Court Opinion

ID: 9642784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:09:00.099227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:52.501771
License: Public Domain

Oppenheimer, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
In Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 130 (1964), the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgments against the defendants affirmed by us in Griffin v. State, 225 Md. 422, 171 A. 2d 717 (1961) on the ground that the arrests were the products of State action taken because the defendants were Negroes, and therefore racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Griffin, the arresting officer, Collins, was a deputy sheriff of Montgomery County employed by and subject to the direction *355and control of the amusement park. The record shows that in this case the special policeman, Officer Wood, was in the employ of the amusement park but it does not show whether or not he had been deputized by Baltimore County. Pursuant to the instructions of the park’s management, Wood told the defendants the park was closed to Negroes, ordered them to leave and, when they did not, sent for the Baltimore County police. He and the county police together removed the defendants from the park.
If Wood, the “special officer” in this case, had virtually the same authority from Baltimore County that Collins had from Montgomery County, it seems to me immaterial that he called in the Baltimore County police to help him evict the defendants. He was the proximate cause of the arrests. If his authority stemmed from the State, then under Griffin v. Maryland, supra, the State was a joint participant in the discriminatory action.
On the facts, it also seems immaterial that the convictions here were for disorderly conduct rather than for trespass as in Griffin. In resisting the command of the officers to leave the park, the defendants used no force against the officers or anyone else; they held hack or fell to the ground. Such failure to obey the command, if the command itself was violative of the Constitution, would not sustain the convictions. Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284, 291, 292 (1963).
The Baltimore County Code authorizes the county to appoint special police officers to serve for private persons or corporations. Baltimore County Code, Sections 24-13 and 35-3 (1958). I would remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for the taking of additional testimony to determine whether or not Wood was appointed by Baltimore County under these sections of its Code. If he was, the convictions should be reversed.