impact on minority motorists traveling Interstate 95, when benchmark population and traffic violator numbers are compared with overall Wilkins data, data for the Special Traffic Interdiction Force, or data for individual trooper defendants.
47. The Wilkins data exhibit similar discriminatory patterns for additional troopers assigned to the 1-95 corridor who are not named defendants.
(4) Indifference of the MSP and the supervisory defendants 48. In June 1995, after about five months of data collection under the Wilkins agreement, then-MSP Deputy Superintendent James E. Harvey circulated a memorandum to all MSP Regional and Division Commanders analyzing the data. The memorandum recognized — and informed the supervisory defendants, including defendant Mitchell, who
6In August 1996, defendant Michael T. Hughes went on injury-related leave. MSP Wilkins records reflect no search by him since August 20, 1996. 7MSP records show Interstate 95 searches reported by Trooper Rhinehart only during the period from January through June, 1995. 8In the Wilkins litigation, the MSP admitted that during one week in March 1997, defendant White conducted an additional 10 fruitless searches of African-American motorists that are missing from the Wilkins records.
23

received a copy — that "the numbers reveal that Troopers are continuing to target non-white subjects." Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the supervisory defendants took no meaningful or effective action in response to Col. Harvey's memorandum, so as to prevent continuation of the race-based targeting identified by Harvey. As a direct and proximate result of this supervisory inaction, the trooper defendants unlawfully continued to target minority motorists, including plaintiffs, traveling Interstate 95.
49. On or about June 28, 1995, Cecil County Circuit Court Judge Dexter Thompson ruled that a February 28, 1995 detention and search of minority motorist Marc A. Pittman and his two passengers, conducted along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by defendants David B. Hughes and Steven W. Dulski, was unconstitutional, as not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that Hughes and Dulski detained Mr. Pittman and his passengers and undertook this unlawful search based upon the motorists' African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The search was conducted using a canine, after Mr. Pittman refused Hughes' request that he consent to a search.9 All evidence of crime seized by Hughes and Dulski during their illegal detention and search of Pittman was suppressed by Judge Thompson. Thereafter, the State dismissed all charges against Pittman and his two passengers. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that MSP supervisors took no meaningful action to investigate or discipline defendants Hughes and Dulski for their unconstitutional search and seizure of Pittman and his passengers.
50. On October 9, 1995, plaintiffs John S. Means and Kenneth R. Jeffries
9In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the unconstitutional search of Pittman and his passengers to the Court.
24

registered a complaint with MSP's then-Chief of Field Operations, Ernest J. Leatherbury, about another incident of race-based profiling by defendant David B. Hughes. Although the Hughes incident complained of by Means and Jeffries followed on the heels of Col. Harvey's finding that troopers were continuing to target motorists based on race and the state court's ruling that Trooper Hughes had acted unconstitutionally in his search and seizure of Marc Pittman, Col. Leatherbury treated plaintiffs' complaint dismissively. Leatherbury informed Means and Jeffries that troopers under his command did not act unlawfully, and made clear that he was not interested in pursuing plaintiffs' complaint. Means and Jeffries nevertheless persisted in providing Leatherbury with the details of their complaint, specifically informing him they believed they had been stopped, detained, and searched by Hughes based upon their African-American race. Although Leatherbury told plaintiffs they could consider their complaint registered, and plaintiffs provided Leatherbury with their contact information, they never heard anything further from him or from the MSP about their complaint. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that — again — no meaningful or effective action was taken by MSP supervisors to address or investigate the complaint against Trooper Hughes lodged by John Means and Kenneth Jeffries. As a result of this supervisory indifference and inaction, Trooper Hughes continued his pattern of harassment toward minority motorists, and within months engaged in similar mistreatment toward named plaintiffs Verna Bailey and Gary D. Rodwell.
51. On April 11, 1996, defendant George Hall sent a memorandum to Lt. Col. Leatherbury, with copies to defendants Mitchell and Graybill, concerning the Wilkinsdata
25

collected as of that date. Defendant Hall recognized that "in a concentrated area, there exists a remarkable deviation in these figures with African-Americans being stopped and searched to a significantly higher degree than all other persuasions combined." The area he mentioned included a large part of 1-95 patrolled by troopers from the MSP's JFK Barrack, including the segment of highway where plaintiffs John Means, Kenneth Jeffries, Gary Rodwell, Johnston Williams, Yancey and Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo I, Yvonne Davis, William M. Berry, and Verna Bailey, as well as minority motorist Marc A. Pittman, were illegally stopped, detained, and/or searched. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the supervisory defendants again took no meaningful or effective action in response to defendant Hall's memorandum, and thus failed to prevent the continuation of the racebased targeting identified by Hall.
52. Prior to their filing of a lawsuit against the Maryland State Police in 1996, Charles and Etta Carter filed an administrative complaint with MSP's Internal Affairs Unit complaining about the abusive treatment, including race-based profiling, they were subjected to in July 1994 by defendants Paul Quill, Steven Hohner, and John Appleby. MSP investigators subsequently informed Mr. and Mrs. Carter that they had investigated their complaint, but that they found the charges to be unsubstantiated. When the Carters later pursued legal claims in court against the troopers and the MSP agency, however, defendants paid the Carters a substantial monetary sum to settle the claims just prior to trial. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that despite MSP's payment of these significant damages to settle Mr. and Mrs. Carter's claims against
26

Quill, Hohner, and Appleby in early 1997, no disciplinary action was imposed upon these troopers as a result of their involvement in the Carter incident.
53. Based upon analysis of the Wilkins records for the years 1995 and 1996, and upon consideration of the internal memoranda issued and circulated within MSP by Deputy Superintendent Harvey and defendant Hall, the Wilkins Court on April 22, 1997 found that the "plaintiffs clearly have made a reasonable showing that there was a pattern and practice of stops by the Maryland State Police based upon race[.]" Accordingly, the Court extended and expanded the MSP's monitoring obligations. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that MSP supervisors again took no meaningful or effective action in response to this Court's ruling, so as to prevent continuation of the trooper defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in highway stops conducted along Interstate 95.
54. On August 27, 1997, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that the September 12, 1994 detention and search of minority motorist Cedrick Whitehead conducted along Interstate 95 in Harford County by defendant Bernard M. Donovan was unconstitutional, in that it was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that in undertaking this unlawful detention and search, defendant Donovan relied upon Mr. Whitehead's AfricanAmerican race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities conducted along Interstate 95. As with the illegal search of motorist Marc Pittman referenced in paragraph 49, the search of Whitehead had been conducted using a canine, after Mr. Whitehead refused Donovan's request that he consent to a search. The Court rejected Donovan's contention that the search was
27

justified because of Whitehead's nervousness and conflicting stories among Whitehead and his passengers. Whitehead's criminal conviction was overturned, and all evidence of crime seized by Donovan during his illegal detention and search of Whitehead was suppressed pursuant to the Court's ruling. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that consistent with their pattern of deliberate indifference to constitutional violations committed by the trooper defendants, MSP supervisors took no meaningful action to investigate or discipline Trooper Donovan for his unconstitutional search and seizure of Mr. Whitehead.
55. In September, 1997, named plaintiff Johnston E. Williams filed an administrative complaint with MSP's Internal Affairs Unit, complaining about the racially discriminatory and offensive treatment he and four African passengers were subjected to by defendant Billy White. Although an investigation of this complaint was undertaken by MSP, and Mr. Williams submitted to an interview by an MSP investigator, plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that no disciplinary action has been taken against Trooper White as a result of Mr. Williams' complaint.
56. On August 8, 1998, minority motorist Barry Flack attempted — without success - to register a complaint with MSP supervisors about racially offensive treatment he experienced during an Interstate 95 stop conducted by defendant Michael D. Wann. Rack had just pulled onto the highway, heading south, from Route 24 in Harford County. As Flack attempted to merge and accelerate to the speed of the traffic, Wann signalled for him to pull over, allegedly for speeding. Wann was belligerent in his dealings with Flack. He repeatedly referred to Flack by the pejorative
28

"boy" (as in "if you have a freaking problem you can dispute it in court, boy"), and at one point uttered the first syllable "nig" before swallowing the rest of that epithet. Flack was ticketed for an alleged speeding violation, and was detained for about 25 minutes. The trooper's behavior was so offensive to Mr. Flack that he wanted to register a complaint, so he stopped at the Golden Ring Barrack off Interstate 95, and attempted to do so. The officer at the front desk was uncooperative and unwilling to accept a complaint. He told Flack he would have to go to the JFK Barrack if he wanted to make a complaint against Wann. When Flack said he didn't know how to get to the JFK Barrack, the officer wrote a telephone number on the back of the ticket Flack was holding. Flack then went to a pay telephone and tried to call the barrack at the number given him. The number turned out to be wrong, however; it was for a private home, not for the JFK Barrack.
57. After twice calling this wrong number, Flack obtained the number for MSP headquarters from information and called there. His call to headquarters was forwarded to the JFK barrack, where it was answered by Sgt. Barry Janey. Flack told Janey he wished to lodge a complaint against Trooper Michael Wann. As Flack tried to detail his complaint, he was repeatedly interrupted by Janey. Janey put Flack on hold two or three times, and then interjected comments indicating that he might have been discussing the incident with Wann while Flack was on hold. Janey said he did not believe Wann had said the words Flack claimed. Flack became frustrated, and said "I guess you're one of those people who thinks racism doesn't exist" (or words to that effect). Janey then angrily informed Flack that the Maryland State Police department is
29

one of the best police agencies in the country, that there are no problems with racism at MSP, and that this would be the first time anyone had ever made a complaint about race discrimination against the Maryland State Police. At that point, Flack said it did not appear Janey was going to help him file a complaint or alert a supervisor about the problem. Flack said if no one there would help him, maybe he should just go to the NAACP or the ACLU. Janey responded by saying "Why don't you go to the NAACP or the ACLU? File a complaint with them." And, at that, Sgt. Janey hung up on Flack. As such, conduct of MSP officials, beyond displaying indifference, actually discouraged and prevented Mr. Flack from registering a complaint with MSP against defendant Michael Wann.
58. On September 22, 1998, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that the March 29, 1996 detention and search of African-American motorist William Lytle conducted along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by defendant Steven O. Jones was unconstitutional, in that it was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that in undertaking this unlawful detention and search, defendant Jones relied upon Mr. Lytle's African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities conducted along Interstate 95. The Court rejected Jones' contention that the detention and search were justified because of Lytle's nervousness, because he complained of illness when Jones began questioning him, and due to inconsistent stories between Lytle and his passenger. Lytle's criminal conviction was overturned, and all evidence of crime seized by Jones during his illegal detention and search of Lytle was suppressed
30

pursuant to the Court's ruling. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that consistent with their pattern of deliberate indifference to constitutional violations committed by the trooper defendants, MSP supervisors plan to take no meaningful action to investigate or discipline Trooper Jones for his unconstitutional search and seizure of Mr. Lytle.
59. For these and other reasons, it is apparent the MSP and the supervisory defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that MSP troopers were engaged in racial targeting, harassment, and illegal searches of minority motorists traveling 1-95. Repeatedly, the supervisory defendants had cause to investigate reports of wrongdoing by the trooper defendants, yet they failed and refused to do so, thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference to the rights of minority motorists, including the plaintiffs. The supervisory defendants took no meaningful or effective action to address these problems or to prevent continuation of the trooper defendants' egregious pattern of discrimination. This inaction and indifference on the part of the supervisory defendants has actually and/or proximately caused plaintiffs and the class they represent to suffer violations of their fundamental rights to equal protection of the laws, to be free from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and to travel interstate.
B. Suspicionless searches by MSP troopers with drus-detecting dogs 60. Maryland State Police policy permits troopers, at their individual discretion, to detain a motorist during any traffic stop for the purpose of conducting a search by a drug-detecting dog, regardless of whether the trooper has reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe the motorist is carrying drugs. The MSP and the supervisory defendants are
31

responsible for the continuation and enforcement of this policy. Pursuant to this policy, MSP troopers, including the trooper defendants, routinely detain motorists for the purpose of subjecting them to dog searches, even though the troopers are unable to articulate any reasonable suspicion that the motorists are carrying illegal drugs.
61. On February 2, 1998, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that MSP Troopers Jeffrey L. Kissner and Charles Stanford, who worked in Western Maryland as a two-man drug interdiction team, acted unconstitutionally by detaining motorist Kelly Graham for 20 minutes while awaiting a drug-detecting dog to search Graham's vehicle, along Interstate 81. Graham v. State, 119 Md.App. 444 (1998). The car in which Graham was a passenger had been stopped by Kissner for speeding. When Kissner checked the driver's license, he found his license had been suspended. Rather than simply ticketing the driver for the offenses of speeding and driving without a license, however, Kissner detained the motorists to conduct a dog search for drugs. The court held this extended detention was unconstitutional, and thus suppressed all contraband discovered during the subsequent searches. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that in undertaking the detention and search of Kelly Graham, the troopers were following MSP's official policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches, and that the constitutional violations committed against Graham flowed directly from this policy. Plaintiffs further aver, on information and belief, that following the Court of Special Appeals ruling, MSP supervisors took no action to reevaluate their suspicionless dogsearch policy, nor to investigate or discipline troopers Kissner and Stanford for their unconstitutional treatment of Mr. Graham.
32

62. MSP dog searches involve intrusion, humiliation, embarrassment, and great inconvenience to the motorists. These searches routinely involve detaining motorists for 20 minutes or longer to await a canine unit. The dog search itself takes 15 minutes or longer. As a matter of practice and policy, police release their dogs to roam at will inside vehicles that are stopped for that purpose. MSP practice also allows troopers, in their discretion, to remove all luggage and containers from the car for the dog to search on the roadside. MSP dog searches often result in dirt, filth, unpleasant smells, and insect infestation of motorists' cars.
63. The defendants' policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, in that it causes MSP to detain and search motorists without constitutionally necessary justification.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the MSP policy permitting troopers to conduct discretionary dog searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion, named plaintiffs Gary D. Rodwell, James E. Alston, Jr., George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Diana Desmoines, Verna Bailey, and the plaintiff sub-class consisting of all Interstate 95 motorists searched pursuant to this policy, were detained and searched by defendants without reasonable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
C. Incidents involving the individual named plaintiffs 65. On or about July 25, 1993, named plaintiff Jawad Abdullah and two Trinidadian passengers were stopped, detained for over 45 minutes and searched along
33

Interstate 95 by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. These actions were taken by police for the stated reasons that Mr. Abdullah allegedly was speeding, was not wearing a seat belt, and looked "suspicious." Because Mr. Abdullah would not consent to an unjustified search of his car and belongings, the female trooper, who made the initial stop, called in a canine unit and the male trooper arrived with the dog and had the dog search the vehicle for drugs. No contraband of any kind was turned up during this search. On information and belief, the police targeted Mr. Abdullah for detention and search based upon his black race and his Trinidadian national origin, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
66. In or about late October, 1993, named plaintiff George Daughtry was stopped, detained for over an hour, and searched along Interstate 95 in Howard or Prince George's County, by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. These actions were taken by police without any explanation. Rather, police told Mr. Daughtry this treatment was "routine," and that he and his car (a Mazda GLC) fit a profile. Without requesting Mr. Daughtry's consent for a search, police ordered him to get out of his car, and stand next to the car, at the front. Plaintiff did so, and the troopers then searched through Mr. Daughtry's car and belongings, unpacking his things and placing them along the road. No contraband of any kind was found. When they were finished, the troopers told Mr. Daughtry he would have to re-pack his car on his own. On information and belief, the police targeted plaintiff Daughtry for detention and search based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug
34

interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. 67. During March 1994, named plaintiff Yvonne Davis was stopped and
detained for over 45 minutes and searched along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. At the time of this incident, Ms. Davis, who works as a nurse, was commuting back and forth between her home in Maryland and her mother's home in New Castle, Delaware, to care for her mother, who was gravely ill with cancer. Ms. Davis was returning home, proceeding south on Interstate 95. She noticed a police cruiser on the side of the road, slowed her car to make sure she was driving within the speed limit, and moved into the right lane. Moments later, she saw the police cruiser pull onto the highway and begin to follow her. The cruiser followed her for some distance, then flashed its lights, and she pulled to the side of the road. According to the trooper, the reason for the stop was that Ms. Davis had been driving too slowly and that he thought she might be mtoxicated (though no sobriety test was requested or performed). After obtaining plaintiff's license and registration, the trooper began questioning her about where she was coming from and what her purpose was on the road. When plaintiff said she was coming from New Castle, the trooper remarked snidely "Not many of you there." Plaintiff understood this comment as a reference to her race and the trooper's view that not many AfricanAmericans reside in New Castle.
68. Shortly thereafter, a second trooper, who identified himself as a supervisor, arrived on the scene. The first trooper then asked plaintiff if he could search her car. Because she was afraid of being alone with the troopers in a strange
35

place as darkness fell and she believed her failure to consent would result in her arrest, plaintiff agreed to a search, thinking the trooper meant only to look through her car visually. Much to plaintiff's surprise and dismay, the search conducted by the trooper was far more intrusive than she had supposed when she agreed to a search. The trooper began by thoroughly searching the interior of the car and trunk, then he checked in the spare tire compartment, removed the back seat and searched the underlying area. Finally, the trooper searched through plaintiffs pocketbook, which she had left on the front seat of the car. No contraband was found. As they stood watching the first trooper search plaintiffs car, the supervisor informed plaintiff that Interstate 95 is a drug corridor, and that part of the reason she was being searched was that she and her car — a charcoal gray, 1987 Peugeot sedan — fit a profile for drug couriers. Draped over one car seat, plaintiff had a t-shirt supporting a black politician. The police supervisor questioned Ms. Davis briefly about this. When the search was complete and nothing had been turned up, the troopers issued Ms. Davis a written warning for driving too slowly and let her go on her way. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Ms. Davis was stopped, detained, and searched based upon her African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
69. As she drove home, plaintiff was upset and tearful, fretting about what might happen to her in the future, since the police supervisor had said she fit a profile. When she arrived at home, Davis contacted a friend and told him what had happened. Together, plaintiff and the friend telephoned the MSP barrack in Cecil County to
36

inquire about the incident. The two spoke with a different police supervisor than the one who had been at the scene, but this supervisor indicated he was familiar with the incident. Plaintiff told the supervisor she was worried she would be stopped repeatedly, given that she allegedly fit a profile, and asked for assurance that it would not happen again. The supervisor assured her that he did not think it would. When plaintiff asked if she had the right to refuse consent to a search, the supervisor said she did have that right. However, he qualified this by stating that the Maryland State Police know most people will cooperate with law enforcement officials.
70. Twice in the last five years, plaintiff Nelson D. Walker has been stopped and detained by the Maryland State Police while traveling along Interstate 95. First, in February 1994, he was stopped and detained for 20 minutes. The trooper questioned plaintiff extensively about where he was going and how he obtained the car he was driving, a 1990 Infiniti M30, which the trooper insinuated was too nice a car for plaintiff to own legitimately. No ticket was issued, and no reason was given to Mr. Walker to justify the stop. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that there was no valid basis for this stop. Rather, plaintiffs believe, the stop was conducted based upon Mr. Walker's black race and Liberian national origin, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
71. The second MSP stop experienced by plaintiff Walker occurred on or about April 15, 1995. On that occasion, Mr. Walker and two black passengers, including plaintiff Mecca Agunabo I, were stopped, detained for one-and-a-half to two hours, and
37

searched, and their car was partially dismantled, along Interstate 95 by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. The trooper made plaintiffs Walker and I and the other passenger leave the car and stand on the roadside in the rain. The police took these actions for the stated reasons that Mr. Walker was not wearing a seat belt, and that MSP was conducting drug interdiction along 1-95. The troopers were insulting and verbally abusive. When Mr. I told a trooper that he needed to get out of the rain because he twice had contracted pneumonia, the trooper threatened him with jail. They searched Mr. Walker's and Mr. I's persons, removing articles from their pockets. The troopers told Mr. Walker that if he did not permit them to search, they would detain him and obtain a search warrant. They then searched the car and plaintiffs' belongings, including luggage of both Mr. Walker and Mr. I. Finding nothing, the troopers then began dismantling the car, by removing part of a door panel, a seat panel, and part of the car's sunroof. Again, no contraband was found. Following these fruitless searches, the troopers left with the car still partially dismantled. As they walked away, one of the troopers handed Mr. Walker a screwdriver and told him "you're going to need this." In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of Mr. Walker and Mr. I to the Court. On information and belief, Mr. Walker and Mr. I were targeted by police based upon their black race and national origin, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
72. Plaintiffs George W. Taylor and Eric A. Cook have been stopped and detained by Maryland State Police troopers on Maryland roadways on three occasions in the last four years — twice on Interstate 95. First, hi mid-October, 1994, plaintiffs were
38

traveling Interstate 95 with several African-American friends in a caravan of three cars, from New Jersey to Baltimore. After paying a toll, the cars accelerated to the speed limit, and a Maryland trooper in a marked cruiser pulled alongside the cars, looking into each car. He then signalled for the three cars to pull over, and all three of the cars stopped. The trooper then detained the plaintiffs, without explanation, and required everyone, including the passengers in each of the cars, to produce identification. He then took the motorists' identification and returned to his cruiser, where he said he ran checks for outstanding warrants. Plaintiffs were detained for approximately 40 minutes during this process, then released with a verbal warning about alleged speeding. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that this stop was conducted based upon plaintiffs' African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities conducted along Interstate 95.
73. The second incident involving Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cook occurred on or about September 1, 1995, when plaintiffs were stopped and detained for at least 90 minutes along Interstate 95 in Harford County by four Maryland State Police troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. At the time of the stop, Mr. Taylor was driving and Mr. Cook was a passenger in Mr. Taylor's car. Based upon an alleged violation of a Maryland law regulating car air fresheners, and because the troopers said 1-95 is a drug trafficking route, plaintiffs Taylor and Cook were subjected to two searches — first a thorough hand search of the car, their suitcases, and their personal belongings, and then a search by a drug-detecting dog. On information and belief, plaintiffs Taylor and Cook were targeted by police based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants'
39

pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The two comprehensive searches turned up no contraband of any kind. A verbal warning that the car air freshener allegedly created an obstruction of view violation, but no ticket, was issued. After two searches and more than an hour-and-a-half of detention, the lead trooper told Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cook to "have a nice day" and permitted them to go on their way. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cook to the Court.
74. Just three days later, on September 4, 1995, plaintiffs George Taylor and Eric Cook were stopped once again by MSP troopers, as they returned to New Jersey from their Labor Day weekend visit to Norfolk. Due to their bad experience on 1-95 earlier that weekend, plaintiffs decided to return from Norfolk via the Eastern Shore. This time, police had laser guns set up on an overpass and two MSP troopers were standing by the roadside pulling cars over. One of them signalled for Taylor and Cook to pull over, and subsequently ticketed them for alleged speeding.
75. On October 9, 1995, plaintiffs John S. Means and Kenneth R. Jeffries were stopped, detained for approximately two hours, and searched along Interstate 95 in Harford County, by MSP trooper David B. Hughes and another trooper. These actions were taken by Hughes for the stated reason that Means, who was driving the car, was following too closely to another car. After Hughes checked Mr. Means' license and registration and found everything to be in order, he separated and questioned Means and Jeffries about their reasons for being on the highway and their opinions about drug
40

trafficking. After about 40 minutes had passed since the stop began, another trooper arrived at the scene and Hughes asked Means to consent to a car search. When Means hesitated, Hughes told him that if he refused to consent to the search, police would detain him for a prolonged period while they obtained a court order for the search. So advised, Mr. Means gave his "consent" to the search. Hughes then searched the car and the plaintiffs' belongings completely, while the second trooper stood watching on the side of the road. No contraband of any kind was found. When he was finished, Trooper Hughes - obviously annoyed at the fruitlessness of his search - told Mr. Means that just because the search had come up empty, it did not mean Means and Jeffries were clean. Hughes said Means was lucky police did not impound the car, which he suggested they could have done had they wanted to do a thorough search. Mr. Means was given a written warning for the alleged offense of "following too close." After about two hours of detention, plaintiffs were released. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Means were detained and searched based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
76. A few minutes after resuming their trip, plaintiffs saw an African-American Maryland trooper patrolling the road. They motioned to the trooper that they would like him to stop so they could talk to him, and both cars pulled to a stop at the side of the highway. Mr. Means and Mr. Jeffries related what had happened to them to the black trooper, and informed him that they felt strongly they had been detained and searched merely because they were young African-American
41

men. The trooper was polite and helpful. He seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs' complaint, and told them if they wished to make a complaint they should telephone Lt. Col. Ernest Leatherbury, who he said was the commander. He provided them with the telephone number for Col. Leatherbury, and told them to be sure to talk to Leatherbury directly.
77. Plaintiffs stopped at the next highway exit to telephone Col. Leatherbury. When Leatherbury came on the line, Mr. Means told him he and his friend wished to make a complaint about a traffic stop involving David Hughes. He said they believed they had been the victims of race-based profiling by Trooper Hughes— that they had been stopped, detained and searched merely because they were young, AfricanAmerican males. Unlike the black trooper they had spoken with, Col. Leatherbury was entirely unreceptive to this complaint. Leatherbury told Means that if Hughes had detained and searched him, Hughes undoubtedly had a good reason for doing so. Leatherbury said he "stands behind his troopers" and could not accept that they would be engaged in any kind of race discrimination or wrongdoing. After a conversation that lasted about ten minutes, Col. Leatherbury tersely told Mr. Means he could consider the complaint registered. Means felt that the complaint was not taken seriously at all, and believed no action would be taken in response to the complaint. Although he had provided Col. Leatherbury with his name and contact information, he never heard anything further about the matter, either from Leatherbury or from anyone affiliated with the Maryland State Police.
78. On or about October 26, 1995, named plaintiffs Yancey and Aleshia Taylor
42

and their minor son, Yancey Taylor, Jr., were stopped and detained for approximately one hour and 20 minutes along Interstate 95 by two Maryland State Police troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. Mr. Taylor was driving the car, Mrs. Taylor was in the front passenger seat, and their son was in the back seat. At the time of the stop, Mr. Taylor, who is disabled, was exiting the highway into a rest area because he was experiencing physical discomfort and needed a break from driving. However, the troopers accused Mr. Taylor of fleeing from police to the service area — and attempted to justify their conduct on that basis. The troopers separated Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, requiring Mr. Taylor to sit in a police cruiser and answer questions, while Mrs. Taylor was questioned in plaintiffs' car. The lead trooper repeatedly told Mrs. Taylor that he wished to search the car, and he proceeded to look through the interior of the car with a flashlight. Upon seeing a bottle of cough medicine, the trooper questioned Mrs. Taylor about the cough medicine. The trooper with Mr. Taylor told plaintiff he was checking records in four states to look for outstanding warrants. Mr. Taylor told him he had no warrants. The trooper told Mr. Taylor he must have a warrant somewhere. When Mr. Taylor assured the trooper he was not a criminal, the trooper told Mr. Taylor he did not know who or what he was, offensively insinuating that plaintiff might very well be a criminal. These actions were taken by police as a result of an alleged speeding violation. On information and belief, the Taylors were targeted by police based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The MSP troopers found no contraband of any kind. A warning, rather than a ticket, was issued to Mr. Taylor for an alleged speeding violation. In violation of the
43

Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report this incident to the Court.
79. On November 9, 1995, plaintiff Verna Bailey and her five-year-old daughter were chased, stopped, detained for approximately one hour and 15 minutes and searched twice — first by a drug-detecting dog and then by hand — by defendant David B. Hughes and two other troopers, near the junction of Interstate 95 and 695. At the time of the stop, plaintiff was driving along the roadway with her cruise control set at 65 m.p.h. Her daughter was asleep in the back seat. Trooper Hughes began following closely behind Ms. Bailey, with his high-beams on, blocking her vision. Plaintiff changed lanes to avoid Hughes' bright lights, but he continued to ride on her bumper. Ms. Bailey became alarmed, and sped up to try to escape the car. But Hughes continued to tailgate, and plaintiff became frantic with worry. Finally, Hughes turned on his car's flashing police lights, and plaintiff realized the driver chasing her was a police officer. She pulled to the side of the road.
80. When Hughes approached Ms. Bailey's car, he accused her of speeding. Plaintiff tried to explain that she had not known he was a police officer, and that she had sped up to get away, but defendant dismissed this explanation and reprimanded plaintiff for speeding. After checking Ms. Bailey's license, Hughes began to question her about whether she was carrying illegal drugs or weapons. Ms. Bailey assured him she was not, but Hughes said he did not believe her. He told plaintiff he wanted to search her car, and gave her a consent form to sign. Plaintiff repeatedly declined to sign the form. After browbeating Ms. Bailey for some time and failing to obtain her
44

consent, Hughes called in a drug dog to conduct a search. In so doing, defendant had no reasonable, articulable suspicion that Ms. Bailey had committed any crime. Two more troopers arrived on the scene with a dog, and Hughes directed plaintiff to take her daughter and sit in a police car. The dog then searched her car. Following the dog search, the second trooper ordered plaintiff to give him her keys. Hughes and the second trooper then completely searched plaintiffs car and her belongings. The third trooper sat with plaintiff and her daughter in the police cruiser. As Ms. Bailey sat with her daughter on her lap, watching the car search, the third trooper searched plaintiffs pocketbook by hand. No contraband of any kind was found. Apparently angered at the fruitlessness of his efforts, Hughes then demanded that Ms. Bailey take a breathalizer test. Plaintiff did so, and passed. Hughes wrote plaintiff one ticket for speeding and one for allowing her daughter to sleep in the back seat without a seatbelt. In all, plaintiff and her daughter were detained for approximately one hour and 15 minutes. Ms. Bailey suffered extreme fear and anguish as a result of Hughes' mistreatment. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that plaintiff and her daughter were stopped, detained, and searched based upon their African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
81. On January 17, 1996, named plaintiff Gary D. Rodwell was stopped, detained for approximately three hours, and searched twice — first by a drug-detecting dog and then by hand — along Interstate 95 in Harford County by defendant David B. Hughes. These actions were taken by defendant Hughes for the stated reason that Mr. Rodwell looked like a
45

drug dealer. Because Mr. Rodwell would not consent to an unjustified search of his car and belongings, defendant Hughes pressured and argued with plaintiff for approximately 40 minutes, then called in a canine unit and had a dog search the vehicle for drugs. In calling for a dog search, defendant Hughes had no reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Rodwell had committed any crime. And although it was apparent that the dog did not alert during this search, defendant Hughes, with the help of two unknown troopers, proceeded to search the car and Mr. Rodwell's personal belongings by hand. No contraband of any kind was turned up during this extensive search.
82. Apparently angered by the fruitlessness of his efforts, defendant Hughes told Mr. Rodwell he was going to lock him up anyway, causing Mr. Rodwell substantial distress. Some time later, however, a tow truck arrived at the scene, and defendant Hughes told Mr. Rodwell the tow truck driver was taking his car to the station. After consultation with the tow truck driver, defendant Hughes left the scene. Plaintiff joined the driver in the tow truck, and the driver asked him if he had any money. Mr. Rodwell said he did not have much money with him, but that he could obtain some from a bank machine. The driver then took plaintiff to an ATM machine, where he withdrew $80 to pay the driver an alleged towing fee. Only upon his payment of this fee was Mr. Rodwell given back his car and allowed to go on his way. On information and belief, defendant Hughes targeted Mr. Rodwell for detention and search based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Mr. Rodwell to the
46

Court. 83. On or about March 10, 1996 named plaintiff James E. Alston, Jr. was
stopped, detained for approximately 45 minutes, and searched along Interstate 95 by two Maryland State Police troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. One trooper kept his hand on his revolver as he spoke to plaintiff, causing Mr. Alston great anxiety and fear for his safety throughout the encounter. These actions were taken for the stated reason that Mr. Alston had failed to use his turn signal when changing lanes. On information and belief, the troopers targeted Mr. Alston based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. Without legal justification, and pursuant to MSP policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches, the troopers conducted a canine search of Mr. Alston's car. They then proceeded to search plaintiffs car by hand, removing personal belongings from the car and strewing them along the roadside. Neither of these searches turned up any contraband of any kind. Following these fruitless searches, with Alston's belongings still unpacked along the road, the troopers told Alston to "have a good day," and left him to repack his car. No ticket or citation was issued, and no charges were lodged against Mr. Alston. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Mr. Alston to the Court.
84. On May 2, 1996, plaintiff William M. Berry was stopped as he traveled south along Interstate 95 in Cecil County, detained for approximately one hour, threatened with a baseless arrest for "obstruction of justice" and searched, by defendant Michael T. Hughes and another trooper. Mr. Berry was never told why he
47

had been stopped. However, Hughes asserted that he was entitled to detain and search Mr. Berry because plaintiff could not locate bis registration upon being stopped. Hughes ordered plaintiff to get out of his car and asked him if he was carrying drugs or a weapon. Mr. Berry assured Hughes he was not. Hughes then asked plaintiff if he had been drinking. Again, plaintiff answered no. Hughes took plaintiffs license to his police cruiser and, about 10 minutes later, a second trooper arrived on the scene. Hughes asked Mr. Berry if he would consent to a search of his car. Plaintiff hesitated, then asked what would happen if he did not consent. Defendant Hughes answered that if Berry did not consent to the search, he would immediately be arrested. Plaintiff asked what he would be arrested for. Hughes answered "obstruction of justice."
85. Under this threat, plaintiff gave his "consent" to the search. Hughes then searched plaintiffs car and belongings completely — tossing Mr. Berry's things about, and leaving them upended and in disarray. The second trooper merely stood to the side, keeping watch over Mr. Berry. As the search was taking place, plaintiff asked Hughes the grounds on which his car was being searched. Defendant Hughes ignored Mr. Berry, however, and did not respond. Hughes appeared increasingly irritated as the search proceeded and turned up nothing. Although plaintiff was upset about the manner in which the search was being conducted, he decided he should say nothing further, so as to avoid an altercation with police. No contraband of any kind was found. When the search was finished, Hughes angrily wrote plaintiff out a ticket for failing to produce his registration card. After about an hour of detention, plaintiff was allowed to go on his way. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Mr. Berry was
48

stopped, detained, searched, and threatened based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of Mr. Berry to the Court.
86. On August 13 and 14, 1997, named plaintiff Johnston E. Williams and four African passengers twice were stopped along Interstate 95 by MSP troopers. First, late on the evening of August 13, plaintiff Williams and his passengers were stopped and ticketed for an alleged speeding violation as they traveled south on 1-95 from Philadelphia to the Washington suburbs. Several hours later, during the early morning hours of August 14, plaintiff and his passengers were stopped a second time as they returned to Philadelphia on the highway. Although this second stop again concerned an alleged speeding violation, it was much different —and more troubling — than the first. In this instance, Mr. Williams and his passengers were stopped, detained for over 45 minutes, and searched along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by defendant Billy White. These actions were taken by defendant White for the stated reasons that Mr. Williams, a Liberian native, appeared to be Jamaican, and that, according to defendant White, Jamaicans are known drug runners. Upon hearing Mr. William's foreign accent, Trooper White became extremely agitated and profane, using coarse and insulting language. Additionally, defendant White ordered plaintiff Williams to produce his immigration paperwork. By his words and actions, defendant White targeted Williams explicitly based upon his black race and Liberian national origin, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug
49

interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The search conducted of Mr. Williams's vehicle turned up no contraband of any kind. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of Mr. Williams and his passengers to the Court.
87. Over the period from 1995 until the present, plaintiff David H. Patterson, Jr. has been repeatedly stopped by Maryland State Police troopers, detained, and pressured to consent to a search while traveling through Maryland on Interstate 95. Captain Patterson estimates the number of times he has been stopped as follows: During 1995, five times; during 1996, eight times; during 1997, 15 times; and during 1998, two times. On some, but not all, of these occasions he was detained for a prolonged period and asked to consent to a search.
88. A particularly egregious example of this harassment occurred in October, 1997. Capt. Patterson was stopped along Interstate 95 in the vicinity of Baltimore-Washington International Airport, confronted at gunpoint, detained for approximately two hours and 15 minutes, and repeatedly asked to consent to a search by two Maryland State Troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. As he was traveling south along the highway, he observed an MSP cruiser along the road side. The car in front of him braked, and plaintiff also slowed. The cruiser then pulled onto the road and began following Capt. Patterson. The trooper pulled next to plaintiff, looked in, then dropped back behind him. A few minutes later, he signalled for Patterson to pull over, and plaintiff did so. Approximately 30 minutes then passed. Another police car arrived on the scene, and together the two troopers approached
50

plaintiffs car. One trooper approached the passenger side window with his gun drawn and pointed at plaintiff, while the other trooper approached on the driver's side, with his hand on his weapon. The troopers informed Capt. Patterson he had been stopped for speeding. Even before obtaining plaintiffs license or registration, one of the troopers asked Capt. Patterson to consent to a search of his car. When plaintiff questioned the need for a search and declined to consent, the troopers said they could get a search warrant if he would not consent. They said he should save himself some time by voluntarily allowing them to search, especially if he had nothing to hide. Because he knew the troopers could not justify a search or a warrant, Capt. Patterson persisted, on principle, in his refusal to consent to a search. At that point the lead trooper took plaintiffs license and registration and both troopers returned to their cars.
89. Then, in what seemed to Capt. Patterson like retaliation for his refusal to consent to a search, the troopers continued to detain him there for an extended period. Finally, one of the troopers came back to plaintiffs car with Capt. Patterson's license and registration, and advised him that he could go. No ticket or warning was issued. In total, Capt. Patterson was detained by the side of the road for approximately two hours and 15 minutes. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Patterson was detained and pressured to consent to a search based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report this incident to the Court.
51

90. On February 12, 1998, plaintiff Diana Desmoines was stopped, detained for approximately one hour, and searched along Interstate 95 in Baltimore County by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. Ms. Desmoines had flown into the Baltimore-Washington International Airport from the Bahamas, where she had gone on a work-related trip. She was traveling at about 55-60 miles per hour, south on Interstate 95. Her car was a hatchback, and her luggage was visible through the rear window. She then observed a police cruiser behind her with its lights flashing. Once she realized the police were after her, plaintiff pulled to the side of the road. When she inquired if anything was wrong, the lead trooper told Ms. Desmoines that the reason for the stop was not that she had committed any traffic offense, but rather, that the Maryland State Police were conducting "routine stops." After taking plaintiffs license and registration, the lead trooper inquired whether Ms. Desmoines had been traveling. When plaintiff informed the trooper she had just returned from a trip to the Bahamas, he asked her questions about the frequency of her visits to the Bahamas and the length of her visits. The trooper then directed Ms. Desmoines to get out of the car, which made her uncomfortable. He asked if he could look in the back of her car. Because plaintiff was afraid to be standing along the side of the road with darkness falling and she wanted the incident to be over with, she went along with this request.
91. The trooper then thoroughly searched the car, removing and opening plaintiffs suitcase and rifling through its contents. No contraband was found. Nevertheless, the trooper summoned a drug-detecting dog. In so doing, the trooper acted without legal justification and pursuant to MSP policy authorizing suspicionless
52

dog searches. Ms. Desmoines was forced to wait about 45 minutes for the dog to arrive. When the canine unit finally arrived, the trooper unpacked plaintiffs suitcase and presented items, one by one, for the dog to sniff. Even Ms. Desmoines' toiletry bag was opened and sniffed through by the dog. As this was done, various items spilled from the bag and fell into a ditch, where they were left by the troopers. No contraband of any kind was found. Ms. Desmoines' belongings were then returned haphazardly to her suitcase.
92. After more than an hour of detention, plaintiff was released. No citation or warning was issued, and no apology was given to plaintiff. Rather, the trooper told Ms. Desmoines to "have a nice day," and left her to collect the items from her toiletry bag that remained scattered on the ground. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Ms. Desmoines was stopped, detained, and subjected to hand and dog searches based upon her African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Ms. Desmoines to the Court.
93. Following his filing of this lawsuit, on July 25, 1998, named plaintiff James E. Alston, Jr. was stopped again by MSP troopers as he traveled Interstate 95. On this occasion, plaintiff was traveling with his four-year-old son in the back seat. Mr. Alston was driving within the posted speed limit, with his cruise control on, and had committed no traffic violation. Nevertheless, a trooper signalled for him to pull to the side of the road, which he did. In confronting Mr. Alston, the trooper alleged
53

plaintiff had been stopped for weaving. Plaintiff politely stated that he did not think that was the case. Mr. Alston produced his identification, and shortly thereafter the trooper released him without explanation. No ticket or warning was issued. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the troopers had no valid basis for having stopped Mr. Alston; rather, plaintiffs aver that Alston and his son were targeted by police based on their African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
D. Incidents involving named defendants and unnamed class members 94. On January 22, 1995, defendant Mark Rhinehart and another trooper stopped an unnamed African-American class member and detained him for approximately 45 minutes on Interstate 95. The troopers followed the motorist for about two miles before signalling for him to pull over. When they did pull him over, they claimed they had stopped him because bis license plate was partially obscured by the license plate cover. Rather than simply issuing him a ticket, however, they detained the class member for 45 minutes and made snide remarks to him questioning how he was able to afford the car he was driving. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that defendant Rhinehart targeted the unnamed class member for this treatment based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. 95. On March 14, 1995, defendant Eric Harbold and another MSP trooper stopped an unnamed, African-American class member and an African-American
54

passenger, detained the motorists for approximately one hour, and subjected them to a hand search as they traveled south on Interstate 95 through Harford County. After stopping the unnamed class member, Harbold checked his license and registration. He was then joined by another trooper, whose identity is unknown to the plaintiffs. Harbold directed the motorists to get out of the car, then — without requesting or obtaining consent — began searching the car and the motorists' belongings. No drugs or contraband were found. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that defendant Harbold targeted the unnamed class member and his passenger for detention and search based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of this class member to the Court.
96. On January 20, 1997, defendant Steven 0. Jones and another trooper stopped an unnamed, African-American class member and an African-American friend, detained these motorists, subjected them to a prolonged visual search with a flashlight and verbally ridiculed them as they traveled through Cecil County on Interstate 95. No drugs or contraband were found. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that defendant Jones targeted the unnamed class member and her passenger for this treatment based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
55

V. Class Action Prerequisites 97. For the purposes of all relief sought in this case, plaintiffs Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey and Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo I, George Daughtry, David H. Patterson, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, and Verna Bailey bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. Each of these individual class representatives is a minority motorist who has been stopped, detained, and/or searched by one or more MSP troopers while traveling through Maryland on Interstate 95. Thus, each is a member of the proposed class. Plaintiff NAACP seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), on behalf of itself, its members, and the plaintiff class. 98. In addition to serving as class representatives, named plaintiffs NAACP, Gary D. Rodwell, James E. Alston, Jr., George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Diana Desmoines, and Verna Bailey seek to serve as representatives of the sub-class of the plaintiff class that was subjected to a search by a drug-detecting dog, in challenging the constitutionality of defendants' policy authorizing dog searches without probable cause or articulable suspicion. Named plaintiffs Rodwell, Alston, Taylor, Cook, Abdullah, Desmoines, and Bailey all were searched by an MSP dog, pursuant to MSP's policy of allowing dog searches at a trooper's individual and standardless discretion. 99. The class which plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all innocent minority motorists who have been since January 1, 1993, or who will be in the future, illegally
56

stopped, detained, and/or searched by Maryland state troopers along Interstate 95, without just cause and based upon their race and/or national origin. The plaintiff sub-class referenced in the previous paragraph consists of all plaintiff class members who also were searched by a drug-detecting dog.
100. The number of innocent minority motorists who in the past have been or in the future will be discriminated against by Maryland state troopers' arbitrary and race-based policy, custom, and practice is too numerous for practicable joinder.
101. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the class and all class members are and/or will be directly affected by the challenged actions of the defendants. Each putative class member has been or will be subjected to arbitrary, racially discriminatory stops, detention, and/or searches conducted by Maryland State Police on Interstate 95. These common questions predominate over any minor potential variances in the circumstances of the individual detentions.
102. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole. Each named plaintiff has in the past and will in the future travel through Maryland on Interstate 95. Each named plaintiff is innocent of carrying illegal drugs or weapons, yet has experienced in the past and may likely again experience in the future defendants' pattern and practice of race-based detentions, seizures, and/or searches of minority motorists. The experiences of the plaintiffs at the hands of MSP troopers and their risk of future harm from defendants' policy and practice of discrimination render their claims typical of those faced by the class of minority motorists they seek to represent.
103. Plaintiffs will be adequate representatives of the class in that all of the relevant
57

questions of fact and law applicable to the class also apply to each of them. Plaintiffs are individuals of high integrity, and will responsibly and vigorously pursue the claims of the class. They are adequately represented by counsel who have litigated numerous civil rights cases in this Court (including the case of Wilkins v. Maryland State Police) and who are familiar with the applicable law.
104. As with the claims of the class, the claims of the sub-class are appropriate for adjudication on a class-wide basis. First, the sub-class is too numerous for practicable joinder. Second, there are questions of law and fact common to all sub-class members, and these common questions predominate over any individual issues. Each sub-class member has been or will be subjected to a search by a drug detecting dog, pursuant to defendants' policy authorizing dog searches without probable cause or articulable suspicion. Third, the claims of individual sub-class representatives Gary Rodwell, James Alston, George Taylor, Eric Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Diana Desmoines, and Verna Bailey are typical of those of the sub-class, in that each has been detained and searched by defendants' drug-detecting dogs without reasonable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Finally, plaintiffs Rodwell, Alston, Taylor, Cook, Abdullah, Desmoines, Bailey, NAACP, and their counsel will adequately and vigorously represent the interests of the sub-class.
105. Individual members of the putative class and sub-class have not indicated any desire to pursue their claims independently of the class, and to plaintiffs' knowledge, there currently exists no pending litigation of claims by individual class or sub-class members.
106. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class or
58

sub-class would create a risk of adjudications which would be inconsistent or varying with respect to the individual class members, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, or which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members of the class or sub-class who are not parties to the adjudication.
107. Separate actions also would create a risk of adjudications disposing of interests of unnamed parties or impairing their ability to protect their interests. Unnamed minority motorists who have previously been stopped, detained, and searched, and whose identities are known only to the defendants, as well as those who will in the future be stopped, detained, and searched under defendants' arbitrary and discriminatory policy, should be protected against illegal discrimination perpetrated by the Maryland State Police.
108. This action is properly maintained as a class action inasmuch as the questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The defendants have engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of discrimination in highway stops and searches that is generally injurious to the class. Moreover, defendants threaten to continue this illegal pattern and practice in the future, toward both the named plaintiffs and the class of unnamed and as yet unidentified minority motorists.
59

VI. Causes of Action
Count I Race Discrimination in Federally Funded Programs (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 C.F.R. §§ 101 et seq.)
(Defendant Department of Maryland State Police)
109. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 108, as if set forth fully
herein.
110. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, provides:
[N]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
111. Federal regulations implementing Title VI further provide that no program
receiving financial assistance through the U. S. Department of Justice shall
utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.
28 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2).
112. Defendant Maryland State Police receives federal financial assistance from the
United States Department of Justice, and thus is bound to abide by the terms of Title VI and
its implementing regulations, including 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq.
113. Eleventh Amendment immunity of the State of Maryland and the Department
of Maryland State Police was abrogated by Congress in its enactment of Title VI. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d-7.
60

114. Drug interdiction methods employed by the Maryland State Police discriminate, in purpose and effect, against African-American and other minority motorists traveling through Maryland. Federal financial assistance earmarked for law enforcement by defendant Maryland State Police therefore is being misused in the unlawful detention, search, and seizure of minority motorists as a result of MSP's pattern and practice of discrimination.
115. Defendant Maryland State Police's violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and its implementing regulations has caused and will continue to cause the named plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class to suffer tremendous harm and public humiliation in that they have been and will continue to be subjected to MSP's pattern and practice of race-based discrimination.
Count II Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Art. 24, Md. Decl. of Rights) (All Defendants Except Department of Maryland State Police) 116. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 115, as if set forth fully herein. 117. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of intentional race discrimination in drug interdiction efforts carried out in Maryland along Interstate 95. In so doing, defendants have caused the plaintiffs, and the class they represent, to suffer deprivation of their fundamental rights to liberty and to be free from unlawful searches, detentions, and seizures, on account of their minority race and/or national origin. These actions violated plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the laws, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
61

the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. 118. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George Hall, Vernon Betkey
and Keven L. Gray, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures which involve intentional race discrimination in the provision of law enforcement services. By their deliberate indifference and inaction when confronted with the pattern of unlawful conduct committed by the trooper defendants, the supervisory defendants directly and proximately caused the plaintiffs and the class they represent to be denied equal protection of the laws, in further violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
119. The defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain, and suffering.
Count m Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Art. 26, Md. Decl. of Rights) (All Defendants Except Department of Maryland State Police) 120. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 119, as if set forth fully herein. 121. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have subjected plaintiffs, and the class they represent, to lengthy detentions and searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that any crime had been committed or that
62

plaintiffs were carrying drugs of any kind, in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and giving rise to plaintiffs claims pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
122. Additionally, defendants maintain and enforce an official policy authorizing Maryland State Police troopers, at their individual discretion and without reasonable or articulable suspicion of crime, to detain motorists for the purpose of conducting a search by a drug-detecting dog, in further violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
123. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George Hall, Vernon Betkey and Keven L. Gray, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion of crime, in their provision of law enforcement services. By maintaining an unconstitutional dog-search policy and by their deliberate indifference and inaction when confronted with the pattern of unlawful conduct committed by the trooper defendants, the supervisory defendants directly and proximately caused the plaintiffs and the class they represent to suffer unlawful searches and seizures, in further violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
124. The defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain, and suffering.
63

Count IY Right to Travel (Commerce Clause, Article IV, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (All Defendants Except Department of Maryland State Police) 125. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 124, as if set forth fully herein. 126. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have caused the plaintiffs, and the class they represent, to be penalized and deterred in the exercise of their fundamental right to interstate travel and migration on account of their race and/or national origin. These actions violated plaintiffs' right to travel, in contravention of the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 127. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George Hall, Vernon Betkey and Keven L. Gray, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures which violate plaintiffs' fundamental right to interstate travel. By their deliberate indifference and inaction when confronted with the pattern of unlawful conduct committed by the trooper defendants, the supervisory defendants directly and proximately caused the plaintiffs and the class they represent to be denied their right to interstate travel, in contravention of the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 128. Defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain, and suffering.
«•••
64

[Count V Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights
(42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986) (All Defendants Except Department of Maryland State Police) 129. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 128, as if set forth fully herein. 130. Defendants, under color of law, custom and usage, and by way of a conspiracy among them, have caused plaintiffs, and the class they represent, to be denied equal protection of the laws and to be deprived of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, on account of plaintiffs' minority race and/or national origin, by subjecting them to lengthy, legally unjustified, and racially discriminatory detentions and searches, thereby interfering with plaintiffs' travels through Maryland, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The supervisory defendants had knowledge of the conspiracy to violate plaintiffs' civil rights and of the violations committed, and had power to prevent these wrongs, but neglected or refused to do so, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986. 131. Defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain and suffering.]
VII. Praver for Relief WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court: (a) Certify, for the purposes of declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, a class of all minority motorists who since January 1, 1993 have been, or who will be in the future, stopped, detained, and searched on Interstate 95 by Maryland State Troopers, with named
65

plaintiffs Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches (for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief only), Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey and Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo I, George Daughtry, David H. Patterson, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, and Verna Bailey as representatives for the class;
(b) Certify, for the purposes of declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, a sub-class of all minority motorists who since January 1, 1993, have been, or who will be in the future, unconstitutionally detained and searched by MSP troopers using a drug-detecting dog along Interstate 95, pursuant to MSP policy authorizing troopers to detain motorists and conduct dog searches without probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion of any criminal activity, with named plaintiffs Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches (for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief only), Gary D. Rodwell, James E. Alston, Jr., George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Diana Desmoines, and Verna Bailey as representatives for this sub-class;
(c) Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that since at least 1993, defendants — jointly, individually, and by way of a conspiracy among them — have engaged in an unabated and continuing pattern and practice of race discrimination, purposefully and in effect, with respect to highway stops, detentions, and searches conducted along Interstate 95 in Maryland, causing the named plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class to be treated differently than similarly situated Caucasian motorists and to suffer unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
66

the United States, 42 U.S.C. §[§] 1983, [1985(3) and 1986,] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq., and Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights;
(d) Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that defendants' official policy authorizing MSP troopers, at their individual discretion and without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, to detain motorists for the purpose of conducting a search by a drug-detecting dog, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, in that it has resulted in unjustified detentions and searches, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights;
(e) Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that defendants' policy and practices, as more fully described herein, unconstitutionally violate the rights of travelers on Interstate 95 to travel interstate, in violation of the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
(f) Enjoin defendants immediately to discontinue their pattern and practice of racebased discrimination, and to put into place safeguards sufficient to ensure that such discrimination does not continue in the future;
(g) Enjoin defendants immediately to amend their unconstitutional policy allowing troopers to detain motorists and conduct dog searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity;
(h) Award plaintiffs compensatory and consequential damages pursuant to Count I, in an amount to be determined at trial, against defendant Department of Maryland State Police;
67

(i) Award plaintiffs compensatory and consequential damages pursuant to Counts II, III, and IV [and V], in an amount to be determined at trial, against the individual defendants, jointly and severally, in their individual capacities only;
(j) Award plaintiffs punitive damages pursuant to Counts II, III, and IV, in an amount to be determined at trial, against the individual defendants, jointly and severally, in their individual capacities only;
(k) Award plaintiffs their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in pursuing this action, as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
(I) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. VIII. Jurv Demand
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
68

Respectfully submitted,

William J. Mertervs/ Jonathan P. Guy SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLP 3000 K Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007-5116 (202) 424-7500

Deborah A. Jeon

^

Dwight H. Sullivan

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND

100 North Liberty Street

Centreville, Maryland 21617

(410) 758-1975

b?

JT %

Reginald T. Shuford

j

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION

125 Broad Street

New York, New York 10004

(212) 549-2613

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

69

 
 Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 1 of 45

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, on behalf of itself and its members c/o Herbert H. Lindsey, President 35 Beyda Court Baltimore, MD 21236
GARY D. RODWELL, 1208 Sheridan Avenue Baltimore, MD 21239
JOHNSTON E. WILLIAMS, 118 Ashby Road Upper Darby, PA 19082
JAMES E. ALSTON, JR., 15137 Glade Terrace Greencastle, PA 17225
YANCEY AND ALESHIA TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and their minor child, Yancey Taylor, Jr. 70 Overland Avenue Amityville, NY 11701
GEORGE W. TAYLOR, JR., 29 Allegany Lane Bordontown, NJ 08505
ERIC ANTHONY1 500 Northside Circle, NW Apartment GG3 Atlanta, GA 30309
NELSON D. WALKER, 6721 Vanessa Drive Lanham, MD 20706

) Civil Action No. CCB-98-1098 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1 Plaintiff Eric Anthony previously was named in this lawsuit as Eric A. Cook. His name has since been legally changed to Eric Anthony.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 2 of 45

RAS RA I,2

)

10300 Cedar Trail Lane

)

Summit Creek Apartments, #108

)

Charlotte, NC 28210

)

)

JOHN S. MEANS,

)

3820 Pope Street SE

)

Washington, DC 20020

)

)

KENNETH R. JEFFRIES,

)

8203 Red Gate Court

)

Bowie, MD 20715

)

)

DIANA DESMOINES,

)

250 South Reynolds Street

)

Unit 1003

)

Alexandria, VA 22304

)

)

WILLIAM M. BERRY,

)

P.O. Box 85

)

411 Old Merry Hill Road

)

Merry Hill, NC 27957

)

)

VERNA A. BAILEY,

)

407 Sea Horse Road

)

Brigatine, NJ 08203

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEPARTMENT OF MARYLAND STATE

)

POLICE

)

Serve on:

)

J. Joseph Curran

)

200 St. Paul Place

)

Baltimore, MD 21202

)

)

2 Plaintiff Ras Ra I previously was named in this lawsuit as Mecca Aganabo I. His name has since been legally changed to Ras Ra I.
2

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 3 of 45

DAVID B. MITCHELL, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police,

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

JESSE GRAYBILL, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208 )

)

GEORGE H. HALL, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

VERNON BETKEY, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208

)

)

KEVEN L. GRAY, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

JOHN E. APPLEBY, individually,

)

236 Drexel Drive

)

Bel Air, MD 21014

)

)

GEORGE P. BRANTLY, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

BERNARD M. DONOVAN, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

STEVEN W. DULSKI, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police, )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

3

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 4 of 45

MELVIN FIALKEWICZ, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

JOHN R. GREENE, individually.

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

ERIC HARBOLD, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

STEVEN L. HOHNER, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

CLIFFORD T. HUGHES, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

DAVID B. HUGHES, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

MICHAEL T. HUGHES, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

STEVEN O. JONES, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

JAMES E. NOLAN, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

4

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 5 of 45

PAUL J. QUILL, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

MARK A. RHINEHART, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

CHRISTOPHER TIDEBERG, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

ERNEST S. TULLIS, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

MICHAEL D. WANN, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

BILLY WHITE, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

JOHN L. WILHELM, individually,

)

c/o Department of Maryland State Police )

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, MD 21208

)

)

Defendants.

)

REVISED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

I. Nature of the Case

1. This is an action seeking monetary relief against the Maryland State Police and

certain of its officers and officials, for engaging in a continuing pattern and practice of race-

based stops, detentions, and searches of minority motorists traveling Interstate 95 through

5

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 6 of 45

Maryland. Plaintiffs are a non-profit civil rights organization and innocent minority motorists who — due to defendants’ custom and practice of discrimination — unlawfully and unreasonably have been detained and/or searched, ostensibly for drugs or weapons.3 Claims are brought pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., and Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

2.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

3.

Venue is proper in the Northern Division of the District of Maryland, as the

conduct out of which this action arose occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

III. Parties

A. Plaintiffs

4.

Plaintiff Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches (hereafter, “the

NAACP”) is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to eradication of race-based

discrimination throughout Maryland and to securing equal protection of the laws for all persons.

Individual members of the Maryland NAACP and its branches, including plaintiffs Gary D.

Rodwell and James E. Alston, Jr., regularly travel Interstate 95 and other Maryland roadways,

and at various times have been stopped and detained by Maryland State Police troopers. The

NAACP brings this action as organizational representative for its members.

3 Demands for injunctive and other equitable relief previously were resolved by entry of a Consent Decree in this case on May 23, 2003.
6

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 7 of 45

5.

Individual named plaintiffs Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E.

Alston, Jr., Yancey and Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric Anthony, Nelson D. Walker,

Ras Ra I, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, and Verna

Bailey are minority motorists who periodically travel Interstate 95 through Maryland. Each of

these plaintiffs has been stopped along Interstate 95, detained based upon race and/or national

origin rather than legal justification, and/or searched by Maryland State Police troopers.

Furthermore, each was found to be carrying no contraband. That is, despite lengthy detentions

and extensive searches, each of the individual named plaintiffs was found to be innocent of

carrying illegal drugs or weapons.

6.

Plaintiff Gary D. Rodwell is a 48-year-old African-American male, currently

residing in Baltimore, Maryland. A graduate of Howard University, Dr. Rodwell earned a

doctorate in education from the University of Southern California. Until very recently, he lived

in Philadelphia and was employed as the Director of Public Affairs for Camden Community

College in New Jersey. A native of Baltimore, Dr. Rodwell still has family and many friends

living in Baltimore, and a grandmother

residing in a nursing facility in Baltimore. Accordingly, Dr. Rodwell has regularly traveled

Interstate 95 between Philadelphia and Baltimore during the course of this lawsuit.

7. Plaintiff Johnston E. Williams is a 40-year-old U.S. citizen and Liberian

immigrant living in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. A graduate of Colgate University with a

bachelor’s degree in public administration, Mr. Williams recently has earned a master’s degree

in Human Services Administration from Springfield College in Wilmington, Delaware. He is

employed as a social worker with the Early Head Start program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Because he has friends and family in the Washington, D.C. area, Mr. Williams often travels

7

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 8 of 45
Interstate 95 between Philadelphia and Washington. 8. Plaintiff James E. Alston, Jr. is a 44-year-old African-American male, residing in
Greencastle, Pennsylvania. Mr. Alston is a graduate of the University of Maryland in College Park, and currently works in Baltimore as a Social Insurance Specialist for the Social Security Administration. Mr. Alston regularly travels Interstate 95 through Maryland.
9. Plaintiffs Yancey and Aleshia Taylor are an African-American married couple in their mid-40s, residing in Amityville, New York. They bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor son, Yancey Taylor, Jr.
10. Plaintiff George W. Taylor, Jr. is an African American male who resides in Bordontown, New Jersey. Mr. Taylor, who is 30, works as a Mechanical Installer for Besam Automated Entrance Systems, Inc., a company that installs automated doors. Because Mr. Taylor resides near Trenton but has family and friends in Baltimore and in Norfolk, Virginia, he regularly travels through Maryland on Interstate 95.
11. Plaintiff Eric Anthony is a 31-year old African-American male who resides in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Anthony works as an Operations Supervisor for Service Express, Inc., a retail logistics company in Atlanta. Because Mr. Anthony resides in Georgia but has family and friends in New Jersey, he sometimes travels through Maryland on Interstate 95.
12. Plaintiff Nelson D. Walker is a 30-year-old Liberian male and permanent U.S. resident who lives in Lanham, Maryland. Because Mr. Walker resides in Maryland but has family in Philadelphia, he periodically travels through Maryland on Interstate 95.
13. Plaintiff Ras Ra I -- a Nigerian male who grew up in Jamaica, and a permanent U.S. resident -- now lives in Charlotte, North Carolina. Mr. I frequently travels Interstate 95 through Maryland, to go to New Jersey for recording sessions of his band and to New York to
8

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 9 of 45
visit friends and family living there. 14. Plaintiff John S. Means is a 39-year-old African-American man who resides in
Washington, D.C. A graduate of Tuskegee University, Mr. Means is employed as a Systems Engineer at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), a federal agency in Reston,Virgina. Because he resides in Washington, D.C., but has friends and family in Maryland and the northeast, Mr. Means sometimes travels Interstate 95 through Maryland.
15. Plaintiff Kenneth Jeffries is a 39-year-old African-American man residing in Bowie, Maryland. Mr. Jeffries is employed as a biologist at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda. Mr. Jeffries often travels Interstate 95 between Washington and Baltimore.
16. Plaintiff Diana Desmoines is an African-American woman, residing in Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Desmoines works as a consultant for a travel agency in Washington, D.C., and is required to travel frequently for her job. She regularly travels on Interstate 95 in Maryland, to and from the Baltimore-Washington International Airport in connection with her work and for other legitimate purposes.
17. Plaintiff William M. Berry is a 34-year-old African-American male who resides in Merry Hill, North Carolina. Mr. Berry is self-employed with Berry Trucking Co. and is a member of the North Carolina National Guard. He is a 2004 graduate of Shaw University, with a degree in Business Management. Mr. Berry periodically travels on I-95 through Maryland to visit family in Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.
18. Plaintiff Verna A. Bailey is a 47-year-old African-American female who resides in Brigantine, New Jersey. Ms. Bailey is a graduate of Widener University, and works for the Atlantic City Board of Education. Because she lives in New Jersey, but has a sister who lives in Cockeysville, Maryland, and friends in Virginia Beach, Ms. Bailey periodically travels through
9

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 10 of 45
Maryland on I-95. B. Defendants 19. Defendant Department of Maryland State Police (MSP), headquartered in
Pikesville, Maryland, is charged with patrolling Maryland state highways, including Interstate 95, to conduct traffic control and drug interdiction activities. MSP receives federal funds through federal grants from the United States Department of Justice, including a 1995 grant of $1.7 million under the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1994. MSP receives further, ongoing, federal assistance through its use of the National Crime Information Center. As such, MSP is a recipient of federal financial assistance required to conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory manner, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. MSP is named as a defendant herein only as to plaintiffs’ claims under Title VI.
20. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, and Keven L. Gray (collectively, the “supervisory defendants”) hold or held supervisory positions within the MSP, directly or indirectly supervising the trooper defendants. They have established, implemented, and/or enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and practices that have caused the injuries of the named plaintiffs, and, in doing so, the supervisory defendants evinced deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ legal rights. Among other things, the supervisory defendants have knowingly allowed MSP troopers, including the trooper defendants, to target motorists for stops and searches on the basis of race. In addition, the supervisory defendants have implemented an unconstitutional policy allowing MSP troopers to detain and search motorists and vehicles by use of dogs, based only on the troopers’ subjective desire to search. The actions of the supervisory defendants of which the plaintiffs complain all were taken under color of state law.
10

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 11 of 45
21. Defendant David B. Mitchell, at times relevant hereto, was Secretary of the Department of Maryland State Police, holding the rank of Colonel. In this capacity, defendant Mitchell was responsible for supervision of all operations and all functions of the Maryland State Police. He was the commanding officer of all Maryland troopers, including those troopers named as individual defendants herein. He was responsible for the training and supervision of all troopers, and for setting and enforcing policy for the Maryland State Police agency. Defendant Mitchell is named as a defendant in his individual capacity.
22. At relevant times, defendant Jesse Graybill held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and was Commander of MSP’s Field Operations Bureau. In this capacity, defendant Graybill oversaw and supervised MSP’s 23 barracks and all uniformed troopers and generally was responsible for the patrol function of the Maryland State Police. Defendant Graybill is named as a defendant in his individual capacity.
23. Defendant George Hall was, at relevant times, a Major with the MSP, serving as Commander of the Northern Region of MSP’s Field Operations Bureau. In this capacity, defendant Hall oversaw operations of all MSP barracks in the state’s northern region, including the J.F.K. Barrack, North East Barrack, Bel Air Barrack, and Golden Ring Barrack. Additionally, Major Hall was responsible for creation of a computer database used by MSP to track interactions between I-95 motorists and troopers working from the J.F.K. Barrack, and he monitored MSP compliance with the Settlement Agreement entered between MSP and minority motorists in the federal lawsuit captioned Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil Action No. CCB-93-468. Defendant Hall is named as a defendant in his individual capacity.
24. Defendant Vernon Betkey, a Lieutenant with the MSP, was at times pertinent to this action employed as the Barrack Commander for MSP’s J.F.K. and Bel Air Barracks. As
11

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 12 of 45
Barrack Commander, Lt. Betkey was responsible for day-to-day operation of these barracks, including supervision of all troopers working from the barracks, and implementation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and the anti-discrimination policies promulgated thereunder. Defendant Betkey is named as a defendant in his individual capacity.
25. At times pertinent to this action, defendant Keven L. Gray held the rank of Lieutenant and was employed as the Barrack Commander for MSP’s J.F.K. Barrack. As Barrack Commander, Lt. Gray was responsible for day-to-day operation of the barrack, including supervision of all troopers working from the barrack, implementation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and the anti-discrimination policies required thereunder. Defendant Gray is named as a defendant in his individual capacity.
26. Defendants John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, and John Wilhelm (collectively, the “trooper defendants”), are, or were at times pertinent to this action, Maryland State Troopers. The actions of the trooper defendants of which the plaintiffs complain all were taken under color of state law. The trooper defendants have conducted traffic control and drug interdiction activities along Maryland roads and highways, including Interstate 95, at times pertinent to this action. By unjustly and illegally using race, ethnicity, and/or national origin as a basis for carrying out these activities, each of the trooper defendants has furthered MSP’s overall pattern and practice of racially discriminatory law enforcement, and thereby injured the plaintiffs, as set forth below. In addition, the trooper defendants have detained and searched plaintiffs unreasonable, and without sufficient cause. Also, certain of the
12

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 13 of 45

trooper defendants have acted pursuant to the unconstitutional MSP policy and practice allowing

troopers to detain and search motorists and vehicles by dogs, based only on a trooper’s subjective

desire to search. Each of the trooper defendants has acted under the supervision of one or more

of the supervisory defendants. Each trooper defendant is named as a defendant in his or her

individual capacity.

IV. Facts Giving Rise to This Action

A.

Discrimination by defendants toward all plaintiffs

(1) The onset and continuing nature of MSP discrimination against minority motorists in highway drug interdiction

27. The Maryland State Police have relied upon race in conducting highway drug

interdiction activities and, in so doing, have engaged in an unabated, continuing pattern and

practice of discrimination, since at least 1988. For example, testimony of an MSP trooper,

recounted in a published decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals,4 shows that as of 1988,

MSP policy allowed and encouraged troopers to detain and search motorists based on matches

with a race-based “drug courier profile” that explicitly targeted “1) young, black males wearing

expensive jewelry; 2) driving expensive cars, usually sports cars; 3) carrying beepers; and 4) in

possession of telephone numbers.”

28.

On information and belief, this “profile” continued in use by the MSP until at

least 1992, when the Maryland Court of Appeals in the published decision referred to in the

preceding paragraph ruled that MSP reliance on a match with the profile to stop and search a

motorist was unconstitutional.

29.

Also in 1992, MSP’s Criminal Intelligence Division issued a “Confidential

Criminal Intelligence Report,” on which Maryland law enforcement personnel, including MSP

13

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 14 of 45

troopers, relied to make race-based stops and searches. This report, dated April 27, 1992,

encouraged police operating in Allegany County to target African-Americans, on the alleged

grounds that the county “is currently experiencing a serious problem with the incoming flow of

crack cocaine,” and that “[t]he dealers and couriers (traffickers) are predominantly black males

and black females.” MSP troopers in Allegany County relied on this report to conduct an illegal,

race-based detention and search of Robert L. Wilkins and his family on May 8, 1992. The

abusive treatment of the Wilkins family gave rise to the Wilkins v. Maryland State Police

litigation, which was filed in February 1993.

30.

Nevertheless, MSP troopers continued to use race as a basis for stopping,

detaining, and searching motorists. For example, in July 1993, MSP trooper Michael Lewis5

testified in the criminal case of State of Maryland v. Ware, that he decided to search Mr. Ware

for drugs in significant part because Mr. Ware was a young, African-American male. Incredibly,

Trooper Lewis testified that he considered race on a daily basis in his drug interdiction work.

Even after he gave such testimony, the MSP assigned Trooper Lewis to train other law

enforcement officers on the Eastern Shore in his methods of conducting highway drug

interdiction.

31. On July 12, 1994, a year after Lewis’s testimony in the Ware case and while the

Wilkins v. Maryland State Police litigation was pending, Charles and Etta Carter, an elderly

African-American couple, were stopped on Interstate 95, detained for more than two hours, and

subjected to extensive dog and hand searches by MSP troopers Paul J. Quill, Steven L. Hohner,

and John E. Appleby. The Carters filed suit against MSP and its officials in 1996, claiming that

4 Derricott v. State, 327 Md. 582, 585, 611 A.2d 592, 594 (Md. 1992). 5 At the time of this testimony and continuing thereafter, Trooper Lewis was assigned to drug interdiction in Wicomico County. He has, at times pertinent to this action, been detailed to a

14

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 15 of 45
their detention and search were based upon race. In 1997, just before the scheduled trial of the case, the defendants settled the suit by payment of a substantial monetary sum to Mr. and Mrs. Carter.
32. Beginning in 1990 and continuing until June 1996, MSP operated a specialized highway drug interdiction team, called the “Special Traffic Interdiction Force” or “STIF,” along Interstate 95 in northeastern Maryland. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the STIF was made up of six Caucasian troopers working out of MSP’s JFK Barrack, including defendants John E. Appleby, Bernard Donovan, Steven L. Hohner, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, and John L. Wilhelm. In late May of 1996, a nationally-circulated Associated Press investigative analysis reported that STIF members searched African-American motorists four times as often as they did whites. A month later, MSP disbanded the STIF.
(2) Discriminatory stops and searches conducted by MSP since 1995 33. At the start of January 1995, the defendants and the plaintiffs reached a settlement in the Wilkins litigation. Among other remedies, including a substantial monetary payment to Mr. Wilkins and his family, the settlement required Maryland State Police to maintain and produce to the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union detailed information concerning all motorist stops on Maryland roadways in which consent to search was requested or a search was performed by a drug-detecting dog. 34. The vast majority of motorists traveling Interstate 95, some 93%, violate traffic laws by exceeding the posted speed limit, thus making themselves eligible for traffic stops by police.
drug interdiction team operating on the Lower Eastern Shore. 15

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 16 of 45

35.

During times relevant to this action, white motorists accounted for about 75% of

the traffic and of the traffic exceeding the posted speed limit along Interstate 95 through

northeastern Maryland. Black motorists constituted about 17%, and other minorities about 5%

of both categories.

36. However, MSP’s Wilkins data show that between January 1, 1995 and December

31, 1997, about 70% of the people that MSP troopers stopped and searched on Interstate 95 were

black, and about 77% were minority. Only about 23% were white.

37. According to the MSP data, the vast majority of innocent travelers who were

stopped and searched (i.e., those who were found not to be carrying any contraband) on I-95 in

this period were blacks and other minorities — about 67% and 76%, respectively.

38. Racial disparities in searches conducted by the MSP’s STIF were even more

glaring. Between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996 (when the force was officially disbanded),

70% of the people searched by STIF members were African-Americans, and about 80% were

minorities. Only 20% were white.

39. The MSP's Wilkins data also reveal a racially discriminatory pattern and practice

in motorist stops that MSP troopers conducted on Interstate 95.

(3) Discrimination by individual trooper defendants since 1995

40. The MSP’s Wilkins records also show glaring racial disparities in searches

conducted by the trooper defendants herein. These records show the following pattern for

Interstate 95 searches between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997 (except as is otherwise

indicated):

16

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 17 of 45

Defendant
John E. Appleby6 George P. Brantly Bernard Donovan Steven W. Dulski Melvin Fialkewicz7 John R. Greene Eric Harbold Steven L. Hohner Clifford T. Hughes8 David B. Hughes Michael T. Hughes9 Steven O. Jones James E. Nolan Paul J. Quill Mark A. Rhinehart10 Christopher Tideberg Ernest S. Tullis Michael D. Wann Billy White11 John L. Wilhelm

Percentage of Searches That Were of Minorities
85.3% 78.6% 100% 78.6% 100% 88.2% 70% 81.8% 90% 86.8% 85.5% 78.9% 80.5% 74.4% 83.4% 73.8% 97.8% 83.3% 59.1% 56.5%

Percentage of Searches That Were of Blacks
75% 71.4% 100% 78.6% 100% 76.5% 70% 79.2% 60% 82.8% 82.6% 62% 77.9% 59% 66.7% 71.4% 97.8% 83.3% 54.5% 32.6%

6 These numbers reflect defendant Appleby’s searches between January 1, 1995, and September 30, 1996. He was suspended in September 1996, following his arrest for stealing money from motorists on I-95 that he had stopped and searched. He subsequently pled guilty to criminal charges, and the MSP terminated him.
7 For reasons unknown to plaintiffs, defendant Fialkewicz’s employment by the MSP ended sometime before 1997. The MSP’s Wilkins reports reflect no searches by him after the second quarter of 1995.
8 MSP Wilkins records reflect searches by Clifford T. Hughes only from June, 1996. Accordingly, these percentages reflect searches between then and December 31, 1997.
9 In August 1996, defendant Michael T. Hughes went on injury-related leave. MSP Wilkins records reflect no search by him since August 20, 1996.
10 MSP records show Interstate 95 searches reported by Trooper Rhinehart only during the period from January through June, 1995.
11 In the Wilkins litigation, the MSP admitted that during one week in March 1997, defendant White conducted an additional 10 fruitless searches of African-American motorists that are missing from the Wilkins records.

17

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 18 of 45

41. Statistical analysis shows an egregiously discriminatory impact on minority

motorists traveling Interstate 95, when benchmark population and traffic violator numbers are

compared with overall Wilkins data, data for the Special Traffic Interdiction Force, or data for

individual trooper defendants.

42.

The Wilkins data exhibit similar discriminatory patterns for additional troopers

assigned to the I-95 corridor who are not named defendants.

(4) Indifference of the MSP and the supervisory defendants

43. In June 1995, after about five months of data collection under the Wilkins

agreement, then-MSP Deputy Superintendent James E. Harvey circulated a memorandum to all

MSP Regional and Division Commanders analyzing the data. The memorandum recognized —

and informed the supervisory defendants, including defendant Mitchell, who received a copy —

that “the numbers reveal that Troopers are continuing to target non-white subjects.” Plaintiffs

aver, on information and belief, that the supervisory defendants took no meaningful or effective

action in response to Col. Harvey's memorandum, so as to prevent continuation of the race-based

targeting identified by Harvey. As a direct and proximate result of this supervisory inaction, the

trooper defendants continued unlawfully to target minority motorists, including plaintiffs,

traveling Interstate 95.

44. On or about June 28, 1995, Cecil County Circuit Court Judge Dexter Thompson

ruled that a February 28, 1995 detention and search of minority motorist Marc A. Pittman and his

two passengers, conducted along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by defendants David B. Hughes

and Steven W. Dulski, was unconstitutional, as not supported by reasonable suspicion or

probable cause. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that Hughes and Dulski detained Mr.

Pittman and his passengers and undertook this unlawful search based upon the motorists'

18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 19 of 45
African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The search was conducted using a canine, after Mr. Pittman refused Hughes' request that he consent to a search.10 All evidence of crime seized by Hughes and Dulski during their illegal detention and search of Pittman was suppressed by Judge Thompson. Thereafter, the State dismissed all charges against Pittman and his two passengers. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that MSP supervisors took no meaningful action to investigate or discipline defendants Hughes and Dulski for their unconstitutional search and seizure of Pittman and his passengers.12
45. On October 9, 1995, plaintiffs John S. Means and Kenneth R. Jeffries registered a complaint with an individual who identified himself as MSP’s then-Chief of Field Operations, Ernest J. Leatherbury, who is now deceased, about another incident of race-based profiling by defendant David B. Hughes. Although the Hughes incident complained of by Means and Jeffries followed on the heels of Col. Harvey's finding that troopers were continuing to target motorists based on race and the state court's ruling that Trooper Hughes had acted unconstitutionally in his search and seizure of Marc Pittman, the individual identified as Col. Leatherbury treated plaintiffs' complaint dismissively. This person informed Means and Jeffries that troopers under his command did not act unlawfully, and made clear that he was not interested in pursuing plaintiffs' complaint. Means and Jeffries nevertheless persisted in providing this individual with the details of their complaint, specifically informing him they believed they had been stopped, detained, and searched by Hughes based upon their African-American race. Although this individual told plaintiffs they could consider their complaint registered, and plaintiffs provided the individual with their contact information, they never heard anything further from him or from
12 In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to
19

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 20 of 45
the MSP about their complaint. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that -- again -- no meaningful or effective action was taken by MSP supervisors to address or investigate the complaint against Trooper Hughes lodged by John Means and Kenneth Jeffries. As a result of this supervisory indifference and inaction, Trooper Hughes continued his pattern of harassment toward minority motorists, and within months engaged in similar mistreatment toward named plaintiffs Yancey and Aleshia Taylor and their son, Verna Bailey and Gary D. Rodwell.
46. On April 11, 1996, defendant George Hall sent a memorandum to Lt. Col. Leatherbury, with copies to defendants Mitchell and Graybill, concerning the Wilkins data collected as of that date. Defendant Hall recognized that “in a concentrated area, there exists a remarkable deviation in these figures with African-Americans being stopped and searched to a significantly higher degree than all other persuasions combined.” The area he mentioned included a large part of I-95 patrolled by troopers from the MSP’s JFK Barrack, including the segment of highway where plaintiffs John Means, Kenneth Jeffries, Gary Rodwell, Johnston Williams, Yancey and Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric Anthony, Nelson D. Walker, Ras Ra I, William M. Berry, and Verna Bailey, as well as minority motorist Marc A. Pittman, were illegally stopped, detained, and searched. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the supervisory defendants again took no meaningful or effective action in response to defendant Hall's memorandum, and thus failed to prevent the continuation of the race-based targeting identified by Hall.
47. Prior to their filing of a lawsuit against the Maryland State Police in 1996, Charles and Etta Carter filed an administrative complaint with MSP's Internal Affairs Unit complaining about the abusive treatment, including race-based profiling, they were subjected to in July 1994
report the unconstitutional search of Pittman and his passengers to the Court.
20

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 21 of 45
by defendants Paul Quill, Steven Hohner, and John Appleby. MSP investigators subsequently informed Mr. and Mrs. Carter that they had investigated their complaint, but that they found the charges to be unsubstantiated. When the Carters later pursued legal claims in court against the troopers and the MSP agency, however, defendants paid the Carters a substantial monetary sum to settle the claims just prior to trial. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that despite MSP's payment of significant damages to settle Mr. and Mrs. Carter's claims against Quill, Hohner, and Appleby in early 1997, no disciplinary action was imposed upon these troopers as a result of their involvement in the Carter incident.
48. Based upon analysis of the Wilkins records for the years 1995 and 1996, and upon consideration of the internal memoranda issued and circulated within MSP by Deputy Superintendent Harvey and defendant Hall, the Wilkins Court on April 22, 1997 found that the “plaintiffs clearly have made a reasonable showing that there was a pattern and practice of stops by the Maryland State Police based upon race[.]” Accordingly, the Court extended and expanded the MSP’s monitoring obligations. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that MSP supervisors again took no meaningful or effective action in response to this Court's ruling, so as to prevent continuation of the trooper defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in highway stops conducted along Interstate 95.
49. On August 27, 1997, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that the September 12, 1994 detention and search of minority motorist Cedrick Whitehead conducted along Interstate 95 in Harford County by defendant Bernard M. Donovan was unconstitutional, in that it was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that in undertaking this unlawful detention and search, defendant Donovan relied upon Mr. Whitehead's African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and
21

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 22 of 45
practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities conducted along Interstate 95. As with the illegal search of motorist Marc Pittman referenced in paragraph 44, the search of Whitehead had been conducted using a canine, after Mr. Whitehead refused Donovan's request that he consent to a search. The Court rejected Donovan's contention that the search was justified because of Whitehead's nervousness and conflicting stories among Whitehead and his passengers. Whitehead's criminal conviction was overturned, and all evidence of crime seized by Donovan during his illegal detention and search of Whitehead was suppressed pursuant to the Court's ruling. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that consistent with their pattern of deliberate indifference to constitutional violations committed by the trooper defendants, MSP supervisors took no meaningful action to investigate or discipline Trooper Donovan for his unconstitutional search and seizure of Mr. Whitehead.
50. In September, 1997, plaintiff Johnston E. Williams filed an administrative complaint with MSP's Internal Affairs Unit, complaining about the racially discriminatory and offensive treatment he and four African passengers were subjected to by defendant Billy White. Although an investigation of this complaint was undertaken by MSP, and Mr. Williams submitted to an interview by an MSP investigator, plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that no disciplinary action has been taken against Trooper White as a result of Mr. Williams' complaint.
51. On August 8, 1998, minority motorist Barry Flack attempted -- without success -to register a complaint with MSP supervisors about racially offensive treatment he experienced during an Interstate 95 stop conducted by defendant Michael D. Wann. Flack had just pulled onto the highway, heading south, from Route 24 in Harford County. As Flack attempted to merge and accelerate to the speed of the traffic, Wann signaled for him to pull over, allegedly for
22

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 23 of 45
speeding. Wann was belligerent in his dealings with Flack. He repeatedly referred to Flack by the pejorative "boy" (as in "if you have a freaking problem you can dispute it in court, boy"), and at one point uttered the first syllable "nig" before swallowing the rest of that epithet. Flack was ticketed for an alleged speeding violation, and was detained for about 25 minutes. The trooper's behavior was so offensive to Mr. Flack that he wanted to register a complaint, so he stopped at the Golden Ring Barrack off Interstate 95, and attempted to do so. The officer at the front desk was uncooperative and unwilling to accept a complaint. He told Flack he would have to go to the JFK Barrack if he wanted to make a complaint against Wann. When Flack said he didn't know how to get to the JFK Barrack, the officer wrote a telephone number on the back of the ticket Flack was holding. Flack then went to a pay telephone and tried to call the barrack at the number given him. The number turned out to be wrong, however; it was for a private home, not for the JFK Barrack. After twice calling this wrong number, Flack obtained the number for MSP headquarters from information and called there. His call to headquarters was forwarded to the JFK barrack, where it was answered by Sgt. Barry Janey. Flack told Janey he wished to lodge a complaint against Trooper Michael Wann. As Flack tried to detail his complaint, he was repeatedly interrupted by Janey. Janey put Flack on hold two or three times, and then interjected comments indicating that he might have been discussing the incident with Wann while Flack was on hold. Janey said he did not believe Wann had said the words Flack claimed. Flack became frustrated, and said "I guess you're one of those people who thinks racism doesn't exist" (or words to that effect.) Janey then angrily informed Flack that the Maryland State Police department is one of the best police agencies in the country, that there are no problems with racism at MSP, and that this would be the first time anyone had ever made a complaint about race discrimination against the Maryland State Police. At that point, Flack said it did not appear
23

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 24 of 45
Janey was going to help him file a complaint or alert a supervisor about the problem. Flack said if no one there would help him, maybe he should just go to the NAACP or the ACLU. Janey responded by saying "Why don't you go to the NAACP or the ACLU? File a complaint with them." And, at that, Sgt. Janey hung up on Flack. As such, conduct of MSP officials, beyond displaying indifference, actually discouraged and prevented Mr. Flack from registering a complaint with MSP against defendant Michael Wann.
52. On September 22, 1998, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that the March 29, 1996 detention and search of African-American motorist William Lytle conducted along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by defendant Steven O. Jones was unconstitutional, in that it was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that in undertaking this unlawful detention and search, defendant Jones relied upon Mr. Lytle’s African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities conducted along Interstate 95. The Court rejected Jones’ contention that the detention and search were justified because of Lytle’s nervousness, because he complained of illness when Jones began questioning him, and due to inconsistent stories between Lytle and his passenger. Lytle’s criminal conviction was overturned, and all evidence of crime seized by Jones during his illegal detention and search of Lytle was suppressed pursuant to the Court's ruling. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that consistent with their pattern of deliberate indifference to constitutional violations committed by the trooper defendants, MSP supervisors took no action to investigate or discipline Trooper Jones for his unconstitutional search and seizure of Mr. Lytle.
53. For these and other reasons, it is apparent the MSP and the supervisory defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that MSP troopers were engaged in racial targeting,
24

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 25 of 45
harassment, and illegal searches of minority motorists traveling I-95. Repeatedly, the supervisory defendants had cause to investigate reports of wrongdoing by the trooper defendants, yet they failed and refused to do so, thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference to the rights of minority motorists, including the plaintiffs. The supervisory defendants took no meaningful or effective action to address these problems or to prevent continuation of the trooper defendants' egregious pattern of discrimination. This inaction and indifference on the part of the supervisory defendants has actually and/or proximately caused plaintiffs to suffer violations of their fundamental rights to equal protection of the laws, to be free from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and to travel interstate.
B. Suspicionless searches by MSP troopers with drug-detecting dogs 54. Maryland State Police policy permits troopers, at their individual discretion, to detain a motorist during any traffic stop for the purpose of conducting a search by a drugdetecting dog, regardless of whether the trooper has reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe the motorist is carrying drugs. The MSP and the supervisory defendants are responsible for the continuation and enforcement of this policy. Pursuant to this policy, MSP troopers, including the trooper defendants, routinely detain motorists for the purpose of subjecting them to dog searches, even though the troopers are unable to articulate any reasonable suspicion that the motorists are carrying illegal drugs. 55. On February 2, 1998, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that MSP Troopers Jeffrey L. Kissner and Charles Stanford, who worked in Western Maryland as a twoman drug interdiction team, acted unconstitutionally by detaining motorist Kelly Graham for 20 minutes while awaiting a drug-detecting dog to search Graham's vehicle, along Interstate 81. Graham v. State of Maryland, 119 Md.App. 444 (1998). The car in which Graham was a
25

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 26 of 45
passenger had been stopped by Kissner for speeding. When Kissner checked the driver's license, he found his license had been suspended. Rather than simply ticketing the driver for the offenses of speeding and driving without a license, however, Kissner detained the motorists to conduct a dog search for drugs. The court held this extended detention was unconstitutional, and thus suppressed all contraband discovered during the subsequent searches. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that in undertaking the detention and search of Kelly Graham, the troopers were following MSP's official policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches, and that the constitutional violations committed against Graham flowed directly from this policy. Plaintiffs further aver, on information and belief, that following the Court of Special Appeals ruling, MSP supervisors took no action to reevaluate their suspicionless dog-search policy, nor to investigate or discipline troopers Kissner and Stanford for their unconstitutional treatment of Mr. Graham.
56. MSP dog searches involve intrusion, humiliation, embarrassment, and great inconvenience to the motorists. These searches routinely involve detaining motorists for 20 minutes or longer to await a canine unit. The dog search itself takes 15 minutes or longer. As a matter of practice and policy, police release their dogs to roam at will inside vehicles that are stopped for that purpose. MSP practice also allows troopers, in their discretion, to remove all luggage and containers from the car for the dog to search on the roadside. MSP dog searches often result in dirt, filth, unpleasant smells, and insect infestation of motorists’ cars.
57. The defendants’ policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, in that it causes MSP to detain and search motorists without constitutionally necessary justification.
26

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 27 of 45

58. As a direct and proximate result of the MSP policy permitting troopers to conduct discretionary dog searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion, plaintiffs Gary D. Rodwell, James E. Alston, Jr., George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Diana Desmoines, and Verna Bailey were detained and searched by defendants without reasonable cause, in violation of the guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures established in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

C. Incidents involving the individual named plaintiffs

59. Twice in the five years preceding filing of this lawsuit, plaintiff Nelson D. Walker

was stopped and detained by the Maryland State Police while traveling along Interstate 95. First,

in February 1994, he was stopped and detained for 20 minutes. The trooper questioned plaintiff

extensively about where he was going and how he obtained the car he was driving, a 1990

Infiniti M30, which the trooper insinuated was too nice a car for plaintiff to own legitimately.

No ticket was issued, and no reason was given to Mr. Walker to justify the stop. Plaintiffs aver,

on information and belief, that there was no valid basis for this stop. Rather, plaintiffs believe,

the stop was conducted based upon Mr. Walker's black race and Liberian national origin,

consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities

carried out along Interstate 95.

60.

The second MSP stop experienced by plaintiff Walker occurred on or about April

15, 1995. On that occasion, Mr. Walker and two black passengers, including plaintiff Ras Ra I,

were stopped, detained for one-and-a-half to two hours, and searched, and their car was partially

dismantled, along Interstate 95 by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the

plaintiffs. The trooper made plaintiffs Walker and I and the other passenger leave the car and

stand on the roadside in the rain. The police took these actions for the stated reasons that Mr.

27

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 28 of 45
Walker was not wearing a seat belt, and that MSP was conducting drug interdiction along I-95. The troopers were insulting and verbally abusive. When Mr. I told a trooper that he needed to get out of the rain because he twice had contracted pneumonia, the trooper threatened him with jail. They searched Mr. Walker’s and Mr. I’s persons, removing articles from their pockets. The troopers told Mr. Walker that if he did not permit them to search, they would detain him and obtain a search warrant. They then searched the car and plaintiffs’ belongings, including luggage of both Mr. Walker and Mr. I. Finding nothing, the troopers then began dismantling the car, by removing part of a door panel, a seat panel, and part of the car’s sunroof. Again, no contraband was found. Following these fruitless searches, the troopers left with the car still partially dismantled. As they walked away, one of the troopers handed Mr. Walker a screwdriver and told him “you’re going to need this.” On information and belief, Mr. Walker and Mr. I were targeted by police based upon their black race and national origin, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of Mr. Walker and Mr. I to the Court.
61. Plaintiffs George W. Taylor and Eric Anthony have been stopped and detained by Maryland State Police troopers on Maryland roadways on three occasions in the four years preceding their initial filing of this lawsuit in 1998-- twice on Interstate 95. First, in midOctober, 1994, plaintiffs were traveling Interstate 95 with several African-American friends in a caravan of three cars, from New Jersey to Baltimore. After paying a toll, the cars accelerated to the speed limit, and a Maryland trooper in a marked cruiser pulled alongside the cars, looking into each car. He then signaled for the three cars to pull over, and all three of the cars stopped. The trooper then detained the plaintiffs, without explanation, and required everyone, including
28

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 29 of 45
the passengers in each of the cars, to produce identification. He then took the motorists' identification and returned to his cruiser, where he said he ran checks for outstanding warrants. Plaintiffs were detained for approximately 40 minutes during this process, then they were released with a verbal warning about alleged speeding. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that this stop was conducted based upon plaintiffs' African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
62. The second incident involving Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anthony occurred on or about September 1, 1995, when plaintiffs were stopped and detained for at least 90 minutes along Interstate 95 in Harford County by four Maryland State Police troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. At the time of the stop, Mr. Taylor was driving and Mr. Anthony was a passenger in Mr. Taylor’s car. Based upon an alleged violation of a Maryland law regulating car air fresheners, and because the troopers said I-95 is a drug trafficking route, plaintiffs Taylor and Cook were subjected to two searches — first a thorough hand search of the car, their suitcases, and their personal belongings, and then a search by a drug-detecting dog. On information and belief, plaintiffs Taylor and Anthony were targeted by police based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The two comprehensive searches turned up no contraband of any kind. A verbal warning that the car air freshener allegedly created an obstruction of view violation, but no ticket, was issued. After two searches and more than an hour-and-a-half of detention, the lead trooper told Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anthony to “have a nice day” and permitted them to go on their way. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement
29

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 30 of 45
Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anthony to the Court.
63. Just three days later, on September 4, 1995, plaintiffs George Taylor and Eric Anthony were stopped once again by MSP troopers, as they returned to New Jersey from their Labor Day weekend visit to Norfolk. Due to their bad experience on I-95 earlier that weekend, plaintiffs decided to return from Norfolk via the Eastern Shore. This time, police had laser guns set up on an overpass and two MSP troopers were standing by the roadside pulling cars over. One of them signaled for Taylor and Anthony to pull over, and subsequently ticketed them for alleged speeding.
64. On October 9, 1995, plaintiffs John S. Means and Kenneth R. Jeffries were stopped, detained for approximately two hours, and searched along Interstate 95 in Harford County, by MSP troopers David B. Hughes (lead) and Paul Quill (back-up) . These actions were taken by Hughes for the stated reason that Means, who was driving the car, was following too closely to another car. After Hughes checked Mr. Means' license and registration and found everything to be in order, he separated and questioned Means and Jeffries about their reasons for being on the highway and their opinions about drug trafficking. After about 40 minutes had passed since the stop began, Trooper Quill arrived at the scene and Hughes asked Means to consent to a car search. When Means hesitated, Hughes told him that if he refused to consent to the search, police would detain him for a prolonged period while they obtained a court order for the search. So advised, Mr. Means gave his "consent" to the search. Hughes then searched the car and the plaintiffs' belongings completely, while Trooper Quill stood watching on the side of the road. No contraband of any kind was found. When he was finished, Trooper Hughes -obviously annoyed at the fruitlessness of his search -- told Mr. Means that just because the
30

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 31 of 45
search had come up empty, it did not mean Means and Jeffries were clean. Hughes said Means was lucky police did not impound the car, which he suggested they could have done had they wanted to do a thorough search. Mr. Means was given a written warning for the alleged offense of "following too close." After about two hours of detention, plaintiffs were released. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Means were detained and searched based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
65. A few minutes after resuming their trip, plaintiffs saw an African-American Maryland trooper patrolling the road. They motioned to the trooper that they would like him to stop so they could talk to him, and both cars pulled to a stop at the side of the highway. Mr. Means and Mr. Jeffries related what had happened to them to the black trooper, and informed him that they felt strongly they had been detained and searched merely because they were young African-American men. The trooper was polite and seemingly helpful. He acted sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ complaint, and told them if they wished to make a complaint they should telephone Lt. Col. Ernest Leatherbury, who he said was the commander. He provided them with a telephone number that he said was Col. Leatherbury’s, and told them to be sure to talk to Leatherbury directly.
66. Plaintiffs stopped at the next highway exit to telephone Col. Leatherbury. When an individual who identified himself as Col. Leatherbury came on the line, Mr. Means told him he and his friend wished to make a complaint about a traffic stop involving David Hughes. He said they believed they had been the victims of race-based profiling by Trooper Hughes-- that they had been stopped, detained and searched merely because they were young, AfricanAmerican males. Unlike the black trooper they had spoken with, this individual was entirely
31

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 32 of 45
unreceptive to this complaint. The individual told Means that if Hughes had detained and searched him, Hughes undoubtedly had a good reason for doing so. The individual said he “stands behind his troopers” and could not accept that they would be engaged in any kind of race discrimination or wrongdoing. After a conversation that lasted about ten minutes, the individual who identified himself as Col. Leatherbury tersely told Mr. Means he could consider the complaint registered. Means felt that the complaint was not taken seriously at all, and believed no action would be taken in response to the complaint. Although he had provided the individual with his name and contact information, he never heard anything further about the matter, either from Leatherbury or from anyone affiliated with the Maryland State Police.
67. On or about October 26, 1995, plaintiffs Yancey and Aleshia Taylor and their minor son, Yancey Taylor, Jr., were stopped and detained for approximately one hour and 20 minutes along Interstate 95 by defendants David Hughes (lead) and Steven Dulski (back-up). Mr. Taylor was driving the car, Mrs. Taylor was in the front passenger seat, and their son was in the back seat. At the time of the stop, Mr. Taylor, who is disabled, was exiting the highway into a rest area because he was experiencing physical discomfort and needed a break from driving. However, the troopers accused Mr. Taylor of fleeing from police to the service area — and attempted to justify their conduct on that basis. The troopers separated Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, requiring Mr. Taylor to sit in a police cruiser and answer questions, while Mrs. Taylor was questioned in plaintiffs’ car. The lead trooper repeatedly told Mrs. Taylor that he wished to search the car, and he proceeded to look through the interior of the car with a flashlight. Upon seeing a bottle of cough medicine, the trooper questioned Mrs. Taylor about the cough medicine. The trooper with Mr. Taylor told plaintiff he was checking records in four states to look for outstanding warrants. Mr. Taylor told him he had no warrants. The trooper told Mr. Taylor he
32

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 33 of 45
must have a warrant somewhere. When Mr. Taylor assured the trooper he was not a criminal, the trooper told Mr. Taylor he did not know who or what he was, offensively insinuating that plaintiff might very well be a criminal. These actions were taken by police as a result of an alleged speeding violation. On information and belief, the Taylors were targeted by police based upon their African-American race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The MSP troopers found no contraband of any kind. A warning, rather than a ticket, was issued to Mr. Taylor for an alleged speeding violation. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report this incident to the Court.
68. On November 9, 1995, plaintiff Verna Bailey and her five-year-old daughter were chased, stopped, detained for approximately one hour and 15 minutes and searched twice -- first by a drug-detecting dog and then by hand -- by defendant David B. Hughes and two other troopers, near the junction of Interstate 95 and 695. At the time of the stop, plaintiff was driving along the roadway with her cruise control set at 65 m.p.h. Her daughter was asleep in the back seat. Trooper Hughes began following closely behind Ms. Bailey, with his high-beams on, blocking her vision. Plaintiff changed lanes to avoid Hughes' bright lights, but he continued to ride on her bumper. Ms. Bailey became alarmed, and sped up to try to escape the car. But Hughes continued to tailgate, and plaintiff became frantic with worry. Finally, Hughes turned on the car's flashing police lights, and plaintiff realized the driver chasing her was a police officer. She pulled to the side of the road.
69. When Hughes approached Ms. Bailey's car, he accused her of speeding. Plaintiff tried to explain that she had not known he was a police officer, and that she had sped up to get away, but defendant dismissed this explanation and reprimanded plaintiff for speeding. After
33

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 34 of 45
checking Ms. Bailey's license, Hughes began to question her about whether she was carrying illegal drugs or weapons. Ms. Bailey assured him she was not, but Hughes said he did not believe her. He told plaintiff he wanted to search her car, and gave her a consent form to sign. Plaintiff repeatedly declined to sign the form. After browbeating Ms. Bailey for some time and failing to obtain her consent, Hughes called in a drug dog to conduct a search. In so doing, defendant had no reasonable, articulable suspicion that Ms. Bailey had committed any crime. Two more troopers arrived on the scene with a dog, and Hughes directed plaintiff to take her daughter and sit in a police car. The dog then searched the car. Following the dog search, the second trooper ordered plaintiff to give him her keys. Hughes and the second trooper then completely searched plaintiff's car and her belongings. The third trooper sat with plaintiff and her daughter in the police cruiser. As Ms. Bailey sat with her daughter on her lap, watching the car search, the third trooper searched plaintiff's pocketbook by hand. No contraband of any kind was found. Apparently angered at the fruitlessness of his efforts, Hughes then demanded that Ms. Bailey take a breathalizer test. Plaintiff did so, and passed. Hughes wrote plaintiff one ticket for speeding and one for allowing her daughter to sleep in the back seat without a seatbelt. In all, plaintiff and her daughter were detained for approximately one hour and 15 minutes. Ms. Bailey suffered extreme fear and anguish as a result of Hughes' mistreatment. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that plaintiff and her daughter were stopped, detained, and searched based upon their African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
70. On January 17, 1996, plaintiff Gary D. Rodwell was stopped, detained for approximately three hours, and searched twice — first by a drug-detecting dog and then by hand — along Interstate 95 in Harford County by defendants David B. Hughes (lead), John Appleby
34

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 35 of 45
(back-up) and Bernard Donovan (back-up). These actions were taken by defendant Hughes for the stated reason that Mr. Rodwell looked like a drug dealer. Because Mr. Rodwell would not consent to an unjustified search of his car and belongings, defendant Hughes pressured and argued with plaintiff for approximately 40 minutes, then called in a canine unit and had a dog search the vehicle for drugs. In calling for a dog search, defendant Hughes had no reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Rodwell had committed any crime. And although it was apparent that the dog did not alert during this search, defendant Hughes, with the help of Troopers Appleby and Donovan, proceeded to search the car and Mr. Rodwell’s personal belongings by hand. No contraband of any kind was turned up during this extensive search.
71. Apparently angered by the fruitlessness of his efforts, defendant Hughes told Mr. Rodwell he was going to lock him up anyway, causing Mr. Rodwell substantial distress. Some time later, however, a tow truck arrived at the scene, and defendant Hughes told Mr. Rodwell the tow truck driver was taking his car to the station. After consultation with the tow truck driver, defendant Hughes left the scene. Plaintiff joined the driver in the tow truck, and the driver asked him if he had any money. Mr. Rodwell said he did not have much money with him, but that he could obtain some from a bank machine. The driver then took plaintiff to an ATM machine, where he withdrew $80 to pay the driver an alleged towing fee. Only upon his payment of this fee was Mr. Rodwell given back his car and allowed to go on his way. On information and belief, defendant Hughes targeted Mr. Rodwell for detention and search based upon his AfricanAmerican race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Mr. Rodwell to the Court.
35

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 36 of 45
72. On or about March 10, 1996 plaintiff James E. Alston, Jr. was stopped, detained for approximately 45 minutes, and searched along Interstate 95 by two Maryland State Police troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. One trooper kept his hand on his revolver as he spoke to plaintiff, causing Mr. Alston great anxiety and fear for his safety throughout the encounter. These actions were taken for the stated reason that Mr. Alston had failed to use his turn signal when changing lanes. On information and belief, the troopers targeted Mr. Alston based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. Without legal justification, and pursuant to MSP policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches, the troopers conducted a canine search of Mr. Alston’s car. They then proceeded to search plaintiff’s car by hand, removing personal belongings from the car and strewing them along the roadside. Neither of these searches turned up any contraband of any kind. Following these fruitless searches, with Alston’s belongings still unpacked along the road, the troopers told Alston to “have a good day,” and left him to repack his car. No ticket or citation was issued, and no charges were lodged against Mr. Alston. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Mr. Alston to the Court.
73. On May 2, 1996, plaintiff William M. Berry was stopped as he traveled south along Interstate 95 in Cecil County, detained for approximately one hour, threatened with a baseless arrest for “obstruction of justice” and searched, by defendant Michael T. Hughes (lead) and Trooper John Appleby (back-up). Mr. Berry was never told why he had been stopped. However Hughes asserted that he was entitled to detain and search Mr. Berry because plaintiff could not locate his registration upon being stopped. Hughes ordered plaintiff to get out of his
36

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 37 of 45
car and asked him if he was carrying drugs or a weapon. Mr. Berry assured Hughes he was not. Hughes then asked plaintiff if he had been drinking. Again, plaintiff answered no. Hughes took plaintiff's license to his police cruiser and, about 10 minutes later, a second trooper arrived on the scene. Hughes asked Mr. Berry if he would consent to a search of his car. Plaintiff hesitated, then asked what would happen if he did not consent. Defendant Hughes answered that if Berry did not consent to the search, he would immediately be arrested. Plaintiff asked what he would be arrested for. Hughes answered “obstruction of justice.”
74. Under this threat, plaintiff gave his “consent” to the search. Hughes then searched plaintiff’s car and belongings completely -- tossing Mr. Berry’s things about, and leaving them upended and in disarray. Trooper Appleby merely stood to the side, keeping watch over Mr. Berry. As the search was taking place, plaintiff asked Hughes the grounds on which his car was being searched. Defendant Hughes ignored Mr. Berry, however, and did not respond. Hughes appeared increasingly irritated as the search proceeded and turned up nothing. Although plaintiff was upset about the manner in which the search was being conducted, he decided he should say nothing further, so as to avoid an altercation with police. No contraband of any kind was found. When the search was finished, Hughes angrily wrote plaintiff out a ticket for failing to produce his registration card. After about an hour of detention, plaintiff was allowed to go on his way. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of Mr. Berry to the Court. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Mr. Berry was stopped, detained, searched, and threatened based upon his African-American race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
37

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 38 of 45
75. On August 13 and 14, 1997, plaintiff Johnston E. Williams and four African passengers twice were stopped along Interstate 95 by MSP troopers. First, late on the evening of August 13, plaintiff Williams and his passengers were stopped and ticketed for an alleged speeding violation as they traveled south on I-95 from Philadelphia to the Washington suburbs. Several hours later, during the early morning hours of August 14, plaintiff and his passengers were stopped a second time as they returned to Philadelphia on the highway. Although this second stop again concerned an alleged speeding violation, it was much different -- and more troubling -- than the first. In this instance, Mr. Williams and his passengers were stopped, detained for over 45 minutes, and searched along Interstate 95 in Cecil County by defendant Billy White (lead) and Trooper George Brantley (back-up). These actions were taken by defendant White for the stated reasons that Mr. Williams, a Liberian native, appeared to be Jamaican, and that, according to defendant White, Jamaicans are known drug runners. Upon hearing Mr. William’s foreign accent, Trooper White became extremely agitated and profane, using coarse and insulting language. Additionally, defendant White ordered plaintiff Williams to produce his immigration paperwork. By his words and actions, defendant White targeted Williams explicitly based upon his black race and Liberian national origin, consistent with defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. The search conducted of Mr. Williams’s vehicle turned up no contraband of any kind. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless search of Mr. Williams and his passengers to the Court.
76. On February 12, 1998, plaintiff Diana Desmoines was stopped, detained for approximately one hour, and searched along Interstate 95 in Baltimore County by two MSP troopers whose identities are unknown to the plaintiffs. Ms. Desmoines had flown into the
38

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 39 of 45
Baltimore-Washington International Airport from the Bahamas, where she had gone on a workrelated trip. She was traveling at about 55-60 miles per hour, south on Interstate 95. Her car was a hatchback, and her luggage was visible through the rear window. She then observed a police cruiser behind her with its lights flashing. Once she realized the police were after her, plaintiff pulled to the side of the road. When she inquired if anything was wrong, the lead trooper told Ms. Desmoines that the reason for the stop was not that she had committed any traffic offense, but rather, that the Maryland State Police were conducting “routine stops.” After taking plaintiff’s license and registration, the lead trooper inquired whether Ms. Desmoines had been traveling. When plaintiff informed the trooper she had just returned from a trip to the Bahamas, he asked her questions about the frequency of her visits to the Bahamas and the length of her visits. The trooper then directed Ms. Desmoines to get out of the car, which made her uncomfortable. He asked if he could look in the back of her car. Because plaintiff was afraid to be standing along the side of the road with darkness falling and she wanted the incident to be over with, she went along with this request.
77. The trooper then thoroughly searched the car, removing and opening plaintiff’s suitcase and rifling through its contents. No contraband was found. Nevertheless, the trooper summoned a drug-detecting dog. In so doing, the trooper acted without legal justification and pursuant to MSP policy authorizing suspicionless dog searches. Ms. Desmoines was forced to wait about 45 minutes for the dog to arrive. When the canine unit finally arrived, the trooper unpacked plaintiff’s suitcase and presented items, one by one, for the dog to sniff. Even Ms. Desmoines’ toiletry bag was opened and sniffed through by the dog. As this was done, various items spilled from the bag and fell into a ditch, where they were left by the troopers. No
39

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 40 of 45
contraband of any kind was found. Ms. Desmoines’ belongings were then returned haphazardly to her suitcase.
78. After more than an hour of detention, plaintiff was released. No citation or warning was issued, and no apology was given to plaintiff. Rather, the trooper told Ms. Desmoines to “have a nice day,” and left her to collect the items from her toiletry bag that remained scattered on the ground. On information and belief, plaintiffs aver that Ms. Desmoines was stopped, detained, and subjected to hand and dog searches based upon her African-American race, consistent with the defendants’ pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95. In violation of the Wilkins Settlement Agreement and MSP policy, the MSP failed to report the fruitless hand and dog searches of Ms. Desmoines to the Court.
79. Following his filing of this lawsuit, on July 25, 1998, plaintiff James E. Alston, Jr. was stopped again by MSP troopers as he traveled Interstate 95. On this occasion, plaintiff was traveling with his four-year-old son in the back seat. Mr. Alston was driving within the posted speed limit, with his cruise control on, and had committed no traffic violation. Nevertheless, a trooper signaled for him to pull to the side of the road, which he did. In confronting Mr. Alston, the trooper alleged plaintiff had been stopped for weaving. Plaintiff politely stated that he did not think that was the case. Mr. Alston produced his identification, and shortly thereafter the trooper released him without explanation. No ticket or warning was issued. Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that the troopers had no valid basis for having stopped Mr. Alston; rather, plaintiffs aver that Alston and his son were targeted by police based on their African-American race, consistent with defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along Interstate 95.
40

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 41 of 45
V. Causes of Action Count I
Race Discrimination in Federally Funded Programs (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
(Defendant Department of Maryland State Police)
80. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
81. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, provides: [N]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
82. Defendant Maryland State Police receives federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Justice, and thus is bound to abide by the terms of Title VI.
83. Eleventh Amendment immunity of the State of Maryland and the Department of Maryland State Police was abrogated by Congress in its enactment of Title VI. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7.
84. Drug interdiction methods employed by the Maryland State Police discriminate, in purpose and effect, against African-American and other minority motorists traveling through Maryland. Federal financial assistance earmarked for law enforcement by defendant Maryland State Police therefore is being misused in the unlawful detention, search, and seizure of minority motorists as a result of MSP’s pattern and practice of discrimination.
85. Defendant Maryland State Police’s violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d has caused and will continue to cause the named plaintiffs to suffer tremendous harm and public humiliation in that they have been and will continue to be subjected to MSP’s pattern and practice of race-based discrimination.
41

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 42 of 45
Count II Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Art. 24, Md. Decl. of Rights) (All Defendants Except Department of Maryland State Police) 86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein. 87. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of intentional race discrimination in drug interdiction efforts carried out in Maryland along Interstate 95. In so doing, defendants have caused the plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their fundamental rights to liberty and to be free from unlawful searches, detentions, and seizures, on account of their minority race and/or national origin. These actions violated plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. 88. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George Hall, Vernon Betkey and Keven L. Gray, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures which involve intentional race discrimination in the provision of law enforcement services. By their deliberate indifference and inaction when confronted with the pattern of unlawful conduct committed by the trooper defendants, the supervisory defendants directly and proximately caused the plaintiffs to be denied equal protection of the laws, in further violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
42

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 43 of 45
89. The defendants’ acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs’ legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain, and suffering.
Count III Unreasonable Search and Seizure
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Art. 26, Md. Decl. of Rights)
(All Defendants Except Department of Maryland State Police)
89. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein. 90. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have subjected plaintiffs to lengthy detentions and searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that any crime had been committed or that plaintiffs were carrying drugs of any kind, in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and giving rise to plaintiffs claims pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. 91. Additionally, defendants maintain and enforce an official policy authorizing Maryland State Police troopers, at their individual discretion and without reasonable or articulable suspicion of crime, to detain motorists for the purpose of conducting a search by a drug-detecting dog, in further violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. 92. Defendants David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George Hall, Vernon Betkey and Keven L. Gray, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion of crime, in their provision of law enforcement services. By maintaining an unconstitutional dog-search policy and by their deliberate
43

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 44 of 45
indifference and inaction when confronted with the pattern of unlawful conduct committed by the trooper defendants, the supervisory defendants directly and proximately caused the plaintiffs to suffer unlawful searches and seizures, in further violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
93. The defendants’ acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs’ legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain, and suffering.
VI. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court: (a) Award plaintiffs compensatory and consequential damages pursuant to Count I, in an amount to be determined at trial, against defendant Department of Maryland State Police; (b) Award plaintiffs compensatory and consequential damages pursuant to Counts II, and III, in an amount to be determined at trial, against the individual defendants, jointly and severally, in their individual capacities only; (c) Award plaintiffs punitive damages pursuant to Counts II and III, in an amount to be determined at trial, against the individual defendants, jointly and severally, in their individual capacities only; (d) Award plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing this action, as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988; (e) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
VIII. Jury Demand Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
44

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 165 Filed 01/13/2005 Page 45 of 45

Respectfully submitted,

Deborah A. Jeon Richard D. Griffiths ACLU FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350 Baltimore, Maryland 21211 (410) 889-8550 x120 E-mail: jeon@aclu-md.org
griffiths@aclu-md.org
Reginald T. Shuford Corey Stoughton ACLU FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2613 E-mail: rshuford@aclu.org
cstoughton@aclu.org

William J. Mertens
1615 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009-2520 (202) 234-7676 E-mail: wjmertens@aol.com

45

 
 Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 75 Filed 07/30/2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF PAUL W. GRIMM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 1 of 1
101 W. LOMBARD STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-4560 (410) 962-3630 FAX

July 30, 2003

RE: NAACP v. MSP PWG-98-1098

LETTER ORDER

Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed Ms. Sconion’s letter of July 28, 2003, and I thank her for the same. In accordance with what counsel for the parties agreed to, unless otherwise consented to by the parties or ordered by the court, the Plaintiffs will have twenty-five days from the service of notification in which to approve or disapprove any measure proposed by the Maryland State Police, for which the Consent Decree gives the plaintiffs the right to approve or disapprove.
Further, the selection of Mr. Eli Silverman as the MSP consultant under the consent decree is APPROVED.
This is an order of the Court, and will be docketed accordingly.

cc: Counsel Clerk Chambers File

/S/ Paul W. Grimm United States Magistrate Judge

 
 Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 1 of 9

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE
100 N. Liberty Street, Centreville, MD 21617 410-785-1975 • 410-758-1977 (FAX) • www.aclu-md.org
August 4, 2003
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm United States Magistrate Judge District of Maryland 101 W. Lombard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21211
Re: Maryland State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. Maryland Dept. of State Police, Civil Action No. PWG-98-1098
Dear Judge Grimm:
I write in follow up to Maureen Dove's correspondence to the Court of July 11 and to continue the discussion among the Court and counsel during the July 17 Status Hearing. Specifically, the purpose of this letter is to explain further plaintiffs' views concerning bifurcation, and to describe our proposal to structure this litigation so that it can move expeditiously toward resolution.
In short, plaintiffs do not believe that the "macro" claims, especially plaintiffs' claims against the Maryland State Police entity under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, should be split from the "micro" claims against individual troopers, with discovery and trial postponed until the resolution of some or all "micro" claims. As explained below, we request that the "micro" and "macro" claims of individual plaintiffs be tried together, in a series of trials involving manageably-sized groups of plaintiffs.
Our sense is that the difference of opinion between plaintiffs and defendants about how best to proceed stems from our basic disagreement about the nature of the case. This case is not, as defendants assert, an amalgamation of unrelated police misconduct complaints against individual Maryland state troopers. To be sure, individual plaintiffs are pursuing state and federal constitutional claims against the individual troopers who stopped, detained and searched them for drugs. But the

Sally T. Grant • President Susan Goering • Executive Director C. Christopher Brown • General Counsel

Managing Attorney • Deborah A. Jeon Case Investigator • Amy Cruice
Sonia Kumar • Legal Program Administrator

ACLUF is the litigation and education arm of the ACLU of Maryland. Contributions to the ACLUF are tax-deductible.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 2 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 2
common thread joining all of the plaintiffs is a claim challenging systemic racial discrimination in MSP's federally-funded highway drug interdiction program, pursuant to Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.1
As this Court noted at the July 17 hearing, plaintiffs captioned their Title VI claim as Count I of their lawsuit. This was no accident; the Title VI claim is the plaintiffs' lead claim because it is the centerpiece of the case.2 This claim is brought not against any individual troopers or supervisors, but only against the Maryland State Police entity. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 41 F.Supp. 2d 587, 592 (D.Md. 1999) (Legg, J.)("[T]he proper defendant in a Title VI case is an entity rather than an individual." )
And while there is authority that the Court, in its discretion, could bifurcate plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against MSP supervisors from those against individual troopers, the plaintiffs' Title VI damages claims stand on a different footing. This is because a supervisor's liability under § 1983 depends on the antecedent finding that an individual trooper has committed a constitutional violation. But a plaintiff can prove that he or she is entitled to damages from the MSP under Title VI even if no
1 Title VI provides:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
2 Defendants previously moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title VI claim against the MSP, and that motion was denied. Maryland State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. Maryland Dept. of State Police, 72 F.Supp.2d 560, 567 (D.Md. 1999). MSP has never disputed that it is a recipient of federal funds, and Judge Blake already has held that the plaintiffs fall within the zone of interests protected by Title VI. 72 F.Supp.2d at 567, citing National Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat’l Bank and Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479 (1998). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that there exists a damage remedy under the Title VI statute. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 3 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 3
trooper is found liable on her § 1983 claims.3 In other words, each claim presents an independent path to establish the plaintiff's entitlement to damages.
As such, it seems to us inefficient to split a given plaintiff's § 1983 and Title VI damages claims for separate trial, when each will eventually need to be tried, and there inevitably will be substantial overlap of evidence. That is, in presenting a Title VI damages claim, a plaintiff will need to present evidence regarding his or her individual encounter. The plaintiff also will need to present evidence of the "big picture" to show that, over the course of years, MSP operated its highway drug interdiction program in a racially discriminatory manner, in the face of notice after notice about racial profiling along Interstate 95, and heedless of the serious damage caused to the plaintiffs by this discrimination. Fair presentation of this claim will necessarily include: statistical evidence; expert testimony analyzing the significance of this evidence; documentary and testimonial evidence concerning notice, MSP's actual knowledge of and deliberate indifference toward its racial profiling problem, and lay witness testimony concerning specific incidents of profiling and the extent of the damage this profiling caused.
This "big picture" evidence, in turn, may substantially overlap the evidence of supervisory liability. The principal difference is that the supervisory liability evidence will necessarily focus on the knowledge and actions (or omissions) of particular individuals within the State Police chain of command, whereas the Title VI evidence will concern the Department of State Police more generally, as an institution. We acknowledge that, nonetheless, the Court may want to separate out supervisory liability claims for separate trial, in order to reduce the issues (and the number of parties) but we submit that the reasons for doing so are not compelling.
In sum, we believe that individual § 1983 claims should not be bifurcated from Title VI claims. And as long as § 1983 and Title VI claims are to be tried in a unitary trial, there is less reason to separate out supervisory liability claims for separate trial later.
3 It is even possible that, in a few cases, an individual plaintiff’s inability to identify the troopers who stopped and searched her will mean the only claim she ultimately will be able to pursue will be her Title VI claim.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 4 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 4
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Litigation Plan
A far superior alternative to the bifurcation that the defendants seek would be for the Court to move forward with the jury trial of a "test case" consisting of several individual named plaintiffs, individual defendants (at least troopers, if not also supervisors), and the MSP entity. This trial would cover the plaintiffs' Title VI claims, and resolve all claims of the individual plaintiffs who participate (with the possible exception of supervisory liability claims under §1983). The option that we suggest is to proceed with all claims in which a particular trooper was the lead trooper. An obvious choice here would be David Hughes, who was the lead trooper in the detention and search of named plaintiffs Gary Rodwell, John Means and Kenneth Jeffries, Yancey and Aleshia Taylor (and son), and Verna Bailey (and daughter), as well as class member Antonio Sharp (and friends). Backup troopers who assisted Hughes in these searches also would be defendants at this trial.
The test case approach offers an enormous benefit in terms of economy, because if the plaintiffs in this initial trial establish a Title VI violation, subsequent plaintiffs can avoid relitigation of this claim through reliance upon offensive, nonmutual collateral estoppel. See Yeager’s Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 162 F.R.D. 482, 488-89 (E.D. Pa. 1995), citing Bogus v. American Speech & Hearing Ass'n, 582 F.2d 277, 290 (3d Cir. 1977), Manual for Complex Litigation, Second § 21.63 (1985). 4 Defendants' vague and unsupported suggestion that their Seventh Amendment rights would somehow be compromised by trial in this format has no merit. The MSP entity and the individual troopers involved would enjoy a "full and
4 Many courts have touted the test case approach as a superior alternative to class certification. E.g. Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 758-63 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885 (1974); Commander Properties Corp. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 164 F.R.D. 529 (D.Kan. 1996); Fogie v. Rent-A-Center, 867 F.Supp. 1398 (D.Minn. 1993); Smith v. Lower Merion Township, 1991 WL 205023 (E.D. Pa. 1991); Curley v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 1123, 1133-34 (D.N.J. 1990);Perez v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 109 F.R.D. 384 (D.V.I. 1986); Gelman v. Westinghous Elec. Corp., 73 F.R.D. 60 (D. Pa. 1976); Mendez v. Heller, 380 F. Supp. 985 (D.N.Y. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 420 U.S. 916 (1975); Yanai v. Frito Lay, Inc., 61 F.R.D. 349, 353 (N.D. Ohio 1973). Notably, in an early racial profiling case, Wilson v. Tinicum Township, 1993 WL 280205 (E.D.Pa. 1993), it was the defendants who advocated the test case approach (albeit unsuccessfully) in opposing class certification.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 5 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 5
fair opportunity" to defend on these claims before a single jury, which preserves the jury trial and due process rights of all parties. Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 99 S.Ct. 645, 652 (1979). See also, In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 232 F.Supp.2d 534 (D.Md.2002).
To allow the parties to prepare for such a test case trial, plaintiffs believe that free and open discovery should proceed forthwith on all of the remaining issues in this lawsuit. Even if the Court were ultimately to bifurcate trial of the supervisory liability claims, any further delay of the discovery process poses an intolerable threat of prejudice to the plaintiffs, given the passage of time since the filing of this case. The MSP administration has changed, many crucial witnesses, and even a number of the defendants, have moved on to other jobs.5 Memories fade, and the passage of time since the incidents underlying the plaintiffs' claims — most of which occurred in 1995 and 1996 — makes it is imperative that the plaintiffs be permitted to conduct all discovery necessary to proof of their claims without further delay.
Moreover, because there likely exists substantial overlap between the discovery plaintiffs must conduct to present their Title VI claims against the MSP, and discovery pertaining to their § 1983 claims against MSP supervisors, little would be gained by a stay of discovery on the supervisory claims. Just in pragmatic terms, it would be difficult to identify the line where Title VI discovery ends and supervisory discovery begins. Trying to maintain that line would invite numerous unproductive discovery disputes. Certainly, the risk of prejudice to the plaintiffs outweighs any gain in efficiency that discovery restrictions would offer.
The Test Case Approach is Superior to Defendants’ Bifurcation Proposal
Defendants urge the Court to bifurcate discovery and trial of this case into stages, with the first stage being a series of individual cases against individual troopers only. Second stage proceedings against supervisory officials, and all discovery
5 A tragic example of the need for discovery to proceed swiftly and freely is found in the untimely death last February of former MSP commander Ernest J. Leatherbury, one of the few MSP officials plaintiffs have been permitted to depose thus far. No one could have anticipated Col. Leatherbury’s sudden death at the age of 55, but had this deposition not been permitted, his testimony would have been lost.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 6 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 6
pertaining to MSP's institutional liability, would be deferred and conducted at some later time. Moreover, that discovery would go forward only if plaintiffs are successful in their first stage proceedings. This approach, defendants erroneously contend, is mandated by City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986)(false arrest/excessive force case in which the Court found that a Monell claim against a municipality only lies where the underlying claim against individual police officers is sustained); Marryshow v. Town of Bladensburg, 139 F.R.D. 318 (D. Md. 1991)(false arrest/excessive force case in which § 1983 claims against town and supervisory officials were bifurcated from claims against officers on ground that these claims were entirely dependent upon plaintiffs' proof of their claims against the individual defendants); Gray v. Maryland, 228 F.Supp.2d 628 (D.Md. 2002)(false arrest/malicious prosecution case in which § 1983 claims against county were bifurcated from claims against individual officers, because "proof of any liability for the County based on a custom or policy requires a showing that there was a civil rights violation by one of the other defendants").
The obvious flaw in defendants’ bifurcation proposal is its disregard for plaintiffs’ Title VI claims. Defendants rely exclusively upon cases concerning § 1983 claims in which the liability of police supervisors is dependent upon a plaintiff's proof of a constitutional violation by the individual officers.6 Such is not the case with plaintiffs' Title VI claims, which involve only the MSP entity, are broader in scope, and are analyzed differently than are plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against individual troopers.
The showing that plaintiffs must make to recover damages under Title VI is plainly articulated by two recent Supreme Court cases: Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent
6 Defendants have cited no authorities utilizing bifurcation where, as here, one claim is made against a governmental entity under Title VI or Title IX, while another is made against individual officers under §1983. And plaintiffs have been unable to find any cases employing bifurcation in such circumstances. The norm seems to be unified trial of Title VI or IX/§1983 cases. See, e.g., Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2001)(Title IX claim against School Board tried simultaneously with §1983 claims against school principal and superintendent).

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 7 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 7
Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290-92 (1998), and Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 641-46 (1999). 7 Under the standard stated in Gebser and Davis, a plaintiff proves a damages claim under Title VI if she demonstrates that "the [funding] recipient [was] deliberately indifferent to known acts of . . . discrimination." Davis, 526 U.S. at 643; accord Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290. This standard requires (1) that an official who has authority to address the alleged discrimination has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient's programs, and (2) that the official responds to the discrimination in a way that amounts to deliberate indifference to that discrimination. See Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290. As defined by the Supreme Court, "deliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence" but "is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). And, significantly for purposes of the bifurcation issue, the notice received by MSP need not pertain to the particular plaintiff whose claim is at issue, Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 238 n.9 (4th Cir. 2001),8 thus making clear that a plaintiff's Title VI claim is not derivative of his individual equal protection claim.
7 While both Davis and Gebser are Title IX cases, the damages liability standard they set forth for Title IX applies with equal force to Title VI. As the Supreme Court has often acknowledged, Title IX was patterned after Title VI. See, e.g., Gebser, 524 U.S. at 286 (noting that Title IX and Title VI are “parallel” statutes that “operate in the same manner,” and relying on Title VI case law in analyzing the scope of damages relief available under Title IX); Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 566 (1984). For these reasons, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the two statutes in the same fashion. See, e.g., id. at 703 (“We have no doubt that Congress intended to create Title IX remedies comparable to those available under Title VI.”). And because Congress intended the two statutes to be interpreted consistently, the Title IX standard for damages liability set forth in Gebser and Davis applies to Title VI.
8 Chief Judge Wilkins wrote in Baynard:
We note that a Title IX plaintiff is not required to demonstrate actual knowledge that a particular student was being abused. We believe the actual notice requirement could have been satisfied, for example, if Malone had had actual knowledge that Lawson was currently abusing one of his students, even without any indication of which student was being abused.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 8 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 8
The defendants may wish to avoid exposure of the extent of the MSP's past racial profiling, but they should not be allowed to achieve this goal through restrictive and, ultimately, inefficient discovery and trial plans that unfairly prejudice plaintiffs' ability to present their claims. See generally, Douglas L. Colbert, Bifurcation of Civil Rights Defendants: Undermining Monell in Police Brutality Cases, 44 HASTINGS L.J. 499 (1993)(raising concerns about prejudice, increased expense, and inconvenience faced by plaintiffs whose claims are bifurcated, and arguing that bifurcation should be the exception, not the rule). Because case resolution through a single trial is favored under the federal rules, see Advisory Committee Note to the 1966 amendment of Rule 42(b), 39 F.R.D. 113, it is the proponent of bifurcation who bears the burden of persuading the trial court that bifurcation is appropriate. E.g., McCrae v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 97 F.R.D. 490, 492 (E.D. Pa. 1983)("A defendant seeking bifurcation has the burden of presenting evidence that a separate trial is proper in light of the general principle that a single trial tends to lessen the delay, expense and inconvenience to all parties.")
We respectfully submit that the defendants have failed to meet their burden here. As Judge Garbis noted in Marryshow, bifurcation is a useful tool only in those cases where it actually serves the interests of justice and efficiency. 139 F.R.D. at 319.9 Here, it would disserve judicial efficiency for the Title VI claims to be
9 Defendants overstate their contention that the Marryshow and Gray cases require bifurcation here. It is well settled, however, that district courts enjoy broad discretion to structure discovery and trials as they see fit. And determinations concerning bifurcation should be made on a case by case basis. As Professors Wright and Miller counsel,
[u]ltimately the question of separate trials under Rule 42(b) should be, and is, a matter left to the discretion of the trial court on the basis of the circumstances of the litigation before it. The district judge must weigh whether one trial or separate trials best will serve the convenience of the parties and the court, avoid prejudice, and minimize expense and delay. The major consideration, of course, must be which procedure is more likely to result in a just and expeditious final disposition of the litigation.
9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2d, §2388 (citations omitted).

Case 1:98-cv-01098-PWG Document 77 Filed 08/04/2003 Page 9 of 9
The Honorable Paul W. Grimm August 4, 2003 Page 9
bifurcated from the individual claims and deferred, because that approach would require each individual plaintiff to participate in two complete trials. Whatever the outcome of the trial on a given plaintiff's trial on the constitutional claims against the individual troopers who searched him or her, that plaintiff would still retain the right to proceed with his Title VI claim against the Maryland State Police entity. This inefficiency, combined with the prejudice to plaintiffs’ claims, make bifurcation a poor approach to litigation of this case.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to adopt a plan like the one that is outlined here, and to reject the defendants' bifurcation plan.
Respectfully,
/s/
Deborah A. Jeon
cc: All Counsel

 
 Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERT L. WILKINS, et al.,

)
)
) Plaintiffs, )
) v. )

MARYLAND STATEPOLICE, etal.,

)

) Defendants.

Civil Action No. CCB-93-468

)

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE

OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)
v. )

) MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al.,

) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. CCB-98-1098

CONSENT DECREE

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 2 of 19

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Recitals

3

1. GeneralProvisions.

3

2. GeneralPolicyProhibitingRacialProfiling

3. Implementation of Policy Against Racial Profiling. ..

..4

4. Data CollectionandTechnology

8

5. ManagemenOt versightRelatingto Policy AgainstRacialProfiling.

9

6. Citizen and Police Involvement to Promote Mutual Understanding

12

7. Useof Caninesin AutomobileSearches.

12

8. Procedures for Consent Searches. .

13

9. Mechanicsof theDecree

3

10. CounselFeesandExpenses

17

ATTACHMENTS

Wilkinssettlementagreement

21

B,

MSP 78 (9-96) (MSP consent searchfonD)

c. Clarifying Addendum to ConsentDecree.

-2A.

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 3 of 19
WHEREAS, the parties to this ConsentDecree agreethat:
a. Trust is vital to the successof policing in a democratic society and that community outreach is an essentialpart of trust-building;
b. Both incidentsandperceptionsof raciallybiasedpolicing leadto mistrustof police;
c. Thepolice cannotfunctioneffectivelyin communitieswhereanatmosphereof mistrustis prevalent;and
d. To build trust and reachmutual understanding with regard to the issue of racial profiling,
police and community members must be willing to hear each other out.
WHEREAS:
a. The Maryland StatePolice (MSP) recognizesthat community outreachto people of color is
an important component of a departmental strategy to prevent biased policing and perceptions of biased policing; and
b. The plaintiffs, the NAACP, andthe ACLU recognize thatrelationships are"two way streets" and, for police/resident relationships to work, people of color also must engage with the police, doing more than verbalizing concernsand complaints.
AND WHEREAS: a. The parties acknowledgethe jurisdiction of the Court and its authority to enterthis Consent
Decree. THEREFORE, the plaintiffs and defendants MSP and Colonel Edward T. Norris, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, enter into the following commitments and consentto their enforcementasexpresslyprovided below in the form of a Consent Decree of the Court:
1 GeneralProvisions 1.1 These tenus apply state-wide to MSP activities. 1.2 Subjectto Section10, below, this ConsentDecreeconstitutesa final andcomplete resolution
of plaintiffs' demands for declaratory and injunctive relief in Case No. CCB-98-1098 (NAACP), asdemandedin paragraphs(c), (d), (e), (t), and (g) of the Prayer for Relief in the SecondAmended Complaint in this case. This ConsentDecree does not resolve plaintiffs' demandsfor relief in paragraphs(a), (b), (h), (i), G), (k), or (1)in the Prayer for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint. Also subject to Section 10, below, this Consent Decree, furthermore, constitutes a final and complete resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for
-3 -
AND

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 4 of 19

Enforcement of SettlementAgreementand for Further Relief, dated November 14, 1996, in Case No. CCB-93-468 (Wilkins). Unless otherwise specified herein, the terms of this ConsentDecree supersedeand replace those of the prior Wilkins SettlementAgreement.

1.3 While the parties carefully have drafted this Consent Decree, and intend that it fully
memorialize the termsof their agreementasdrafted, they recognize that eventsor experience after it takes effect may make it desirableto modify or amendthe decree,provided that such a modification or amendmentis consistentwith its original spirit and purpose. The parties therefore agree that they retain the authority to request amendment or modification to the decreeand thatthe Court shall retain authority to order suchchanges,provided that theyare: (a) reasonablynecessaryfully to implement the original intent of the parties and (b) do not materially alter the obligations imposed and benefits conferred herein. Any such amendments or modifications sought pursuant to this Section shall be governed by the following procedures: The party seeking amendmentor modification shall notify the other party in writing, explaining in reasonabledetail the changethat is soughtandthe reasonsfor it. The parties then will have 30 daysto confer and discussthe requestedchange. After the 30 dayperiod, if the parties agreeon the requestfor change,they may presentit to the Court by joint or consentmotion. If the parties do not agree,the party seeking the change may request it to the Court by motion.

2

General PolicX Prohibitin{! Racial Profilin{!

2.1 MSP reaffintls its policy, as stated in General Order 01-9503 (1/1/95) and reaffintled in Special Order 01-9716 (6/30/97), that troopers may not rely on an individual's race or ethnicity asa factor in detentlining whether to stop, question, searchor arrestan individual, unlessrace or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspector suspects
for a specific crime or crimes.

2.2 MSP recognizes thatthe obligations setout herein are not in lieu of its obligations underthe Constitution and laws of the United Statesand Maryland. However, alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and Maryland are not violations of this agreement,andMSP' sconstitutional and statutoryobligations arenot enforceableunderthis
agreement.

3

Implementation ofPolicv A{!ainst Racial Profilin{!

3.1 Training
3.1. The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) hasdevelopedanationwide training program for the proper conductof traffic stops,in part to heighten officer awareness of potential civil rights implications of actions at the traffic stop. MSP training in regard to its anti-discrimination policy will include the useof updatedstatistics generatedthrough the data collection program described herein and from other sources, to examine numbers of searchesand searchfind rates by troopers, including the race of motorists searched. The

4-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 5 of 19
NHTSA training andthis training will beprovided to all MSP trooperswho patrol highways, with input from the community consultation program discussedbelow in Section6.
MSP will hire a consultant to review related MSP training programs who, with input from the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee as well as review of stop tapes, will recommend improvements. This consultant's review will include review of training that MSP troopers receive on drug interdiction, including such training provided within MSP, and, where practicable to do so, also by agenciesotherthan MSP. MSP acknowledges its obligation to utilize its best efforts to assurethat its troopers do not follow drug interdiction training or practices that conflict with the General Policy Prohibiting Racial Profiling, stated above.
MSP will provide in-service training to ensure that officers understand that motorist complaints are an important and valuable part of the public service MSP provides, that complaining citizens are to be treated with respect and understanding, and that each complaint must be promptly brought to the attention of the commanding officer of the trooper involved in the incident.
The Superintendentshall designatean officer to coordinate all training received by troopers concerningdrug interdiction andtraffic stops,including Academytraining, generalin-service training, and training received from outside sources. MSP will use its best efforts to assure that MSP troopers do not receive training in drug interdiction and traffic stops that conflicts with MSP's policy against racial profiling or the requirements of this consent decree. Toward this end,before approving payment,reimbursement,or anaward of in-service credit for outsidetraining in drug interdiction andtraffic stops,the approving authority will review any available coursematerials to ensurethat the training is consistentwith the principles of non-discrimination embodied in this agreement.To assistin this review in the future, MSP's EducationCommandwill make bestefforts to obtain andretain on file coursematerials from all outside trainings in drug interdiction or traffic stops henceforth received by MSP personnel, and will develop a list of recommended courses in this subject area. Where a particular drug interdiction or traffic stopcoursehasbeenidentified by MSP as inconsistent with principles of non-discrimination, MSP will make that information available to its personnel,andMSP will not approve further requestsfor payment,reimbursement, or award of in-service training credit for that course, unless the course has been revised to be consistent with principles of non-discrimination. MSP will also instruct personnel that recipients of training from outside sources may not implement any principles of law enforcement that are inconsistent with those in applicable federal and state law and MSP policies.
Tapingof StopsandSearches
MSP has voluntarily installed equipment for the automatic video and audio recording of traffic stopsontroopers' patrol cars; currently all carsoperating out of all barracks thatpatrol 1-95 are so equipped. It is MSP's desire eventually to have all MSP patrol cars so equipped throughout the Stateof Maryland. When andto the extent that financing becomesavailable to equip other vehicles, MSP will so equip all vehicles.
-5 -
Audio-Visual

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 6 of 19
The equipment automatically begins taping upon activation of the car's siren and/or emergencylights and continues until the car leavesthe sceneof the stop. The microphone is manually activated. Review of tapes available to date demonstrates that technical difficulties occur. Over the next year, MSP will work with the contractor from which the equipmentwas purchasedto attemptto assurethat thesedifficulties areresolved. MSP also will work with the contractor so that, if practicable, the trooper's microphone is automatically activated whenever videotaping is occurring. In the meantime, MSP will continue to have a policy that requires that the trooper activate the microphone when the event is called in.
ComplaintProcessRelatingto RacialProfiling
No later than sixty (60) days afterthe effective dateof the agreement,MSP will take, or will continue to take, the following actions.
3.3.1.1 The Settlement Coordinator to be designatedpursuantto Section 9.2 will be responsible for tracking the progress of eachcomplaint aboutracial profiling through its resolution and for maintaining comprehensive statistics regarding complaints to MSP about racial profiling.
3.3.1.2MSP will continueits presentpolicy of receivingcomplaintsof misconductorally, by telephone,in person,or in writing, at anyMSPinstallation.
3.3, ,3 MSP will continue to operatea 24-hour toll free telephonehotline to receive complaints.
3.3.1.4 MSP will provide Standard Operating Procedures to all officers staffmg the hotline, describing how to receive complaints. The procedure will include directions that each complaint is to be promptly forwarded to the commanderof the trooper involved.
3.3.1.5 MSP will produce a brochure explaining the process, and will make complaint forms, brochures, andthe hotline number easilyavailable at State-ownedreststops,MSP barracks, and MY A (assuming the agreementof MY A management). Troopers also will keepcopies of the brochure in their cars and will orally offer a copy to every motorist ticketed or searchedby MSP, at the conclusion of the stop, unless in a particular instancedoing so is impracticable. As part of the long termprovisions that MSPwill developpursuantto Section 5.3, MSP will develop standardsfor determining when a trooper may decline to offer a copy of the brochure to a motorist on grounds of impracticability, as is stated in Section 5.3.3.7.
3.3.1.6The brochurewill include infonnation helpful to the motorist during the processof complainingaboutor commendingthe conductof a trooper, suchasa reminderto write down the trooper'snameand identificationnumber,the car number,the date,time and locationof the event.
3.3.1.7 MSP will provide in-service training to ensure that officers understand that motorist complaints are an important and valuable part of the public service provided by MSP, that
-6-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 7 of 19

troopers areto treatmotorists with complaints with respectandunderstanding,and that each complaint is to be promptly folWarded to the supervisor of the trooper involved.

3.3.1.8 A consultant will review the current complaint process. This review will include relevant documents, such as complaint forms and informational brochures, and descriptions or explanations of the process in the MSP Manual or elsewhere. The consultant will recommendrevisions in the processandthe relevantdocuments,to the extentthe consultant deemsit necessary, to improve the processandassurethat it is user-friendly, and so that the processis specifically and clearly described. The consultantalsowill review the Manual and recommend revisions, if necessary,to provide explicitly that motorist complaints are an important and valuable part of the public serviceprovided by MSP, that troopers areto treat motorists with complaints with respectand understanding, and that eachcomplaint is to be promptly forwarded to the supervisorof the trooper involved. Any changesto the complaint processwill be consistent with LEOBR, Art. 27, §§ 727 -734D.

3.3 MSP will continue its practice and formally adopta policy that authorizes a complainant to be accompanied by another person of his or her choice when interviewed regarding the complaint, unless the other personis a witness. Sucha person may be excluded ifhe or she
becomesdisruptive or otherwise interferes with the interview of the complainant.

3.3.1.10

Although these complaint proceduresare being adopted in the context of implementing policies against racial profiling, they will pertain to all complaints, unless MSP managementfinds that they are inappropriate to other circumstances.

3.3 11

In consultation with MSP, a consultant will develop and begin implementation of proceduresfor producing quarterly ormore frequentreports onthe incidence,nature, location, and disposition of complaints alleging racial profiling. Copies of such reports will be provided to plaintiffs. MSP will continue providing suchreports to plaintiffs after the departure of the consultant. Counsel for plaintiffs may request additional information about any suchcomplaint. Subjectto confidentiality statutes binding upon MSP, MSP will provide such information upon request.

3.3.2 With the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee describedin Section6, the partieswill explore the possibility of designing aninfonnal processto resolve complaints of racial profiling that avoids the delay and procedural demands of the fonnal complaint investigation and disciplinary process and still protects the officers' rights under the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights ("LEOBR"), Art. 27B §§727-734D. If it appears useful, other citizens and organizations, including the Maryland Troopers Association and the Coalition of Black Troopers, may also join in this effort.
3.3.2.1 If it is deemedfeasible by the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee and MSP, MSP will put in place an alternative dispute resolution processthat may allow a complaining motorist to opt for a simpler and quicker way to register a grievance and communicate concernsto the involved trooper, and to allow the trooper involved to respond,perhapsbefore athird party.
-7-

,9

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 8 of 19
All reasonableefforts will be madeto reacha decision aboutthe feasibility of suchaprocess within 12 months of the effective date of this agreement.
3.3.2.2 The processwill be voluntary on both sides,asan attemptto come to an amicable solution. Becausethis processwill not contain the procedural protections ofLEOBR, it will not lead to discipline againstthe officer andall statementsandevidencewill be confidential and may not be used as evidence in a LEOBR proceeding.
4 Data CollectionandTechnology
4.1 The parties agree that MSP will continue to collect the infonnation currently collected
pursuant to the Wilkins agreement(attached hereto) with the changesdescribedbelow.
4.2 The parties also agreethatimproved accessto computertechnology, including personaldata assistants("PDAs") and othertechnical support,would lighten the burdenof collecting and maintaining statistics on stops and searchesand make the statistics more easily accessible and usable. The parties will work towards additional funding for this purpose. To this date, MSP has sought and has been granted additional funds in FY 2002 to be used to purchase PDAs for MSP sworn personnel. Thereafter, MSP will continue to seekfunding for this purpose and to keep sworn personnel equipped with PDAs and maintain equipment in good working condition.
4.3 The parties acknowledge thatthe General Assembly of Maryland in its 2001 sessionpassed TransportationArt. § 25-113(b)(2), which was signedby the Governor andbecameeffective on July 1,2001. Also known as the "Race Based Traffic Stops Act," Transportation Art. § 25-113(b)(2) mandatesthe collection of similar information for all police departments above a certain minimum size in Maryland, and provides for the Police Training Commission (PTC), in conjunction with the Maryland Justice Analysis Center (MJAC), to developstandardizedreporting formats andmethodologies. The partieswill discusshow the data collection and reporting procedures currently in place and required by this Decree should be adjusted to conform with state-wide practice under the Act, and plaintiffs specifically agree that they will not object to MSP conforming its forms and procedures under this Decree to those required by this statute, provided that the form includes all information required under the Wilkins agreement.
4.4 MSP agreesto continue to enforce troopers' datareporting duties, as set out in this Decree, through appropriate oversight, supervision, and discipline, including in appropriate cases referral to the Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. Review of MSP documents and information, suchas dispatcherlogs, videotapes,and complaint control logs, to verify that troopers are reporting the required data, will take place as determined in Section 5.
4.5 MSP will continue to provide the data to the Court and the plaintiffs on a quarterly basis.
4.6 MSP will assurethat the datacollected arereported backto the reporting Barracks in a fonn
and within a time period that will make the data useful for managementreview.
-8

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 9 of 19

5

Management Oversight Relating to Policy Against Racial Profiling

5.1 Generalprovisions

Under existing MSP policy, it is the ongoing responsibility of managersand supervisors at all levels to review the work and activities of their subordinatesto ensurecompliance with the law and MSP policies andprocedures.To implementthis ConsentDecreeandto monitor compliance with the policies andproceduresestablishedby MSP to prohibit racial profiling, MSP managersand supervisors of law enforcementpersonnelwill undertake further review and inquiry responsibilities.

Infomlation available to monitor the establishmentof appropriate policies and procedures againstracial profiling andthe implementationof thosepolicies andproceduresby individual officers includes:

5.1.2.1 the Forms 130generatedby troopers for eachsearchconducted,or simi1ardatacollected and formatted pursuant to the implementation of TransportationArt. § 25-113(b)(2);

5.1.2.2 the datacollected and collated pursuantto the Wilkins settlementagreement,basedon these fonIls, or similar data collected and fonIlatted pursuant to the implementation of Transportation Art. § 25-1 13(b)(2);

5.1.2.3motorists'complaintsof racialprofiling;

5.1.2.4videotapesofMSP stopson1-95;and

5

information concerning newly released,published decisions by Maryland appellate courts,

the Supreme Court of the United States,the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland regarding the

constitutionality of stop and searchprocedures.

5.2 ShortTennProvisions
Within 30 daysof the effective dateof the agreement,MSP managersand supervisorsof law enforcement personnel who patrol 1-95 will bolster their efforts to review all relevant information, as set out above, to determine if further inquiry is necessary, such as examination of the sufficiency of current policies and procedures and/or the conduct of individual troopers. Specifically, these procedures will include at least the following features:
5.2.1.1 At the barracklevel, the barrack commanderorhis or herdelegatedagentwill review at least once each month the items listed in Section 5.1.2, at a minimum, except videotapes of individual stops.

-9-

,2.5

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 10 of 19
5.2.1.2 At the state-wide level, the Superintendent's delegated agent will review relevant infomlation at leastonce eachquarter,including at leastdatacollected andcollated pursuant to the 1995 Wilkins settlementagreement,or similar data pursuantto TransportationArt. § 25-113(b )(2).
5.2.1.3 If the reviewerdetennines that suchfurther inquiry is necessary,he or shewill conduct such inquiry as he or she deems appropriate, or refer the matter for further inquiry to the appropriate person or unit.
5.2.1.4 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the reviewerwill detenIlinewhether any actionis necessary, and if so, the action to be taken. Necessary actions may include, but are not limited to, changes in fonIls, policies, procedures or training, further review of the conduct of an individual trooper, consultation with a trooper, additional training of a trooper, or referral of the matter to the Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The decision of the reviewer is subject to further review by his or her commanding officer.
5.3 Long Ternl Provisions
MSP will continue to survey and work with other law enforcement agencies that have addressedissues of racial profiling, to learn from their experience in order to develop the most effective methods of managementoversight, including but not limited to practical and time-efficient methods to monitor effectively by reviewing stop tapes.
MSP will developa managementandmonitoring systemappropriate for MSP, that attempts to satisfy the concernsof motorists and officers. This systemwill be in place and operating within twelve (12) months of the effective dateof this agreement. This systemwill be based on input from the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee below in Section6 and from exchange of information with otherpolice departments,aswell asinformation andguidancedeveloped by the MJAC and the FTC pursuant to Transportation Art. § 25-113(b)(2), and a managementinformation consultant, ifMSP determinesthat sucha consultantis necessary.
This systemwill considersuchitemsas
5.3.3.1 the data to be monitored:
5.3.3.2 the frequency of monitoring;
5.3.3.3 by whom the data, including the stoptapes,are to be monitored;
5.3.3.4 the identification of valid and reliable indicators or benchmarks that may be considered when determining an appropriatecourseof managementaction in responseto information; however, the use of such indicators or benchmarks will not be deemed by the plaintiffs or the Court as an admission that deviation from the indicator or benchmark constitutes racial profiling, violation of this Decree, or other illegal action;
-10

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 11 of 19

5.3.3.5 asan alternative to 5.3.3.4above,the guidelines developed by the PTC, in consultation with the MJAC, pursuant to Transportation Art. § 25-ll3(b )(2) for use by a law enforcement agency as a management tool to evaluate the data collected by its officers for use in counseling and improved training;

5.3.3.6the actionsthatmanagemensthouldconsiderwhenindicatorsarepresent;and

5.3.3.7 standards for detennining when a trooper may decline to offer a motorist a copy of the brochure described in Section 3.3.1.5 on grounds of impracticability.

The determination of appropriate action lies within the discretion of the manager, and the management information systemwill not result in a mandate to any managerto take any particular action. However, the managerwill document the decision made and the reason for the decision, andaninterestedparty, including plaintiffs in the NAACPcase,may, during the term of this decree,requestthat the manager's supervisor review the decision.

No later than 10 months after the effective date of this agreement, MSP will provide to plaintiffs and the Court for review and comment a draft plan for a long-term management and monitoring system, consisting, at a minimum, of the featuresdescribed above.

Plaintiffs andthe Court may commentandmakerecommendationsconcerningthe long-term managementandmonitoring system,andMSP will take full considerationof anycomments and recommendations when it produces a final plan. MSP will respond in writing to all recommendations from the Plaintiffs or the Court.

MSP will provide its final plan to the Court and plaintiffs promptly after it is completed. Plaintiffs may challenge this plan by the proceduresdescribed in Section 1.3.

6

Citizen and Police Involvement to Promote Mutual Understanding

6,

With the goal of fostering mutual trust and respectbetweenpolice officers and their fellow

citizens, the parties will develop a Police-Citizen Advisory Committee consisting of fifteen

members, five to be selected by MSP, five to be selected by the NAACP, and five to be

selected by a neutral third party. The neutral third party will be selected by the parties, or,

if they are unable to agree,by the parties with the assistanceof the Court. The Committee

will addresspolice and citizen concernspertaining to MSP policy againstrace-basedlaw

enforcement in traffic stops and drug interdiction, and may recommend improvements in

pertinent MSP policies or practices. This should be a collaborative process that facilitates

trust betweenpolice andcitizens, enhancesthe credibility of andreceptivity to theresponses,

andbrings freshperspectiveto the tasks,with citizens andpolice personnelworking together

to agree upon useful areas for discussion and any specific recommendations within those

areas. Recommendationsadoptedby the Committee shall be advisoryto the Superintendent

and may be consideredby him in his discretion. The Committee may meet at suchtimes and

adopt such procedures as the Committee shall agree by majority vote of its members,

-11-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 12 of 19
provided thatthe work of the committee shall be concluded within oneyear after entry of this Decree.
In order to encouragea candid and fruitful exchangeof views, Committee discussionsand recommendationsareintendedto benegotiationsanddiscussionsundertakenfor thepurpose of resolving disputed claims andaretherefore entitled to the protections afforded by Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and Maryland Rule 5-408.
MSP will be responsible for the routine administrative costs of the meetings of the Committee including travel costs of its membersto attend. It will be the responsibility of the Committee to find funding for other projects,events,studies,or undertakings. MSP will pay mileage at rates set periodically by the Maryland Department of Budget and Management up to 400 miles round trip per vehicle.
7 Useof Caninesin AutomobileSearches
MSP affimls that it will continue to obey the laws of the United States and Maryland regarding the useof caninesin automobile searches,and specifically that MSP policy on the use of canines will continue to prohibit detention of an automobile and its passengersto provide time for arrival of a canineunit, unlessthereexists reasonablesuspicion or probable causeto believe a crime has beenor is being committed.
An MSP consultanthired pursuantto this Decreewill review existing MSP policy statements and orders to assure that they accurately, clearly, and fully express this policy. The consultant will make such recommendations for changes as he or she determines are appropriate for remedying any problems that are identified in the consultant's review.
8 Proceduresfor ConsentSearches
MSP reaffirn1sits policy that before a trooper seeksconsentto searcha vehicle, the trooper will present to the person from whom consent is sought a fOrn1that, at a minimum, substantially conforn1sto MSP 78 (9-96) (a copyof which is attachedto this ConsentDecree and made a part hereof). As in accord with existing policy, before conducting a consent search,the trooper will attemptto obtain the person's signature on sucha fOrn1. The forn1 will specifically state, in these or substantially similar words: "I understand that 1 have a Constitutional right to refuseto consentto this searchand that anyitems seizedmay be used againstme in a court of law."
9 Mechanicsof theDecree
~ Theeffectivedateof theDecreeis theeffectivedateof this agreement,Thedecreewill terminatefive yearsaftertheeffectivedate,without exception.
-12

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 13 of 19
SettlementCoordinator. MSP will appoint a SettlementCoordinator, who will be the point of contact and coordination for all implementation of this agreement. The Settlement Coordinator's tasks will include:
a. Assuring that MSP training includestraining createdby the National Highway Safety Administrationasreferencedin Section3.1.1.
b. Coordinating with the consultant to assurethat the consultant has accessto materials, personneland other MSP items so thatthe consultantcanfulfill its responsibilities underthis ConsentDecree (Sections 3.1.2, 3.3.1.8, 3.3.1.11, and 9.3.)
c. Ensuring MSP personnelaretrained to understandthe importance ofmotorist complaints as referenced in Sections 3.1.3.
d. Monitoring the installation of automaticvideo andaudio equipment as setforth in Section
3.2.
e. Tracking the receipt and progress of complaints asreferenced in Section 3.3.1.1
f. Assuringthe creationof StandardOperatingProceduresfor staffing MSPhotline as set forth in Section3.3.1.4.
g. Assuring the creation and use of MSP brochure regarding complaints as set forth in Section 3.3.1.5.
h. Working with the MSP Police-Citizen Advisory Committee described in Section3.3.2 and Section 6 of the ConsentDecree.
i. AssuringMSPcompliancewith datacollectionandreportingrequirementsreferencedin Section4 andmonitoringthe acquisitionanduseof datacollectionequipment.
j. Ensuring that managersand supervisorsare properly trained about their overall responsibilitiesin the ConsentDecreeandspecificallyunderSection5.
k. Ensuringthroughissuanceof notificationsthatMSPpersonnelcomply with procedures for consentsearchesassetforthin Section8.
9.3 Consultant(s)to assistin imDlementation. Within threemonths after entry of this settlement agreement,MSP will retain an independentconsultant, or such additional consultants as MSP may detennine to be necessary,to assistMSP asprovided in Sections3.1 (training), 3.3.1.5 (complaint materials), 3.3.11 (complaint summaries),3.3.1.11 (reporting complaints alleging racial profiling), and 5.1.2 (managementinfonnation).
The purpose of the consultant or consultants is to provide substantive advice and recommendationsto MSP on how further to implement Section 4 of this Decree, in orderto
-13-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 14 of 19
assistMSP in further implementing its policy againstrace-basedlaw enforcementsetout in Section2. MSP will not reject the recommendationsof the consultant without reasonable cause, and will explain such cause to the Court and the plaintiffs. The consultant or consultants are not to act as the agentsof plaintiffs or arms of the Court as monitors or overseers.
The consultants will be chosenby MSP with the agreementof the plaintiffs and the Court. Plaintiffs will not reject a consultant chosenby MSP without reasonablecause,and will explain suchcauseto the Court andMSP.
Each of the consultants will provide the Court and the plaintiffs a progress report at six months and twelve months after entry of the decree,which reports will be preparedwithout MSP interference or oversight. The reports will include information concerning MSP's progress in meeting the implementation steps agreed to in this Decree, and information concerning the recommendations made by the Consultants, whether MSP has accepted, rejected, or acceptedthem with modifications, and MSP's progress towards implementing the recommendations.
The tasks of the consultant or consultants are expected to be time-limited. However, if during the term of this Decree,the parties fmd problems or difficulties in implementationof consultation, they may requestadditional assistancefrom the consultant or consultants.MSP will not unreasonablyrefuseplaintiffs' requestfor additional assistancefrom the consultant, provided that plaintiffs' request is directed towards meeting one or more of the implementation stepsagreedto in this Decree.
9.4 Enforcement
Definition ofNoncomuliance
9.4.1.1 "Noncompliance" meansfailure of anyparty to implement the specific items theparty agrees to.
9.4.1.2 Statistical evidence alone cannot prove noncompliance. This agreementis neutral as to whether statistical evidenceis admissiblein a compliance hearing. Statistical evidencewill be admissible asthe substantive law andthe law of evidencepermit, and the parties arefree to argue that it is or is not admissible for anyparticular purpose or in anyparticular hearing, as well as to argue as to its use, materiality, relevance, or to raise any other objection.
9.4.1.3 As stated in the General Policy ProhibitinQ Racial Profi1inQ, alleged violations of the Constitution and laws are not violations of this agreement;however, this acknowledgment doesnot preclude plaintiffs from seekingto introduce evidencein acompliancehearingthat, they allege, may show violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States or Maryland, on the grounds thattheevidenceis relevantto aclaimed violation of an obligation under this Consent Decree. The admissionof suchproffered evidence will be determined under generally applicable laws, including the Federal Rules of Evidence.
-14-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 15 of 19

9.4.2 Mechanicsof Enforcement

9.4.2.1 Notice of Alleged Non-ComQliance and Ql2QortunitYto Cure.
9.4.2.1.1. If eitherparty believes the other party, or in the caseofMSP, individual MSP sworn personnel, have violated the terms of this Decree, that party will notify the other and its counsel of the alleged violation. The notifying party will take no other action concerning the alleged violation until the conditions of this subsectionhave beenmet.
9.4.2.1.2. Written notice by plaintiffs will be sent to the Superintendent of MSP, MSP's principal counsel, and the Chief of Litigation of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland. Written notice by MSP will be sentto the designatedcounsel of the Maryland StateConferenceof NAACP Branches ("the NAACP"). Unless the NAACP subsequentlynotifies the MSP in writing of a change in counsel, it will be sufficient to provide notice to the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.

9.4.2.1.3. Notice will contain specific information, suchasnames,dates,times andplaces, as available, so that the notified party will have sufficient information to investigate the allegation(s).

9.4.2.1.4

Upon receipt of a notice to the MSP, the Superintendentor his delegatedagentwill,

in consultation with counsel, promptly initiate investigation of the allegation(s). Upon receipt of a

notice to plaintiffs, the plaintiff or plaintiffs will promptly initiate investigation of the allegation(s).

9.4.2.1.5

Within 20 days of receipt of the notice, the party notified or its counselwill sendto

the counsel for the notifying party a written responseto the alleged violation, including the results

of the investigation and, if the allegation has beensubstantiated,the actions the party plans to take

in responseto the violation.

9.4.2.1.6

If20 daysis insufficient time to completethe investigation, the written responsewill

include a description of the actions takento investigate to date,the non-confidential information, as

set out in State Government Article, §§10-611 et seq. (Maryland Public Information Act), State

Personneland PensionsArticle, §5-214, and Article 27, §§727 et seq. (Law Enforcement Officers'

Bill of Rights), gatheredto date, and the expectedtime it will take to complete the investigation.

The notified party may then requestthe agreementof the notifying party to a second20-day period

in which to complete the investigation. The notifying party will not unreasonably withhold its

agreementto this extension. Only in extraordinary circumstances,however, will the notified party

requestfurther extensionof the investigation period. The notifying party is free to decline requests

for further extensionunless it is satisfied that suchadditional extensionis justified by extraordinary

circumstances.

9.4.2.1.7

All parties and their counsel agree not to make public the allegations of violation

during the 20-day period described in Section 9.4.2.1.5, unless the allegations concern a matter

already independently in the public domain or the matteris one of extraordinary public concernand

urgency. Parties and counsel will make the determination that the allegations concern a matter

-15-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 16 of 19

already independently in the public domain or the matteris oneof extraordinary public concernand urgency only upon careful consideration and in good faith. If an extension of the investigation period is granted pursuant to Section 9.4.2.1.6, the parties will not make the allegations public without first consulting with opposing counsel and making a good faith effort to reach agreement on this point.

9.4.2.2. Enforcement by the Court

9.4.2.2.1

If, afternotice of allegednon-compliance and opportunity to cure in accordancewith the foregoing, plaintiffs or defendantscontend thatthe otherparty hasnot madegood faith and objectively reasonable efforts to investigate and respond to the alleged noncompliance, plaintiffs or defendants may ask the Court to issue an Order of Specific Enforcement. Such requestshall set forth the alleged noncompliance and outline the basesfor the allegation. The Court thereafterwill scheduleproceedings as it deemsappropriate in responseto the request.

9.4.2.2.2 9.4.2.2.3

If the Court finds, by a preponderanceof the evidence, that plaintiffs or defendants have shownnoncompliance with this decreeby the otherparty or parties, it will issue an Order of Specific Enforcement. In determining whether a party is or is not in compliance with this decree, the Court may consider the presence or absenceof willful or negligent noncompliance or external eventsbeyond the ability of the party to control.
The failure of aparty to comply with this Orderof Specific Enforcementwill subject the party to contempt sanctions, in accordancewith establishedlaw.

9.4.2.3 Right to AQQeal The parties agree that either party may take an appeal from any decision issued by the Court concerning interpretation or enforcementof this Decreeaspermitted by existing law.
9.5 If this decreecreatescompliance issuesfor MSP by creating a conflict with the LEOBR or any Collective Bargaining Memorandum of Understanding, MSP may, by motion, ask the Court to be relieved of the conflicting obligation underproceduresdescribed in Section 1.3.

10 Counsel Feesand Expenses
The Maryland State Police agree, subject to approval of the Maryland Board of Public Works, to the amountof$325,000.00 to plaintiffs' attorneys for attorneys' feesandexpenses reasonably incurred (and not previously paid) in Wilkins and in negotiating this Consent Decree. Defendants agree that their counsel will recommend the amount of fees and expenses agreed upon herein, together with this Consent Decree, to the Board of Public Works at the earliest possible meeting of that Board.
The Clarifying Addendum to the ConsentDecreeattachedhereto asExhibit C is adoptedby reference in its entirety and is part of this Decree for all purposes.

-16-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 17 of 19

The parties and their counselapprovethis ConsentDecree,and will seekits entry upon the approval of the Board of Public Works.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

~ rX
DeborahA. Jeon AMERICAN CIVil.. LffiERTIES UNION FOUNDAllON OFMARYLAND 100NorthLiberty Street Centreville,Maryland21617 (410)758-1975

-A
{J[..k~~"",,'\,~<J
RooertL. Wilkins VENABLE, BAETffiR, HOWARD & CIVILETTI LLP 1201NewYork Avenue,N.W., Suite1000 WashingtonD, .C. 20005-3917 (202)962-4058

FOUNDAllON 125Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2613

William J. ~-~--~-"
ASBILL MOt'l'll-l & BOSS,CHill. 1615NewHampshireAve.,N.W., Suite200 WashingtonD, .C. 20009-2520 (202)234-9000

~ L

JdnathanP. Guy SWIDLER BERLIN --~~ ~.FRIEDMAN, LLP 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007-5116 (202)424-7500

BROWNGOLDSTEINLEVY LLP 120E. BaltimoreStreet,Suite1700 Baltimore,MD 21202 (410)962-1030

-17-
t~2u ><

Legal Counsel

Mar 26 '03 16:02 P.20

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 18 of 19

FOR mE DEFE..~DA,."\j"TS,MA.RY1.ANDSTATE POLICE andCOLONEL EDW A.RDT.NORRIS, rNHIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SLTPERINTENDENTOFTHE MARYLAND STATE POLICE:

/J;
M. Dove Assistant .A..ttorneyGeneral OFFICE OF THE ATTOR..'\lEY GEN"ERAL 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, !\lID 21202-2021 (410) 576-6324

/~!!L:il~~~

-

Colonel Edward T. Norris

Superintcndent of the Maryland State Police NfARYl. AND STATE P0 LI CE

1201 Reisterstown Road

Pikesville,1vill 21208-3899

Betty Stemley Scallion Principal Counsel OFFICE OF THE .~TTOR-'\j"EYGE~~RAL M.A.RYLAND STATE POLICE 1201 Reisterstown Road Pikesvi1l7MD 21208 (410)
..-
M. Sullivan AssistantAttorney General OFFICEOFTHE ATTOR..~Y GENERAL 200 St PaulPlace Baltimorc, MD 21202-2021 (410) 576-6324
SO ORDEREDTHIS DAY OF
Cath~rineC. Blake ~ED ST.A..TEDSISTRICT JUDGE

-18--
P2003:

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 19 of 19 ATTACHMENTS
A. Wilkinssettlementagreement B. MSP78 (9-96)(MSPconsentsearchfonn) c. Clarifying addendumto consendt ecree
19 -

 
 , ,

"

I, )

.,

I'

.-,' '. I )

I

I,..i,'

f I

"', ! ,".:
"i,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTo ,i:!~13 I fJ :~) .3: l+:2
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, ET AL.

vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. JKB-98-1098

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, ET AL.

ORDER

The Court, on July 26, 2006, erroneously entered an earlier

version of the Order that it intended to enter in this case. That

Order (Paper No. 263) is hereby RESCINDED and, in its place, the

126f following Order is hereby ENTERED this

day of August, 2006:

Plaintiffs' motion for volu~tary dismissal (Paper No. 255) is

hereby GRANTED, and it is further Ordered that the following claims

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:

1. All Counts alleged by the plaintiffs against the following

defendants:

George Brantley Melvin Fialkiewicz John R. Green Eric Harbold Steven L. Hohner Clifford T. Hughes Steven O. Jones James E. Nolan Mark A. Rhinehart Christopher Tideberg Earnest S. Tullis Michael D. Wann John L. Wilhelm Jesse Graybill Keven Gray

2. Counts II and III alleged by plaintiffs James Alston and Diana Desmoines against all defendants;
3. Counts II and III alleged by plaintiff William M. Barry against John E. Appleby; and
$. Counts II and III alleged by plaintiffs Eric Anthony (a/k/a Eric A. Cook), George Taylor and Cy I (a/k/a Blessed I, Ra I Ras Ra I, I-C-I, Ralph Angel I, Mecca Agunabo I, Melchizedek Elechi and Chukwuemeka Agunabo Elechi) against all defendants except defendants David Mitchell, George Hall and Vernon Betkey.
BY THE COURT:
(:::7~ /J~ /5~
JAMES K. BREDAR United States Magistrate Judge

 
 72 F.Supp.2d 560 (1999)
MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al. v.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, et al.
No. CIV. CCB-98-1098.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.
September 30, 1999.
56123 *561 *562 *563 Reginald T. Shuford, Law Office, New York, NY, for Maryland State Conference, NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, plaintiffs.
Deborah A. Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union, Centreville, MD, Barbara Musfeldt Tapscott, Law Office, Jonathan Philip Guy, Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, Washington, DC, Dwight H. Sullivan, ACLU of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, William J. Mertens, Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, Washington, DC, Reginald T. Shuford, New York, NY, for George Daughtry.
Deborah A. Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union, Centreville, MD, Jonathan Philip Guy, Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, Washington, DC, Dwight H. Sullivan, ACLU of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, William J. Mertens, Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, Washington, DC, Reginald T. Shuford, New York, NY, for Verna A. Bailey.
Maureen Mullen Dove, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Steven Marshall Sullivan, Office of the Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD, Mark Holdsworth Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pikesville, MD, for Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
BLAKE, District Judge.
On April 10, 1998, plaintiffs Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches and several named individuals filed a class action lawsuit against the Maryland State Police, Col. David Mitchell, and several supervisory and 564 individual members of the Maryland State Police ("MSP") alleging constitutional and statutory violations in *564 connection with an alleged pattern of racially discriminatory stops, detentions and searches of minority motorists traveling on I-95 in the state of Maryland. After an initial stay was lifted in June 1998, an amended complaint was filed and preliminary discovery began, which was consolidated with discovery in the related case of Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil Case No. CCB-93-468.
On August 14, 1998, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. In October, the plaintiffs filed a four-count second amended complaint and an opposition to the motion to dismiss.[1] In December, the defendants filed a reply[2] and a motion to strike portions of the second amended complaint. Briefing was completed in January 1999, and the parties have continued to engage in discovery, primarily directed at the issue of class certification. No hearing is necessary to resolve the pending motions.
I. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
As both parties recognize, claims for monetary relief against state officials in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; claims for prospective injunctive relief are not. The plaintiffs have clarified that they

seek monetary damages against state officials in their individual capacities only. Accordingly, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to Counts II-IV.[3]
II. Standing
For a plaintiff to have Article III standing, three "irreducible minimum" requirements must be met: 1) the plaintiff must have suffered or be at imminent risk of suffering an injury (the "injury" requirement); 2) the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct (the "causation" requirement); and 3) a favorable federal court decision must be reasonably capable of redressing the injury (the redressability requirement). In addition to these minimum requirements, there are prudential limitations on standing that may preclude the assertion of generalized grievances or the rights of third parties. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).
The defendants assert that the individual plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief, relying on City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), and O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). They contend that the plaintiffs cannot show a "real and immediate" rather than "conjectural" or "hypothetical" threat of injury. Lyons, 103 S.Ct. at 1665.
Lyons, however, is distinguishable from this case. Not only do the plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice of racially discriminatory stops, but also the Court has found, in the Wilkins case, that for a period of time prior to April 1997 the plaintiffs "clearly have made a reasonable showing that there was a pattern and practice of stops by the Maryland State Police based upon race" on a portion of I-95.[4] The Lyons complaint, on the other hand, did not assert that there was a pattern and practice of applying chokeholds without provocation or, if it did state 565 such a claim, *565 the Court found it was not supported by the record. Lyons, 103 S.Ct. at 1667, n. 7. Moreover, in Lyons, the likelihood that the plaintiff would again be subjected to a chokehold depended on his having "an encounter with the police [in which] either he would illegally resist arrest or detention or the officers would disobey their instructions and again render him unconscious without any provocation." Lyons, 103 S.Ct. at 1667. Cf. Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370 (4th Cir.1995) (finding plaintiff lacked standing to challenge race based rape profile where circumstances supporting probable cause for arrest, even without profile, were so individualized as to be unlikely to occur again).
Here, the plaintiffs' likelihood of injury depends only on their status as a member of a minority group and their need to travel on I-95. Any "illegal" action on their part associated with the future stop need be no more than a minor, perhaps unintentional, traffic infraction; indeed, according to their allegations, they may be stopped even if no traffic violation has been committed. The plaintiffs also have reason to expect they will continue to travel on I-95. This combination of alleged past injury, an earlier pattern and practice finding, and the plaintiffs' likely future travel is sufficient to confer standing. See Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (4th Cir.1997). Moreover, there is a likelihood that some members of the NAACP will be subject to stops on I-95, thereby satisfying the organizational standing requirement. See Wiley v. City of Baltimore, 48 F.3d 773, 775-76 (4th Cir.1995).
III. Supervisory Liability
Supervisory state officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional actions of individual employees on the basis of respondeat superior; they may, however, be liable where their own conduct amounts to deliberate indifference or tacit authorization of their subordinates' activity. Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372-73 (4th Cir.1984). As explained by the Fourth Circuit, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements:
(1) that the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed "a pervasive and unreasonable risk" of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor's response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show "deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices,"; and (3) that

there was an "affirmative causal link" between the supervisor's inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir.1994).
The plaintiffs have alleged in the second amended complaint, supplemented by information obtained in the Wilkins case, a sufficient basis to support a claim for supervisory liability. MSP officials were on notice not only through statistics but also through internal memoranda and through the course of the Wilkins case of the need to take corrective action. Whether the actions taken were adequate to absolve these officials of liability under § 1983 is not appropriate for determination on the present record.[5]
Further, as to supervisory liability, the plaintiffs allege that the discretion given to troopers to detain motorists until a drug-detecting dog can "sniff" the vehicle, in the absence of articulable suspicion, is a matter of official policy that violates the Fourth Amendment. While defendants certainly may dispute this, if the plaintiffs are correct they have stated a basis for supervisory liability that requires further development.[6]
566 *566 V. Qualified Immunity
Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). As the Fourth Circuit has explained:
although the exact conduct at issue need not have been held to be unlawful in order for the law governing an officer's actions to be clearly established, the existing authority must be such that the unlawfulness of the conduct is manifest. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); Pritchett v. Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 314 (4th Cir.1992).
Wilson v. Layne, 141 F.3d 111, 114 (4th Cir.1998) (en banc). "In determining whether the specific right allegedly violated was `clearly established,' the proper focus is not upon the right at its most general or abstract level, but at the level of its application to the specific conduct being challenged." Gould v. Davis, 165 F.3d 265, 269 (4th Cir.1998), quoting Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 312. "The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034.
It is clearly established, according to both plaintiffs and defendants, that stopping, detaining, or searching motorists on the basis of race violates the Constitution. Whether it would have been clear to an individual trooper at the appropriate level of particularity that his conduct violated the Constitution depends on the resolution of disputed facts or at least on the further development of those facts, in the course of discovery. The same is true as to the issue of supervisory liability. Mere adoption of a non-discriminatory policy that is not adequately implemented and enforced cannot be said to satisfy the Constitution. Whether the supervisory defendants' response to the apparent discriminatory practices of some individual troopers was constitutionally adequate remains to be determined at the close of discovery, or after trial.
Defendants misinterpret the significance of the statistical showing in this case. While it is not dispositive on the issue of discrimination, it is relevant evidence that minority motorists were treated differently from whites, at least for a period of time on a portion of I-95. In regard to qualified immunity, the plaintiffs do not suggest there was a clearly established right to have "balanced" statistics (see Def'ts. Reply at 36); rather, the "unbalanced" statistics were notice to supervisors of an apparent violation of the clearly established right not to be stopped, detained or searched on the basis of race.

VI.

In Count I, the plaintiffs allege that the MSP, which received federal financial assistance from the Department of Justice, has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, which provides:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

They also contend that the MSP has violated federal regulations promulgated under Title VI which provide that no program receiving financial assistance through the Department of Justice shall

utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to

567

discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or *567 have the effect of defeating

or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals

of a particular race, color, or national origin.

28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).

Title VI implies a private right of action under the statute for victims of intentional discrimination. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1035, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)("a clear majority [in Guardians Ass'n v. City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983)] expressed the view that damages were available under Title VI in an action seeking remedies for an intentional violation"); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 702-03, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The plaintiffs state detailed allegations of intentional discrimination in their second amended complaint. On the record associated with this early round of motions, granting summary judgment would be premature.

Whether a private right of action exists under the Title VI regulation prohibiting disparate-impact discrimination is less well settled. The United States requested and received permission to file an amicus brief in this case supporting the recognition of such a right. Upon review, I agree with the district court in Sandoval v. Hagan, 7 F.Supp.2d 1234 (M.D.Ala.1998)(holding that a private right of action is available to enforce the disparate impact regulation), based on the persuasive reasoning stated by the Third Circuit in Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif, 132 F.3d 925 (3d Cir.1997), judgment vacated as moot, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 22, 141 L.Ed.2d 783 (Aug. 17, 1998). I note also that another district court in this Circuit has approved (in dictum) the test used by the Third Circuit for determining when a private right of action to enforce a federal regulation properly may be implied. See CSX Transportation Inc. v. PKV Limited Partnership, 906 F.Supp. 339, 343, n. 2 (S.D.W.Va.1995); citing Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 947 (3d Cir.1985). The Seif court in turn relied on this test.

Like the court in Sandoval, I also find that the plaintiffs satisfy the prudential standing requirements for a suit under Title VI. See also Bryant v. New Jersey Dep't of Transp., 998 F.Supp. 438, 443-46 (D.N.J.1998). The two goals of Title VI are to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. See Cannon, 99 S.Ct. at 1961. Thus, the interests to be protected by the statute are those of persons against whom federally funded programs discriminate. See Bryant, 998 F.Supp. at 445. Since the I-95 plaintiffs are asserting that federal funding is being used to stop minority motorists in a discriminatory fashion, these plaintiffs fall within the "zone of interests" sought to be protected by Title VI. In National Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat'l Bank and Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the "intended beneficiary" test, at least for claims brought under the APA, instead holding that a plaintiff has standing if the plaintiff is "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute ... in question." Id. at 933, 118 S.Ct. 927 (quoting Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)). The Court stated: "Although our prior cases have not stated a clear rule for determining when a plaintiff's interest is `arguably within the zone of interests' to be protected by a statute, they nonetheless establish that we should not inquire whether there has been a congressional intent to benefit the would-be plaintiff." National Credit Union,

568 118 S.Ct. at 933. Accordingly, in the absence of any controlling Fourth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent to the *568 contrary, the defendants' motion to dismiss Count I will be denied.[7]
VII. Right to Travel
In Count IV, the plaintiffs claim a violation of the federal guarantee of interstate travel. According to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999), the right to travel "embraces at least three different components." Id. at 1525. According to the Court, the right to travel:
protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
Id. The Court then analyzed the plaintiffs' claim under each of these three components. Id. at 1525-28.[8]
Neither the second nor the third components cited in Saenz are implicated in this case. Unlike Saenz, the defendants here are not treating "new" residents differently from "old" residents and, therefore, the third component has no relevance to this case. As for the second component, while the plaintiffs do make an allegation in the second amended complaint that the out-of-state license plates of some of the plaintiffs "made harassment more likely," this is insufficient to support a right to travel claim. The essence of the plaintiffs' complaint remains that they, both Maryland residents and non-residents alike, have experienced the same unlawful treatment by the defendants based on race. Accordingly, the defendants are not discriminating on the basis of residency, and the second Saenz component is not implicated.
Thus, the real issue in addressing the plaintiffs' right to travel claim is whether their right to enter and leave the State of Maryland is being abridged. See id. Since this component was not at issue in Saenz, the Court did not give extensive guidance as to what actions it encompassed. Cases prior to Saenz, however, spoke in terms of "actual barriers" to interstate movement. See Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 113 S.Ct. 753, 763, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993); Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 102 S.Ct. 2309, 2313 n. 6, 72 L.Ed.2d 672 (1982). Here, the plaintiffs assert that they continue to travel along I-95 and, therefore, do not face an "actual barrier" to interstate travel.
Furthermore, the two cases cited by Saenz in discussing the first component of the right to travel both involved a greater restriction on the right to travel then the I-95 plaintiffs face. The first case cited in Saenz, Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941), involved a Texas law making it a misdemeanor to bring an indigent person into the state. Id. at 165-66. The other case cited by the Saenz Court in describing this first component was United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966). Guest involved a conspiracy by whites to deprive African-American citizens of full and equal use of the public streets and highways in the vicinity of Athens, Georgia. Id. at 1172-73. While the first component as stated in Saenz may be broader then the "actual barrier" language of Bray and Zobel, and may encompass some actions which are less 569 egregious than those in Edwards and *569 Guest, in order to establish a constitutional violation, more of an impediment to travel is needed than the stops alleged by the I-95 plaintiffs.[9] Accordingly, the defendants' motion will be granted as to Count IV.
VIII. Statute of Limitations
Several of the individual plaintiffs assert claims based on alleged unlawful stops that occurred more than three years before suit was filed. They acknowledge that a threeyear statute of limitations applies to claims under § 1983 but argue that earlier claims are timely under a continuing violation theory. This argument is not persuasive.
Each of the plaintiffs was involved in discrete incidents on different dates involving different factual circumstances. As to plaintiffs Abdullah, Daughtry, and Davis, there is no "present" violation alleged within the limitations period and therefore the continuing violation theory cannot apply. See Tinsley v. First Union Nat'l.

Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 442 (4th Cir. 1998); National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1166-67 (4th Cir. 1991); Redding v. Anne Arundel, 996 F.Supp. 488, 490-91 (D.Md.1998). Accordingly, the defendants' motion will be granted as to those plaintiffs whose claim is based on a stop, detention or search that occurred prior to April 10, 1995.
IX. Motion to Strike
Many of the allegations in the second amended complaint appear to have been added in response to deficiencies in the earlier complaint asserted by defendants in their motion to dismiss. The allegations represent only one side's version of events and presumably will be disputed vigorously by the defendants. Moreover, inclusion of an event (such as settlement of a lawsuit) in the complaint does not determine whether evidence of that event will be admissible or legally significant.
Taking the time to determine whether any particular sentence or paragraph has "no possible relation to the controversy", see 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1382 (2d ed.1990), is not warranted. The motion will be denied.
A separate Order follows.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. the defendants' motion for permission to exceed limitation on length is Granted;
2. the defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' second amended complaint is Denied;
3. the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is Granted as to Count IV (Interstate Travel), and Granted as to individual plaintiffs Jawad Abdullah, George Daughtry, and Yvonne Davis; and otherwise Denied; and
4. the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum to counsel of record.
[1] The second amended complaint dropped the conspiracy count which had been challenged in the motion to dismiss and added various factual allegations and seven additional plaintiffs.
[2] The defendants' motion for permission to exceed the page limitation on their reply will be granted.
[3] The defendants reserved the right to argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against the State under Title VI. In a case involving the same abrogation clause, the Fourth Circuit recently has upheld application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to state defendants. Amos v. Maryland Dep't. of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 178 F.3d 212 (4th Cir.1999).
[4] Wilkins, CCB-93-468; Order of April 22, 1997.
[5] Similarly, the claims against the individually-named troopers should not be dismissed while a decision on class certification is pending, and while the plaintiffs have not had adequate time for discovery.
[6] While a dog scan of the exterior perimeter of a car in a public place is not a search, any period of detention while waiting for a dog to be available must be reasonable. See U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707-09, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110(1983).
[7] Compensatory damages, however, are not available for a disparate-impact regulatory violation. See Guardians, 463 U.S. at 602-03, 103 S.Ct. 3221.
[8] Saenz was a case brought by recent California residents challenging the constitutionality of a California statute imposing durational residency requirements for the state's benefits program. 119 S.Ct. at 1521-22.

Focusing on the third component of the right to travel, the Supreme Court held that the residency requirement was unconstitutional. Id. at 1525-28. [9] The Court in Bray also explained that restriction of movement occurring only intrastate does not implicate the right of interstate travel unless applied discriminatorily against travelers from other states. 113 S.Ct. at 763.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 454 F.Supp.2d 339 (2006)
MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al. v.
MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al.
No. CIV.A. JKB-98-1098.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.
September 29, 2006.
340 *340 Reginald T. Shuford, Corey Lynn Stoughton, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Allison Cohen Stanton, Peter Christopher Lallas, Hogan and Hartson LLP, Dwight H. Sullivan, Navy Marine Corps
341 Appellate, Jonathan Philip Guy, Swidler Berlin LLP, Washington, *341 DC, Andrew David Freeman, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Deborah A. Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union, Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Jennifer Kathryn Squillario, Mark Spencer Saudek, Therese M. Goldsmith, Hogan and Hartson LLP, Baltimore, MD, William J: Mertens, Law Office of William J. Mertens, Bethesda, MD, Barbara Musfeldt Tapscott, Pingel and Templer PC, West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.
David Kent Tomar, Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky, Office of the Attorney General, Maureen Mullen Dove, Demetrios T. Zacharopoulos, Steven M. Sullivan, State of Maryland, Office of the Attorney General, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Baltimore, MD, Emily Norine Vandergrift, Severna Park, MD, Mark Holdsworth Bowen, Office of the Attorney General, Pikesville, MD, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADDRESSING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BREDAR, United States Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND .......................................................341
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................342
III. ANALYSIS ............................................................342 A. TITLE VI .........................................................342 B. SUPERVISORY CLAIMS ...............................................345 C. DAMAGES ..........................................................346 D. STANDING .........................................................346 E. INDIVIDUAL STOPS/SEARCHES ........................................346 1. THE RODWELL STOP ..............................................347 2. THE BAILEY STOP ...............................................350 3. THE WILLIAMS STOP .............................................352 4. THE BERRY STOP ................................................353 5. THE TAYLOR STOP ...............................................354 6. THE JEFFRIES-MEANS STOP .......................................355 F. CONCLUSION .......................................................356
Pending and ready for disposition is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Paper No. 226). The motion has been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part by separate Order.
I. Background

This action asserts claims of the plaintiffs that they were subjected to illegal traffic stops and/or searches by Maryland state troopers. At its heart, the action asserts that the stops and searches were the result of racial profiling and were otherwise legally infirm in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Monetary damages are sought from the Maryland State Police pursuant to Title VI and from individual troopers and some of their supervisors pursuant to the constitutional claims.[1]
342 *342 II. Standard of Review
Generally, an award of summary judgment is proper in federal cases when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). The facts themselves, and the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355 (4th Cir.1985)(overruled on other grounds).
III. Analysis
A. Title VI
There is agreement between the parties that the plaintiffs, in order to prevail on their Title VI monetary claims against the Maryland State Police, must show a de facto policy of intentional race discrimination at the organizational level. There is no direct evidence of such a policy, or even of a neutral policy that might have created a racially disparate impact. To the contrary, the written policy in place during the pertinent period is embodied in General Order 01-9503 issued January 1, 1995, by the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. That document provides inter alia that race will not be utilized as a consideration in determining whether to make a traffic stop or search. (Defense Exhib. Bates No. 04985-86). In sum, the plaintiffs ultimately must show that the senior officer corps of the agency had an unwritten policy in derogation of the written policy.
The parties engage in substantial sparring over whether it is sufficient for the plaintiffs, in avoidance of summary judgment on the Title VI claims, to make a showing that the senior officer corps had actual knowledge that racially discriminatory conduct was afoot and that they were deliberately indifferent to, that conduct. The defendants, leaning ever so heavily upon their interpretation of a footnote in Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 315 (4th Cir.2003), posit that a showing of deliberate indifference by the administration to discriminatory conduct is insufficient to establish intentional discrimination in the context of Title VI. The Court finds it unnecessary to resolve this difference and will assume, for the purposes of this discussion only, that it is sufficient for the plaintiffs to make a showing that the administration was deliberately indifferent to discriminatory conduct of which they had actual knowledge.[2]
The plaintiffs set forth a body of evidence that, they argue, establishes actual knowledge among the senior officer 343 corps *343 of discriminatory conduct. Specifically, the plaintiffs point to several memoranda prepared and
distributed by senior officers, along with statistical analysis prepared by the department (Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 6-13). Those documents, however, offer significantly more than evidence of actual knowledge of discriminatory conduct, but what they reveal most certainly does not weigh in favor of the plaintiffs.
A memorandum from Lt. Col. Harvey to Region and Division Commanders states:
Pursuant to the settlement of a federal lawsuit, General Order No. 01-9503, dated January 1, 1995, was disseminated. The Order stated that the Maryland State Police would not use any form of race-based drug courier profiles.
After having the opportunity to review statistics gathered from January 1, 1995 through June 1, 1995 pertaining to these searches, the numbers reveal that Troopers are continuing to target

nonwhite subjects. I have attached a copy of the summary for your information so that you can see the trends.

It is imperative that you reinforce with your respective commanders that no profiles are to be used. This information, as a result of the lawsuit, is ultimately distributed to the ACLU, and the Department, Commanders, and Troopers may be held accountable and open to potential litigation.

This information should be explained and reiterated to each individual under your command. Kindly have them review this memorandum and forward to my office, no later than July 10, 1995, a signed Form 42 indicating receipt and acknowledgement [sic] of this information.

(Plaintiffs' Exhib. 4).

A memorandum from Maj. Hall to Lt. Col. Leatherbury regarding the stop and search statistics from the drug interdiction program includes the following:

Statistics recorded in association with the Drug Interdiction Program suggest certain personnel may have lost focus as to the intent of the overall concept of drug interdiction as described in policy and procedures developed to administer these activities, i.e., General Order Number 012-9305 establishes that it is the policy of the Department of the Maryland State Police that any assemblage of general characteristics of persons engaged in drug courier activity shall not include or imply the race of any person as one of those characteristics. Race is not a predictor of criminal activity. Race legally cannot and will not be a factor for the development of policies for stopping, detaining or searching motorists on Maryland roadways.

(Defense Exhib. Bates No. 05546)(Emphasis in original).

A subsequent memorandum from Maj. Hall to the Lt. Betkey, commander of the JFK Barrack, reads:

Continuing to monitor the drug interdiction activities at the JFK Barrack (09/08/96 thru 10/05/96) finds that little to no change has occurred. The figures for the proportion of Caucasian to African American violators remains pretty much the same as in my previous analysis communicated to you on or about September 9, 1996. In this last period analysis the proportion of Caucasians and African Americans subjected to the Form 130 Process is the same.

Keeping in mind the logic used to analyze this data by the ACLU, there exists the potential for allegations of race based profiling in that the proportion of the violating public is not in line with those involved in the Form 130 process.

344

*344 A second analysis was conducted to determine the impact this last reporting period has on

the study begun in June of 1996 (06/16/96 thru 10/05/96). The resulting figures remain remarkably

unchanged. The violating public consists of 64% Caucasian and 31% African American, while the

Form 130 process breaks down to 36% Caucasian and 50% African American. The proportions

continue to be reversed.

I understand that the actual numbers represented by these percentages are small, the result of any number of manpower issues that the Barrack has faced in the recent past; however the proportional aspects and the inference that can be drawn must be addressed.

Also of concern is the lack of performance of the STIF[3] Team personnel. There is no easy way to say what is apparent, these personnel, the demonstrated leaders in this area, have stopped working drug interdiction. All requests for guidance, support and reassurance from the Superintendent and the Attorney General, as well as, local command have been provided, they did not fulfill their part of the bargain [sic].

It is understood that the recent turn of events concerning manpower has resulted in these individuals being placed into leave groups and that recent assignments may have diverted them

from actual road patrol, however, this does not account for the REMARKABLE reduction in their personal performance. This is something they did and not management.
By this memo, I am directing that appropriate steps be taken to address the performance issues of these individuals, as well as to ensure that those individuals that continue to perform do so consistent with and in support of the Department's stated position that its law enforcement responsibilities are performed/provided in a fair and equitable manner. To this end, please provide me with documentation concerning your plan of action by November 1, 1996
Please advise me if I can be of assistance.
(Plaintiffs' Exhib. 10)(Emphasis in original).
Yet another memorandum from Maj. Hall, this to Lt. Col Graybill, chief of the Field Operations Bureau, contained the following:
. . . The personnel assigned to the JFK Barrack are fully aware of the severe consequences associated with being found to be using race as a precursor for stopping and/or searching vehicles, or for that matter any other application of their law enforcement authority. These activities have been and continue to be closely supervised at each level of command in order to ensure that enforcement activities are objective and impartial.
(Plaintiffs' Exhib. 13).
As noted above, the plaintiffs rely on the above-referenced exhibits, among others, in support of the proposition that, at least arguably, the senior officer corps was aware of statistical evidence of discriminatory conduct by troopers on the line. More saliently, however, the exhibits provide extremely powerful evidence of an ongoing concern among the senior officer corps in regard to the policy against such conduct and ongoing efforts toward remediation, some of which appears, at least in the eyes of some supervisors, to have been met with some resistance by those troopers.
These exhibits, coupled with lengthy affidavits from Col. Mitchell (Defense Exhib. Bates No. 05115-05123), Lt. 345 Col. Leatherbury *345 (Defense Exhib. Bates No. 05124-05127) and Lt. Gray (Defense Exhib. Bates No.
05128-05131) setting forth the actions taken in furtherance of written policy against racial profiling in traffic stops and searches, comprise a compelling body of evidence antithetical to a finding of deliberate indifference on the part of the senior officer corps.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, offer only rhetoric on this point, arguing that the evidence "creates a substantial dispute . . . as to whether the MSP and the supervisory defendants took sufficient steps to combat the racial profiles their subordinates were implementing." (Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 91). Even that rhetoric is misplaced, however, inasmuch as a showing that the efforts of the administration were "insufficient" to remedy the purported conduct falls well short of the bar that the plaintiffs set for themselves, i.e., the establishment of a prima facie case that the administration was deliberately indifferent to discriminatory conduct of the troopers on the line. The plaintiffs `cite to Davis v. Monroe County Bd. Of Ed., 526 U.S. 629, 648, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999), in support of the proposition that a colorable claim of deliberate indifference must contain facts that would support a conclusion that the response of the senior officer corps in this case was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. There is no such colorable claim in this case. By separate Order, summary judgment will be awarded to Defendant Maryland State Police on all Title VI claims brought against it by the plaintiffs.
B. Supervisory Claims
Claims of supervisory liability for the actions of individual troopers remain against Col. David B. Mitchell, Maj. George H. Hall and Lt. Vernon Betkey. During the pertinent period, Col. Mitchell was superintendent of the agency and Maj. Hall was commander of the northern division. However, Lt. Betkey was commander of the JFK Barrack only from November 22, 1995, until January 1, 1997. The claims of Plaintiffs Eric Anthony and George Taylor relate to a traffic stop alleged to have occurred in September 1995. The claims of Plaintiff Cy I relate to a

traffic stop alleged to have occurred in April 1995. The claims of Plaintiff Verna A. Bailey relate to a traffic stop that occurred on November 9, 1995. The claims of Plaintiffs John S. Means and Kenneth R. Jeffries relate to a traffic stop that occurred on October 9, 1995. The claims of Plaintiffs Yancey and' Aleisha Taylor relate to a traffic stop that occurred on October 26, 1995. The claims of Johnston E. Williams relate to a traffic stop that occurred on August 4, 1997. In sum, all of the above-referenced supervisory claims against Lt. Vernon Betkey relate to traffic stops that occurred at times that Lt. Betkey was not commander of the JFK Barrack and not the supervisor of the troopers making the stops. Accordingly, an order will be entered separately awarding summary judgment in favor of Lt. Betkey as to those claims.
The parties set forth the standard under which these supervisory officials may he held liable for constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates, which standard includes a finding that the supervisor's response to unconstitutional conduct of which he was aware "was so inadequate as to show `deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged practices .. " Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir.1994) (citations omitted).
The analysis of the supervisory claims and the facts pertinent thereto, then, does not differ materially from the analysis set forth above in regard to the Title VI claims. Again, that analysis is fatal to plaintiffs' claims insofar as 346 the conduct of *346 Col. Mitchell and Maj. Hall is concerned. Accordingly, an order will be entered separately awarding summary judgment to Defendants Mitchell and Hall as to all claims of supervisory liability.
That is not the case in regard to Lt. Betkey, who was the supervisor at the JFK Barrack at the time of the stops of Gary Rodwell and William Bailey. As previously noted, there is compelling evidence of substantial concern and activity flowing downward in the chain of command to Lt. Betkey, but there is no indication in the record that the concern went beyond him. In other words, it has not been shown that Lt. Betkey did not exhibit "deliberate indifference" to the concerns articulated by his superiors and "tacit authorization" to the purported conduct of the troopers under his supervision. Accordingly, summary judgment will be denied to Lt. Betkey in regard to the claims of supervisory liability for the Rodwell and Berry stops.[4]
C. Damages
Defendants urge the Court to find as a matter of law that the plaintiffs are entitled to no compensatory damages. Their argument is singularly unconvincing. The authorities upon which defendants rely were cases analyzing the sufficiency of trial testimony to support awards of compensatory damages for emotional distress resulting from constitutional violations. The cases do not support truncation of that issue at the summary judgment stage. In Price v. City of Charlotte, North Carolina, 93 F.3d 1241 (4th Cir.1996), the Court endorsed the consideration of a variety of factors in the analysis of such a claim, including loss of esteem among one's peers, physical injury, need for counseling, loss of income, the context of the events surrounding the distress, corroborating evidence and forced change in conduct. The Court notes this to be a particularly factintensive inquiry, the type of which is illsuited to disposition by summary judgment. Moreover, damages for intangible harms are subjective and depend, in part, on the demeanor of the witness. See, Pathways Psychosocial v. Town of Leonardtown, MD, 223 F.Supp.2d 699 (D.Md. 2002). The Court will deny defendants' motion on this issue.
D. NAACP "Standing"
Defendants contend that the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches does not have standing to bring claims, for monetary damages. That contention, which appears to be meritorious and which defendants support with substantial authority, has gone unaddressed in plaintiffs' response. The motion will be granted by separate Order, and summary judgment will be awarded in favor of the defendants as to the issue of whether the organizational plaintiff may bring claims for monetary damages. In the event that the failure to address the issue was inadvertent, the plaintiff may seek a cure through a motion for reconsideration.
E. Individual Stops/Searches
The Court has reviewed carefully the claims of plaintiffs Gary Rodwell (stopped January 17, 1996), Verna Bailey (stopped November 9, 1995), Johnston Williams (stopped August 14, 1997), William Berry (stopped May 2, 1996), Yancey and Aleshia Taylor (stopped October 26, 1995) and Kenneth Jeffries and John Means (stopped October 9, 1995).

The troopers involved in these stops contend inter alia that they are protected by qualified immunity from liability 347 for *347 their conduct. "A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider . . . this threshold
question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right? This must be the initial inquiry." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition; and it too serves to advance understanding of the law and to allow officers to avoid the burden of trial if qualified immunity is applicable." Id. "The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
Plaintiffs allege violation of Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom from race discrimination. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that they were stopped and/or their vehicles were searched for no good reason (Fourth Amendment) and for an impermissible reason (Fourteenth Amendment). The temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by police, if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, is a seizure within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment and such stops must not be unreasonable under their circumstances. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Likewise, warrantless automobile searches in the context of this case violate the Fourth Amendment unless they are supported by probable cause or performed pursuant to uncoerced consent. See, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Stops and searches based on such considerations as race, on the other hand, are precluded by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Whren, at 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769. So, there is no question that there are constitutional rights at stake in this case, at least insofar as plaintiffs' general allegations are concerned. To reiterate, the inquiry prescribed in Saucier requires, first, an examination of whether the facts alleged by the complainant show conduct that violated a constitutional right and, second, whether the right was clearly established, i.e. would it be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful. Whether the facts alleged show violations of plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights 0907 the first prong of the inquiry prescribed by Saucier 0907 is a question that requires examination of each stop. Necessarily, then, the issue of qualified immunity will be examined along with the substantive constitutional claims against the individual defendants on a "stop-by-stop" basis.
1. The Rodwell Stop
Plaintiff Gary Rodwell was stopped by Trooper David Hughes. Troopers Bernard Donovan and John Appleby also were present during part of the stop.
Plaintiff Rodwell avers that when he was pulled over he was traveling at approximately 70 miles per hour southbound on Interstate 95. He states that he was in the middle lane of traffic, driving at the same speed as the 348 vehicles visible to him, on cruise control. Plaintiff Rodwell says that as he was handing Trooper Hughes *348 his license and registration he asked if he had been speeding and that Trooper Hughes responded, "No, not really" (or words to that effect). He claims that Trooper Hughes then asked whether he had any drugs or firearms in the car and when he replied that he did not Trooper Hughes stated that if that was true he would not mind if the trooper searched his car. Trooper Hughes purportedly said that he just wanted to confirm that plaintiff Rodwell did not have drugs or firearms in the car. (Rodwell Responses to Hughes Interrogatories No. 5, 8).
Plaintiff Rodwell avers that when he refused to consent to the search Trooper Hughes took his license and registration back to his cruiser and, after running a check, returned to inform him that his registration had been suspended, apparently for an emissions violation. He claims that Trooper Hughes then asked again for permission to search the car. He was then told to step out of his car and take a seat in the front seat of the police cruiser. Plaintiff Rodwell claims that an extended conversation took place in the cruiser during which Trooper Hughes said that he was trained in these matters and that Plaintiff Rodwell looked to him like the type of person who would be carrying drugs. Plaintiff Rodwell says he told Trooper Hughes that it was his right to decline a

search, to which Trooper Hughes purportedly replied that it was his right to lock him up. (Rodwell Responses to Hughes Interrogatories, No. 12).
"Trooper Hughes said that I looked nervous. I told the trooper that I was indeed nervous, not because I had done anything wrong, but because I was in a strange place at night with an officer who had just implied that he was going to lock me up. Surprisingly, Trooper Hughes replied that he was the one who should be nervous. The trooper patted his revolver and said that I could have tried to take his gun away from him during our conversation was insulted by the trooper's comment, and was shocked that the trooper would even infer such an action on my behalf. I told Trooper Hughes that such behavior never crossed my mind. The trooper then said something like, `why, are you afraid that I would take you to the side of the road and beat you?'" Id.
Plaintiff Rodwell claims that the trooper attempted several times during the conversation to get him to sign a consent-to-search form and said that if he would not consent he would call for a canine unit, which, he said, would be very time consuming. Trooper Hughes purportedly said that he would be very angry with Plaintiff Rodwell if he had to do a canine search of the car when he didn't have any contraband in it because it would be a waste of his time. Id.
Plaintiff Rodwell claims that about half an hour later two troopers arrived with a dog. The dog was walked around the car, he said, and then Trooper Hughes rushed back to the cruiser, accused Plaintiff Rodwell of lying and said that the dog had alerted. (Rodwell Responses to Hughes Interrogatories, No. 13).
The three troopers then searched his car, Plaintiff Rodwell avers, going through the front and rear seats, glove compartment, wheel wells, engine compartment and trunk. Nothing was found. He says that Trooper Hughes then returned to the cruiser angry and frustrated, told him that he was going to lock him up and said they were just waiting for the tow truck to take his car to the barracks. (Rodwell Responses to Hughes Interrogatories, No. 14, 16).
Plaintiff Rodwell claims that after the search the troopers with the dog left and, once the tow truck arrived, 349 Trooper Hughes said that he was not going to lock him up after all. He said he then had to *349 pay the tow truck
operator $8 before he could go on his way, some three hours after the initial stop. (Rodwell Responses to Hughes Interrogatories, No. 18).
Trooper Hughes' recollection of the stop is quite different from that of Plaintiff Rodwell. Trooper Hughes recalls the stop and affirmatively stated that no dog was deployed to scan the car and that there was no search. He also testified that he never asked for consent to search Plaintiff Rodwell's car and that, inasmuch as Plaintiff Rodwell's driver's license was suspended, he could have arrested him and searched the car without consent. (Hughes Deposition, p. 208-213).
The Court finds that the facts alleged by Plaintiff Rodwell, and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn from those facts, assert violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Included among the salient facts alleged by Plaintiff Rodwell is the issue of the justification for the stop, i.e., if the stop was "not really" for speeding, then the basis for it is unclear. And, this unclear basis for the stop exists against a backdrop of powerful circumstantial evidence of racial profiling in the form of statistics compiled by the Maryland State Police 0907 and the senior officer corps' conclusions based upon those statistics, i.e., that "a remarkable deviation" in regard to the percentage of African-Americans stopped and searched existed in the JFK Barrack area 0907 which shows, at least, discriminatory effect from the practices afoot in the JFK Barrack patrol area. See, Part III.A. supra.
The Court is mindful, however, that a showing of discriminatory effect is insufficient to make out a case of Equal Protection violation. "To show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, plaintiffs must prove that the defendants' actions had a discriminatory effect and were motivated by a discriminatory purpose." Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 635-636 (7th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). Moreover, the term "discriminatory purpose," in the context of Equal Protection analysis, implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies, instead, that the course of action was selected, at least in part, because of its adverse effects on an identifiable group. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 298, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987).

That said, if plaintiffs version and evidence are believed, it is reasonable to draw the inference that there was no legitimate basis for the stop, and even that the basis for the stop was an application of an unlawful racial profile. The lack of a legitimate basis for the stop, coupled with the trooper's answer ("No, not really") to plaintiffs inquiry about "speeding," all in the context of statistics that (1) show discriminatory effect and (2) are admissible on the issue of discriminatory intent (see, Chavez, 251 F.3d at 647-648) and all of this evidence taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as it must be in this analysis, supports a conclusion that discriminatory intent motivated the trooper. Furthermore, if Plaintiff Rodwell's version of events is fully credited, then Trooper Hughes' credibility, regarding all issues raised by the suit 0907 including racial profiling 0907 is effectively impeached, inasmuch as their versions of events, including the issue over whether any search even took place, is so greatly at odds. In sum, the Court. recognizes that there is no direct evidence of race-based motivation in regard to this stop 0907 unlike some of the cases referenced below, there is no claim that the involved troopers made race-based statements. Nonetheless, it is the Court's judgment that the facts alleged above, i.e. the statistical evidence plus the arguable absence of any legitimate justification for the stop, is sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the Saucier inquiry, if barely so.
350 *350 Turning to the second prong of the Saucier inquiry, the Court finds that there is a history of legal action and corresponding court-directed and agency-sponsored remedial action specifically directed to the "racial profiling" issues in this case of which none of the involved troopers reasonably could be unaware, and the Court concludes that no reasonable trooper in the place of the defendants could be unaware of the constitutional rights at issue in the context of this case.[5] Further, the Court is comfortable assuming and finding that all troopers accused in these claims understood that to stop any motorist without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe they have committed an offense, or to conduct a search without probable cause or uncoerced consent or to simply prolong a seizure without justification is to violate that motorist's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the constitutional rights at issue in this case are specifically identified and were clearly established at the time of the conduct. See, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Similarly situated and reasonable troopers would have understood that the conduct alleged here violated the Constitution. The troopers involved in the Rodwell stop are not entitled to qualified immunity.
Furthermore, the Court finds that a reasonable jury, fully crediting Plaintiff Rodwell's version of events, could infer that the stop and the search were the results of deliberate race discrimination on the one hand and were unjustified under law on the other, thus making an award of summary judgment on the substantive constitutional claims inappropriate. To reiterate the factual analysis set forth in respect to the qualified immunity claims, were the jury to conclude that there was no believable justification offered for the stop and search 0907 and that Trooper Hughes was lying about it 0907 a reasonable jury could conclude that the stop and search were race-based and illegitimate, particularly in light of the imbalance in the stop-and-search statistics referenced above. By separate Order, summary judgment will be denied as to the constitutional claims by Plaintiff Rodwell against Trooper David Hughes. On the other hand, there are no specific indicia of any deliberate racial discrimination on the part of the troopers called to the scene after the stop. Accordingly, summary judgment will be awarded to Troopers Donovan and Appleby in regard to the 14th Amendment equal protection claim.
2. The Bailey Stop
Verna Bailey was stopped by Trooper David Hughes. Troopers Michael Hughes and Bernard Donovan also participated.
Ms. Bailey avers that she was driving at the speed limit, with her cruise control set at 65 mph and with all exterior equipment on the vehicle in working order, when an automobile pulled up very close behind her with high beams on. She says that she changed lanes several times within several miles but that each time the automobile pulled up right behind her. Becoming fearful, she says, she decided to pass a truck in front of her and to get directly in front of it so that the harassing auto behind her would be unable to pull behind her.
According to Ms. Bailey, upon passing the truck the auto behind her followed, engaging emergency lights and 351 siren, and she pulled over immediately. The trooper came to her car and told her that she was *351 traveling 75
mph in 65 mph zone. (Bailey Responses to MSP interrogatories, No. 3). Ms. Bailey avers that the trooper took

only her driver's license, and not her registration, back to his cruiser, stating that he did not need her other paperwork. (Bailey Deposition, p. 132). She says that he returned to her car some minutes later, told her that he was going to give her tickets for speeding and for having her daughter asleep in the back of the car without a seatbelt. Ms. Bailey claims that her daughter, in fact, was belted in. He then asked, she avers, whether she had any marijuana, cocaine or weapons in the car. When she replied in the negative, he purportedly stated that he didn't believe her, made a reference to her race, "suggested" that she looked like a drug dealer and told her that she should make it easy on herself because he already had called for a dog to sniff out drugs in her car.[6] Ms. Bailey says the trooper requested that she sign a consent-to-search form, and she declined. He then left and came back with another trooper who had arrived with a dog. After the dog sniffed her car, Ms. Bailey was told to take her daughter and sit in the other cruiser while the troopers searched her car because the dog had detected marijuana. In the other cruiser, a third trooper searched her pocketbook. She then was given a breathalyzer test, she says. (Bailey Response to MSP Interrogatories, No. 10, 21; Bailey Deposition, p. 188-190).
None of the troopers involved specifically recalls the stop and search, but the paperwork regarding it indicates that Ms. Bailey was stopped for speeding, that there was no K-9 scan of the car and that she consented to the search. (Defense Exhib. Bates No. 04762).
The Court finds that the facts alleged by Plaintiff Bailey, and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn from those facts, assert violations of her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ms. Bailey contends that she was not speeding when she first drew and held the attention of Trooper David Hughes and her version of events, most notably her allegation of the trooper's reference to race but also including the trooper's purported indifference to her registration documents, could lead to a reasonable inference that the claim of speeding was a pretext for an unjustified stop and search based on a racial profile. The Court again notes the statistical evidence referenced above and the background of memoranda and supervisory directives to desist from making race-based stops. Moreover, the factual disagreement as to whether there was consent to search 352 her vehicle must be resolved by a fact finder inasmuch as there has been no probable cause or other sufficient *352 justification articulated to support the search. Finally, once again, were a jury to fully credit Ms. Bailey's version of events, then the paperwork generated by Trooper Hughes could be considered deleterious generally to the jury's view of the credibility of the involved troopers. The Court finds that the troopers are not entitled to qualified immunity. See, also, Part III.E.1, discussion at p. 22-24, supra.
The facts alleged by Ms. Bailey articulated above also preclude an award of summary judgment to Trooper Hughes as to either constitutional claim. Once again, however, there are no indicia of any deliberate racial discrimination on the part of the troopers called to the scene after the stop. Accordingly, summary judgment will be awarded to Troopers Michael Hughes and Bernard Donovan in regard to the 14th Amendment equal protection claim.
3. The Williams Stop
Johnston Williams, a black Liberian citizen and resident alien of the United States, was stopped by Trooper Billy White. Mr. Williams had four passengers in his vehicle, three Liberian and one Guinean, all black.[7]
Mr. Williams claims that he was traveling at the speed limit with the flow of traffic in the middle lane of 1-95 when Trooper White pulled in behind him and followed him for several miles. The trooper eventually engaged his emergency lights, and Mr. Williams pulled over. According to Mr. Williams, Trooper White advised him that he had been stopped for speeding and immediately asked him if he was Jamaican. Mr. Williams claims that when he asked why that information was necessary Trooper White replied in a raised voice that he had a right to know, screamed at him and his passengers that he had the right to ask them whatever he pleased and told them that "you Jamaicans" were known to be involved in drug smuggling and gang-related activities. Trooper White purportedly continued to refer to Mr. Williams and his passengers as drug-running Jamaicans and when Mr. Williams attempted to protest that he was Liberian Trooper White cut him off and told him and his passengers that all foreigners of African descent were trouble makers and problem makers. (Williams Response to White Interrogatories, No. 10).

Mr. Williams avers that Trooper White then opened his car door and pulled him from his car, shoved him against the car and kicked his legs apart, and placed one of his hands on his sidearm. He claims that as Trooper White patted him down he told the other passengers that if they tried to get out of the car during the search he would shoot them and make it look like self-defense. Mr. Williams alleges that Trooper White then divided the group and searched through the car, the engine compartment and the trunk 0907 the search yielding no contraband. The search purportedly was done without the consent of Mr. Williams. (Williams Response to White Interrogatories, No. 15 and 16).
Mr. Williams claims that Trooper White, after checking his license, registration and immigration documents, returned to Mr. Williams' vehicle and gave him two tickets 0907 one for speeding and one for refusing to sign a ticket. 353 Mr. Williams avers that when he and one of his passengers protested *353 that Mr. Williams had not refused to sign anything, Trooper White told the passenger to shut up and told Mr. Williams to take the two tickets or risk being arrested. (Williams Response to White Interrogatories, No. 18).
Trooper White avers that Mr. Williams was stopped because his vehicle was detected by laser unit traveling at 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. He denies following the vehicle for several miles. He avers that there was no search and that the occupants never left the vehicle. He denies making any racial or ethnic references. (White Affidavit, Defense Exhib. 05079-05083).
The Court finds that the conduct alleged by Mr. Williams, and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, would be violations of his constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and that a reasonable police officer in Trooper White's position would have been aware that his conduct violated Plaintiff Williams' constitutional rights. Therefore Trooper White is not entitled to qualified immunity.
In regard to the substantive constitutional claims asserted, Mr. Williams contends that there was no valid reason for the stop and asserts that Trooper White engaged in ethnic slurs, an unjustified nonconsensual search of his person and his vehicle, and deadly threats to his passengers. The facts alleged by Mr. Williams, if fully credited, would give rise to a reasonable inference that Trooper White's conduct was race/national origin based and that the purported search of Mr. Williams and his vehicle were in violation of Mr. Williams' constitutional rights pursuant to the 4th and 14th Amendments. Moreover, if Mr. Williams' version of events is fully credited, the diametrically variant statement of facts presented by Trooper White would impeach Trooper White's credibility generally. By separate Order, summary judgment will be denied as to the constitutional claims of Plaintiff Williams.
4. The Berry Step
William Berry was stopped by Trooper Michael Hughes. Mr. Berry avers that Trooper Hughes pulled up beside him and looked into his vehicle before dropping back and turning on his emergency lights. The trooper then asked for his license and registration and, when he was unable to retrieve it immediately from his glove compartment, the trooper asked whether he possessed any weapons or drugs and told Mr. Berry to exit the vehicle. He asked whether Mr. Berry had been drinking. According to Mr. Berry, Trooper Hughes then went to his cruiser and when he returned he asked Mr. Berry for consent to search his vehicle. Mr. Berry claims that he asked what would happen if he declined and Trooper Hughes purportedly told him that he would arrest him for obstruction of justice. Mr. Berry then consented to a search of the vehicle, and the search was conducted. No contraband was found. Mr. Berry said he then was issued a ticket for failing to display his vehicle registration on demand. (Berry Responses to MSP Interrogatories, No. 3).
Trooper Hughes has little recollection of the stop and assumes there was no search because there is no paperwork indicating one. He states affirmatively, however, that he never told anyone that he/she would be arrested for obstruction of justice if he/she did not consent to a search. (Hughes Deposition, Bates No. 02368).
The factors to which Mr. Berry points as evidence that the stop and search were motivated by race include Trooper Hughes pulling beside him to ascertain his race before making the stop and the fact that there was no 354 articulated reason for the stop, inasmuch as the ticket issued to him was for conduct that occurred after the *354 stop (failure to display registration on demand). This Court, however, finds compelling the reasoning articulated in

U.S. v. Duque-Nava, 315 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1161 (D.Kan.2004), and U.S. v. Mesa-Roche, 288 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1192-93 (D.Kan.2003), regarding the reasonableness, from a personal safety standpoint, of police officers acting to determine the number of a vehicle's occupants before making a stop and the refusal to find that such police action generates an inference of racial motivation for a stop sufficient to satisfy the intent prong of the equal protection analysis. Moreover, in respect to the issue of the citations issued to Plaintiff Berry, the records of the District Court of Maryland clearly show that, in addition to the citation for failure to exhibit registration on demand, Mr. Berry also was charged with and found guilty of driving without current tags, a violation which could be ascertained prior to the stop by a following trooper. (Defense Exhib. Bates No. 04779). Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no threshold showing of discriminatory. intent on the part of Trooper Michael Hughes in regard to this stop and, by separate Order, summary judgment will be awarded to Trooper Hughes in respect to Plaintiff Berry's equal protection claim against him. On the other hand, were Mr. Berry's version of events to be fully credited, that version would support a finding of an unlawfully coerced consent to search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and summary judgment will be denied as to that claim.[8]
5. The Taylor Stop
Yancey and Aleisha Taylor were stopped by Trooper David Hughes. The Taylors allege that they were not speeding and that their vehicle was in complete working order with up-to-date registration. They claim that Trooper Hughes pulled up beside them and looked into their vehicle and then, when Mr. Taylor pulled onto the exit ramp for the Maryland House rest stop, Trooper Hughes followed and pulled them over. Mr. Taylor says that when he asked Trooper Hughes why he was stopped, the trooper asked in turn why Mr. Taylor was running from him. Trooper Hughes then told him he was speeding and, when he turned to his wife and she indicated that they were not speeding, Trooper Hughes purportedly said something to the effect of "That's what they all say." According to Mr. Taylor, Trooper Hughes then ordered him to wait in his police cruiser. (Yancey Taylor Response to MSP Interrogatories, No. 3, 24).
Mr. Taylor claims that while he was alone in the police cruiser, Trooper Hughes shined his flashlight into the Taylor vehicle, spotted a medicine bottle and asked whether there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle. During the stop, Trooper Hughes also purportedly asked the Taylors numerous questions about where they were going and whether Mr. Taylor had any outstanding warrants. He also asked for and received permission to search the car but conducted no search, according to Mr. Taylor. The Taylors claim that a second trooper, now identified as Trooper Steven Dulski, arrived. During the conversation between the troopers and Mr. Taylor, Trooper Dulski purportedly asked Mr. Taylor if he was nervous. Ultimately, after checking without success for outstanding 355 warrants for Mr. Taylor, Trooper Hughes sent the Taylors on their way with a written warning. (Yancey Taylor *355 Response to MSP Interrogatories, No. 24).
Again relying upon the rationale articulated in Duque-Nava and Mesa-Roche, supra, the Court finds the purported act of Trooper Hughes wherein he pulled aside the Taylor vehicle and looked at the occupants prior to stopping the vehicle to be an insufficient indicator of discriminatory intent in support of the equal protection claim. Moreover, there is no other significant indicator of such intent in the facts related by the plaintiffs as to either Trooper Hughes or Dulski. Accordingly, by separate Order, summary judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants David Hughes and Steven Dulski in respect to the equal protection claims of Yancey and Aleisha Taylor.
In regard to the 4th Amendment claims against the troopers, it must be noted, first, that the troopers admit to no recall of the stop. However, even if full credit is given to the facts related by the Taylors 0907 that they pulled away onto a ramp shortly after a contact with a trooper, were stopped purportedly for speeding and were given a warning for speeding 0907 those facts do not cut against a finding that troopers in the position of Hughes and Dulski could have a good faith reasonable belief that their conduct had a legitimate basis and that nothing that they did constitutes a 4th Amendment violation. Accordingly, the Court finds that Troopers Hughes and Dulski are entitled to qualified immunity in respect to the 4th Amendment claims asserted by Yancey and Aleisha Taylor, and summary judgment will be awarded by separate Order.
6. The Jeffries-Means Stop
Kenneth Jeffries and John Means were stopped by Trooper David Hughes. Trooper Paul Quill later assisted.

Mr. Means, the driver, avers that they were traveling in a cluster of traffic in the far left lane at between 65 mph and 75 mph, approximately two car lengths behind the vehicle in front of them, when they were pulled over by Trooper Hughes. He told them that they were pulled over for following too closely. Mr. Means claims that they were the only black motorists amid a group of white motorists. (Means Response to MSP Interrogatories, No. 24).
According to Mr. Means, Trooper Hughes examined the identification of both men, and then separated them, with Mr. Jeffries remaining in their vehicle and Mr. Means taking a seat in the police cruiser. Mr. Means says they were questioned separately about drugs and drug trafficking. Trooper Hughes then purportedly stated that he was going to search their vehicle. Trooper Hughes allegedly said that if they did not consent to the search he would obtain a court order and keep them there for several hours while he did so. Mr. Means then consented to the search. Trooper Hughes waited for Trooper Quill to arrive, and when he did Trooper Hughes searched the vehicle thoroughly. Mr. Means avers that the stop took approximately two hours, after which he and Mr. Jeffries were sent on their way with a written warning for following too closely. Id.
The only indicium of racial profiling asserted by the plaintiffs is that they were the only African-Americans amid a cluster of white motorists. The plaintiffs concede that they were traveling at or above the 65 mph speed limit only two car lengths behind the vehicle in front of them and the Court finds that a reasonable police officer in Trooper Hughes' position could have believed that he had a legitimate reason to stop the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court 356 finds that Trooper Hughes is entitled to qualified immunity in regard to the stop. Likewise, there is no *356 indicator of racial profiling elsewhere in the plaintiffs' version of the facts. Accordingly, an Order will be entered separately awarding summary judgment in favor of Troopers Hughes and Quill as to the equal protection claim brought by the plaintiffs. However, fully crediting plaintiffs' version of events, the Court finds that the alleged conduct of coercing the consent to search is a 4th Amendment violation of which Trooper Hughes should have been aware and that he, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on the 4th Amendment claim nor to summary judgment on that substantive claim. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Trooper Quill took part in making the decision to search, in obtaining consent for the search or in conducting the search other than in providing security for Trooper Hughes during the search. Accordingly, the Court finds the Trooper Quill is entitled to qualified immunity in regard to the 4th Amendment claim, and it will be so ordered.
F. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, an Order will be entered separately granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.
[1] All claims against 15 defendants and some claims against others were abandoned subsequent to the filing of the instant motion.
[2] The term "deliberate indifference", in the context of supervisory liability for the constitutional torts of subordinates, "entails something more than mere negligence" but "something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge that harm will result." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The Supreme Court noted that there is one class of prison cases 0907 excessive force 0907 in which the deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate. The plaintiff in such cases must show more than indifference, deliberate or otherwise. Instead, the required showing is that officials applied force "maliciously and sadistically, for the very purpose of causing harm." Id. The essence of the defense argument in this case, similarly, is that deliberate indifference is an inappropriate standard for proof of intentional discrimination in the context of a Title VI monetary claim.
[3] Special Traffic Interdiction Enforcement
[4] Any liability of Lt. Betkey here derives in part from the conduct of the troopers under his supervision. Therefore, on any claim where those troopers gain summary judgment, so too does Lt. Betkey. (See, Parts III.E. 1. and 4., infra).
[5] This finding as to the second prong of the Saucier analysis is applicable to all the stops and will not be replicated unnecessarily in those sections.

[6] The testimony of Ms. Bailey regarding her discourse with Trooper Hughes was at once salient and imprecise: Q. He referred to your race? A. Yes. Q. What word did he use to refer to your race? What did he say? A. I just said I don't remember. Q. But you do remember he referred to your race? A. Yes, because I had it written, but I didn't write what he said. Q. Where did you have it written? A. It's in here, isn't it? Q. Well, there came a time after this incident where you wrote down what happened. A. When I wrote to the 0907 what was it? The Annapolis Police Department or something because I wasn't going to pay the ticket, so I told them what happened. And I remember that, but I don't remember what he said. Q. But you do remember 0907 A. At the time, I did. Q. And what you remember is that he said something specifically about your race? A. Yes. (Bailey Deposition, p. 189-190). [7] Although the term "African-American" has become a term of art to indicate race and, in fact, is used by the plaintiffs in their motion papers in reference to the Williams party, Mr. Williams, at least, is not American. It seems inappropriate, then, to refer to Mr. Williams as "African-American". It is not clear whether any of his passengers, who are not parties to this case, were naturalized American citizens. [8] Qualified immunity is not at issue in regard to the search, inasmuch as Trooper Hughes denies that any search occurred. Even were it at issue, it is clear that a search pursuant to coerced consent is a constitutional violation and that a reasonable trooper would have been aware that it was a constitutional violation.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 18
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiffs Verna Bailey, William Berry, Kenneth Jeffries, John Means, Gary Rodwell, and Johnston Williams (hereinafter “plaintiffs”) have pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a lawsuit, Maryland State Conf. of the NAACP Branches, et al. v. Maryland State Police, Case No. 98-1098 (hereinafter “Case” or “Lawsuit”), against John Appleby, Vernon Betkey, Bernard Donovan, David Hughes, Michael Hughes, and Billy White (hereinafter “defendants”). The Maryland State Police (hereinafter “MSP”) is a former party which was granted summary judgment. The plaintiffs allege damages and violations of their constitutional rights by the defendants. Their specific claims are set forth in their Complaint and Amended Complaints.
The plaintiffs and the defendants (collectively the “parties”), along with the MSP, believe that it is in their interests to enter into this Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) to resolve the claims at issue in this dispute.
Therefore, the Parties and the MSP mutually agree as follows:
1. Approval of Agreement
1.1 Defendants, together with the MSP, shall recommend to the Maryland Board of Public Works that it approve this Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of its filing with the Court, which the parties will do no more than seven days after approval of the Agreement by the Board of Public Works (hereinafter, the “Effective Date”).
1.2 If the Board of Public Works fails to approve this Agreement on or before May 16, 2008, then this Agreement shall be null and void.
2. Release and Dismissal
2.1 Within seven days of the receipt of the payment or payments pursuant to paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, plaintiffs shall deliver to defendants, through their counsel, a signed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (hereinafter “Dismissal”) of their Lawsuit, Case No. 98-1098. Defendants shall file the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice with the Court.
2.2 Effective upon their signatures hereto, plaintiffs release any and all claims that they have or might have against defendants, the MSP, the State of Maryland, and any of their past, present, and future employees, officials, officers, agents, servants, representatives, attorneys, predecessors, successors in interest, assigns, and all other persons, firms, or corporations with whom any of the former have been, are now, or may in the future be affiliated, the details of which are set forth in their Complaint and Amended Complaints filed in the Lawsuit, for any acts or omissions occurring prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement.
1

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 18

2.3 This Agreement resolves any and all claims, including but not limited to claims for damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief, and including, but not limited to, all claims pursuant to federal law.

3. Payments

In consideration of the release and dismissal of all claims as set forth above, the State of Maryland shall pay to the individuals named below (the “Payee(s)”) the sums outlined in Section 3:

3.1 Payments due at the time of settlement as follows:

Cash in the amount of $300,000.00, payable by check or wire transfer to “Hogan & Hartson, LLP,” within thirty days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. This payment covers all alleged damages for all plaintiffs, as well as attorney and court costs and fees.

4.

Joint Statement

4.1

The parties agree to the issuance of the following Joint Statement:

“In recent years, racial profiling has become widely recognized as an important civil rights issue, here in Maryland, and across the United States. The need to treat motorists of all races with respect, dignity, and fairness under the law is fundamental to good police work and a just society. The parties agree that racial profiling is unlawful and undermines public safety by alienating communities.

“In an effort to bring light to the issue of racial profiling in Maryland, plaintiffs Gary Rodwell, Kenneth Jeffries, John Means, William Berry, Johnston Williams, and Verna Bailey have expended years of hard work, perseverance, and devotion to this important goal. Across the nation, these plaintiffs’ cases have been widely credited with raising awareness about the problem of racial profiling, and the need to respond to this issue.

The Maryland State Police is committed to preventing racial profiling because it is the right thing to do. As a result of the 2003

2

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 3 of 18

Consent Decree in this case and the Maryland State Police’s commitment to fair and effective law enforcement, the Maryland State Police has taken measures to establish stronger policies prohibiting wrongful behavior by its troopers, to inform the public of the dangers of racial profiling and how to bring information about racial profiling to the attention of the State Police, and to implement greater management oversight of trooper conduct. The Maryland State Police adopted these policies, procedures and goals with an aim of assuring that all motorists are treated properly while the vital work of law enforcement is pursued.

The plaintiffs applaud these efforts, and urge the Maryland State Police to continue its vigilance in the years ahead. All agree that good law enforcement and equitable treatment of the public go hand in hand. The parties have been engaged in the lawsuit for nearly 10 years and now find that it is in their best interests and the best interests of the community to bring finality to the case. While the parties have agreed to terms acceptable to both to end the lawsuit, the parties remain committed to condemning unlawful racial profiling in the future. The State and the plaintiffs are gratified that this chapter has been brought to a close and look forward to working together to maintain Maryland’s leadership on this issue.”

5.

Meetings

For two years, starting from the Effective Date, the State will have a designee of the MSP Superintendent meet with representatives of plaintiffs on a semi-annual basis to continue discussion of these issues. The meetings shall take place at MSP Headquarters or another mutually agreeable location. Participants shall be responsible for all of their own expenses in participating. Such meetings may be excused or cancelled upon express consent of both parties. In order to encourage a candid and fruitful exchange of views, these discussions are intended to be negotiations and discussions undertaken for the purpose of resolving disputed claims and are therefore entitled to the protections afforded by Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and Maryland Rule 5-408.

6.

Production/Disclosure of Records

6.1 In connection with their request for copies of complaints against individual troopers, plaintiffs have cited Attachment C to the 2003 Consent Decree (the “Decree”). The MSP will take the initiative to seek clarification on this issue from the Court within two weeks of the Effective Date of the settlement of this matter. If the Court rules that the plaintiffs are entitled to the unredacted complaints pursuant to the 2003 Consent Decree, then the MSP will produce the unredacted complaints. If the Court rules that the complaints are not subject to disclosure under the Consent

3

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 4 of 18

Decree, then the MSP will not agree to produce the complaints under this Agreement. Finally, if the Court determines that the complaints are producible, but only in an altered form, then the MSP will produce them accordingly.

6.2 Standard Operating Procedures, General Orders and Training Material

Within thirty days of the Effective Date, the MSP will make a one-time disclosure to plaintiffs of materials concerning traffic stops, specifically: general orders, standard operating procedures, and training materials.

7.

Consultant

7.1 The MSP will retain an independent consultant to review its accomplishment of the terms of the 2003 Consent Decree. The consultant will produce a report, a copy of which will be provided to plaintiffs, that will explain his or her findings regarding the MSP’s progress in meeting the implementation steps agreed to in the Decree, and a statement concerning whether MSP has accepted the recommendations made by the consultant, rejected them, or accepted them with modifications. Recommendations made by the consultant shall be advisory to the Superintendent and may be considered by him in his discretion. MSP will not reject the recommendations of the consultant without reasonable cause, and will explain such cause to the plaintiffs. The consultant is not to act as the agent of plaintiffs or an arm of the Court as a monitor or overseer.

7.2 The plaintiffs have proposed retention of the consultant originally retained under the 2003 Consent Decree, Dr. Eli B. Silverman. Dr. Silverman is acceptable to the MSP, provided he is willing and able to serve as a consultant.

7.3 The MSP will fund this consultation up to a sum of $100,000. If Dr. Silverman is not willing and able, or if he cannot perform the evaluation as described above for $100,000 or less, the MSP will select a new independent consultant following the protocol originally used to select Dr. Silverman, as outlined in the 2003 Consent Decree, with a maximum payment by the MSP of $100,000.

4

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 5 of 18

8.

Forum

8.1 Format

The Superintendent of the MSP, the MSP supervisor currently in command of the John F. Kennedy Highway Barrack, any other MSP personnel deemed appropriate by the Superintendent; and a representative of the senior management of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, selected by the Attorney General, will host a one-time, private, moderated forum with an agenda approved in advance by the plaintiffs and the MSP. The above-listed individuals from the MSP and the Office of the Attorney General will attend in addition to the plaintiffs and representatives of the ACLU and the NAACP The forum will occur at MSP headquarters or some other mutually agreeable location, at a mutually agreeable date and time, and for a mutually agreeable length of time.

The MSP will seek to have the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) moderate this forum. If a moderator from DOJ is not available or willing, then the parties will mutually agree upon an impartial, third party to moderate this private forum.

8.2 Attendance

While all the plaintiffs, the ACLU, the NAACP, the MSP representatives and the representative of the Attorney General are invited to attend the forum, plaintiffs’ attendance is not mandatory. If the parties jointly agree not to hold the forum, it will not occur, and no sanctions will be sought by either party.

9. Other Terms
9.1 The terms and conditions of this Agreement do not constitute an admission by the State of Maryland, its officers, employees, or former employees, and shall not be construed or interpreted as such. The State of Maryland, the MSP, its officers, employees, or former employees, including the defendants in this Lawsuit, deny that there has been any violation of State or federal law and deny all liability under any law.
9.2 This Agreement shall be governed by Maryland law.
9.3 This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. No other representations by any party have been relied upon in entering into this Agreement.
9.4 This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which constitutes an original and all of which constitute one and the same agreement.
5

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 6 of 18

We agree to the above terms:
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date ______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date

______________________________ Verna Bailey
______________________________ William Berry
______________________________ Kenneth Jeffries
______________________________ John Means
______________________________ Gary Rodwell
______________________________ Johnston Williams
______________________________ Maryland State Police By: Superintendent Terrence Sheridan
______________________________ Office of the Attorney General of Maryland By: David R. Moore, Esq.
______________________________ Martin A. Price, Esq. Hogan & Hartson LLP
______________________________ Deborah A. Jeon, Esq. ACLU Foundation of Maryland
6

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 7 of 18

______________________________ Date
______________________________ Date

______________________________ Reginald T. Shuford, Esq. ACLU Foundation
______________________________ William J. Mertens, Esq.

7

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 8 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 9 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 10 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 11 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 12 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 13 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 14 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 15 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 16 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 17 of 18

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 347-2 Filed 04/03/08 Page 18 of 18

 
 Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE

)

OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al.,)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 98-1098 (FPS)

ORDER DIRECTING MARYLAND STATE POLICE1 TO TURN OVER REDACTED COPIES OF COMPLAINTS TO PLAINTIFFS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE I. Background
This case arises out of traffic stops and vehicle searches initiated by Maryland State Police (“MSP”) troopers on a specific section of Interstate Highway 95 between 1995 and 1998. The plaintiffs have alleged that the traffic stops and searches were motivated by racial animus in violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The parties have jointly represented to the undersigned judge that they have settled the disputed issues in this action, with the exception of one matter, which is set forth in § 6.1 of the parties’ settlement agreement and which is discussed below. The remaining issue in dispute is whether copies of complaints of

1Although the Maryland State Police (“MSP”) is no longer a party to this action pursuant to an order entered by the Court on September 29, 2006, awarding summary judgment in favor of the MSP, it has been agreed that MSP is the entity that will provide the documents if the Court directs it to do so.

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 17
racial profiling filed against individual Maryland State Police troopers are subject to production under the terms of a Consent Decree entered in 2003 in a related case, and if so, whether in full or redacted form. The parties have agreed to submit this issue to the Court to clarify the requirements of the Consent Decree. Further, the parties have agreed that the Court’s decision on the matter shall be determinative and that once the Court issues its decision this case should be dismissed and stricken from the active docket of the Court.
On April 3, 2008, the parties submitted to the undersigned judge a copy of their settlement agreement. On the same date, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. At a hearing before the undersigned judge on April 9, 2008, the parties stated that in their view, this complaint could be dismissed with prejudice, subject to resolution of the remaining issue set forth in § 6.1 of their settlement agreement. Because this order resolves the final issue in dispute between the parties, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice and the case will be stricken from the active docket of the Court.
II. Relevant Provisions of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and the 2003 Consent Decree Section 6.1 of the parties’ settlement agreement provides:
In connection with their request for copies of complaints against individual troopers, plaintiffs have cited Attachment C to the 2003 Consent Decree (the “Decree”). The MSP will take the initiative to seek clarification on this issue from the Court within two weeks of the Effective Date of the settlement of this matter. If the Court rules that the plaintiffs are
2

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 3 of 17
entitled to the unredacted complaints pursuant to the 2003 Consent Decree, then the MSP will produce the unredacted complaints. If the Court rules that the complaints are not subject to disclosure under the Consent Decree, then the MSP will not agree to produce the complaints under this Agreement. Finally, if the Court determines that the complaints are producible, but only in an altered form, then the MSP will produce them accordingly. (Settlement Agreement at ¶ 6.1.) The Consent Decree to which the settlement agreement refers was entered in a related case, Wilkins, et al. v. Maryland State Police, No. 93-468 (D. Md., Apr. 22, 1997). Three portions of the Consent Decree, approved on May 23, 2003, appear to be relevant to this matter. They are ¶¶ 1.3, 3.3.1.11, and 4.5. The first portion, ¶ 1.3, provides the terms under which the Consent Decree may be modified. The other two sections refer to the parties’ agreement concerning MSP quarterly reports, developed in conjunction with an independent consultant, which were to provide data on complaints alleging racial profiling that are filed with the MSP. Paragraph 3.3.1.11 also contains the following provision: “Counsel for plaintiffs may request additional information about any such complaint. Subject to confidentiality statutes binding upon MSP, MSP will provide such information upon request.” (Consent Decree ¶ 3.3.1.11.) In ¶ 4.5, the parties agree that the MSP will continue to provide the Court and the plaintiffs with quarterly updates on the data collected pursuant to the Wilkins agreement, which is appended as Attachment A to the Consent Decree. (Consent Decree ¶ 4.5.)
3

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 4 of 17
In addition to the terms of the Consent Decree itself, Attachments A and C contain pertinent information concerning complaints and confidentiality. Attachment A is the Settlement Agreement in the Wilkins parties’ agreement. It contains provisions concerning release of information about traffic stops, and additional identifying information, which was to be collected in computer records, starting on January 1, 1995. (Consent Decree Attachment A, ¶¶ 9, 10.) Attachment C is styled, “Clarifying Addendum to Consent Decree” and includes additional details concerning ¶ 3.3.1.11 of the original Consent Decree. Attachment C provides in pertinent part:
Paragraph 3.3.1.11: Information on Complaints. The additional information that plaintiffs’ counsel may request and MSP be required to produce under this section is the complaint itself, all non-confidential information kept in the course of the complaint process, and any other non-confidential information relevant to the particular complaint, not information outside of the complaint or the complaint process. (Consent Decree Attach. C ¶ 8.) As required by § 6.1 of the settlement agreement, the MSP has filed its request for clarification, and the parties have fully briefed the court on their respective positions and supporting arguments. At the direction of the undersigned judge, the MSP submitted the subject documents for an in camera inspection for the undersigned judge to determine what documents, if any, are to be turned over to the plaintiffs and, if any documents are to be turned over, what information, if any, is to be redacted.
4

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 5 of 17
For the reasons that follow, the undersigned judge finds that copies of the complaints must be turned over to the plaintiff in redacted form, as directed below.
III. Discussion The defendants argue that the Consent Decree requires the MSP to disclose only information that is not subject to confidentiality statutes and that the Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA”) is a confidentiality statute which prohibits the release of personnel records and letters of reference. According to the defendants, the complaints are personnel records, or letters of reference, or both and, therefore, are subject to the MPIA’s mandatory restrictions against disclosure. The defendants also argue that the MSP is permitted to deny disclosure of the complaints under the MPIA’s discretionary disclosure provisions if the MSP, as custodian of the records, believes that public access would be contrary to the public interest and if the complaints constitute records of investigations. The defendants contend that such disclosure would be contrary to the public interest and that the MSP may rely upon that ground to deny public access to any complaint associated with an ongoing investigation. In response, the plaintiffs argue that the bargained-for and unambiguous language of the Consent Decree requires the MSP to turn over the complaint itself, any non-confidential information kept in the course of the complaint process, and any non-confidential information relevant to the particular complaint. In the
5

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 6 of 17
plaintiffs’ view, the terms of the parties’ bargain reflect their intent that the complaints would be disclosed and that only the other information mentioned in the consent decree would be subject the MPIA. The plaintiffs further argue that the complaints are not personnel records, letters of reference, or records of investigation under the MPIA and, therefore, are not subject to its mandatory or discretionary disclosure restrictions.
The defendants’ reply repeats their assertions that the complaints constitute personnel records, letters of reference and/or records of investigation and that as a result the complaints are subject to the MPIA‘s disclosure restrictions. The defendants claim that the bargained-for agreement between the parties as embodied in the Consent Decree and Attachment C thereto simply entitles the plaintiffs, without being subject to the charges that they could otherwise be compelled to pay under the MPIA, to have access to copies of complaint letters that are sent to the MSP but that any such access remains subject to all confidentiality restrictions limiting MSP’s authority to disclose documents. A. Mandatory Denials under the MPIA
The complaints are not subject to the MPIA’s mandatory disclosure restrictions. The MPIA requires a custodian of records to deny public inspection of certain categories of records, two of which the defendants claim apply to this action. See Md. Code. Ann., State Gov’t §§ 10-615, 10-618. First, subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, the MPIA prohibits “[public]
6

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 7 of 17
inspection of a personnel record of an individual, including an application, performance rating, or scholastic achievement information.” Md. Code. Ann., State Gov’t § 10-615(i)(1). Second, the MPIA prohibits public inspection of a letter of reference. Md. Code. Ann., State Gov’t § 10-615(d).
1. Personnel Records The first question that must be answered is whether the complaints are personnel records and, therefore, subject to the MPIA’s prohibition against disclosure on that basis. The undersigned judge finds that they are not. The MPIA does not define the term “personnel record.” However, the Maryland Attorney General explained in a 1993 advisory opinion that the “common meaning” of that term “is a record that identifies an employee, is kept by the employer, and relates to matters like hiring, promotion, discipline, or dismissal of the employee.” (78 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 291 (1993), 1993 WL 523385 at *1). The Maryland Court of Appeals has elaborated: The term “personnel record” is not expressly defined in the statute. Nonetheless, the language of subsection (i) discloses what type of documents the Legislature considered to be personnel records. The statute lists three categories of documents which are: (1) an application for employment; (2) performance rating; and (3) scholastic achievement. Although this list was probably not intended to be exhaustive, it does reflect a legislative intent that “personnel records” mean those documents that directly pertain to employment and an employee’s ability to perform a job.
7

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 8 of 17
Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 721 A.2d 196 (Md. 1998)(emphasis added). See also Prince George’s County v. The Washington Post Co., 815 A.2d 859 (Md. 2003).
The defendants contend that the complaints fall within the purview of the MPIA’s mandatory disclosure restrictions because they identify specific employees, are kept by the troopers’ employer (the MSP), and relate to employment matters such as discipline and dismissal. Specifically, the MSP contends, any complaint against a specific trooper is used in that trooper’s job performance evaluations, even when the complaint’s allegations do not justify disciplinary action. For these reasons, the defendants urge the view that the complaints alleging racial profiling against a specific trooper constitute personnel records, the disclosure of which must be denied.
The plaintiffs take the contrary view. They argue that the complaints are not personnel records and, therefore, not subject to the MPIA’s mandatory disclosure restrictions. According to the plaintiffs, even if a complaint may possibly relate to a trooper’s employment or ability to perform the job, any connection is merely incidental. The plaintiffs advance the position that a complaint does not directly relate to the hiring, promotion, discipline, or dismissal of the employee against whom a complaint is submitted. Instead, they argue, a complaint relates to the complainant’s perception of how a particular trooper treated and interacted with the complainant, and the purpose of the complaint is to describe
8

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 9 of 17
the complainant’s experience. The plaintiffs further argue that because the complaints allege violations of the complainants’ constitutional rights, the conduct which the complaints describe falls beyond the scope of the trooper’s duties and responsibilities. For these reasons, the plaintiffs contend, the complaints do not constitute personnel records.
The undersigned judge concludes that the complaints at issue in this action are not subject to the MPIA’s prohibition against disclosure of personnel records. Personnel records are those documents that directly pertain to employment and employees’ ability to perform a job. Further, the purpose of requiring a custodian to deny requests to inspect personnel records “‘is to preserve the privacy of personal information about a public employee that is accumulated during his or her employment.’” Prince George’s County v. Washington Post, Inc., 815 A.2d 859 (Md. 2003)(quoting 78 Op. Att’y Gen. 291, 293 (1993)).
Here, the documents the plaintiffs seek do not meet the description of personnel records, and the release of those documents, redacted as directed by this order, does not run afoul of the MPIA’s policy of protecting the troopers’ personal information. First, the complaints do not directly pertain to the troopers’ employment or to the troopers’ ability to perform their job. Although a complaint may possibly indirectly relate to an individual trooper’s hiring, promotion, discipline, or dismissal, the relationship between a complaint and such an employment action
9

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 10 of 17
is too attenuated to convert a complaint into a personnel record. Furthermore, the plaintiffs do not seek disclosure of individual troopers’ personnel files. Merely placing a complaint within a personnel file or considering that complaint when determining whether to pursue an internal investigation is similarly insufficient to convert a complaint into a personnel record. The plaintiffs also do not ask to inspect the internal MSP personnel forms, referred to as “Form 16,” which are generated in response to the filing of a complaint, nor do they seek any record of any internal reviews undertaken relating to the complaint. (Pls.’ Resp. 7.) Thus, the plaintiffs are not seeking disclosure of any document that is directly related to a specific trooper’s employment or ability to perform the job.
Second, releasing properly redacted complaints will protect the privacy interests that the MPIA’s disclosure restrictions are intended to promote. The plaintiffs have stated that they are willing to accept redacted versions of the complaints to protect from disclosure the identities of the individual troopers against whom complaints were filed. (Pls.’ Resp. 3 n.2.) Moreover, the defendants admit in their reply memorandum that the plaintiffs may be given access, free of the MPIA’s procedures and fees, to complaints that allege that MSP as an organization racially profiled so long as those complaints do not identify a particular trooper. (Defs.’ Reply 2.) Because the plaintiffs have indicated their willingness to accept copies of the complaints redacting
10

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 11 of 17
information which would identify the individual troopers against whom complaints have been submitted, the undersigned judge finds that the purpose of the MPIA’s prohibition against disclosure of personnel records is met.
Under these circumstances, the undersigned judge concludes that the complaints are not subject to the MPIA’s prohibition against disclosure of personnel records.
2. Letters of Reference The second issue to address is whether the complaints are letters of reference and, therefore, subject to the MPIA’s prohibition against disclosure on that basis. The undersigned judge concludes that they are not. Under the MPIA, “[a] custodian of records shall deny inspection of a letter of reference.” Md. Code. Ann., State Gov’t § 10-616(d). Unlike “personnel records,” the term “letter of reference” does not appear to have been the subject of further explanation by Maryland Court of Appeals. The defendants attempt to bring the complaints sought by the plaintiffs within the scope of the MPIA’s prohibition against disclosure of letters of reference by citing an opinion by the Maryland Attorney General which states that letters of reference include both solicited and unsolicited letters. (See 78 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 291, 293-94 (1993), 1993 WL 523385 at *2) (quoting 68 Op. Att’y Gen. 335, 338 (1983)). According to the defendants, because unsolicited letters of reference are subject to the MPIA,
11

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 12 of 17

so too are unsolicited complaints. The defendants cite no

authority for this proposition, and the undersigned judge is

unpersuaded.

In the absence of any authority defining the term “letter of

reference” as used in the MPIA, the commonplace usage and

understanding of that term applies. In the employment context, a

letter of reference is typically written to provide information

about the suitability and qualifications of an individual for a

particular position with a current or potential employer. See,

e.g., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 989 (1990)

(providing relevant definition of “reference” as “a statement of

the qualifications of a person seeking employment or appointment by

someone familiar with that the person”); Merriam-Webster Pocket

Dictionary 585 (1973) (providing relevant definition of “reference”

as “a written recommendation of a person for employment”). By

contrast, a complaint is typically submitted to voice displeasure

or to obtain corrective action relating to conduct or service that

the complainant has found objectionable or unacceptable for some

reason. See, e.g., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 269

(1990) (providing relevant definition of “complaint” as “expression

of grief, pain, or dissatisfaction”); Merriam-Webster Pocket

Dictionary 155 (1973) (providing relevant definition of “complaint”

as “expression of grief or discontent”).

Given the different

purposes and contents of a complaint and a letter of reference, the

undersigned judge finds that a complaint does not fall under the

12

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 13 of 17
commonplace usage and understanding of the term “letter of reference.” Accordingly, and because the plaintiffs seek disclosure of only the complaints and not any internal information generated therefrom, the undersigned judge concludes that the complaints sought by the plaintiffs do not constitute letters of reference subject to the MPIA’s disclosure prohibition.
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned judge concludes that the MPIA’s mandatory restrictions on disclosure do not apply to the complaints alleging racial profiling by specific MSP troopers. B. Permissive Denial Under the MPIA
Having determined that the MSP is not required to deny public access to the complaints sought by the plaintiffs, the next question is whether it is permitted to do so under the MPIA’s discretionary disclosure provisions. The MPIA permits a custodian to deny inspection under several enumerated circumstances. The defendants assert that one of the enumerated circumstances--the provision allowing a custodian to deny access to “records of investigations”--applies to the documents in dispute here.
In pertinent part, the MPIA provides for discretionary denial of public inspection of records as follows:
[I]f a custodian believes that inspection of a part of a public record by the applicant would be contrary to the public interest, the custodian may deny inspection by the applicant of that part, as provided in this section . . . . [A] custodian may deny inspection of . . . records of investigations conducted by the Attorney
13

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 14 of 17
General, a State’s Attorney, a city or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff.2 Md. Code. Ann., State Gov’t § 10-618(a), (g). The defendants argue that the MSP has discretion to deny inspection of the complaints because they constitute “records of investigations” and because allowing public access would be contrary to the public interest. In support of this assertion, they claim that disclosure of any complaints relating to an ongoing investigation would interfere with the investigation itself by making witnesses and evidence more difficult to gather and by potentially revealing investigative techniques. The defendants also argue that disclosure would violate the troopers’ privacy rights. Even if privacy rights would not be invaded by disclosure, the defendants urge, any disclosure of complaints relating to an ongoing investigation should be deferred until any investigation is completed. The plaintiffs respond by arguing that public policy favors disclosure where the information is being sought for the purpose of revealing misconduct by government officials. The plaintiffs cite public disclosure statutes from other states, the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and § 3-102 of the Uniform Information Practices Code as authority for their position. The plaintiffs also argue that allowing the MSP to protect the complaints from disclosure is illogical because the complainants
2This provision is subject to certain exceptions not relevant to this action.
14

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 15 of 17
themselves could make copies of their complaints public at any time. The plaintiffs contend, further, that allowing the MSP to claim the “records of investigation” prohibition against disclosure gives the MSP too much leeway to avoid disclosure merely by initiating an unnecessary investigation into the issues complained of in the document. Finally, plaintiffs observe that the MSP does not assert that any active investigation is currently ongoing. They state that the MSP has failed to point to any specific, active, relevant investigation that would justify application of this exception to any of the complaints, let alone all of them.
In reply, the defendants argue that disclosure of a complaint while that complaint was being investigated would be detrimental to addressing the complaint and would potentially violate the complainants’ privacy rights. The defendants repeat their assertion that if disclosure is required, the MSP should be permitted to delay disclosure of any complaint which is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
The undersigned judge believes that the release of the complaints, properly redacted as directed below, will not violate the privacy rights of the individual troopers or of the complainants. However, the undersigned judge finds that in some circumstances, the complaints sought by the plaintiffs may constitute records of investigation subject to the MPIA’s discretionary disclosure provisions because the release of any complaint that is part of an ongoing investigation could
15

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 16 of 17
potentially impede investigative efforts. Accordingly, the undersigned judge agrees with the defendants that the release of any complaints that are part of an ongoing investigation should be delayed until the completion of that investigation.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned judge concludes that the complaints sought by the plaintiffs are not subject to the mandatory disclosure restrictions of the Maryland Public Information Act but that any complaints that are part of an ongoing investigation are subject to its discretionary provisions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Maryland State Police turn over to the plaintiffs any letters of complaint that are not part of an ongoing investigation as of the date of this order, redacted as follows: The names and any other identifying information (e.g., badge number) of individual troopers shall be redacted; and the names and any other personal identifiers (e.g., social security number, date of birth, residential and business addresses and telephone numbers) of the complainants shall be redacted. The Maryland State Police shall be permitted to delay disclosure of any complaint that is, as of the date of this order, part of an ongoing investigation until completion of that investigation. The Maryland State Police shall prepare a log of those complaints--to be retained with the Maryland State Police internally--and attach redacted and unredacted copies. Upon the conclusion of any pertinent investigation, the Maryland State Police shall turn over
16

Case 1:98-cv-01098-FPS Document 357 Filed 10/15/08 Page 17 of 17 to the plaintiffs the redacted copy of the relevant complaint or complaints.
In light of the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal and the resolution herein of the last remaining disputed issue as set forth in the parties’ settlement agreement, it is further ORDERED that this civil action be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to counsel of record herein. DATED: October 15, 2008
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17

 
 Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 1 of 90
CLOSED,MAG−A
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:98−cv−01098−FPS

State Conference, et al v. MD State Police, et al Assigned to: Judge Frederick NA P Stamp, Jr Demand: $0 Case in other court: U.S.C.A., 05−01078
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 05−01691 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act − Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/10/1998 Date Terminated: 10/15/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches on behalf of itself, its members, and the plaintiff class

represented by Reginald T Shuford American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 12125492613 Fax: 12125492651 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis Hogan Lovells US LLP 100 International Dr Ste 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202 14106592700 Fax: 14106592701 Email: allison.caplis@hoganlovells.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton Hogan and Hartson LLP 555 13 th St NW Washington, DC 20004 12026378893 Fax: 12026375910 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette US Attorney's Office 700 Stewart St. Seattle, WA 98101 2065537970 Email: amy.jaquette@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew David Freeman Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP 120 E Baltimore St Ste 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202−6701 14109621030 Fax: 14103850869 Email: adf@browngold.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Lawrence Schwalb Venable LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 2 of 90
12023444356 Fax: 12023448300 Email: blschwalb@venable.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlton C Copeland Hogan and Hartson LLP 555 13th St NW Washington, DC 20004 12026373656 Fax: 12026375910 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Lynn Stoughton American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad St 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 12125492663 Fax: 12125492651 TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian Maryland Court of Special Appeals Robert C Murphy Courts of Appeal Bldg 361 Rowe Bld Annapolis, MD 21401 14102601483 Email: drmnazarian@gmail.com TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr Hogan and Hartson LLP 555 Thirteenth St NW Washington, DC 20004 12026376882 Fax: 12026375910 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario DLA Piper US LLP 6225 Smith Ave Baltimore, MD 21209 14105804145 Fax: 14105803145 Email: jennifer.squillario@dlapiper.com TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek Gallagher Evelius and Jones LLP 218 N Charles St Ste 400 Baltimore, MD 21201 14107277702 Fax: 14104682786 Email: msaudek@gejlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price Hogan and Hartson LLP 555 13th St NW Ste 1300 Washington, DC 20004

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 3 of 90

12026375600 Fax: 12026375910 Email: maprice@hhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas Hogan and Hartson 555 13th St NW Washington, DC 20004 12026375860 Fax: 12026375910 Email: plallas@hhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith 191 S. Middleton Dr. NW Calabash, NC 28467 14107678071 Email: therese.goldsmith@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Virginia Trice Vance Hogan and Hartson LLP 8300 Greensboro Dr Ste 1100 McLean, VA 22102 17036106127 Fax: 17036106200 Email: vvance@hhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A Jeon American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland Foundation 3600 Clipper Mill Rd Ste 350 Baltimore, MD 21211 14108898555 Fax: 14103667838 Email: jeon@aclu−md.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens Law Office of William J Mertens 3 Bethesda Metro Center Suite 700 Bethesda, MD 20814−5330 12026694402 Fax: 12404650463 Email: wjmertens@mertenslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gary D. Rodwell on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 4 of 90

Plaintiff
Johnston E. Williams on behalf of himself and all other person similarly situated

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann M Oxenham U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Ave., WO32−4382 Silver Spring, MD 20993 13017968710 Email: ann.oxenham@fda.hhs.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 5 of 90

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann M Oxenham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James E. Alston, Jr. on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 6 of 90

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yancey Taylor on behalf of herself, their son Yancey Taylor, Jr., and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 7 of 90

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Aleshia Taylor on behalf of herself, her minor son, Yancey Taylor, Jr., and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 8 of 90

Plaintiff
George W. Taylor, Jr. on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 9 of 90

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eric A. Cook on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 10 of 90

Jawad Abdullah on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nelson D. Walker on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/30/2005

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 11 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mecca Agunabo, I on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 12 of 90

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
George Daughtry on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara Musfeldt Tapscott

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 13 of 90

Pingel and Templer PC 3737 Woodland Ave Ste 437 West Des Moines, IA 50266 5152253737 Fax: 15152259510 TERMINATED: 10/29/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dwight H Sullivan 905 Mallard Circle Arnold, MD 21012 14107574987 Fax: 14107471441 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Philip Guy Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP 1152 15th St NW 12th Fl Washington, DC 20005 12023398400 Fax: 12023398500 Email: jguy@orrick.com

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address)

Plaintiff
David H. Patterson, Jr. TERMINATED: 11/01/1999

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 14 of 90

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John S. Means

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann M Oxenham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 15 of 90

Plaintiff Kenneth R. Jeffries
Plaintiff Yvonne Davis

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann M Oxenham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 16 of 90

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Diana Desmoines

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 17 of 90

TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William M. Berry

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann M Oxenham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 18 of 90

Plaintiff
Verna A. Bailey The above on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Reginald T Shuford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann M Oxenham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dwight H Sullivan (See above for address)
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Philip Guy

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 19 of 90

(See above for address)

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shawn Bridges

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 20 of 90

C Christopher Brown Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP 120 E Baltimore St Ste 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202−6701 14109621030 Fax: 14103860869 TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Levander Jones

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 21 of 90

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lakeithia Webb

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tashima Nicholson

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 22 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Calvin Thorpe, Jr.

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 23 of 90

Plaintiff Latia Thorpe

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 24 of 90

Plaintiff Cynthia Walker

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 25 of 90

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Evan Thorpe

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 26 of 90

TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Calvin Thorpe, Sr.

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Samuel Williams

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 27 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Janice Springs

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 28 of 90

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Terry Postell

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 29 of 90

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Calvin Postell

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 30 of 90

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth Moody

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 31 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frank Willis

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 32 of 90

Plaintiff Joseph Kahoe
Plaintiff Nallie Hairston

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 33 of 90

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenwin Baylor

represented by Allison J Caplis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Cohen Stanton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Collen Jaquette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas R M Nazarian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Earl S Adams , Jr

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 34 of 90
(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Kathryn Squillario (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Spencer Saudek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Alexander Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Christopher Lallas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese M Goldsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Christopher Brown (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Department of Maryland State Police

represented by David Kent Tomar Office of the Attorney General 200 St Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202 14105767902 Email: dtomar@oag.state.md.us TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Mullen Dove State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202−2021 14105766300 Fax: 14105766955 TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Robert Smith Gleason Flynn Emig and Fogleman Chartered 11 N Washington St Ste 400 Rockville, MD 20850

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 35 of 90
13012942110 Fax: 13012940737 Email: csmith@gleason−law.com TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corlie McCormick , Jr Maryland Office of the Attorney General Educational Affairs Division 200 St. Paul Place 17th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766449 Fax: 14105766437 Email: cmccormick@oag.state.md.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Reid Moore Howard County Office of Law 3450 Court House Drive Ellicott City, MD 21043 14103133077 Fax: 14103133292 Email: dmoore@howardcountymd.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Demetrios T Zacharopoulos Waters and Kraus LLP 315 N Charles St Baltimore, MD 21201 14105281153 Fax: 14105281006 Email: dzacharopoulos@waterskraus.com TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl 17th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766450 Fax: 14105766437 Email: erivera@oag.state.md.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift Oklahoma County District Attorneys Office 13201 NW Fourth St Yukon, OK 73099 14057131771 Email: evandergrift@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl Ste 2700 Baltimore, MD 21202 14104682033 Fax: 14104682086 Email: ilaskaris@mdinsurance.state.md.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 36 of 90

J Joseph Curran , Jr Office of the Attorney General of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766300 Fax: 14105766880 TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen Office of the Attorney General Maryland State Police 1201 Reisterstown Road Pikesville, MD 21208 4106534228 Fax: 4106534270 Email: mark.bowen@maryland.gov

Steven M Sullivan State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766325 Fax: 14105766955 Email: ssullivan@oag.state.md.us

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky 28 Newberne St #7 Somerville, MA 02144 4103360078 Email: lisa.marzo.borinsky@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
David B. Mitchell individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Maryland State Police

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 37 of 90

TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jesse Graybill individually and in his official capacity as Commander of the Field Operations Bureau of the Department of Maryland State Police TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 38 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
George H. Hall individually and in his official capacity as Commander of the Northern Region of the field Operations Bureau of the Department of Maryland State Police

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 39 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Vernon Betkey individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Police Barrack Commander

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 40 of 90

Defendant
Keven L. Gray individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Police Barrack Commander TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008
Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 41 of 90

TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John E. Appleby individually

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 42 of 90

George P. Brantly individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bernard M. Donovan individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 43 of 90

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steven W. Dulski individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 44 of 90

TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Melvin Fialkewicz individually TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 45 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John R. Greene individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 46 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steven L. Hohner individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 47 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Clifford T. Hughes individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 48 of 90

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
David B. Hughes individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 49 of 90

TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael T. Hughes individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 50 of 90

Steven O. Jones individually and in his offical capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James E. Nolan individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 51 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Paul J. Quill individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 52 of 90

Defendant
Christopher Tideberg individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008
Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 53 of 90

Defendant
Ernest S. Tullis individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008
Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 54 of 90

Defendant
Michael D. Wann individually and his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008
Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008
Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 55 of 90

Defendant Billy White individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper
Defendant John L. Wilhelm individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008
Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 56 of 90

TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address)

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address)

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten individually and in their official capacities a Maryland State Troopers

represented by Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 57 of 90

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ioannis Aristotelis Laskaris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Eric Harbold Individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 58 of 90

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Joseph Curran , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2008

Mark Holdsworth Bowen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mark A. Rhinehart Individually and in his official capacity as a Maryland State Trooper TERMINATED: 08/10/2006

represented by David Kent Tomar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Mullen Dove (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corlie McCormick , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reid Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Demetrios T Zacharopoulos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 59 of 90
Elizabeth Bechtold Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Norine Vandergrift (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/10/1998 04/10/1998 04/13/1998
04/14/1998 04/24/1998
04/24/1998 06/02/1998 06/02/1998
06/04/1998 06/09/1998 06/18/1998 06/18/1998

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $150.00 RECEIPT #B148626 (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
1 DEMAND for jury trial by plaintiffs (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
2 SUMMONS(ES) (20) days issued for MD State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
3 Request to Withhold Service of Summons on Jane and John Does (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/14/1998)
4 MOTION by State Conference, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo I, George Daughtry for Reginald T. Shuford to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (FEE PAID $50.00 − RECEIPT #B148753) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1998)
4 ORDER "GRANTING" [4−1] motion for Reginald T. Shuford to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 4/23/98 ) (c/m jp ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1998)
5 MEMORANDUM "ADVISING" Counsel that a Conference will be held with Judge Grimm and Judge Blake to discuss discovery, scheduling, and consolidation of all or part of cases CCB−93−468 and CCB−98−1098. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 6/1/98−Chambers) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
6 ORDER "LIFTING" the stay in this case; "DIRECTING" that plaintiffs may file their amended complaint; and that service on behalf of the State and all defendants currently employed by the Maryland State Police will be accepted by counsel in the Office of the Attorney General. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/1/98 ) (c/m bel) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
7 AMENDED COMPLAINT by State Conference, et al. (plaintiffs) (Answer due 6/14/98 for Does, et al. (defendants) ) amending [1−1] complaint. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
8 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for all discovery disputes. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/1/98; referred 6/5/98; cc 6/8/98 ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
9 INFORMAL LETTER ORDER "CONSOLIDATING" 93−468 and 98−1098 for the purpose of discovery as therein set forth. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/17/98 ) (copy) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/1998)
Consolidated Member Case. Lead Case Number: CV−93−468 (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/1998)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 60 of 90

07/21/1998 10 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 7/20/98 ) (c/m jnf) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/27/1998)

08/10/1998

11 JOINT MOTION by State Conference, et al. and MD State Police et al. to Extend Time to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/13/1998)

08/12/1998

12 ORDER granting [11−1] joint motion to Extend Time to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint, set Answer deadline to 8/14/98 for Does, for John L. Wilhelm, for Billy White, for Michael D. Wann, for Ernest S. Tullis, for Christopher Tideberg, for Paul J. Quill, for James E. Nolan, for Steven O. Jones, for Michael T. Hughes, for David B. Hughes, for Clifford T. Hughes, for Steven L. Hohner, for John R. Greene, for Melvin Fialkewicz, for Steven W. Dulski, for Bernard M. Donovan, for George P. Brantly, for John E. Appleby, for Keven L. Gray, for Vernon Betkey, for George H. Hall, for Jesse Graybill, for David B. Mitchell, for MD State Police (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/12/98) (c/m 8/13/98 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/13/1998)

08/14/1998

13 MOTION with memorandum in support by MD State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Does to Dismiss , or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment with Statements of Material Facts and Exhibits 1 through 25 (c/s) − (FILED SEPARATELY) (Corrected Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss − Received 8/17/98) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 08/17/1998 (Entered: 08/17/1998)

08/21/1998

14 ORDER "MEMORIALIZING" matters discussed regarding discovery − and "DIRECTING" counsel to notify when they will submit proposed discovery schedule (Judge enclosing sample forms for resolving discovery disputes) and advising of Judge's intention to rule on MSP's Motion to preclude contact with potential plaintiffs class prior to decision regarding certification (signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 8/19/98) (c/m 8/19/98−chambers) (c/m) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/24/1998)

08/28/1998

15 REVISED AND CORRECTED MEMORANDUM by MD State Police, et al in support of their [13−1] motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative [13−2] motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1 thru 27 (FILED SEPARATELY) (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/28/1998)

08/28/1998 16 CONSENT STIPULATION by State Conference, Gary D. Rodwell to Extend Time (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/02/1998)

08/28/1998

17 ORDER granting [16−1] motion to Extend Time for plaintiffs to file a responsive pleading in response to defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment to 9/30/98 ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/25/98) (c/m 9/2/98 jl) (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/02/1998)

09/01/1998

18 ORDER "DIRECTING" Identification and Notification, under an appropriate confidentiality order should proceed RE: Minority Motorists who were stopped and searched by the Maryland State Police. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 9/1/98) (c/m 9/1/98−bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/03/1998)

09/02/1998

19 JOINT MOTION by Parties to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to file a responsive pleading or motion in response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/03/1998)

09/02/1998

20 ORDER granting [19−1] joint motion of parites to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to file a responsive pleading or motion in response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment on or before 9/30/98. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 9/2/98) (c/m 9/3/98−dl) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/03/1998)

10/06/1998

21 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Maryland State Conference, et al. for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand and Highlighted Second Amended Complaint (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 61 of 90

10/07/1998 10/07/1998 10/07/1998 10/08/1998 10/08/1998
10/08/1998 10/13/1998 10/20/1998 10/22/1998 11/19/1998 11/19/1998
12/04/1998
12/09/1998 12/09/1998

10/08/1998 (Entered: 10/07/1998)
22 MEMORANDUM by State Conference, et al. in opposition to [13−1] motion of Defendants to Dismiss or [13−2] motion for Summary Judgment with Exhibits A − E (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
23 MOTION of United States for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae (c/s − Grimm, USMJ and Chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
26 MEMORANDUM "APPROVING" the discovery schedule relating to the proposed class certification ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 10/6/98 ) (c/m by chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
24 ORDER granting [21−1] motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/8/98) (c/m 10/8/98 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
25 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by State Conference, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo I, George Daughtry, David H. Patterson Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, amending [7−1] amended complaint by plaintiff against Mark A. Rhinehart (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
25 DEMAND for jury trial by State Conference, Gary D. Rodwell, et al. (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
27 ORDER granting [23−1] motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/13/98 ) (c/m 10/13/98 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/14/1998)
28 CONSENT STIPULATION AND MOTION of Defendants MD State Police for Extension of Time to file responsive pleading to plaintiffs' second amended complaint (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
29 ORDER granting [28−1] Joint Motion for Extension of Time to file responsive pleading by defendants to plaintiffs' second amended complaint (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/21/98) (c/m by chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
30 CONSENT STIPULATION/MOTION AND REQUEST by State Conference, David B. Mitchell to Extend Time to File Answer and responsive pleading to Motion for Summary Judgment (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
31 ORDER granting [30−1] motion to Extend Time to File Answer and responsive pleading to Motion for Summary Judgment reset Answer deadline to 12/4/98 for Mark A. Rhinehart, for Does, for John L. Wilhelm, for Billy White, for Michael D. Wann, for Ernest S. Tullis, for Christopher Tideberg, for Paul J. Quill, for James E. Nolan, for Steven O. Jones, for Michael T. Hughes, for David B. Hughes, for Clifford T. Hughes, for Steven L. Hohner, for John R. Greene, for Melvin Fialkewicz, for Steven W. Dulski, for Bernard M. Donovan, for George P. Brantly, for John E. Appleby, for Keven L. Gray, for Vernon Betkey, for George H. Hall, for Jesse Graybill, for David B. Mitchell, for MD State Police ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 11/19/98) (c/m 11/23/98 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
32 CONSENT STIPULATION AND ORDER and Request for Extension of Time and "APPROVAL" until 12/9/98 for response to plaintiffs' second amended complaint and response to Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 12/3/98) (c/m 12/9/98 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 12/09/1998 (Entered: 12/09/1998)
33 MOTION with memorandum in support by MD State Police to Strike [25−1] Portions of Plaintiffs' Second amended complaint (c/s−Mag. Grimm & Chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
34 MOTION by MD State Police Requesting Permission to Exceed Limitation on Length of Reply Memoranda (c/s − Mag. Grimm and Chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 62 of 90

12/09/1998 12/17/1998 01/08/1999 01/08/1999 01/12/1999 07/19/1999 08/06/1999
09/30/1999 09/30/1999
10/27/1999 10/27/1999 11/01/1999 03/08/2000
05/31/2000

(Entered: 12/10/1998)
35 REPLY by MD State Police to opposition of Plaintiffs' to [13−1] their motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, and to the Partial Opposition of the Department of Justice by defendants and Exhibits 28−30 (c/s−Mag. Grimm & Chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
36 AFFIDAVIT by David H. Parrack, Deputy State's Attorney for Cecil County, Maryland for MD State Police (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/21/1998)
37 CONSENT MOTION by State Conference, MD State Police to Extend Time to Oppose Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
38 ORDER granting [37−1] motion to Extend Time to Oppose Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 1/8/99) (c/m 1/8/99 chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
39 RESPONSE by State Conference in opposition to [33−1] motion to Strike [25−1] Portions of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by MD State Police (c/s−Mag. Grimm & Chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
40 STATUS REPORT ORDER. Status report due on 7/30/99 ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 7/19/99) (c/m 7/19/99 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
41 ORDER ALLOWING Plaintiffs to send notices to 100 additional motorists they have been able to identify through the Forms 130. MSP will not be required to search the Complaint Control Cards for the April 1996−1997 period, although the cards should be retained in the event it becomes necessary to make that search at a later stage of the case. (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/6/99) (c/m 8/6/99 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
42 MEMORANDUM OPINION ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 9/30/99) (c/m 9/30/99 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
43 ORDER granting [34−1] motion of Defendants Requesting Permission to Exceed Limitation on Length of Reply Memoranda, denying [33−1] motion of Defendants to Strike [25−1] Portions of Plaintiffs' Second amended complaint, granting in part, denying in part [13−1] motion to Dismiss, granting in part, denying in part [13−2] motion for Summary Judgment − GRANTING as to Count IV of Motion to Dismiss and GRANTING as to individual plaintiffs Jawad Abdullah, George Daughtry and Yvonne Davis and otherwise DENIED. (Signed: Judge Catherine C. Blake 9/30/99) (c/m 9/30/99 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
Settlement conference held before Grimm, USMJ (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/1999)
CASE NO LONGER REFERRED TO Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/1999)
44 STIPULATION of voluntary dismissal of claims of Plaintiff David H. Patterson, Jr. in their entirety his individual claims in this action and APPROVAL. (signed Judge Catherine C. Blake 11/1/99) (c/m 11/1/99−cag) (MICROFILMED 11/1/99) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/1999)
45 MOTION with memorandum in support by State Conference for Class Certification of innocent members of minority groups and Exhibits A − J (EXHIBITS FILED SEPARATELY) (c/s) (12/7/00−Corrected Declaration of Amy Lynn Cruice, Exhibit J forwarded to replace Declaration previously filed) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 12/07/2000 (Entered: 03/09/2000)
46 ANSWER by Mark A. Rhinehart, Steven W. Dulski, Bernard M. Donovan, John E. Appleby, Keven L. Gray, Vernon Betkey, George H. Hall, George P. Brantly, Jesse Graybill, David B. Mitchell, MD State Police, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Does (Attorney Maureen Mullen Dove, Steven Marshall Sullivan) to Second Amended Complaint (c/s) (mms, Deputy

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 63 of 90

10/24/2000 11/13/2000 11/17/2000 11/17/2000 11/22/2000 01/02/2001 01/02/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/29/2001 02/01/2001 02/22/2001
03/20/2001

Clerk) (Entered: 06/01/2000)
47 ORDER DENYING (with the Exception of Request to Depose LTC Leatherbury) Plaintiffs' request to conduct depositions and DIRECTING Counsel to promptly confer and submit a Joint Proposed Modified Schedule to govern the Pretrial Proceedings. (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/24/00 ) (c/m 10/24/00 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
48 ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiffs to supplement affidavit of Ms. Francis to provide more specific data underlying assertions and if Defendants are not satisfied with responses they may then file additional discovery requests. Additional discovery requests will be filed by 11/15/00. (signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 11/9/00) (c/m 11/13/00 jnf) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
49 ORDER REQUESTING Counsel to Confer in order to resolve differences as to Plaintiffs' supplemental discovery responses. If dispute not resolved, Court will be available for Tele−Conference. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 11/16/00) (c/m 11/17/00 jnf) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
50 ORDER ALLOWING Plaintiffs to send out additional notices (using the type notice previously employed) to motorists inasmuch as such responses thereto will not be used to support Motion for Class Certification. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 11/17/00) (c/m 11/17/00 jnf) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2000)
51 STATUS REPORT ORDER; DIRECTING further status report due 12/20/00. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 11/22/00) (c/m 11/22/00−bc) (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
52 MARGINAL ORDER APPROVING JOINT SCHEDULE for taking of Authorized Depositions and Filing of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 1/2/01) (c/m 1/2/01 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/03/2001 (Entered: 01/03/2001)
52 MARGINAL ORDER APPROVING Defendants' Schedule for Discovery and Settlement Negotiations so long as good faith negotiations are continuing. (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 1/2/01) (c/m 1/2/01 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
53 JOINT MOTION by Mark A. Rhinehart, Verna A. Bailey et al. to Extend Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
54 ORDER granting [53−1] joint motion to Extend Time for Defendantds to File Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 1/19/01) (c/i 1/19/01 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
55 RESPONSE by MD State Police in opposition to [45−1] Motion for Class Certification of innocent members of minority groups by State Conference (c/s) (1/31/01−Exhibits 1−46 in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion which were inadvertently omitted from initial filing.) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/31/2001 (Entered: 01/30/2001)
56 REVISED AND CORRECTED RESPONSE by MD State Police in opposition to [45−1] motion for Class Certification of innocent members of minority groups by State Conference (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
57 ORDER denying without prejudice [45−1] motion for Class Certification of innocent members of minority groups. Once counsel has completed any approved discovery and have filed reply, motion will be automatically considered renewed and reopened on the docket and APPROVING Plaintiffs' request for extension for additional discovery. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 2/22/01) (c/m 2/22/01 bc) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
58 ORDER PERMITTING Deposition of Lt. Col. Larry Harmel − Deposition not to exceed 7 hours provided questions are responsively answered. Deposition shall be limited to the MSP's Drug Interdiction Program and its participation in federally sponsored drug interdiction programs and whether they promoted racial profiling.

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 64 of 90

03/22/2001 03/22/2001 09/27/2001 09/27/2001 09/27/2001
12/26/2002
02/03/2003 04/08/2003 04/22/2003 04/29/2003 05/16/2003 05/20/2003
05/23/2003 06/19/2003 06/20/2003 06/26/2003 07/11/2003

(signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 3/19/01) (c/m 3/19/01 jnf) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
59 LETTER/MOTION by MD State Police, et al. for Reconsideration of [58−1] Order Granting Deposition of Col. Harmel (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
59 ORDER denying [59−1] Letter/Motion for Reconsideration of [58−1] Order Granting Deposition of Col. Harmel ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 3/21/01) (c/m 3/22/01 jnf) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
60 LETTER/MOTION by State Conference, et al. Requesting Permission to Disclose Documents to a Person Not a Party to Case (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
61 RESPONSE by MD State Police, et al. in opposition to [60−1] Motion Requesting Permission to Disclose Documents to a Person Not a Party to Case by State Conference (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
62 ORDER denying [60−1] motion Requesting Permission to Disclose Documents to a Person Not a Party to Case ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 9/25/01) (c/m 9/27/01 jnf ) (CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED INFORMATION ENVELOPES SEALED AND FILED SEPARATELY) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 09/27/2001 (Entered: 09/27/2001)
63 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for all proceedings and entry of judgment in accordance with 28 USC Section 636.( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 12/17/02) (c/m 12/26/02 hsg) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
64 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel Richard B. Rosenblatt of Patuxent Institution and "APPROVAL." (Signed: Paul W. Grimm, 1/30/03) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
65 Correspondence re: Consent Decree and scheduling conference (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
66 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by Department of Maryland State Police. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Attachment B# 3 Notice of Lengthy Exhibit)(Dove, Maureen) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
67 Setting Telephone Conferece re scheduling for Tuesday, May 13, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Mertens,counsel for plaintiff, to initiate the call to chambers and other counsel.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
Telephone Conference held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
68 LETTER/ORDER DIRECTING Counsel to submit, within 30 days, a Letter to the Court outlining their intentions with respect to class certification and their suggestions regarding a proposed pretrial schedule for the remainder of the case and DIRECTING the Defendants, within 10 business days, to respond. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/20/03. (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
69 ORDER APPROVING the Consent Decree with Attachments A, B, and C. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake and Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/23/03. (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
70 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File statement on class certification (Mertens, William) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
71 Paperless Correspondence re:Granting Request of Extension of Time for filing plaintiff's intentions with respect to class certification (Paper No. 70)(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
72 Request for Conference (Mertens, William) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
73 Oral Correspondence re: Mr. Mertens' June 26, 2003 letter (Dove, Maureen) (Entered: 07/11/2003)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 65 of 90

07/17/2003

Status Hearing held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (Tape #1.) (hsg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2003)

07/28/2003 74 Correspondence re: Approval Time (Sconion, Betty) (Entered: 07/28/2003)

07/30/2003 75 ORDER re: Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/30/03. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/30/2003)

08/01/2003 76 Correspondence re: Plaintiffs' Proposed Litigation Plan (Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 08/01/2003)

08/04/2003 77 Correspondence re: Plaintiffs' Litigation Plan (Corrected) (Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 08/04/2003)

08/08/2003 78 Correspondence re: Ms. Jeon's letter of August 1, 2003 (Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 08/08/2003)

08/18/2003 79 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File submission on class member notification (Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/18/2003)

08/19/2003

80 Paperless Correspondence re: Granting Plaintiffs' request for extension of time to file submission on class member notification to Monday, August 27, 2003.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

08/25/2003 81 Correspondence re: Notice to potential class members (Attachments: # 1 Proposed notice to potential class members)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/25/2003)

09/02/2003 82 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Litigation Plan (Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

09/03/2003

83 Paperless Correspondence re: Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Litigation Plan (Paper No. 82) Approved by Judge Grimm. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

09/08/2003

84 Paperless Correspondence re: Objections to Plaintiffs proposal − Defense Counsel, Mr. Sullivan is to discuss Plaintiffs proposal made in letter dated 8/25/03 and see if a compromise can be reached. If not, then provide the Court with the State's position within thirty days. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 09/08/2003)

09/09/2003 85 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 09/09/2003)

09/10/2003 86 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Mertens, William) (Entered: 09/10/2003)

09/15/2003 87 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

09/17/2003 88 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Mertens, William) (Entered: 09/17/2003)

10/15/2003 89 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Mertens, William) (Entered: 10/15/2003)

10/23/2003 90 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit alternative draft notice)(Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 10/23/2003)

10/28/2003

91 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER resolving the issue about whether the plaintiffs' monetary claims against individual troopers will be bifurcated from their 1983 monetary claims. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/28/03. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

10/30/2003 92 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/30/2003 93 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Mertens, William) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/31/2003 94 Correspondence re: Mr. Sullivan's letter of October 30 (Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 10/31/2003)

11/03/2003 95 MEMORANDUM to Counsel. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/3/03. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/03/2003)

11/03/2003

96 MEMORANDUM to Parties: The actions described in my letter of 10/28/03 will be taken as ordered, and the case will proceed accordingly as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/3/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/04/2003)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 66 of 90

11/13/2003 97 Correspondence re: Discovery signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

12/18/2003 98 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File proposed scheduling order (Mertens, William) (Entered: 12/18/2003)

12/22/2003

99 The court has received the plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to submit the proposed scheduling Order (Paper No. 98). This request is approved. (cad, Chambers) (Entered: 12/22/2003)

03/23/2004

100 Paperless Correspondence re Scheduling of Telephone Status Conference. Please be advised that Judge Grimm would like to conduct a Telephone Status Conference with counsel on Thursday, March 25, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. The Judge would appreciate Mr. William Mertens initiating the phone call to counsel and chambers. If there is a problem with this date and time, please contact chambers. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 03/23/2004)

03/23/2004

101 Status Report Submitted in advance of conference call by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, William M. Berry, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Kenneth R. Jeffries, John S. Means, Gary D. Rodwell, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Nelson D. Walker, Johnston E. Williams (Mertens, William) (Entered: 03/23/2004)

03/25/2004

Telephone Conference held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2004)

03/25/2004 102 MEMORANDUM to COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 3/25/04. (Attachments: # 1 Discovery Procedures)(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2004)

03/26/2004 103 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky on behalf of all defendants (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/26/2004)

03/29/2004 104 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 3/29/04. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/29/2004)

04/15/2004

105 NOTICE of Appearance by C Christopher Brown on behalf of Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe Sr., Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor (Brown, C) (Entered: 04/15/2004)

04/15/2004

106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Kenwin Baylor, Shawn Bridges, Nallie Hairston, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Responses due by 5/3/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Brown, C) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/16/2004 (jlb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/15/2004)

04/15/2004

107 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Yancey Taylor Jr., Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis.(Mertens, William) (FILED IN ERROR) Modified on 4/16/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/15/2004)

04/15/2004

108 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 67 of 90

05/03/2004 05/21/2004
05/21/2004
05/24/2004
05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 06/04/2004 06/04/2004

Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Yancey Taylor Jr., Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis.(Mertens, William) (FILED IN ERROR) Modified on 4/16/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/15/2004)
109 Correspondence re: discovery on Title VI claims (Mertens, William) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
110 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by John E. Appleby, Vernon Betkey, George P. Brantly, Department of Maryland State Police, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, Keven L. Gray, Jesse Graybill, John R. Greene, George H. Hall, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Steven O. Jones, David B. Mitchell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm. Responses due by 6/7/2004 (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
111 RESPONSE to Motion re 110 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, David H. Patterson Jr., Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Replies due by 6/4/2004. (Mertens, William) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
112 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 111 Response to Motion,,, by John E. Appleby, Vernon Betkey, George P. Brantly, Department of Maryland State Police, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, Keven L. Gray, Jesse Graybill, John R. Greene, George H. Hall, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Steven O. Jones, David B. Mitchell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm. Responses due by 6/10/2004 (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
113 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 110 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 110 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint Responses due by 6/4/2004 Replies due by 6/18/2004. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/24/04. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) Modified on 5/27/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/24/2004)
114 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 112 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 111 Response to Motion, Responses due by 6/24/2004 Replies due by 6/29/2004.Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/26/04.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) Modified on 5/27/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/26/2004)
115 Paperless Correspondence re: Scheduling Telephone Conference with counsel to discuss the plaintiffs request for "routine documentation" for Wednesday, June 2, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. It would be appreciated if Mr. Bill Mertens initiated the phone call to counsel and chambers.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
116 PAPERLESS ORDER RESCINDING 114 Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply − FILED IN ERROR. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/26/04.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
117 LETTER ORDER re: Discovery Procedures. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/4/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Replies due by 6/18/2004. (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (FILED IN ERROR) Modified on 6/14/2004 (mcb, Deputy

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 68 of 90

06/04/2004 06/18/2004
06/30/2004 07/15/2004
07/21/2004 07/21/2004 07/26/2004 08/02/2004
08/05/2004

Clerk). (Entered: 06/04/2004)
119 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (CORRECTED) filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Replies due by 6/18/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
120 REPLY to 119 Response to Motion re 106 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Yancey Taylor Jr., Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. (Attachments: # 1)(Mertens, William) Modified on 6/21/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/18/2004)
121 Correspondence re: joint discovery plan (Attachments: # 1 Joint discovery plan)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
122 MOTION for Protective Order by John E. Appleby, Vernon Betkey, George P. Brantly, Department of Maryland State Police, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, Keven L. Gray, Jesse Graybill, John R. Greene, George H. Hall, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Steven O. Jones, David B. Mitchell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, John L. Wilhelm. Responses due by 8/2/2004 (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
123 Correspondence re: Joint discovery plan. The court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery plan, dated July 15, 2004; it is approved. (cad, Chambers) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
124 RE: July 28 correspondence from the Court to the parties: The correct date for the parties' joint discovery plan was June 30, 2004, not July 15, 2004, as the previous docket entry reflects. (cad, Chambers) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
125 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 106 Motion of plaintiffs for Leave to File third amended complaint. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/26/04. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
126 RESPONSE in Opposition re 122 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Replies due by 8/16/2004. (Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 125 Order on Motion for Leave to File by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Yancey Taylor Jr., Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Responses due by 8/23/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order of Feb 2 2001# 2 Exhibit Table)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/05/2004)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 69 of 90

08/06/2004 128 Correcting Earlier Submission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit 2 to motion for reconsideration)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/06/2004)

08/16/2004 129 Correspondence re: (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/16/2004)

08/16/2004

130 RESPONSE re 129 Miscellaneous Correspondence for leave to file reply filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Yancey Taylor Jr., Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. (Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/16/2004)

08/23/2004

131 Correspondence re: Request to file a reply brief. I am in receipt of the parties' correspondence concerning MSP's request to file a reply brief regarding their motion for a protective Order. This request is granted and, as stated by MSP in their letter to the Court, it will be filed immediately upon approval of this request. (cad, Chambers) (Entered: 08/23/2004)

08/24/2004

132 REPLY re 126 Response in Opposition to Motion,, Reply filed by John E. Appleby, Vernon Betkey, George P. Brantly, Department of Maryland State Police, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, Keven L. Gray, Jesse Graybill, John R. Greene, George H. Hall, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Steven O. Jones, David B. Mitchell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm. (Borinsky, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/25/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/24/2004)

08/25/2004

133 MOTION to Compel discovery; for status conference; and for sanctions by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Responses due by 9/13/2004 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

08/27/2004 134 RESPONSE in Opposition re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 125 Order on Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Replies due by 9/10/2004. (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/27/2004)

08/31/2004 135 ORDER denying 122 Motion of Defendants for a Protective Order. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 8/31/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/31/2004)

09/02/2004 136 RESPONSE in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and for Sanctions filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Replies due by 9/16/2004. (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/02/2004)

09/03/2004

137 Correspondence re: Exhibits 1 − 18 to Document #136 filed on 9/2/04 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18)(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/03/2004)

09/04/2004

138 MOTION for Leave to File reply in support of motion to compel by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 70 of 90

09/09/2004 09/10/2004
09/20/2004 10/07/2004
10/07/2004 10/13/2004 10/14/2004 10/15/2004 10/15/2004 10/19/2004 10/29/2004

Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Responses due by 9/21/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh 1 − letter of June 18, 2004# 2 Exhibit Exh 2 − e−mail of July 23, 2004# 3 Exhibit Exh 3 − letter of August 9, 2004# 4 Exhibit Exh 4 − e−mail of August 23, 2004# 5 Exhibit Exh 5 − e−mail of August 24, 2004# 6 Exhibit Exh 6 − e−mail of August 25, 2004)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 09/04/2004)
139 PAPERLESS ORDER denying 138 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 9/9/04. (cad, Chambers) Modified on 9/9/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/09/2004)
140 REPLY to 134 Response to Motion re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 125 Order on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Nallie Hairston, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, James E. Nolan, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Yancey Taylor Jr., Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. (Mertens, William) Modified on 9/14/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/10/2004)
141 ORDER granting 133 Motion of Plaintiffs to Compel and for Sanctions as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 9/20/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
142 MOTION to Enforce Order of September 20, 2004, compelling responses to interrogatories by Jawad Abdullah, Mecca Agunabo I, James E. Alston Jr., Verna A. Bailey, Kenwin Baylor, William M. Berry, Shawn Bridges, Eric A. Cook, George Daughtry, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Levander Jones, Joseph Kahoe, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, John S. Means, Kenneth Moody, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Gary D. Rodwell, Janice Springs, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor Jr., Yancey Taylor, Calvin Thorpe Jr., Calvin Thorpe Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Nelson D. Walker, Lakeithia Webb, Johnston E. Williams, Samuel Williams, Frank Willis. Responses due by 10/25/2004 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
143 MOTION for Corey L. Stoughton to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
144 MARGINAL ORDER granting 143 Motion of Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., for Corey L. Stoughton to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #1207653 − for Document #144 see #143). Signed by Clerk on 10/14/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
145 RESPONSE to Motion re 142 MOTION to Enforce Order of September 20, 2004, compelling responses to interrogatories filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Replies due by 10/28/2004. (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
146 Correspondence re: Exhibits 1−8 to Document #145 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8)(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
147 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Telephone Conference for Monday, October 18, 2004 at 3:00 p.m., to be initiated by William Mertens, regarding the upcoming hearing on outstanding motion. This is also to advise that the Hearing on Motion to Enforce (Paper No. 142), is scheduled for Thursday, October 28th, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom Number to be posted on the Calendar located on the Courthouse Lobby.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
148 ORDER RESCHEDULING hearing to resolve Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Court's September 20, 2004 Order. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/19/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
149 MOTION to Compel Production of Complete Personnel Files by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches. Responses due by 11/15/2004 (Attachments: # 1

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 71 of 90

11/04/2004
11/04/2004 11/10/2004 11/12/2004 11/15/2004 12/06/2004
12/07/2004 12/09/2004 12/22/2004
12/27/2004

Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit)(Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
150 RESPONSE to Motion re 149 MOTION to Compel Production of Complete Personnel Files Defendants' Rsponse to Plaintiffs' Letter Motion to Compel Production filed by John E. Appleby, Vernon Betkey, George P. Brantly, Department of Maryland State Police, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, Keven L. Gray, Jesse Graybill, John R. Greene, George H. Hall, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Steven O. Jones, David B. Mitchell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm. Replies due by 11/18/2004. (Dove, Maureen) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
151 ORDER REVISING prior Order, paper No. 141, for the limited purpose of permitting the Defendants to assert the attorney client privilege as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/4/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
152 Correspondence re: motion to compel production from MSP personnel files (Mertens, William) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
153 ORDER. Monetary Sactions were not imposed. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/12/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/15/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/12/2004)
154 ORDER dismissing 149 Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Complete Production without Prejudice as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/15/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
155 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice the admission of David K. Tomar by John E. Appleby, Vernon Betkey, George P. Brantly, Department of Maryland State Police, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, Keven L. Gray, Jesse Graybill, John R. Greene, George H. Hall, Eric Harbold, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, David B. Mitchell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Mark A. Rhinehart, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
156 MARGINAL ORDER granting 155 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice the admission of David K. Tomar. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/3/04.(FOR DOCUMENT #156 SEE DOCUMENT #155) (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
157 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 127 Motion of Plaintiff for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/9/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
158 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint as modified by the Court's Order dated 7/26/04 and Request the Court to order Plaintiff's to file a Clean Copy of the Third Amended Complaint as modified by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 1/8/2005 (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
159 RESPONSE to Motion re 158 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint as modified by the Court's Order dated 7/26/04 and Request the Court to order Plaintiff's to file a Clean Copy of the Third Amend re: request to extend time filed by Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, George Daughtry, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines,

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 72 of 90

12/27/2004 12/28/2004
12/28/2004 12/29/2004
01/07/2005 01/10/2005 01/11/2005 01/13/2005 01/24/2005

William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah. Replies due by 1/10/2005. (Mertens, William) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
160 Correspondence re: joint proposed revised scheduling order (Mertens, William) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
161 PAPERLESS ORDER re 159 Response to Motion, filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, I, George Daughtry, John S. Means,, Kenneth R. Jeffries,, Yvonne Davis,, Diana Desmoines,, William M. Berry,, Verna A. Bailey,, Cynthia Walker,, Kenwin Baylor,, Nallie Hairston,, Joseph Kahoe,, Frank Willis,, Kenneth Moody,, Calvin Postell,, Terry Postell,, Janice Springs,, Samuel Williams,, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe,, Latia Thorpe,, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson,, Lakeithia Webb,, Levander Jones,, Shawn Bridges, − PLAINTIFFS WILL PLEASE FILE A "CLEAN COPY" OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT DELETES DISMISSAL CLAIMS AND PARTIES, ON OR BEFORE 1/15/05. DEFENDANTS WILL ANSWER ON OR BEFORE 1/25/05. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/28/04. (jnf)(Grimm, Paul) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
162 PAPERLESS ORDER re 160 Miscellaneous Correspondence REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER − APPROVED. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/28/04. (Grimm, Paul) (JNF) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
163 AMENDED PAPERLESS ORDER re 159 Response to Motion filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah, Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, I, George Daughtry, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines,, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, alvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges, −PLAINTIFFS WILL PLEASE FILE A "CLEAN COPY" OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT DELETES DISMISSED CLAIMS AND PARTIES, ON OR BEFORE 1/15/05. DEFENDANTS WILL ANSWER ON OR BEFORE 1/25/05. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/29/04. (JNF)(Grimm, Paul) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
164 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 157 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 125 Order on Motion for Leave to File by Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor. Filing fee $ 255. Appeal Record due by 2/6/2005. (Brown, C) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
USCA Appeal Fees received $255 receipt number 1209799 re 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 164 Notice of Appeal, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
165 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches.(Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
USCA Case Number 05−1078 for 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Cynthia Walker,, Kenwin Baylor,, Nallie Hairston,, Joseph Kahoe,, Frank Willis,, Kenneth Moody,, Calvin Postell,, Terry Postell,, Janice Springs,, Samuel Williams,, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe,, Latia Thorpe,, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson,, Lakeithia Webb,, Levander Jones,, Shawn Bridges,. Case Manager − Deborah S. Daniel (bmh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2005)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 73 of 90

01/25/2005 166 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky on behalf of all defendants (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

01/25/2005

167 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold.(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

01/26/2005 168 Certificate of Clerk certifying the record is complete for appeal purposes re: 164 Notice of Appeal, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

02/07/2005 169 NOTICE of Change of Address by William J Mertens (Mertens, William) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

02/07/2005 170 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Attachments: # 1 List of discovery to be supplemented)(Mertens, William) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

02/09/2005 171 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Nelson D. Walker. Responses due by 2/26/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service# 2 Rule 101.2 Certificate)(Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 02/09/2005)

02/16/2005 172 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 171 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Nelson D. Walker. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 2/16/05. (jgb)(Grimm, Paul). (Entered: 02/16/2005)

02/16/2005 173 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING 170 Jointly Proposed Revised Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 2/16/05. (jgb)(Grimm, Paul). (Entered: 02/16/2005)

02/22/2005 174 Correspondence from Clerk of the Court re: Withdrawal of Appearance of counsel for Nelson Walker. (c/m mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2005)

02/23/2005 175 MEMORANDUM to all Counsel/Parties re: this case will remain subject to electronic filing as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 2/22/05. (c/m mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2005)

03/04/2005 176 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas R M Nazarian on behalf of all plaintiffs (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 03/04/2005)

03/24/2005

177 MOTION for Peter Lallas to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, George Daughtry, Johnston E. Williams, David H. Patterson, Jr, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2005)

03/28/2005 178 MARGINAL ORDER granting 177 Motion of Plaintiffs for Peter Lallas to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #14637001070 − for Document #178 see #177). Signed by Clerk on 3/28/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2005)

03/28/2005 179 MOTION of Maryland State Police, et al., for Allison C. Stanton to Appear Pro Hac Vice (filed in Clerk's Office on 3/24/05). (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2005)

03/28/2005 180 MARGINAL ORDER granting 179 Motion of Plaintiffs for Allison C. Stanton to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #14637001070 − for Document #180 see #179). Signed by Clerk on 3/28/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2005)

03/30/2005

181 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky on behalf of Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T.

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 74 of 90

03/30/2005
04/07/2005
04/07/2005
04/11/2005 04/14/2005 05/06/2005 05/20/2005 05/24/2005 05/25/2005 06/08/2005

Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
182 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky on behalf of Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
183 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL by Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, Yancey Taylor, Jr, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. (Shuford, Reginald) Modified on 4/7/2005 (ko, Deputy Clerk).(FILED IN ERROR−WILL REFILE) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
184 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL by Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, Yancey Taylor, Jr, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. (Shuford, Reginald) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
185 Correspondence from State of Maryland RE: Related Cases PGW−98−1098 and L−05−764. (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
186 ORDER of USCA "GRANTING" joint motion to amend the caption as to 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 164 Notice of Appeal, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
187 TRANSCRIPT filed for 7/17/03 before Magistrate Judge Grimm, re 164 Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: CompuScribe. (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
188 Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Joint Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment and Determination by Department of Maryland State Police, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches. Responses due by 6/10/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Order)(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
189 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 188 Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Joint Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment and Determination filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Department of Maryland State Police Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/25/05.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
190 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Mecca Agunabo, I, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, Yancey Taylor, Jr, Johnston E. Williams, John S.

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 75 of 90

06/09/2005
06/14/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/24/2005 06/28/2005
07/05/2005
07/05/2005 07/07/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005

Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Filing fee $ 255. Appeal Record due by 7/8/2005. (Shuford, Reginald) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 255.00 receipt number 14637002523 re 190 Notice of Appeal, filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Mecca Agunabo, I, Yancey Taylor, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis−, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 190 Notice of Appeal, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
Telephone Conference held on 6/23/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
191 ORDER OUTLINING circumstances under which the videotaped deposition may be conducted as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/23/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
192 MOTION for Earl S. Adams, Jr., to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Plaintiffs, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al.(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Filed in Clerk's Office on 6/16/05) Modified on 6/24/2005 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/24/2005)
193 MARGINAL ORDER granting 192 Motion of Plaintiffs, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., for Earl S. Adams, Jr., to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #14637002652 − for Document #193 see #192). Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/21/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
USCA Case Number 05−1691 for 190 Notice of Appeal, filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Mecca Agunabo, I, Yancey Taylor, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges,. Case Manager − Debbie Daniel (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
194 ORDER of USCA "CONSOLIDATING" USCA case nos. 05−1078(L) and 05−1691 for purposes of briefing and oral argument as to 190 Notice of Appeal, filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Mecca Agunabo, I, Yancey Taylor, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
195 Correspondence re: Response to Defendants' Letter of June 30, 2005 (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
196 Correspondence re: July 15, 2005 meeting (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
197 MOTION for Charlton C. Copeland to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
198 MARGINAL ORDER granting 197 Motion of Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., for Charlton C. Copeland to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #14637003274 − for Document #198 see 197). Signed by Clerk on 7/20/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 76 of 90

07/25/2005

199 PAPERLESS ORDER setting bi−weekly in−court status conference hearings beginning Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 3 p.m. The status conference hearings will be held every other Tuesday thereafter at 3 p.m. unless either counsel agree that the conference is not needed and contact Chambers by 3 p.m. the Monday before the hearing, or the Court orders that the hearing be canceled or postponed. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 07/25/05. (Grimm, Paul) (ake) (Entered: 07/25/2005)

08/01/2005 200 NOTICE of Appearance by David Reid Moore on behalf of all defendants (Moore, David) (Entered: 08/01/2005)

08/01/2005

201 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Stipulation for Extension of Time by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 8/18/2005 (Moore, David) (Entered: 08/01/2005)

08/02/2005

202 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING re 201 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Stipulation for Extension of Time filed by Jesse Graybill, David B. Mitchell, Paul J. Quill, Melvin Fialkewicz, Department of Maryland State Police, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Christopher Tideberg,, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold,. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 8/2/05. (jnf)(Grimm, Paul) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

08/08/2005

203 NOTICE by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCES OF EMILY VANDERGRIFT AND DAVID TOMAR (Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/08/2005)

08/19/2005

204 PAPERLESS ORDER Scheduling the first of the Bi−Weekly Status Hearings on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 to begin at 2:00 p.m. This Status Hearing was originally scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.(Grimm, Paul) (jnf) (Entered: 08/19/2005)

08/23/2005

Status Conference held in 7B on 8/23/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (ER Karaska.) (rk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2005)

08/26/2005 205 NOTICE by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches of Withdrawal of Appearance of Jennifer K. Squillario (Squillario, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/26/2005)

09/02/2005 206 MOTION to Compel by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches. Responses due by 9/19/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6)(Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

09/02/2005

207 MOTION for Protective Order by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 9/19/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Borinksy's Ltr 08_22_05# 2 Exhibit B Borinsky's Ltr 08_29−05# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D Nazarian's Ltr 08_31_05)(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

09/02/2005

208 PAPERLESS ORDER Based upon today's telephone conference, counsel will work together with an eye toward compiling a joint exhibit for the anticipated summary judgment motions. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 09/02/05. (Grimm, Paul) (ake) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 77 of 90

09/06/2005

209 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J Bechtold on behalf of Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/06/2005)

09/06/2005

Status Conference held on 9/6/2005 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (ER: Karaska.) (rk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2005)

09/06/2005

210 PAPERLESS ORDER re 206 207 For the reasons set forth in today's hearing, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Defendants' Motion for Protective Order are both GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Additionally, the parties' joint request for an extension of the summary judgment deadline made today at our status conference is granted and counsel are to electronically file the revised schedule within ten (10) days of this Order. No later than fifteen (15) days after Defendants file their summary judgment motion, they will serve answers to the interrogatories at issue in Paper No. 206. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion will be extended fifteen (15) days from the date Defendants serve the interrogatory answers at issue only if these answers are served after the Defendants file their Summary Judgment Motion. Defendants' deadline for filing a Reply shall be in accorandance with Local Rule 105.2(a). This Order resolves Paper Nos. 206 and 207. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 09/06/05. (Grimm, Paul) (ake) (Entered: 09/06/2005)

09/12/2005

211 MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff James Alston's First Set of Request for Admissions by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 9/29/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Borinsky, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/12/2005)

09/15/2005 212 Stipulation for Modification of the Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Revised Scheduling Order)(Moore, David) Modified on 9/16/2005 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/15/2005)

09/19/2005

213 PAPERLESS ORDER re 211 GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Amend/Correct Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff James Alston's First Set of Request for Admissions. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 09/16/05. (Grimm, Paul)(ake) (Entered: 09/19/2005)

09/20/2005 214 PAPERLESS ORDER re 212 APPROVING THE PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULED ORDER filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 9/20/05. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 09/20/2005)

09/20/2005

Status Hearing held on 9/20/2005 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (E.R.: Goldsmith.) (hsg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/20/2005)

09/22/2005

215 MOTION to Compel by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 10/11/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(Moore, David) (Entered: 09/22/2005)

09/26/2005

216 PAPERLESS ORDER Due to a conflict in the Court's schedule, the next bi−weekly status conference, which was scheduled for Tuesday, October 4, 2005 at 3 p.m., HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED to Wednesday, October 5, 2005 at 3 p.m. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 09/26/05. (Grimm, Paul) (ake) (Entered: 09/26/2005)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 78 of 90

09/26/2005

217 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Robert Smith on behalf of Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold (Smith, Christopher) (Entered: 09/26/2005)

09/29/2005 218 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Goldsmith, Therese) (Entered: 09/29/2005)

10/05/2005

Status Conference held on 10/5/2005 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (Court Reporter er: Smith.) (jas, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

10/05/2005

219 PAPERLESS ORDER re 215 218 GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Compel subject to the limitations stated in today's hearing. In addition, Defendants' unopposed Oral Motion to Extend the Deadline for Filing Their Summary Judgment Deadline from Friday, October 7, 2005 to Wednesday, October 12, 2005 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/05/05. (Grimm, Paul)(ake) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

10/07/2005

220 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff Nelson D. Walker's Claims for Want of Prosecution by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 10/24/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit 01# 3 Exhibit 02# 4 Exhibit 03# 5 Exhibit 04# 6 Exhibit 05# 7 Exhibit 06# 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/07/2005)

10/12/2005

221 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 10/31/2005 (Moore, David) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/12/2005

222 PAPERLESS ORDER re 221 APPROVING Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions, extending the dispositive motions deadline to Wednesday, October 19, 2005. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/12/05. (Grimm, Paul) (ake) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/12/2005 223 LETTER ORDER to Mr. Nelson Walker: RE: Hearing on Tuesday, November 29,2005 at 3:oo p.m. as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/12/05. (c/m to pro se party 10/12/05)(slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/13/2005)

10/18/2005

Status hearing held on 10/18/2005 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (Tape #1) (std, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/18/2005)

10/19/2005

224 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages ( Voluminous Exhibits) to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Paper Form by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 11/7/2005 (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

10/19/2005

225 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O.

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 79 of 90

10/19/2005
10/20/2005 10/21/2005
10/21/2005
11/23/2005 11/28/2005 11/29/2005 11/30/2005 01/05/2006

Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 11/7/2005 (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
226 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 11/7/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Memorandum of Law to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Appendix Defendnats' Motion for Summary Judgment# 4 Text of Proposed Order Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment# 5 Request for Hearing to Defendants' Motiion for Summary Judgment)(Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
227 PAPERLESS ORDER Granting 224 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Granting 225 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/20/05.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
228 NOTICE by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold Withdrawal of Appearance, Elizabeth M. Borinsky (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
229 NOTICE by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold Withdrawal of Appearance of Demetrios T. Zachropoulos (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
230 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment by Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Responses due by 12/12/2005 (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
231 PAPERLESS ORER re 230 APPROVING MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Mecca Agunabo, I, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/23/05. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
Status Conference held on 11/29/2005 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (ER: Karaska.) (rk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
232 ORDER granting 220 Motion of Defendants to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiff Nelson D. Walker for Want of Prosecution. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/30/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
233 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to File Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook.

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 80 of 90

01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/10/2006 01/19/2006 01/20/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006
02/10/2006
02/13/2006 03/22/2006

(Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
234 Request for Conference (Moore, David) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
235 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING re 233 Stipulation, filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook,John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries,Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 1/6/06. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
Status Hearing held on 1/10/2006 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (Tape #1) (std, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
236 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to File Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
237 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVAL, BUT THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, re 236 Stipulation for extension of time, filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, John S. Means,, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 1/20/06. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
238 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Responses due by 2/24/2006 (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
239 RESPONSE in Opposition re 226 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Mecca Agunabo, I, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Replies due by 2/21/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit 25)(Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
240 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 2/27/2006 (Moore, David) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
241 ORDER granting 238 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, granting 240 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Reply due by 4/14/06. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 2/10/06.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
242 JUDGMENT of USCA (certified copy) "AFFIRMING" in part and "DISMISSING" in part the judgment of the District Court as to 190 Notice of Appeal, filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook, Mecca Agunabo, I, Yancey Taylor, Jr., John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges, 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Cynthia Walker, Kenwin Baylor, Nallie Hairston, Joseph Kahoe, Frank Willis, Kenneth Moody, Calvin Postell, Terry Postell, Janice Springs, Samuel Williams,

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 81 of 90

04/12/2006
04/13/2006 04/13/2006
04/28/2006
04/28/2006
05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006

Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe, Latia Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson, Lakeithia Webb, Levander Jones, Shawn Bridges. (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
243 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 5/1/2006 (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
244 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 243 Motion for Extension of Time, Reply to be filed on April 28, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/13/06.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) Modified on 4/13/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/13/2006)
245 JUDGMENT of USCA (certified copy) as to 190 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Gary D. Rodwell,, Johnston E. Williams,, James E. Alston, Jr., Yancey Taylor,, Aleshia Taylor,, George W. Taylor, Jr., Eric A. Cook,, Mecca Agunabo, I, Yancey Taylor, Jr., John S. Means,, Kenneth R. Jeffries,, Diana Desmoines,, William M. Berry,, Verna A. Bailey,, Cynthia Walker,, Kenwin Baylor,, Nallie Hairston,, Joseph Kahoe,, Frank Willis,, Kenneth Moody,, Calvin Postell,, Terry Postell,, Janice Springs,, Samuel Williams,, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe,, Latia Thorpe,, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson,, Lakeithia Webb,, Levander Jones,, Shawn Bridges,, 164 Notice of Appeal, filed by Cynthia Walker,, Kenwin Baylor,, Nallie Hairston,, Joseph Kahoe,, Frank Willis,, Kenneth Moody,, Calvin Postell,, Terry Postell,, Janice Springs,, Samuel Williams,, Calvin Thorpe, Sr., Evan Thorpe,, Latia Thorpe,, Calvin Thorpe, Jr., Tashima Nicholson,, Lakeithia Webb,, Levander Jones,, Shawn Bridges, (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
246 REPLY to Response in Opposition to 226 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Replies due by 5/12/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Affidavit # 3 Affidavit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Moore, David) Modified on 5/1/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/28/2006)
247 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Responses due by 5/15/2006 (Moore, David) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
248 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 247 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/2/06.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
Case Reassigned to Judge James K. Bredar. Judge Paul W. Grimm no longer assigned to the case. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
249 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Lawrence Schwalb on behalf of Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches (Schwalb, Brian) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
250 MOTION for Disclosure of Information in Aid of Enforcement of This Court's Consent Decree Prohibiting Racial Profiling by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches. Responses due by 6/5/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwalb, Brian) (Entered:

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 82 of 90

05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/26/2006 05/30/2006
06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006
06/05/2006 06/09/2006
06/19/2006

05/18/2006)
Telephone Status Conference held on 5/18/2006 before Judge James K. Bredar. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
251 ORDER CONFIRMING the results of the telephone conference. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/18/06. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
252 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal by Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Responses due by 6/12/2006 (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
253 RESPONSE to Motion re 252 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Replies due by 6/13/2006. (Moore, David) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
254 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Voluntary Dismissal by Mecca Agunabo, I, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Responses due by 6/19/2006 (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
255 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Voluntary Dismissal by Mecca Agunabo, I, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. Responses due by 6/19/2006 (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
256 RESPONSE to Motion re 255 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. Replies due by 6/16/2006. (Moore, David) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
257 RESPONSE in Opposition re 250 MOTION for Disclosure of Information in Aid of Enforcement of This Court's Consent Decree Prohibiting Racial Profiling filed by Department of Maryland State Police. Replies due by 6/19/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit)(Moore, David) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
258 NOTICE to Substitute Corrrected Exhibit #2 to 257 Response in Opposition by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit #2 (corrected))(Bechtold, Elizabeth) Modified on 6/12/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/09/2006)
259 REPLY to Response in Opposition to 250 Motion for Disclosure of Information in Aid of Enforcement of This Court's Consent Decree Prohibiting Racial Profiling filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One# 2 Exhibit Two# 3 Exhibit Three)(Schwalb, Brian) Modified on 6/20/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/19/2006)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 83 of 90

06/30/2006

260 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Statement Regarding Spreadsheet of Claims and Defenses by Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

06/30/2006

261 STATUS REPORT Line Regarding Spreadsheet of Claims and Defenses by Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

06/30/2006

262 STATUS REPORT Statement of Disagreement on Chart by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Tashima Nicholson, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Mark A. Rhinehart. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6/29/2006 email from Douglas R.M. Nazrian to David Moore# 2 Exhibit 3/3/2006 email from Douglas R. M. Nazarian to David Moore)(Moore, David) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

07/26/2006 263 ORDER granting 255 Motion of Plaintiffs for Voluntary Dismissal. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 7/26/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/27/2006)

08/10/2006 264 ORDER RESCINDING [Paper No. 263] Order dated 7/26/06; GRANTING 255 MOTION of Plaintiffs for Voluntary Dismissal as therein set forth. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 8/9/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

09/29/2006 265 MEMORANDUM Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/29/06. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

09/29/2006 266 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 226 Motion by defendants for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/29/06 (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

10/23/2006

Status Conference held on 10/23/2006 before Judge James K. Bredar. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/23/2006 267 ORDER CONFIRMING the results of the Status Conference held on 10/23/06. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 10/23/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

11/09/2006 268 NOTICE of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Disclosure. Motion Hearing set for 12/12/2006, 10:00 AM before Magistrate James K. Bredar. (cw)(Bredar, James) (Entered: 11/09/2006)

11/16/2006 269 Status Report Submitted Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Proposed Schedule by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White (Moore, David) (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/20/2006

270 MARGINAL ORDER APPROVING 269 Stipulation Regarding Discovery and Scheduling filed by Bernard M. Donovan, Billy White, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 11/20/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

12/15/2006

Motion Hearing held on 12/15/2006 re 250 MOTION for Disclosure of Information in Aid of Enforcement of This Court's Consent Decree Prohibiting Racial Profiling filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches; Argument of Counsel heard and Motion "DENIED", for reasons stated in open Court, held before Judge James K. Bredar. (Court Reporter ER: Ron Lawson.) (rhl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

12/18/2006 271 STIPULATION and Order Regarding Discovery and Scheduling (Revised) by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches. (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 84 of 90

12/21/2006 272 REVISED STIPULATION & ORDER re: DISCOVERY SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 12/19/06. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

01/03/2007

Mail Returned as Undeliverable (RETURN TO SENDER − Not Deliverable as Addressed − UNABLE TO FORWARD). Mail sent to Barbara Musfeldt Tapscott. (Entered: 01/03/2007)

01/26/2007 273 NOTICE of Appearance by Allison J Caplis on behalf of all plaintiffs (Caplis, Allison) (Entered: 01/26/2007)

02/06/2007 274 MOTION by Virginia Vance to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. (Filing Fee Paid) (Receipt #14637014183) (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

02/06/2007 275 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 274 Motion by Virginia Vance to Appear Pro Hac Vice for plaintiffs. Signed by Clerk on 2/5/07. (For 275, See 274) (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

04/05/2007 276 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing held on 12/15/06 before Judge James K. Bredar (filed separately). (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2007)

05/21/2007

277 STIPULATION re 272 Order Regarding Expert Discovery and Scheduling by Nelson D. Walker, Mecca Agunabo, I, Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, George P. Brantly, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, Gary D. Rodwell, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten, Yancey Taylor, Jr, George Daughtry, Johnston E. Williams, Paul W. Grimm, David H. Patterson, Jr, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah. (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

278 NOTICE by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Paul J. Quill, Billy White, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten to WIthdraw the Appearance of Christopher R. Smith. (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

279 NOTICE by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Paul J. Quill, Billy White, John and Jane Does, Numbers One through Ten to Withdraw the Appearance of Maureen Mullen Dove, Esquire. (Bechtold, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007 280 ORDER MODIFYING the Schedule set in this case as therein set forth. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/21/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

06/22/2007 281 NOTICE by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches of Withdrawal of Appearance of Douglas R.M. Nazarian (Nazarian, Douglas) (Entered: 06/22/2007)

07/03/2007 282 MOTION for Martin Alexander Price to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Plaintiffs. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

07/05/2007 283 MARGINAL ORDER granting 282 Motion of Plaintiffs for Martin Alexander Price to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #84637010176 − for Document #283 see #282). Signed by Clerk on 7/5/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

08/02/2007

284 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White.Responses due by 8/20/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, excerpted report of John Lamberth, PhD# 2 Exhibit Ex.2 expert witness document production requests#

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 85 of 90

08/06/2007 08/07/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007
08/13/2007 08/16/2007
08/21/2007 08/22/2007 10/04/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007

3 Exhibit Ex. 3, expert witness interrogatories# 4 Exhibit Ex. 4, emails regarding overdue discovery# 5 Exhibit Ex. 5, plaintiffs' responses to expert witness interrogatories# 6 Exhibit Ex. 6, email from Douglas R.M. Nazarian to David Moore# 7 Exhibit Ex. 7, excerpted report of Mark Johnson, PhD# 8 Exhibit Ex. 8, email from David Moore to Martin Price)(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
285 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 8/6/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
286 RESPONSE in Opposition to 284 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Related to Expert Witness Opinions filed by Plaintiffs. Replies due by 8/21/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order April 22, 1997# 2 Exhibit Transcript April 11, 1997# 3 Exhibit Report of John Lamberth)(Price, Martin) Modified on 8/8/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/07/2007)
287 REPLY to Response in Opposition to 284 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White.Replies due by 8/23/2007. (Moore, David) Modified on 8/10/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/09/2007)
288 MOTION to Quash Defendants' Subpoena to Jerome Bivens by Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, George Daughtry, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah. Responses due by 8/27/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
289 RESPONSE in Opposition re 288 MOTION to Quash Defendants' Subpoena to Jerome Bivens filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White.Replies due by 8/27/2007. (Moore, David) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
290 REPLY in Support of 288 MOTION to Quash Defendants' Subpoena to Jerome Bivens filed by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook.Replies due by 8/30/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lamberth's Rebuttal Report to Johnson 07302007# 2 Exhibit Lamberth Report 03152007)(Price, Martin) Modified on 8/16/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/16/2007)
291 STATUS REPORT Re: Joint Spreadsheet of Parties and Claims by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
292 NOTICE by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches of Withdrawal of Appearance of Mark S. Saudek (Saudek, Mark) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
293 RECUSAL ORDER. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 10/3/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
294 ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/23/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
Case reassigned to Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr.; Judge James K. Bredar no longer assigned to the case. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
295 ORDER SCHEDULING Telephonic Status and Scheduling Conference. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp Jr., on 10/24/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 86 of 90

10/25/2007 296 NOTICE of Appearance by Corlie McCormick, Jr on behalf of all defendants (McCormick, Corlie) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/29/2007 297 NOTICE by Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches et al. WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Corey L. Stoughton (Shuford, Reginald) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/31/2007

298 MOTION to Vacate 265 Memorandum Opinion, 266 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and to Clarify Oct. 3, 2007 Recusal Order by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Responses due by 11/19/2007 (Price, Martin) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

11/01/2007 299 STATUS REPORT on Behalf of All Parties by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Price, Martin) (Entered: 11/01/2007)

11/05/2007

Status/Scheduling Conference held on 11/5/2007 before Judge Frederick P Stamp Jr. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/06/2007 300 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp Jr., on 11/6/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2007)

11/07/2007 301 MOTION for Amy L. Collen to Appear Pro Hac Vice for all Plaintiffs. Filing fee $50, receipt number 14637020919. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/07/2007

302 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 301 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Amy L Collen on behalf of Mecca Agunabo, I, Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Shawn Bridges, Levander Jones, Lakeithia Webb, Tashima Nicholson, Calvin Thorpe, Jr, Latia Thorpe, Cynthia Walker, Evan Thorpe, Calvin Thorpe, Sr, Samuel Williams, Janice Springs, Terry Postell, Calvin Postell, Kenneth Moody, Frank Willis, Joseph Kahoe, Nallie Hairston, Kenwin Baylor, Gary D. Rodwell, George Daughtry, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, Yvonne Davis, Diana Desmoines, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey, James E. Alston, Jr, Yancey Taylor, Aleshia Taylor, George W. Taylor, Jr, Eric A. Cook, Jawad Abdullah. Directing attorney Amy L Collen to register on−line for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attorney/registration.asp.. Signed by Clerk on 11/7/07. (cmns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/08/2007 303 NOTICE of Change of Address by William J Mertens (Mertens, William) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

11/09/2007 304 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on November 5, 2007 before Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. (filed separately). (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/14/2007

305 MOTION to Explain Basis for Additional Dispositive Motions Practice by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. Responses due by 12/3/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit EX. 1, Complaint# 3 Exhibit Ex. 2, 1st Amended Complaint# 4 Exhibit Ex. 3, 2nd Amended Complaint# 5 Exhibit Ex. 4, 3rd Amended Complaint# 6 Exhibit Ex. 5, Verna Bailey Deposition Transcript# 7 Exhibit EX. 6, Gary Rodwell Deposition Transcript# 8 Exhibit Ex. 7, Opposition to Summary Judgment# 9 Exhibit Ex. 8, John Lamberth Deposition Transcript# 10 Exhibit EX. 9, James Ginger Deposition Transcript)(Moore, David) Modified on 11/15/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/19/2007

306 RESPONSE in Opposition re 298 MOTION to Vacate 265 Memorandum Opinion, 266 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and to Clarify Oct. 3, 2007 Recusal Order MOTION to Vacate 265 Memorandum Opinion, 266 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and to Clarify Oct. 3, 2007 Recusal Order filed by Department of Maryland State Police, David B. Mitchell, Jesse Graybill, George H. Hall, Vernon Betkey, Keven L. Gray, John E. Appleby, George P. Brantly, Bernard M. Donovan, Steven W. Dulski, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, Clifford T. Hughes, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, Michael D. Wann, Billy White, John L. Wilhelm, Mark A. Rhinehart, Eric Harbold.Replies due by 12/3/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reassignment Order# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Laskaris, Ioannis) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 87 of 90

11/19/2007

307 RESPONSE in Opposition re 305 MOTION Additional Dispositive Motions Practice filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey.Replies due by 12/3/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

11/26/2007 308 Correspondence re: Defendants' Request for Reply Filing Deadline (McCormick, Corlie) (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/27/2007 309 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Price, Martin) (Entered: 11/27/2007)

11/27/2007

310 ORDER denying 284 Motion of Defendants for Extension of Time in Which to Conduct Discovery Related to Expert Witness Opinions; granting 288 Motion of Plaintiffs to Quash Subpoena to Jerome Bivens. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp Jr on 11/27/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/27/2007)

11/28/2007

311 REPLY to Response to Motion re 305 MOTION Additional Dispositive Motions Practice filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lamberth Deposition Transcript# 2 Exhibit James Ginger Deposition Transcript)(McCormick, Corlie) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

11/29/2007 312 MEMORANDUM to Counsel re: permitting Defendants to file a Reply Brief on or before December 3, 2007 as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp Jr on 11/29/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2007)

12/03/2007

313 REPLY to Response to Motion re 298 MOTION to Vacate 265 Memorandum Opinion, 266 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and to Clarify Oct. 3, 2007 Recusal Order MOTION to Vacate 265 Memorandum Opinion, 266 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and to Clarify Oct. 3, 2007 Recusal Order filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Price, Martin) (Entered: 12/03/2007)

01/18/2008 314 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 305 Defendants' Motion To Explain Basis for Additional Dispositive Motions Practice. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr on 1/18/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

01/25/2008

315 MOTION to Sever , Motion for Separate Trials, MOTION to Bifurcate by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 2/11/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Hearing Transcript, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Litigation Plan, # 5 Exhibit Stipulation, # 6 Exhibit Order, # 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Correspondence to Court, # 8 Exhibit NAACP Supplemental Discovery Response)(Laskaris, Ioannis) (Entered: 01/25/2008)

01/30/2008 316 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann M Oxenham on behalf of Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey (Oxenham, Ann) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

02/08/2008

317 RESPONSE to Motion re 315 MOTION to Sever , Motion for Separate Trials MOTION to Bifurcate filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Replies due by 2/22/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/08/2008)

02/19/2008 318 Proposed Voir Dire by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. (Laskaris, Ioannis) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/19/2008 319 Proposed Jury Instructions by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. (Laskaris, Ioannis) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/19/2008 320 Proposed Voir Dire by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/19/2008 321 Proposed Jury Instructions by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 88 of 90

02/21/2008

322 MOTION in Limine by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

323 MOTION in Limine by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

324 MOTION in Limine by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

325 MOTION in Limine by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, excerpted transcript of Dr. John Lamberth)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

326 MOTION in Limine by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

327 MOTION in Limine by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Lamberth Report, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, Lamberth Depo., # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, Johnson Report)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

328 MOTION in Limine by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/21/2008

329 (FILED IN ERROR − HAD TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES − WILL REFILE) MOTION in Limine by Vernon Betkey, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/10/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 Report of Dr. James Ginger)(Moore, David) Modified on 2/25/2008 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/21/2008)

02/22/2008

330 REPLY to Response to Motion re 315 MOTION to Sever , Motion for Separate Trials MOTION to Bifurcate filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7, # 2 Exhibit 8, # 3 Exhibit 9, # 4 Exhibit 10)(Laskaris, Ioannis) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

02/25/2008 331 MOTION in Limine by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/13/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ginger Report)(McCormick, Corlie) (Entered: 02/25/2008)

02/28/2008

332 RESPONSE in Opposition re 326 MOTION in Limine regarding other traffic stops filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Laskaris, Ioannis) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

02/28/2008

333 RESPONSE in Opposition re 327 MOTION in Limine filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

02/28/2008

334 RESPONSE in Opposition re 324 MOTION in Limine filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 89 of 90

02/28/2008

335 RESPONSE in Opposition re 322 MOTION in Limine Opposition to motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Nicola Persico filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Moore, David) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

02/28/2008

336 RESPONSE in Opposition re 328 MOTION in Limine Opposition to motion to exclude testimony of Colonel Michael Snyders filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Col. Snyders)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

02/28/2008

337 RESPONSE in Opposition re 326 MOTION in Limine Opposition to motion to exclude opinion of Dr. Mark Johnson filed by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, deposition excerpt, Dr. John Lamberth, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, desposition excerpt, Gary Rodwell, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, deposition excerpt, Verna Bailey)(Moore, David) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

02/28/2008

338 RESPONSE in Opposition re 325 MOTION in Limine filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Replies due by 3/13/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

02/29/2008

339 Proposed Pretrial Order submitted by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Gary D. Rodwell, Billy White, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 02/29/2008)

02/29/2008

340 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time modify scheduling order as to date of pre−trial conference by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/17/2008 (Moore, David) (Entered: 02/29/2008)

03/03/2008

341 RESPONSE in Opposition re 331 MOTION in Limine filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. Replies due by 3/17/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

03/04/2008 342 ORDER granting 340 JOINT Motion To Modify Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., on 3/4/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

03/11/2008 343 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time modify scheduling order by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Responses due by 3/28/2008 (McCormick, Corlie) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

03/11/2008

344 ORDER granting in part 343 SECOND JOINT Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Converting Pretrial Conference to Status Conference as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr., on 3/11/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

03/14/2008

TELEPHONE Status Conference held on 3/14/2008 before Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2008)

03/14/2008 345 ORDER CONTINUING Trial, Pretrial Conference, Settlement Conference, and Daubert Hearing. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr on 3/14/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2008)

04/02/2008 346 ORDER SCHEDULING Telephonic Status Conference. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr., on 4/2/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2008)

04/03/2008

347 NOTICE of Settlement and Request for Dismissal by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Executed Settlement Agreement)(Price, Martin) (Entered: 04/03/2008)

Case: 1:98-cv-01098-FPS As of: 07/11/2019 02:44 PM EDT 90 of 90

04/09/2008

Status/Scheduling Conference held on 4/9/2008 before Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/10/2008 348 Correspondence re: settlement/stipulation of dismissal (Moore, David) (Entered: 04/10/2008)

04/10/2008

349 ORDER CONFIRMING Oral Pronouncement of Briefing Schedule for Clarification of Whether Copies of Certain Complaints are Subject to Production Under the 2003 Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr on 4/10/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2008)

04/16/2008 350 NOTICE by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey re 347 Notice of Settlement, (Price, Martin) (Entered: 04/16/2008)

04/17/2008

351 MOTION Order Clarifying Disclosure Obligations by Department of Maryland State Police Responses due by 5/5/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Consent Decree and Addendum C, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, Affidavit of Capt. J. Phillip Metz)(Moore, David) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

04/23/2008 352 RESPONSE re 351 MOTION Order Clarifying Disclosure Obligations filed by Gary D. Rodwell, Johnston E. Williams, John S. Means, Kenneth R. Jeffries, William M. Berry, Verna A. Bailey. (Price, Martin) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

04/25/2008 353 REPLY to Response to Motion re 351 MOTION Order Clarifying Disclosure Obligations filed by Department of Maryland State Police. (McCormick, Corlie) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

05/06/2008 354 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL GENERALLY. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr on 5/6/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/06/2008)

05/29/2008

355 ORDER DIRECTING MARYLAND STATE POLICETO SUBMIT COPIES OF COMPLAINTS AGAINSTINDIVIDUAL STATE TROOPERS FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr on 5/29/08. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2008)

09/12/2008 356 NOTICE by Vernon Betkey, John E. Appleby, Bernard M. Donovan, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Billy White Withdrawal of Appearance of J. Joseph Curran, Jr. (Moore, David) (Entered: 09/12/2008)

10/15/2008 357 ORDER DIRECTING Maryland State Police to turn over redacted copies of Complaints to Plaintiffs and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Frederick P Stamp, Jr on 10/15/08(cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/15/2008)