G en. 105] 105
F AM I LY LA W D O M E ST I C V I OLENCE

) C OUR T S AN D J UDGES

) I MMUNI T Y

) T ORTS

) U SE OF F ORC E T O R E T UR N C HI L D K EP T IN V I OL AT I ON OF C US T ODY O RDER

A ugus t10, 1999

T racy A

. G i lm ore, Esquir e D e p u ty S ta te’s A tto rn e

y fo r C a rr o ll C o u n ty

E arl y l ast y ear, w e provided y ou w i t h an op i nion i n re sp on se t o y ouri nqui r yabouti nt erpr et at i on of t he d o m es t i c vi ol ence pr ot ect i ve or derfor m s . 83 O pi nion s o

f the At t or ney G ener al80 ( 1998)

. Speci fi cal l y , y o u ask ed forouropi ni on on t he meani ng of t he phr as e “r eas onabl e and nece s s ar yfor ce, ” as us ed i n t he opt i onal p o rtio n o f th e o rd e r th a t d ire c ts l a w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs to re tu rn to the c u stod ial p are n t a ch il d k ep t i n v iolati o n o f th e o rde r. I n our pr i or opi ni on, w e di d not addr es s t he spec i fi c ques t i on y o u p o se d b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d o m e stic v io len c e sta tu te itsel f di d not authori ze an order t o l aw enfo rcem ent off i c e rs to for ci b lyr etur n a mi norchi l d t o t he cus t odi al par ent

. U pon fur t her r evi ew and r efl ect i on, w e bel i eve t hatw e mustal s o exami ne w het her th e e q u itab le p o w e r o f th e c o u rts c o u ld p ro v id e th e re q u isite aut hor i t y . A s out l i ned i n Par tI of t hi s opi ni on, cons i der at i on of t he cour t s ’ i nher ent equi t abl e pow er s r ai s es doubt aboutt he conc l us i on expr es s ed i n ourpr i oropi ni on. I n anyevent , t he ques t i on of j udi ci al aut hor i t yt o i s s ue s uch an or der i s one bes t l eft t o t he det er m i nat i on of t he cour t s i n an appr opr i at e ca s e. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l at t empt t o pr ovi de an a ns w ert o t he ques t i on t hat y ou or i gi nal l y pos ed on t he p rem ise t h at t h e c o u rt s h av e the au tho ri tyto issue su ch an o rde r. I n o u ro p i n i on, t he conc eptof “r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce” i s notamenabl e t o a pre ci s e def i ni t i on. R at her , i tconnot es an obj ect i ve s t andar d t hatt akes i nt o acc ountt he s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s e n c o u n ter e d b y t h e o f

f ice r e x e c u tin g th e o rd e r. In P a rt II o f th is opi ni on, w e off

ergener al gui dance appl i cab le t o s om e of the circu m stan ce s tha t an o ff icer is l ikelyto en co u n ter.1 0 6 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y
I Judi ci al P ow er t o O rder U s e of F orce A . A bs ence of

Stat utor y A uthorit

y and i t s Si gni f i cance T he domest i c vi olenc e law au tho ri ze s co u rt s to issue tem p o rary ex p a rte or der s and, fol l ow i ng not i ce a nd an oppor t uni t yforan adver s ar yhear i ng, pr ot ect i ve or der s t hatpr ov ide var i ous t ypes of reli ef to victi m s o f do m esti c viole n c e . S ee A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, Fam i l yL aw A r t i cl e ( “FL ”) , §4- 501 et s eq . A m ong ot her th in g s, su c h o rd e rs m a y“ a w a rd tem p o ra ry c u sto d yo f a m in o r c h ild of t h e respondentand a pe r s on el i gi bl e forr el i ef. ” FL §§4- 505( a) ( 2) ( vi ) , 4- 506( d) ( 6)

. T he s t andar d pr ot ect i ve or derfor m us ed i n t he cour t s , For m D V

- 3, r efl ect s t hi s gr antof autho ri tyby i ncl udi ng a par agr aph 7, i n w hi ch t he cour tor der s “t hatcus t odyof

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ is a w a rd e d to _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .” T he s ame l anguage appea r s i n F o rm D V -2, t he s t andar d ex p a rte o r d e rf o r m. Yo u rq u e s t i o n f

o c u s e d o n l a n g u a g e t h a ti mm e d i a t e l yf o l l o ws t h e p o r t i o n o f

t h e o r d e r f

o r ms t h a t a wa r d s c u s t o d y . Th e o r d e rf o r ms eac h i ncl ude a box thatt he j udge maycheck for the purpos e of inclu d in g th e f

o ll o w ing p rov isi o n : “L aw en fo rce m en t of fice rs are or der ed t o us e al l r eas onabl e and nece s s ar y for ce t o r etur n t he mi nor chi l d( r en) to the cust odi al par entatt i m e of s er vi ce oras s oon as p o s s ib le a f

te r e n tr yo f

th is O rd e r.” I n our pr i oropi ni on, w e l ooked s ol el yatt he domest i c vi ol ence s t atut e and de t er m i ned t hatt hi s s t atut e di d n otgr antt he cour t s t he aut hor i t y t o di r ectl aw enfor cementoffi cer s t o us e for ce t o carr yout an a w a rd o f tem p o rarycu stod yin a d o m esti c v iolen ce o rde r. A lth o u g h that co n clus ion w as c o rrect as a m att er o f statuto ry cons tr u cti on, t he ana l y s i s w as unnece s s ar i l yt r uncat ed. W hi l e a s t atut e maybe a s our ce of j udi ci al aut hor i t y i n t hi s ar ea, i tneed not be t he o n ly s our ce. A s t atut e does notnece s s ar i l ydi s pl ace w hat ever comm on l aw aut hor i t yt he cour t s pos s es s i n t he abs ence of t he s t atut e. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he domest i c vi ol ence l aw t hatt he L e g isla tu re in ten d e d a n y lim itatio n o f th e c o u rts’ in h e re n t eq u itab le pow er s . A ccor di ngl y , an anal y s i s of j udi ci al pow er t o i s s ue s uch an order m ust al so con si der the cou rt s’ i nh erentcom m on l aw po w ers .G en. 105] 107

Maryland Constitut ion, Art. IV, §41A; CJ§1-601. 1 B . C o m m o n L a w A u th o rity 1 . I mpl i e d Po w e r G e ne r a l l y I n M ar y l and, t he ci r cui tcour t s ar e i m bued w i t h “ful l comm onl aw and equi t ypow er s and j ur i s di ct i on i n al l ci vi l and cr i m i nal cas es

. . . . ” A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, C our t s and J udi ci al Pr ocee di ngs A rt ic le (“ C J ” ), § 1 -5 0 1

. See a l so M a r y l a n d Co n s t i t u t i o n Ar t i c l e I V, §§ 1, 1A

. A l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our ti s or di nar i l ya cour tof l i m i t ed j ur i s di ct i on, i n dom es t i c vi ol ence pr ocee di ngs th e Di s tr i ctC our thas

1 t he “pow er s of a cour ti n equi t y . ” C J §4- 404. I n addi t i on t o t he s peci fi c pow er s confe r r ed on t he cour t s byt he C ons t i t ut i on and by s ta tu te , th e ju d ic ia ry e n jo y s c e rt a in “ im p lie d o r i n h e re n t p o w e r s .” T he C ou rtof A pp eal s has ado pted the foll ow i ng descri pti on of those p o w e rs: I n or dert o acc om pl i s h t he p u rpos es for

w hich t hey are cr eat ed, cou rt s m ust al so p o ss e ss p o w e rs. F ro m tim e im m e m o ria l, cer t ai n pow er s have be en conc eded t o t he co u rt s, b ec au se t h ey are co u rt s. S u ch p o w ers have be en conc eded, beca us e w i t houtt hem t h e y c o u l d n e i t h e rm a i n t a i n t h e i rd i g n i t y, t r ans actt hei rbus i nes s , nor ac compl i s h t he p u rp o s e s o f

th e ir e x is te n c e .... T he i nher entpow erof t h e co u r ti s t he p o w e r t o p rot ect i t sel f; t he p ow er t o a d m in iste r ju stic e .. .; th e p o w e r to p ro m u lg a te r ul es fori t s pr act i ce; t he pow ert o pr ovi de p ro c e s s w h e re n o n e e x is ts

. C om m is s i on on Medi cal D is ci pl i ne v. St i l lm an , 291 M d. 390, 400, 4 3 5 A

. 2 d 7 4 7 (19 8 1 ) ( q u o t i n gS t a t e v
. Can non , 2 2 1 N

. W

. 2d 603, 6 0 3 -4 (W is. 1 9 2 8 )); A t t or ney G ener a l v. W a l dr on , 289 M d. 683, 6 9 1 , 4 2 6 A .2 d 9 2 9 (1 9 8 1 ) (s a m e ); cf

. H am z avi v. B ow en , 126 M d. A pp. 492, 730 A

. 2d 274 ( 1999) ( ci r cui t cour t m ayappoi ntr ece i ver u n d e r i ts e q u ity p o w e r i n a b s e n c e o f s ta tu to ry a u th o ri z a tio n ).1 0 8 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y A l t hough t he cour t s have t h ese i nher entpow er s , t he L egi s l atur e r et ai ns t he aut hor i t y t o l i m i tt hei rexer ci s e t o t he ext ent t hata pow eri s “notan es s ent i al [one] i nher enti n the co u rt s i n t he di s char ge of thei rcons t i t ut i onal l ym andat ed dut yt o adm inis t er j us t i ce. ” St i l lm an , 291 M d. at 402 ( hol di ng t hatl egi s l at i ve l i m i t at i on on cou rt s’ j uri sdi ct i on to st ayadm i nis t rat i ve revo cat i on of li cense d id n o t v io late se p a ra tio n o f p o w e rs)

. T h e d o m e stic v io len c e law is s t atut or yi n natur e and t h e co n te ntof or der s i s s ued i n pr ocee di ngs u n d e r t h a t l a w i s s p e c if ie d in d e ta il in th e s ta tu te

. See FL §§ 4- 505( a) ( 2) , 4- 506( d)

. H ow ever , unl i ke t he phy s i ci an l i cens i ng s cheme i n St i l lm an , the d o m e stic v io len c e sta tu te d id n o t p u rp o rt to re stric t th e p o w e rs th a t th e c o u rts m ig h t o th e rw ise b e a b le to e x e rc is e . I t is p os s i bl e t hatt he cour t s ’ i nher entpow er s i ncl ude t he aut hor i t yt o r equi r e t hatl aw enfor cementoffi cer s enf o rce a tem p o ra ryc u sto d yp ro v isio n o f a o rd e r i s s u e d u n d e r th e d o m e stic vi ol ence s t atut e. Such pow er m ay be found i n a conj unct i on of t he c o u rts’ e q u itya u th o rityto d e ter m in e c u sto d yo f m in o rs a n d th e ir inh erentpow ert o cr eat e pr oces s nece s s ar yt o eff ectcour tor ders w ith “ re a s o n a b le a n d n e c e s s a ry” f o rc e . 2. P arens P at ri ae A ut hori t y of C ourt s O ver M i nors M ary l and cou rt s h ave com m on l aw authori t y t o act i n the best in ter e sts o f c h ild re n w ith in th e ir ju risd ictio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls has descri bed t his authori t yi n b road t erm s:

T he par ens pat r i ae ju risd ictio n o f c irc u it cour t s i n t hi s St at e i s w el l es t abl i s hed. T he w or ds “par e n s pat r i ae, ” meani ng “fa t herof t he count r y , ” r efe rt o t he St at e’ s s over ei gn pow er of guar di ans hi p overm i nor s and ot herper s ons underdi s abi l i t y . . . . I ti s a funda m ent al comm on l aw conce p t thatt he j ur i s di ct i on of cour t s of e q u ityo v e r s u c h p e rso n s is p len a ryso a s to a f f o rd w h a te v e r re lief

m a yb e n e c e ss a ryto prot ect t he indi vidual ’s best i nter est s. W ent z el v. Mont gom er y G ener alH

os pi t al , I nc. , 293 M d. 685, 702, 44 7 A

. 2d 1 2 4 4 (19 82 ). T he d et erm i nati on of ch i l d cu st od yi s a f u n c tion o f th e c o u rt ’s eq u ityp o w ers, r eg ard less o f statuto ryG en. 105] 109

This power ma

y also derivein part from the common law rights of 2 thec us todia l pa

re nt. Th e Court

of Crimi nal App eals o f T e xas h a s h e ld that a c us todia l pa

re nt h a s th e ri ght u

nd e r c omm on

law t o u sere a so na

ble and nec essar

y forc e to re tain custody of a c hild aga i n s ta thre at of abduction. W

hit ma n v . S tate , 203 S.W .2d 230 (Tex. Crim. 1947). A prote c tiv eorde r c ou ld bevie we d a s trans fe rringthi s ty peof a uth ority to law e nf orc e me nt o ff

ic ia ls. Un fo rt

un ate ly , the Te xas co ur

t di d n ot disc us s th e n atur e an d

e x t e nto f f o r c e c o n s i d e r e d

r e a s o n a b l e an d n e c e s s ar y. The State Constituti on grants rule makingauthority to the Court of 3 Ap pe a ls a nd , to thee xtent pe rm itt e d b y theCourt of Ap pe a ls o r o the rw ise by law, t o the lower

courts. Mar

yland Constitut ion, Article IV, §18(a). The Court of Appe als’ rule s areleg islative in nature a nd have theforc e of law alth ou gh th e y

mus t be con si st ent w iththefe de ral and State constitutions. See82 O

pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al23, 25 (1997). This rulemakingauthority , of cour se, is limit ed to “the practiceand proce dure in a

nd the administrat i o n of the [courts].” Maryland Constitution, Article IV, §18(a). The Court of Appeals rec ently noted, but did not answe r, the question whe ther it could conf er on ma sters by

rule the power to arre st. See State v . W

iegmann , 350 Md. 585, 595 n.4, 714 A.2d 841 (1998). a u t h o ri z a tio n . R os s v. H of f m an , 2 8 0 M d

. 1 7 2 , 1 7 4 , 3 7 2 A. 2 d 582 ( 1977)

. M or eover , w hen a c our thas aut hor i t yt o det er m i ne t he cust od y of a m i no r, such aut ho ri t y m i gh t reas on ably be t ho u g h t to in c lu d e a n a n c ill a ry e lem e n t, su c h a s the p o w e r to d ire c t ap p ro p ria te cour toffi cer s t o enfor ce s uch an or derw i t h “r eas onabl e and n e c e s s a ry f

o rc e .” 2
3. C reat i on of

P ro ce ss t o F orci bl y C arry O ut C ourt O rders B yru le a n d b y th e a d o p tio n o f sta n d a rd f

o rm s, th e c o u rts fr equent l y des i gnat e t he cont entand cr eat e pr oces s fort he exe cut i on o f c o u rt o rd e rs. F o r ex a m p le, i n o th e r co n tex ts i n v o lv in g th e c iv il

3 s ei zur e of i ndi vi dual s , t he C our tof A ppeal s has adopt ed s ever al r ul es t hatpr ovi de for“bodyat t achment s ”

)e ss e n tiallyth e f o rc ib le ex ec u ti o n o f a sub p o en a by law en fo rce m en t o ff icers

. See, e. g. , R ul es 2- 510( i ) ( ci r cui tcour tci vi l s ubpoenas ); 3- 510( i ) ( D i s t r i ct C our tci vi l s ubpoenas ) ; 4- 266 (d) ( s ubpoenas i n cr i m i nal cas es ) ; 4- 2 6 7 (m aterial w itn es s e s in crim inal ca ses). T h ere is al so statu tory aut h o ri za t i on fort he i s s uance of bodyat t achment s i n m os ts uch in s ta n c e s . See C J § § 9 -2 0 1 , 9 -2 0 3 ; see al so 81 O pi ni ons of

t he A tto rn e y G e n e ra l 1 0 2 ( 1 9 9 6 ) (w rit o f a ttac h m e n t f

o r ju v e n ile1 1 0 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

o f f e n d e r la w f

u l o n lyif

c o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n su c h th a t w rit co n sti tutes an “o rde r of co u rt ” u n d er C J § 3 -81 4 ). H ow ever , one of the rul es aut hor i zi ng a bodyat t achment a rg u a b lyis n o t b a se d u p o n sta tu to rya u th o ri ty. I n p a rticu lar , R u le 1 6 -7 0 6 (d )(3 )(e ) o f

th e a tt o rn e yd isc ip lin a ryru les a llo w s a c o u rt to iss u e a b o d ya ttac h m e n t f o r a w itn e ss w h o h a s f

a iled to re sp o n d to a su b p o en a issu ed in a m att er b e f o re a b ar inq u iryp an el. T h ere appea r s t o be n o s peci fi c s t atut or yaut hor i zat i on forbody at t achm ents i n such p roceedings. A l t ho ug h thi s rule cont ai ns a cross re f e re n c e to th e ru le f

o r su b p o e n a s in c iv il ca se s, it se e m s u n lik e ly th a t it s a u th o r ityd e riv e s f ro m C J § 9 -2 0 1 , w h ich p e rta in s to w i t nes s es s um m oned t o cour t

. R at her , t he rul e appe ar s t o be ul t i m at el y bas ed on t he i nher ent pow er of t he cour t s t o r egul at e t he p ra c tic e o f

la w a n d to d is c ip lin e a tto rn e y s . See ge ner al l y At t or ney G e n e r a l v . W

a ld r o n , 289 M d. at690- 93; 82 O pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al23, 28- 29 ( 1997) ( cour tr ul e may au thor i ze i s s uance of su b p o e n a s a n d g ra n t ab so lu te im m u n ityto p e rso n s in v o lv e d in att o rne yd isci p li n aryp roc ess w ith o u t l eg isl ati v e a u tho ri za ti o n ). O t hercour tr ul es s peci fycer t ai n m eas ur es t hata cour tm ay empl oyw hen a pe r s on fai l s t o compl yw i t h a cour tor derm andat i ng o r p ro h ib iti n g c e rt a in a c tio n . See M ar y l and R ul es 2- 648( a) and 3- 648. I f a p e r s o n f

a i l s t o c o mpl y wi t h a j u d g me n t t h a t ma n d a t es an aff i r m at i ve ac t , t he cour tm ay , am o n g o the rt hi ngs , “di r ectt hatt he a c t b e p e rf

o rm e d b y s o m e o th e r p e rs o n a p p o in te d b yt h e c o u rt ...” R ul es 2- 648( a) , 3- 648. A gai n, t hes e rul es do not appea rt o be bas ed on anys peci fi c s t atut or y aut hor i zat i on but on t he i nher entpow erof th e c o u rt s to c re a te p ro c e s s to v in d ic a te c o u rt o rd e rs . T h e sp e c ial a d hoc comm i t t ee of t he cour t s t hatcr eat ed t he d o m e stic v io le n c e f

o rm o rd e rs a p p a re n tlyb e liev e d th a t th e c o u rts c u rre n tlyp o ss e ss th e a u th o rityto o rd e r law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs to enfor ce c us t odyor der s w i t h r eas onabl e and ne cessary forc e i n t he a b s e n c e o f

s p e c if ic le g is la tio n . See C ob urn v. C ob urn , 342 M d. 244, 2 54 n. 9, 67 4 A

. 2d 95 1 (199 6) ( descri bing ori gin of d om esti c vi ol ence for m or der s )

. T her e appa r ent l yhave b een no r epor t ed ju d icia l d e c isio n s e ith e r a f f irm in g th is a u th o rityo r f in d in g it w a n tin g .G en. 105] 111

It ma y b e th e c a s e th at c o ur

ts ar e r e lu c ta

nt to make custody 4 deter minations in a domestic violence pr o ce eding, in the abse nce of an in d i c at i o n o f d an g e r t o th e c h i l d

. O n e c o urt a p p l yi n g th e F l o ri d a r

u l e in a ca se not involving the useof force lamented that domestic viol ence proc e e din g s areill -s uit e d to makepe rm ane nt d e te rm inatio ns of c hil d custody and re lated matter s. See O ’Neill v. Stone , 7 2 1 So. 2d 393 (Fla. App. 1998) 4. Si m i l ar Proces s i n O t her St at es T h e F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt h a s a d o p ted a f o rm f o r d o m e stic v io len c e c a se s th a t p ro v id e s th a t “L a w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs s h a ll us e anyand al l r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar y for ce t o phy s i cal l ydel i ver t he m i norchi l dr en . . . t o t he cus t odi al par ent

. ” See I n r e Fam i l

y Law R ules of Proce du re 6 6 3 S o .2 d 1 0 4 9 , 1 2 0 5 (F la. S . C t. 19 9 5 ); In re A m end m ents t o the F l ori da Fam i l y L a w R ules of Proce du re , 717 So. 2d 914, 918, 924 ( Fl a. S. C t

. 1998). W e di d notl ocat e any rep o rt ed ca ses c o n stru ing this p ro v isi o n in an ac tual o rde r. 4 H o w e v e r, itis n o tab le th a t th e F lo rid a d o m e stic v io len c e sta tu te, in cont r as tto t he M ar y l and s t atut e, expl i ci t l yaut hor i zes l aw enfor cement agenc i es t o enfor ce pr ot ect i ve or der s . I n par t i cul ar , t he Fl ori da s t atut e pr ovi des t hata pr ot ect i ve or derm ayi ncl ude a p rov isi o n “[ o ]rde ri n g su ch o ther reli ef as th e c o u rtd ee m s n ec essa ry fort he pr ot ect i on of a vi ct i m of dom es t i c vi ol enc e i ncl udi ng in ju n c tio n s o r d ire c tiv e s to law e n f o rc e m e n t a g e n c ies

.. .. ” F la. S tat. §741. 30( 6) ( a) ( 7)

. T hus , t h e Fl or i da for m or derdoes notder i ve sol el yfrom t he co urt ’s i nh erentequ i t ypo w ers . A tl eas tt w o ot hers t at es have a dopt ed l egi s l at i on t hat aut hor i zes l aw enfor cementoffi cer s t o ar r es ta r es pondentw ho r es i s t s a t empora r ycus t o d y o r derent er ed i n a domest i c vi ol ence c a s e . See L a. R ev. St at

. A nn. , T i t l e 14, §79( E ) ( “Law enfor cement offi ci al s s hal l us e eve r y r eas onabl e m eans , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o i m m edi at e ar r es t of t he vi ol at or , t o enfor ce [ a pr ot ect i ve or dert hat m ayi ncl ude a c us t odypr ovi s i on]

. ”) ; M o. A nn. St at

. §4 5 5. 085( 5) ( “W hen a pe r s on agai ns tw hom an or derof pr ot ect i on has been ent er ed fa i l s t o s ur r endert he chi l dr en t o t he per s on t o w hom cus t ody w as aw ar ded i n an or derof pr ot ect i on, t he l aw enfor cementoffi cer sh a ll arr e st th e re sp o n d e n t, an d sh a ll tu rn th e m in o r ch ild re n o v e r to t he [c us t odi al par ent ]

. ”)

. N ei t herof t hes e pr ovi s i ons has been t es t ed i n t he cour t s or has ot her w i s e been t he s ubj ect of a r epor t ed j udi ci al in te rp re ta tio n .1 1 2 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

This uniform law is intended to updatethe Uniform Chi ld Custody 5 Jurisdiction Act which wa s adopted in substanceby all 50 states, including Maryland. SeeFL

9-201 et seq. To date, only Alaska and Oklahoma have adopted the UC CJ EA. 6 9 Uniform L aws Annotated, 1999 Supp. at p. 257. Fi nal l y , t he U ni for m C hi l d C us t odyJ ur i s di ct i on and E nfor cementA ct( “U C C J E A ”) , a m odel s t atut e publ i s hed i n 1997 5 b yt he N at i on al C on ference of C om m i ssi on ers on U nifor m S t a te L a w s, c o n ta in s a p ro v isio n th a t allo w s c o u rts to iss u e w a rra n ts to l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s t o t ake i m m edi at e cus t ody of a chi l d i f t he p a re n t w h o h a s p h y sic a l cu sto d yis lik e ly to c a u se h a rm to th e c h ild o r t o f l e e th e ju ri s d ic tio n w ith th e c h ild . U C C J E A a t § 3 1 1 , 9 U n ifo rm L aw s A n n o tat ed , 1 9 9 9 S u p p . at 28 9 -90

. T h e c o m m en tary t o t he U C C J E A s t at es: “T h e w ar r antm ayaut hor i ze e nt r yupon p ri v ate p ro p e rt yto p ick u p the c h il d if n o less intru sive m ea n s are pos s i bl e. I n ext r aor di nar ycas es , t he w ar r antm ayaut h o ri ze l aw enfor cementt o m ake f

or ci bl e entr yatanyhour

. ” M ar y l and has not a d o p ted th e U C C J E A

. T h e re a re n o re p o rte d c a se s a p p ly in g th is 6 p ro v is io n o f

th e U C C J E A

. T her e appe ar s t o be l i t t l e gui dance fr om ot hers t at es on t he in h e re n t p o w e r o f

th e c o u rts to o rd e r la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ice rs to effect t em po rarycust od yord e rs i n d om est i c viol ence p roceedings, m uch l es s on t he us e of r eas onabl e and nece s s ar yfor ce t o carr yout s u c h a n o rd e r. C . A u th ori

zati on to E n

force O rder T he for m or der s di r ect“[l ] aw enfor cementoffi cer s ” t o eff ect t he t empora r ycus t odypor t i on of t he or der

. H ow ever , abs ent s t atut or yaut hor i zat i on, notal l l aw enfor cement o ff ic er s m aybe au tho ri ze d to ca rryo u t suc h an o rde r. W hen a M ar y l and cour ti s s ues an or derbas ed upon i t s comm on l aw pow er s di r ect i n g en fo r cementof a c us t odyor derbym eans of “al l r easo nabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce, ” t he cour tm ayr equi r e t he sh eriff to ca rryo u t th e o rde r. A t com m o n law , itw as th e sh eriff ’s ob l i gati on , am on g o t her t hings, t o s erve vari ou s w ri t s, sum m on ses, a n d o th e r o r d e r s o n b e h a lf o f th e c o u rt s . So

per v. Mon t

go m ery C o u n ty , 2 9 4 M d . 3 3 1 , 3 3 6 -3 7 , 4 4 9 A .2 d 1 1 5 8 (1 9 8 2 ); Gr e e n v.G en. 105] 113

One c ourt has sug g ested that such pow er e x ists onl y when the 7 child is at concrete risk of harm. In reRo se , 54 A.2d 297, 300 (Pa. Super. 1947). More over, as noted in our prior opinion, it is another of the cour t’s inh e re nt p ow e rs
) c onte mpt

) that is theordin ary me ans by wh ic h c ourt s secure complianc e with their orde rs. Lynch v. Lync h , 342 Md. 509, 519, 677 A.2d 584 (1996). S ta te , 1 2 2 M d

. 2 8 8 , 2 9 5 ( 1 9 1 4 ) ( c o m m o n l a w “ p o w e ra n d a u t h o r i t y” of s her i ff ne cessa r yt o w or k of cour t s )

. O t herl aw enfor cement o f f ice rs, h o w e v e r, d o n o t h a v e a c o m p a ra b le c o m m o n law d u tyto carr youtcour tor der s . For exampl e, m os tpol i ce de par t m ent s ar e t he c re a tu re o f

sta tu te a n d p o ss e ss o n lyth e p o w e rs c o n tai n e d in th e ir a u th o ri z in g le g is la tio n . S e e S o p e r v . Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 294 M d. at344

- 45 n. 6 ( compar i ng pow er s of s her i ffs w i t h var i ous l ocal pol i ce a genci es )

. W het hera l aw enfor cementoffi cerot hert han a sh eriff i s aut hor i zed t o enfor ce a t empora r ycus t odyor deri n a dom es t i c vi ol ence cas e w o u l d depend upon the pow erconfe r r ed upon t hatoffi cerbys t atut e. D . Ju dicial Con struction of Inh erent Po w ers T hus , t her e i s a pos s i bl e bas i s forj udi ci al aut hor i t yt o or dert he us e of f or ce t o compel compl i ance w i t h a cus t odyo rde rundert he d o m esti c v iolen ce statu te an d g en era l auth o ri tyfo r a sh eriff to ca rry outs uch an or der

. A l t hough w e have expr es s ed re s er vat i ons about t he ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch s uch pow er , i f i texi s t s , coul d be ex e r c i s e d , i ti s t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u d i c i a r yt o d e f

i n e i t s c o mm on 7 l aw and equ i t ypo w ers , and w e w i l l no tat t em pt t o dem arcat e t ho se p o w e rs in th is o p in io n . T h e c o u rts’ f u tu re a d ju d ica tio n o f

c a se s w ith s peci fi c f act s ar e t he bet t erand more appr opr i at e vehi cl e fordefi ni ng t hos e pow er s . A s s ugges t ed i n ourpr i oropi ni on, an amendm entof the d o m esti c v iolen ce law w o u ld reso lve a n yq u esti o n o f th e c o u rt ’s au tho ri tyto issue su ch an o rde r an d a law en fo rc e m e n t o ff icer’s aut hor i t yt o exec ut e i t

. For purpos es of t hi s opi ni on, w e w i l l acc ept t he pr emi s e t hatt he “r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce” prov isi o n of t he domest i c vi ol ence or derfor m i s a perm i s s i bl e exe r ci s e of the c o u r t ’ s c o mm o n l a w a u t h o r i t y . I n t h e r e ma i n d e r o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we a ttem p t to p ro v id e th e g u id a n c e th a t y o u se e k f o r th o se c h a rg e d w ith ca rry ing o u t suc h an o rde r.1 1 4 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

The fa ct that an of

fice r ha s au thority

to use forc e in a pa

rticular 8 c ir c ums tanc e do e s n ot n e c e ssa ri ly imp ly that th e of

fi c e r ha s a duty to u se forc e. Cf. As hb ur

n v . A nn e Arun de l Co un ty , 306 Md. 617, 510 A.2d 1078 (1 98 6) . Rathe r, thelaw g e ne rally tr e ats theus e of fo rc e a s “privi le g e d”if nece ssary to car ry out the office r’s unde rlying duty t o ex ecute a cour t order

. SeeRestatement Torts 2d, §145 (“ One ... e x ecutingan o rder of a co urt .

. . is p riv il e g e d , if

s u c hp r o c e s s o r

o r d e r is v a li d o r f a ir o nit s fac e, to use such force ag ainst the person of another ... as is authorized by

the order or is rea sonably

nece ssary

for ... the e x ecution of theorder .”) II U s e of R eas onabl e and N ece s s ary F orce A . O bjecti ve S tan da rd T he “r ea sonabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce” t hati s aut hor i zed by c o u rt o rd e rs is su e d o n th e d o m e stic v io len c e f o rm s is n o t d e f

in e d in the f o rm s o r i n the d o m e s tic v iolen ce statu te. W e m u st th ere fo re l o o k to o th e r s o u rc e s to in te rp re t th is p h ra s e – m o s t a p p ro p ri a te l y, t he ext entof for ce thatt he l aw per m i t s offi cer s t o exer t i n exec ut i ng si m i l ar types of cou rt orders

. T he cases dem on st rat e t hat the p hrase “r eas onabl e and ne ce ssaryfor ce” cannotbe r educe d t o a form ul a. L aw enfor cement offi ci al s char ged w i t h exec ut i ng s uch or der s m ay under s t andabl yadopta ca ut i ous appr oach t o t hi s n ew ar ea of e n f o rc e m e n t. 8
T he cour t s h av e appl i ed t he conc eptof “r eas onabl e and nece ssary for ce” i n a var i et yof ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch t he us e of force by l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers has been chal l eng ed. T he p hrase “r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce” has been c ons i s t ent l yi nt erpr et ed byt he cour t s as r equ ir ing a l aw enfor cementoffi ci al t o acti n an obj ect i vely reas onabl e fa s hi on. I n a ca s e ar i s i ng outof an i nv est i gator yst op , t he S up rem e C ou rt descri bed t he tes tas fol l ow s:

D e te rm in in g w h e th e r th e f o rc e u se d to e f f e c t a p a rt ic u la r s e iz u re is ‘r e a s o n a b le ’ ... r equi r es a car eful bal anci ng of t he natur e and q u ali tyo f th e intrusio n o n the in d iv idu al’s Four t h A m endment i nt er es t s agai ns tt he count er vai l i ng gover nm ent al i nt er est s at s t ake.

. . . [T]he t es tof reas onabl enes s under t he Four t h A m endment i s notcapa ble ofG en. 105] 115
pr eci s e def

i ni t i on orm ec hani cal appl i cat i on, how ever , i t s pr operappl i cat ion r equi r es car eful att en ti o n to the fa ct s and c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

e a c h p a rt ic u la r c a s e ....

. . . T he ‘ r eas onabl enes s ’ o f a p a rt i c ul arus e of for ce m us tbe j udged fr om t he per s pect i ve of a r eas onabl e offi ceron t he s cene , r at hert han w i t h t he 20/ 2 0 v i s i on of hi nds i ght

. . . . T he cal cul us of r eas onabl enes s m us tembody al l ow ance for t he fac t t hat pol i ce offi cer s are often forced to m ake spli t -s econ d judgm ents – i n ci r cumst ance s t hatar e t ens e, uncer t ai n, and r api dl yevol vi ng – ab outt he amount of for ce t hati s nece s s ar yi n a par t i cul ars i t uat i on. G r aham v. C onnor , 4 90 U

. S. 386, 396- 97 ( 1989) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. M ar y l and cour t s have r epea t edl yr el i ed upon G r aham for a fr amew or k t o anal y ze w het her chal l enged l aw enfor cementact i on c o n s titu te d e x c e s s iv e f

o rc e . See Branc h v. Mc Geeney , 123 M d. A pp. 33 0, 34 8-49, 718 A

. 2d 63 1 (199 8) ( arr estof m i n o r); W i l l i am s v. P rin c e G e o rg e ’s C o u n ty , 112 M d. A pp. 5 2 6 , 547, 685 A

. 2d 884 (1 9 9 6 ) (w a rra n tles s a rre st); W ilso n v . S ta te , 87 M d. A pp. 512, 520, 5 9 0 A .2 d 5 6 2 , cer t

. deni ed , 324 M d. 325, 597 A

. 2d 422 ( 1991) (a rre st f o llo w in g c h a se ); see al

so T a y lo r v . M c D u ffi e , 155 F. 3d 479 (4 C i r. 19 98 ) ( arr est ee i n p retri al detent i o n ); E lli o tt v. L e a v itt , 99 th F .3 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 2 (4 C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), cer t

. deni ed , 117 S. C t

. 2512 (19 97) th (D W I a rr e s t)

. I n eac h cas e t he s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he ques t i oned us e of f

or ce a r e det er m i nat i ve. L aw enfor cementoffi cer s m ayencount era var i et yof ci r cumst ance s w hen t hey exec ut e t he t empora r y cus t od y p rovi s i on of a domest i c vi ol ence o rder

. Ser vi ce of t he cus t odyor derm aybe t he cul m i nat i on of a s er i es of pr ocee di ngs i nvol vi ng t he s ame par t i es and chi l dr en ori tm ay be t he fi r s tnot i ce a r es pondentr ece i ves of any l egal pr ocee di ng. O ffi cer s m ay encount er r es i s t ance fr om a number of per s ons i ncl udi ng t he r es pondent , ot her adul t s w ho ar e car i ng for o r ha v e a ctua l cus tod y o f the ch il d ren , an d ev en the m ino rs w h o are t he s ubj ectof t he cus t odyor der

. T he l i kel ypr es ence of c hi l dr en r equi r es cons i der at i on of t hei rs afe t y w hen for ce i s us ed. A l t hough w e cannot pr es cr i be t he act i ons t hat an offi cer s houl d t ake u nder1 1 6 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

For example, if the offic er is unce rtain whe ther pa rticular c onduct 9 violates the cour

t order, the office r could re turn to the court f or clarification or perhaps f or an or d er initiating a c ontempt proce eding ag ainst the responde nt. everycon ce iva bl e s cena r i o, w e w i l l at t empt t o offe rgener al g u id a n c e b a s e d u p o n c o m m o n s itu a tio n s . It is b e y o n d d isp u te th a t an o rd e r to f o rc ib lyc a rryo u t a c h ild cus t o d y or derpl ace s even the mosts crupul ous l aw enfor cement o f f ice r in a d if

f icu lt p o sitio n . In o u r op in io n , th e o rd e r f o rm sh o u ld not be constr ued as di m i ni s hi ng t he broa d di s cr et i on t hatan off i cer needs w hen ex ec u t i ng s uch an or deri n l i ghtof par t i cul ar ci r cumst ance s . I n vol at i l e s i t uat i ons i nvol vi ng t he cus t odyof a c h ild , em o tio n s in e v itab ly ru n h ig h

. A p e rso n ’s in iti a l re sis tan c e to a l aw ful or derm ayr ece de as emot i ons cool

. A t act ful appr oach by an off i cerm ayacc om pl ish more w i t h l es s emot i onal orphy s i cal damage t o t he chi l d t han a de m and fori ns t ant aneous compl i ance and a n im p u lsiv e re so rt to f

o rc e . A c c o rd in g ly , an o f f ice r w h o re a so n a b ly r efr ai ns from usi ng for ce s houl d notbe found i n vi ol at i on of t he o rd e r. S im il a r ly, w h e n th e re is n o su g g e stio n th a t th e c h ild is in danger , t he off

i cer cannot be faul t ed fors eeki ng addi t i onal gui dance fro m the c o u rtthat issue d the o rde r. 9
B . Cir cum s tances U nderW hi ch For ce M

ay B e U s ed 1 . N o ti ce o f O rd er a n d A u th o rity In m o st c irc u m sta n c e s, a n o f f ic e r e x e c u tin g a n o rd e r sh o u ld fi r s ti dent i fyhi m s el f or her s el f and i nfor m t he i ndi vi dual s pr es entof th e o rd e r a n d its c o n ten ts, f u rn ish in g a c o p yif

a p p ro p ria te. T h is is a k in to th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t re q u ire s a law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e r to g iv e n o tice to a n in d iv id u a l to b e a rre ste d o f th e o f f ice r’s a u th o rity and i nt ent i on t o eff

ectt he arr es t

. 5 A m . J ur . 2d A rr e sts § § 9 2 , 9 3 ; cf

. Mi l l erv. U

ni t ed St at es , 357 U

. S. 301, 3 0 7 (19 58) ( comm on l aw r equi r es offi cer t o announce hi s l aw ful aut hor i t yand purpos e pr i or to e n te ri n g a h o m e to m a k e a n a rr e s t o r p e rf o rm a s e a rc h ). See a l

so W y n n v . S ta te , 1 1 7 M d

. A p p . 1 3 3 , 1 5 3 -65 , 6 9 9 A

. 2 d 5 1 2 (19 9 7 ), r ev’ d on ot hergr ounds , 351 M d. 307, 718 A

. 2d 588 ( 1998) (surv ey ing law o n k n o ck an d an n o u n ce rule).G en. 105] 117

Officer s m ay

consider whether

to have the c ustodial parent 10 acc ompany

them for this purpose. Thepresence of the custodial parent may pe rm it theof

fi c e rs to t ur n th e c hil d o ve r t o th at pa re nt i mme diate ly and avoid the my

riad issues that ca

n arise c oncer

ning thecare and c ustody of the c hild after the child is obta ined from the respondent. Cf. Shoemake r v . S mi th , 353 Md. 143, 725 A.2d 549 (1999) (tort action based in pa rt on actions of she riff’ s deputies who handc uffe d and held c hildren at police statio n a ft e r s e izin gthe m a s p art of inv e sti g atio n o f s us pe c te d c hil d abuse)

. T h i s i n i t i a l s t e p m a y a v o i d r e s i s t a n c e t h a t m a y r e s u l t f r o m a m i s under s t andi ng of t he off i cer ’ s aut hor i t y an d purpos e. I dent i fi cat i on of t he off i cerand t he off

icer’s purpos e maybe p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t w h e n s e r v i n g a t e m p o r a r y ex p a rte o rd e r a s it m ay b e a resp o n d en t’ s firstn o ti ce o f th e c o u rtp roc ee d ing s. In addi t i on, t hi s i ni t i al s t ep w i l l i nform ot her s pr es entw ho ar e not par t i es t o t he under l y i ng act i on of t he cour tor der , per haps i ncr eas i ng the likeliho o d that tho se i n d ividu als w il l coo p era te w ith the o ff icer’s r eques tt o t r ans fera chi l d t o t he off i cer ’ s cus t ody

. A n expl anat i on byt he o ffi cer as t o w hyand w here a c h ild is to be taken m ayal so m in im iz e th e s tr e s s s u f

f e re d b ya c h ild s u b

je c t to th e o rd e r. I ti s al s o i m por t antt hatt he off i ceri dent i fy t he chi l dr en s ubj ect t o t he t em p o rarycus t odyor der

. T he nee d t o us e for ce maybe 10 avoi ded i n s om e ci r cumst ance s byannounci ng t he i dent i t yof t he chi l d named i n t he t empora r ycus t odyor der

. A s i n t he ca se of an ar r es t , t h e o f

f i c e r s h o u l d v e r i f

y , a s b e s t t h e o f

f i c e r c a n u n d e r t he c irc u m sta n c e s, th a t th e c h ild tak e n in to c u sto d yis in f a c t th e c h ild n a m e d in th e te m p o r a r y c u s to d yo rd e r. See G r een v
. B r ooks , 125 M d

. A p p . 3 4 9 , 7 2 5 A

. 2 d 5 9 6 (19 9 9 ). 2. D et erm i ni ng t he E x t ent of F orce N ece s s ary If it a p p e a rs th a t th e c u sto d y tra n sf e r w ill tak e p lac e v o lu n tar ily an d w ith o u t i n cide n t, n o fo rce n ee d b e e x erted to ef fe ct t h e tran sfe r. If , h o w e v e r, itb e c o m e s a p p a re n t to th e o f f ice r th a t co o p e ra tio n is not for t hcomi ng, t he offi cer m us t cons i der w het hert he us e of f or ce i s r eas onabl e and, i f s o, t he ext ent o f fo rce appr opr i at e undert he circu m stan ce s. E ssen ti all ythe of fice r m ay u se th e f

o rce n ec essa ry t o enabl e an of

fi cert o ca rry o u t t he or der

. 5 A m . J ur . 2d A rres t § 1 0 5 ; c f. W a tkin s v . S ta te , 2 8 8 M d

. 5 9 7 , 6 1 0 , 4 2 0 A

. 2 d 2 7 0 (19 8 0 ). T he dut yt hatan off

i ceri s di r ect ed t o per for m undera pr ot ect i ve or t e m p o r a r y ex p a rte o rd e r i s to re tu rn th e c h ild to th e c u sto d ial p a re n t,1 1 8 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

w hi ch i n c l u d e s r e mov i n g t h e c h i l d f r o m t h e c u s t o d yo f

t h e n oncus t odi al p are ntort hi r d par t yand t r ans por t i ng t he chi l d t o t he cus t odi al par ent

. T he off i cer m ayt ake i nt o acc ountt he age and vul ner abi l i t yof t he chi l d, t he nature and e xt entof t he oppos i t i on fr om t he r es pondent , t hi r d par t yorchi l d, and t he off i cer ’ s per s onal s a f e ty. 3. For c i ng Ent r y I nt o Dw e l l i ng O rdin ari l y , for ci bl e entr yi s notper m i t t ed t o eff ects er vi ce of c iv il p ro c e s s . See 82 O

p in io n s o f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 154, 162- 64 (19 9 7 ). M o re o v er, l aw en fo rce m en t of fice rs m ay n o t enter a r es i dence , m uch l es s us e for ce t o do s o, w i t houta s ear ch w ar r antfor t hatl ocat i on. 5 A m . J ur . 2d A rres t , §119. “[T] he pl ai n w or di ng of t he Four t h A m end m en t a dm i t s no exempt i on fr om t he w ar r ant r equi r ement s w hen t he s ear ch of hom e i s for a per s on r at hert han for a t hi ng. ” St eagald v. U ni t ed St at es , 4 5 1 U

. S

. 2 0 4 , 2 1 4 n . 7 (19 8 1 ). A l t hough an arr es tw ar r ants uffi ces t o al low l aw enfor cement o f f ice rs to e n ter th e re sid e n c e o f th e p e rso n n a m e d in th e w a rra n t to effect the arr est , a sear ch w arr ant m ust be obtai ned t o ent er t he h ou se o f a th ir d p a rt y . Id . at 2 2 1 -2 3 ; cf

. He rdv . S ta te , 1 2 5 M d. A pp. 77, 724 A

. 2d 693 ( 1999) ( aff i r m i ng bur gl ar yconvi ct i on of bondsm an w h o en tered thir d p arty ’s reside n ce to se arc h fo r fu g it ive). W e c o u ld f

in d n o c a se law su g g e s ti n g th a t a te m p o ra ryc h ild cus t odyor derbyi t s el f w oul d be cons i der ed t he equ i val entof an ar r es tw arran t tha tw oul d per m i tl aw enfor cementoffi cer s t o ent er t he chi l d’ s cur r entr es i dence w i t houtt he cons entof t he ad u l tw ho o w n s o r p o s s e s s e s th a t r e s id e n c e . See Ka ro ly v

. L e h ig h C o u n ty Sher i f f ’s D epar tm ent , 1988 W L 85743 at*7 ( E

. D

. P a. 1988) ( not o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le f

o r an o f f ice r e x p e rie n c e d in se rv in g w a rra n ts and cus t odyor der s t o i nt erpr etan ex pa r t e t empora r ycus t odyor der “as co- ext ens i ve w it h a s ear ch w ar r ant ”)

. N ori s i tcl eart hatt he cons entof a pe t i t i oneri n a domest i c vi ol ence p roc ee di ng forl aw enfor cement offi cer s t o ent era r es i dence s har ed w i t h t he r es pondent w o u ld s a tis f

yF o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c o n c e rn s . C o mp a re St at e v. V er hagen , 272 N

. W

. 2d 105 ( W i s . 1978) ( w i fe w ho had r ece nt l yl eft m ar i t al hom e had no a ut hor i t yt o cons entt o w ar r ant less sea r ch of h o m e) and Ma

y v . S ta te , 780 S. W

. 2d 866 ( T ex. A pp. 1989) ( cons ent o f estran g ed sp o u se no t su ff ici en t t o justi fy w arran tl ess s ea rch ) w ith U nit ed Stat es v. L aw l ess , 465 F. 2d 422 ( 4 C i r . 1972) ( val i d s ear ch th of def endant ’ s tr ail erw hen done w i t h cons ent , and ati ni t i at i ve, ofG en. 105] 119

Th at prov isi on

state s: 11 (a) A per son who fails to comply with the relief grante d in an e

xpa rteorder

under §4- 505(a) (2)( i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this subti tle or in a protec tive order under §4-506(d) (1), ( 2), (3) , (4), or (5 ) of this subtit le is guilty of a misdemeanor and on convic tion is subj ect, f or eac h offe nse, to: ( 1 ) for a first offe nse, a f ine not exceeding$1,000 or imprisonment not ex cee ding 90 days or both; and ( 2 ) for a sec on d o r subs equent offe nse, a f

ine not exceeding$2,5 0 0 or imprisonment not ex cee ding 1 year or both. (b ) An of fi c e r s ha ll a

rre st wi th o r w ith out a war rant a nd take into custody a per son whom the of fi c e r h a s p ro ba

blec a us e to be lie veis i n violation of an e

xpa rteorder

or protec tive order in effe ct at the time of theviolation. FL §4-509. It is notable, howeve r, that this sec tion doe s not make failure to comply with a child custody order under e ither F L§4-505(a)(2) (vi) or FL §4-506(d) (6) a

basis for a

criminal cha

rg e. Ac cordingly , an off icer would be unableto obtain an ar rest wa rra nt under F L§4-509 for

a per son who violated only

the child custody

provisions of an orde r. I f t heGe ne ral A sse mbly

ame nd s th e statut e to p ro videe xplic it authority for a n office r to use force to c arry o ut a custody order in a do me sti c vio le nc e c a se , s uc h a n ame ndme nt m ight also a dd failu re to comply with a custody

order to the list of offense s in FL §4-509. e stra n g e d w if

e ); St at e v. R at l ey , 828 P. 2d 78 ( K an. 1992) ( w i fe w ho h a d le f t h o u s e a s re s u lt o f

a b u s e c o u ld c o n s e n t to s e a rc h ). See genera l l y U ni t ed St at es v. Mat l ock , 415 U

. S. 164, 169- 72 ( 1974) (d is c u s s in g th ir d p a rt yc o n s e n t to s e a rc h e s o f p re m is e s ). A ccor di ngl y , i f off

i cer s s er vi ng an or dercont ainin g a t empora r ychi l d cus tod ypr ovi s i on ar e r efus ed entr yt o a r es i dence w h e re th e c h ild is l o c a ted , p ru d e n c e d icta tes th a t th e o f f ice rs r e f ra in from forci ble ent ry . T he o ffi cers m aybe ab l e t o o b tain a n arr est w ar r antforan uncoope r at i ve r es pondentforvi ol at i on of a pr ot ect i ve or derunderFL §4- 509. I n t he cour s e of ent er i ng t he r es i dence and 11 a rre sting t he respon den tfor t hat vi olat i on , t he o ffi cers m ayal so ca rryo u t th e c u stod yp rov isi o n o f th e o rde r.1 2 0 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

An old e r c hil d’ s w ish e s ma

y havea stron g be ari ngon

theult imate 12 decision conc erningcustody

. For example, a child may initiate a petition reg arding the c hild’s custody at ag e 16. F L§9-103. Simil arly , an orphane d child of 14 may appoint the child’s own guardia n with approva l of the c ourt. Annotated Code of Mary land, Estates &Trusts Article, §13- 70 2. In ma

kin gc us tod

y de c isi on s, c ourt s g e ne rally g ivec on side ra

ble w e ight t o th e w is h e s o f

a matu r e c h il d un le s s it is c le ar th at t h e c h ild’ s decision would place the child in dang er. Se eNe wk irk v . Newk irk , 73 Md. App. 588, 595, 535 A.2d 947 (1988) (plac ing significant we ight on the wishes of the 13 a

nd 15 year

old children to live with th ei r adult halfbrother rather

than their father). T h e o f f ice r m a y a lso m a k e a f

o rc ib le e n tryin to a re sid e n c e in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s if n e c e ss a ryto tak e c u s to d yo f a c h ild in ser i ou s, i m m ediat e dan ger. In part i cular , F L §5 -709 au t ho ri zes a r epr es ent at i ve of t he l ocal s oci al s er vi ces agenc yt o obt ai n as s i s t ance of l aw enfor cement , i ncl udi ng for ci bl e entr y i nt o a r es i dence , i f t he r epr es ent at i ve has pr evi ous l ybeen deni ed entr yi nt o t he r es i dence an d t here i s probab l e cause to bel i eve thatt he ch i l d is i n seri ou s, im m ed iat e d an g er. C . P ers ons Agai nst

W hom For ce M

ay B e U s ed 1 . U se o f F o r c e A g a in st t h e C h ild If a chi l d w ho i s t he s ubj ectof t he cus t odyor derr es i s t s t he o f f ice r, th e o f

f ice r m u st c o n sid e r th e c h ild ’s a g e a n d v u ln e ra b ili tyin det er m i ni ng w het hert o obt ai n cus t odyof t he chi l d by u si ng for ce agai ns t t he chi l d. A hy s t er i cal 10- y ear ol d m ay be r eadi l ys ubdued bym i ni m al for ce a nd per s uas i ve conve r sati o n . A t hr eat eni ng t eena germ aynotbe as easil y co nt r ol l ed, w hi ch mayr equi r e a d eci s i on w het her t o us e s i gni fi cant phy s i cal for ce agai ns t a m ino r. S u c h f o rc e s h o u ld ra re ly b e e m p lo y e d a g a in s t a m in o r. B uts ee B r anch , 12 3 M d. A pp . at 35 1 (holdi ng t hat t he use of force against a mi n o r , n a me l y f

o r c i b l yh a n d c u f

f i n g a mi n o ra r r e s t e e f

o rh e ro wn pr ot ect i on, w as “ent i r el yr eas onabl e undert he ci r cumst ance s ”)

. T he s i t uat i on pr es ent ed bya hos t i l e ol derchi l d m aybe bet t eraddr es s ed bys oci al w or ker s , t he cus t odi al par ent , an at t or ney appoi nt ed fort he chi l d, oreven a j udge. 12G en. 105] 121

Under Maryland law, the offe nse of hindering consi s t s o f t he 13 followingelements: (1) the offic er is e ng ag ed in la wful duty , (2) a

n act or o m i s s i o no f

th e d e f e n d anth i n d e r s th e o f

f i c e r ’ s p e r f

o r m an c e o f th atd uty; (3) the de fenda

nt was aw areof off

icer ’s duty , and (4) the def endant intended to interfe re. Davis v. Di P i no , 354 Md. 18, 729 A.2d 354, 362 (1 99 9) ; see also Cove r v. State, 297 Md. 398, 466 A.2d 1276 (1983). 2. U s e of

For c e A ga i ns t R e s ponde nt I f t he r es i s t ance comes fr om t he r es pondentnam ed i n t he do m est i c viol ence order, t he officer shou l d not hesi t at e to u se r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce t o carr youtt he or der

. T he or der i t s el f i s bas ed upon a f i ndi ng t hatt h e resp o n d enthas act ed i n an abus i ve manneragai ns tt he pet i t i oner . I n t h e ca se of a pr ot ect i ve o rd e r, th e re sp o n d e n t h a s a lre a d yh a d n o tice o f a n d a n o p p o rtu n ity t o par ti cipat e i n t he pr ocee di ngs and t o cont es tt he al l egat i ons of a b u s e g iv in g ri s e to th e o rd e r. See F L § § 4 -50 4 , -50 5 a n d -5 0 6

. In addi t i on, t he r es pondentm aybe s ubj ectt o ar r es t and pr os ecut i on for hinderi ng a po lice off i cer und er these ci rcum st ances. See 13 W ildb e rg e r v . S ta te , 74 M d. A pp. 107, 114- 15, 536 A

. 2d 718 ( 1988) ( m ot herconvi ct ed of hi nder i ng for i nt er fer i ng w i t h offi cer ’ s at t empt to e x a m in e c h ild f

o r e v id e n c e o f a b u se ). T h e f a c ts in e a c h c a se w ill d e ter m in e th e n a tu re a n d e x ten t o f th e f o rc e re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryto ex ec u te t h e o rde r. A s no ted ab ove, cer t ai n ot hers t at es per m i torr equi r e t he off icer t o ar r es tt he non- cus t odi al par ents ubj ectt o t he pr ot ect i ve or derupon t hatpar ent ’ s fai l ur e or r efus al t o r etur n t he chi l dr en t o t he c u s to d ia l p a re n t. S e e , L a. R ev. St at

. A nn. , T i t l e 14, §79; M o. A nn. St at

. §455. 085( 5)

. M ar y l and’ s or derfor m does not i t s el f gr ants uch aut hor i t yt o an off

i cerexec ut i ng a p rotect i ve or der

. Such aut hor i zat i on coul d be an a ppr op ri ate subj ectof cl ar i fy i ng l egi s l at i on. 3 . U se o f F o rc e A g a inst a T h ird P a rty Shoul d t he off

i cerencount er oppos i t i on fr om a t hi r d par t ynot s u b j e c tt o t h e p r o t e c t i v e o rt e m p o r a r y ex p a rte o rde r ) e. g. , a g ran d p are n t o r d ay ca re p rov ider

)t he d eci si on of w hethert o u se for ce shoul d be w ei ghed car eful l y . A bs ent an i ndi cat i on of dange r t o t he chi l d, i tm aybe bes tfort he off i cert o w i t hdr aw fr om t he situ a tio n . T h e o f

f ice r c o u ld w a it t o e x e c u te th e o rd e r u n til th e c h ild1 2 2 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

Th e re may beproc e dural and su bs tanti veiss ue s a sso c iate d w ith 14 ma k in gs u c ha

c h an g e to th e o r d e r . F o r

e xamp le , th e d o me s ti c violence law directs that a protective order be serve d upon the par ties and, among others, “a ny aff ecte d person elig ible for relief ” and “a ny other pe rson the c ourt de te rm ine s is a

pp ro priate. ” F L§4 -5 06 (f ). B y c ontr a st, thestatut e o n l y d i r e c t s th ata

t e mp o r ar y e xpa rteorde r be se rved on “ the alleg ed abuser .” F L§4-505(b) . In any event, weoffe r this sugg estion to highlight the distinction between usingforc e ag ainst the individual subject to the prot ec tive order

and usingforc e ag ainst a third par ty

. Cf. FL

§9-210 (re quiringjoinder of a third party with physical custody of a child subjec t to custody

litigation). An amendment of the domestic violencelaw might a lso a dd re ss i ssu e s r e latin gto a thi rd pa rt y c us todian who is n ot o the rw ise a par ty to the action. i s i n t he cust ody of t he re s pondent named i n t he or derort he off i cer coul d r etur n t o t he i s s ui ng cour t , i dent i fyt he i ndi vi dual w i t h cus t ody o f th e c h ild , an d s e e k a n a m e n d m e n t to th e o rd e r sp e c if ica lly a d d re ss in g th is in d iv id u a l. 14
D . C o n side ra tio n s o

f S a fe ty 1 . S a fe ty o f th e C h ild Pr es um abl y , t he chi l d orchi l dr en s ubject t o t he or derw i l l be p rese n t atthe tim e a n o ff icer att em p ts t o ex ec u te th e tem p o rary cus t odypor t i on of t he or der

. I n det er m i ni ng w hethe r a nd t o w hat ext entfor ce s houl d be us ed, t he of fice r s houl d w ei gh heavi l yt he chil d ’s p hy s i cal and emot i onal s afe t y . I f t he off i ceri s cons i der i ng u sing fo rce ag ains t th e no n -cu stod ial p are n t o r thir d p artyca re g iver, th e o f f ice r sh o u ld c o n sid e r w h e th e r su c h f o rc e w ill p lac e th e c h ild atr i s k of phy s i cal har m . T hi s det er m i nat i on s houl d be bas ed upon t he chi l d’ s pr oxi m i t yt o t he offi cer and ot heri ndi vi dual , t he l evel of hos t i l i t yfaci n g the o ffi cer , and t he age of t he chi l d. U nl es s t he o f f i c e rh a s r e a s o n t o f

e a rf o rt h e c h i l d ’ s s a f

e t yi f n o tr e moved im m ed iat ely , itw o u ld b e a rare c ir cu m stan ce in w h ich a c h il d ’s phy s i cal s afe t ys houl d b e pl ace d i n j eopar dy

. E ven i f t he off i cer w oul d be pri vi l eged t o us e for ce a gai ns tt he non- cus t odi al par entor t hi r d par t y , t he off

i cerow es a dut yt o t he chi l d t o us e t hatfor ce i n a r eas onabl e mannerw i t h r es pect t o t he chi l d. E s s ent i al l y , an off i cer h a s a “ d o u b le r e sp o n sib ili ty

– o n e to th e p ro sp e c tiv e a rre ste e n o t to u se u n n e c e ss a ryf

o rc e a g a in st h im , an d o n e to th e p u b lic a t larg e to us e eve n r eas onabl e for ce i n a r eas onabl e manner . ” G i ant Food v. Sch erry , 51 M d. A pp. 586, 589- 90, 444 A

. 2d 483 ( 1982) ( fi ndi ng t hatG en. 105] 123

us e of de adl yfor ce t o s t op a fl eei ng fel on, t hough per m is s i bl e as ag ains t th e f

elo n , w as n o t r ea so n ab le w h ere inn o ce n t by stan d ers w e re p lac e d in jeo p a rd yb yth e o f f ice r’s a c tio n ); s ee R es t at ement 2d T or t s §§75, 137. A l t hough m os t chi l dr en m ay be ups et w hen t aken i nt o cust odybyan off i cer , t he off

i cers houl d al s o cons i dert he addi t i onal emot i onal har m t o t he chi l d i f for ce i s us ed agai ns t t he chi l d’ s par entorot hercar e gi veri n t he chi l d’ s pr es ence . If th e o f f ice r h a s re a so n to b e liev e th a t th e c h ild is in d a n g e r in th e c u sto d yo f

th e re sp o n d e n t o r a th ird p a rty , th e n th e sc a les tip in f a v o r o f u s in g w h a te v e r f

o rc e is n e c e s s a ry to re m o v e th e c h ild

. C f. R es t at ement 2d T or t s §§76 ( pr i vi l ege t o defe nd t hi r d per s on w hen t hatper s on w oul d be ent i t l ed t o acti n s el f- defe ns e) , 156 ( pr i vi l ege anci l l ar yt o dut yof pr ot ect i on)

. T hi s anal y s i s w oul d be t he s ame as t h atper for m ed undert he s t atut es per m i t t i ng l aw enfor cementand so c ial s e rv ice o f

f icia ls to o b tain im m e d iate c u sto d yo f a c h ild bel i eved t o be i n s er i ous , i m m i nentdanger

. FL §5- 709 ( per m i t t i ng re m o v a l o f a c h ild a n d th e u se o f “ re a so n a b le f

o rc e , if n e c e ss a ry ,” to g a in e n try if th e o f

f icia ls ha v e p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th e c h ild to be i n “ s e r i o u s , i mme d i a t e d a n g e r ” ) ; CJ § 3

- 8 1 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( p e r mi t t i n g a law en fo rce m en t of

fice r t o take cu stod yo f a ch ild w h e n there are “re aso n ab le gro u n d s” to b eli ev e the ch il d is i n im m ed iat e d an g er). 2 . O ffi ce r S a fety F in a lly , an o f

f ice r m u st c o n sid e r th e o f f ice r’s o w n sa f

e tyin d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n d to w h a t ex ten t f o rc e is re a so n a b ly n e c e ss a ry . If

th e o f f ice r re a so n a b lyb e liev e s th a t h e o r sh e is in d a n g e r, th e o f

f ice r sh o u ld re tre a t o r u se w h a tev e r f o rc e is re a so n a b ly nece s s ar yfors el f- pr ot ect i on. 5 A m J ur . 2d A rr e sts § 1 0 9 ; s ee Tennes see v. G or en , 4 7 1 U .S . 1 (1 9 8 5 ); E lli o tt v. L e a v itt , 99 F. 3d 6 4 0 , 6 4 2 (4 C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), cer t

. deni ed , 1 1 7 S

. C t. 2 5 1 2 (19 9 7 ).

th
E . Civil L ia b ility a n d Im m u n ity E ven off i cer s w ho fol l ow t hes e gui del i nes a n d exer ci s e t he u tm o st d isc re tio n in u sin g f o rc e to e x e c u te a c u sto d yo rd e r m a ystill encount erci vi l l i t i gat i on chal l engi ng t hei ract ion s. Such l i t i gat i on t ypi cal l ym ayas s er tcl ai m s bas ed upon al l eged vi ol at i ons of fe der al cons t i t ut i onal or s t atut or y r i ght s under42 U

. S. C

. §1983, vi ol at i ons1 2 4 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y

In a re c e nt d e c isi on , th e Court of Ap pe a ls disc us se d th e se 15 potential claims in some detail and the immuniti es available to municipal police off

icer s. Di Pino v . D av is , 354 Md. 18, 729 A.2d 3 54, 367-73 (1999). In th e p arl an c e o f § 1 9 8 3 , an o f f i c e r i s a “ p e r s o n ” s u

b j e c t to s uit 16 for damag es. The State, a nd State officia ls sued in an “of ficial c apac ity ,” are no t pe rs on s su

bje c t to su it fo r mon e tary dama g e s un de r §1 98 3. By c ontr a st, a

loc a l g ov e rnme nt i s a

“ pe rs on ” un de r t

hat st atu teand

is there foresusceptible to such c laims. Ri tc hiev . D on ne lly , 32 4 Md. 344, 355-57, 597 A.2d 432 (1991)

. o f S tate c o n stitu tio n a l p ro v isio n s, a n d c o m m o n law to rts. T h is 15 opi nion i s nott he occ as i on forcanva s s i ng al l pos s i bl e cl ai m s t hat m i ghtbe conc ei ved aga i ns t l aw enfor cementoffi cer s ort he def ens es th a t th e o f

f ice rs m a yh a v e . H o w e v e r, w e o f f e r so m e b rie f

c o m m e n ts o n o f f ic ia l im m u n itie s th a t a re a v a ila b le

. T o th e e x ten t th a t an o f f ice r is s u e d in a n in d iv id u a l ca p a c ity under§1983 bya per s on agai n st w hom t he off i cerus ed for ce, t he o f f ice r m a ya ss e rt q u a lifie d im m u n ity a s a d e f e n se . A n in q u iryin to 16 a qu al i fi ed im m un ity defe nse fo l l ow s t he o bject i ve reasonab l eness t es t : i f t he for ce e m pl oy ed w as r eas onabl e and nec es s ar y , t her e i s no cons t i t ut i onal vi ol at i on and t he off i ceri s ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed im m u n ity. S e e Branch , 123 M d. A pp. at348- 49 ( di s cus s i ng defe ndant s ’ ent i t l ement t o i m m uni t yundert he G r aham stan d ard ). T h is ho lds true re g ard less o f th e o ff icer’s i n tention s: “[A ]n o ff icer’s evi l i nt ent i ons w i l l not m ake a Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on outof an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e us e of f or ce; norw i l l an offi cer ’ s good i nt ent i ons m ake a n obj ect i vel yunr ea so n abl e us e of f or ce c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

. ” S h o e m a k e r v . Sm ith , 353 M d. 143, 725 A

. 2d 549, 558 ( 1999) ( quot i ng G r aham , 4 9 0 U

. S

. at 39 7 ). A n offi cerof a l ocal pol i ce de par t m entm ayal s o be sued i n an offi ci al ca p ac it yunder§1983 onl yt o t he ext entt hatt he compl ai nt chal l enges “a s t atut e, r egul at i on, p o l i cy , orcus t om of t he g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity” th e o f f ic e r is im p le m e n tin g . As h t o n v
. Br o wn , 339 M d. 70, 111- 12, 6 6 0 A

. 2 d 447 ( 1995)

. A l t hough t her e i s no qual i fi ed i m m uni t yavai l abl e t o t he off i ceri n s uch an ac t i on, nei t her is th e o f f ic e r lia b le in d iv id u a lly f o r d a m a g e s . D iP in o v . D a v is , 354 M d

. 1 8 , 7 2 9 A

. 2 d 3 5 4 , 3 6 9 (19 9 9 ).G en. 105] 125

Un de r t he L GTC A, a lo c a l g ov e rnme nt e nti ty is l ia ble , u p to 17 cer tain limit s, for its own t ortious conduct and f or compe nsatory

damag es assessed ag ainst its employees for tortious conduc t committed within the sc op e of e mpl oy me nt. CJ §§5 -3 02 (b ), 5- 30 3(b) ; D i P i n o v
. D av is , 729 A.2d at 370. W ith resp ec t t o co m m o n law tort claim s, an o ff icer m ay asse rt publ i c of

fici al i m m uni t y . A n offi cerw ho as s er t s publ i c off i ci al i m m uni t ym aybe r el i eve d o f l i abi l i t ys o l ong as t he off i ceract ed w i t houtm al i ce orgr os s negl i gence and w i t hi n t he s cope of t he o f f ic e r’ s p u b lic d u tie s . See A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , S tate G o v e rn m e n t A rtic le , § 1 2 -1 0 5 (re f e re n c in g th e im m u n ityo f S tate p e rso n n e l se t f

o rth in C J § 5 -5 2 2 (b )); Sh o e m a k e r v . Sm ith , 353 M d. 143, 725 A

. 2 d 549, 557 ( 1999)

. T hi s i m m uni t yw oul d appl yt o an al l egat i on of exc es s i ve for ce mad e agai ns tan off i cerexec ut i ng a p ro te c tiv e o rd e r. See Branc h , 1 2 3 M d . A p p . at 3 4 9 ; se e a lso D a v is v. Muse , 51 M d. A pp. 93, 98- 99, 441 A

. 2d 1089 ( 1982) ( hol di ng t hat lo w e r co u rt e rre d in f

a ili n g to in stru c t ju ryth a t itm u st f in d m a lice to hol d a pol i ce of

fi cerl i abl e for s t at e t or tcl ai m s i n an exc es s i ve for ce c a s e )

. L o c a l l a w e n f

o r c e m e n to f

f i c e r s e n j o y a s i m i l a ri m m u n i t y. S e e D iP in o v . D a v is , 354 M d. 18, 729 A

. 2d 354, 369- 71 ( 19 9 9 ); J a m e s v . P rin c e G e o rg e ’s C o u n ty , 284 M d. 294, 396 A

. 2d 255 (1 9 7 9 ) (p u b lic o f

f icia ls w h o p e rf

o rm d isc re tio n a rya c ts in fur t her ance of offi ci al dut i es ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y ) ; C J §5- 302( b) ( underLo cal G over nm entT or tC l ai m s A ct , l ocal gover nm ent empl oy ees pr ot ect ed agai ns t exec ut i on of a t or tj udgm entw her e t he em p loy ee d id n o t act w ith ac tual m ali ce ). 17
N e ith e r th e o f

f ice r o r th e o f

f ice r’s ju risd ictio n h a s im m u n ity u n d e r M a ry lan d la w f ro m su its b a se d u p o n v io latio n s o f S tate c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts

. C l ea v. M ayo r a nd C i t

y C ou ncil

of Ba l t i m ore , 312 M d. 662, 667 n. 3, 541 A

. 2d 1303 ( 1986)

. U nl i ke t he l aw under §1983, no di s t i nct i on i s m ade a s t o w het her s uch cl ai m s ar e as s er t ed in an i n d ividu al o r o ff

ici al ca p ac ity . R itc h ie v . D o n n e lly , 324 M d. 344, 373- 74, 597 A

. 2 d 432 ( 1991)

. Si m i l ar l y , w hi l e a l ocal gover nm entent i t yhas no r es pondeat s uper i orl i abi l i t y under§1983 w i t h r es pectt o al l eged St at e cons t i t ut i onal vi ol ati o n s, a l ocal gover nm entent i t yi s s ubj ectt o l i abi li ty fo rt he off i cer ’ s act i ons u n d e rth e d o ct r i ne of respond eat s up eri or, alt h o u g h the L G T C A m ay as s es s and di s t r i but e l i abi l i t ydi ffe r ent l yt han w o ul d t he comm on la w . D iP in o v . D a v is , 3 5 4 M d

. 1 8 , 7 2 9 A

. 2 d 3 5 4 , 3 7 1 -73 (19 9 1 ). As h t o n v
. Br o wn , 3 3 9 M d . 7 0 , 1 1 2 , 6 6 0 A .2 d 4 4 1 , 4 6 8 (1 9 9 5 ).1 2 6 [8 4 O p . A tt ’y
III C oncl usi on In su m m ary , the d ir ec ti o n to u se “ rea so n ab le an d n ec essa ry f o rc e ” to e x e c u te a tem p o ra ry c h ild c u sto d y p ro v isio n in a d o m e stic vi ol e nc e or de rmaybe ba s e d o n t he i nh e r e ntpo w e r s of t he c ou rt s, al t hough t hi s pr opos i t i on i s notfr ee f r om doubt

. A n amendm entof t he domest i c vi ol ence l aw t hatexpl i ci t l yaut hor i zes l aw enfor cement offi cer s t o enfor ce c hi l d cus t ody or der s coul d r es ol ve t hatques t i on. W hen an of

fi cerus es s uch for ce , t he off i cer ’ s conductm us tbe obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e, t aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on t he spec i fi c fa ctual ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed t o t he off i cer . A n offi cerw i l l be pr ot ect ed fr om l i abi l i t yunder§1983 forus e of obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e for ce and ma yb e i mmun e f

r o m t o r tl i a b i l i t yf

o ra c t i o n s t a k e n wi t hout m al i ce orgr os s negl i gence .

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce Ja c k S c h w a rtz A ss i s tant A tt orney G eneral K a th lee n H o k e D a c h ill e A ss i s t ant A ttor ney G eneral