Court Opinion

ID: 9734334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:32:04.175576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:47.964459
License: Public Domain

Rodowsky, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that under the rules relating to summary judgment it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the theory of liability predicated on a violation of subsection (b) of Article 66V2, § 9-102 of Maryland Code (1957, 1970 Repl. Vol.). However, in my opinion, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the theory of liability predicated on a violation of subsection (a), and accordingly, as to subsection (c). Subsection (a) requires that two elements be satisfied, (1) "commandeering the vehicle and [2] directing the operator ... to participate in a road block in the apprehension of any person suspected . ...” Even if it is assumed that a roadblock can be moving, as well as stationary, the participation in it referred to in subsection (a) is participation as a blocker. By holding in effect that the vehicle to be blocked, i.e., the object *593of a roadblock, "participators]” in the roadblock itself, the majority has, in my view, exceeded the plain import of the statute.
Chief Judge Murphy authorizes me to state that he joins in this opinion.