Opinion ID: 2557538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Longtin's Civil Suit

Text: On October 22, 2001, Longtin filed a civil law suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, naming the County, it's then-Chief of Police, and five members of the Criminal Investigation Division, including the interrogating officers. Longtin's thirteen-count complaint alleged, among other things, constitutional violations, a pattern or practice claim, [7] and various common law claims such as false arrest and malicious prosecution. [8] The trial began almost five years later, on August 14, 2006. At the start of the trial, the court granted partial motions for summary judgment with regards to two of the original thirteen counts. [9] At trial, Longtin sought to establish unconstitutional actions by the police officers during his initial arrest and interrogation. Longtin described how the officers showed him gruesome pictures of his wife's corpse, mocked his religion, denied him access to legal counsel, deprived him of food and sleep, threatened him, and lied in the Application for Probable Cause. Longtin further argued that the Department and the Officers failed to take proper steps to release him more promptly after they discovered the exculpatory evidence. He argued that the officers ignored evidence of similar crimes in the area, ignored evidence of a suspicious person in the area, and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to Longtin. Longtin submitted that the officers had already made up their mind that he was the culprit, and would do anything to extract a confession from him. Finally, as part of his pattern or practice claim, Longtin introduced evidence that the policies, training, and practices of the Police Department were partially to blame: [Longtin] set forth evidence through Detective Herndon that sleep deprivation was a tool of investigation that he had been trained to use. Admitted into evidence was an interview and interrogation training manual of the Prince George's County Community Police Institute that told officers they could read a suspect his rights or wait until after he admits. The manual stated that the interrogator should consider handcuffing an angry suspect to the wall and let [him] sit a while. Officers were advised to wait out a passive suspect because few people can keep it up. If a suspect is so convincing that you are starting to believe him ... [l]eave the room [and] [d]on't go back unless you re-fortify your conviction that he is guilty. Detective Kerry Jerningan testified that it was departmental policy that police did not necessarily have to take the suspect before a district court commissioner within 24 hours if the suspect was continuously providing information, and confirmed that a police training manual described Md. Rule 4-212(f)(1) as [a] Maryland procedural rule, not law that could be waived. Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 113-14, 988 A.2d at 29-30 (footnote omitted). The case was submitted to the jury on eight counts, [10] and on August 31, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Longtin on all eight counts. [11] The jury awarded $5.2 million in compensatory damages against the County, pursuant to Md.Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol.) Section 5-303(b)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (CJP), which provides, with certain exceptions, that a local government shall be liable for any judgment against its employees for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions. ... [12] The jury also returned punitive damages over $1 million against the individual officers. The Defendants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The Defendants then sought certiorari from this Court, which we granted.