Arrington v. Moore

358 A.2d 909, 31 Md. App. 448, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 507
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMay 7, 1976
Docket958, September Term, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 358 A.2d 909 (Arrington v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arrington v. Moore, 358 A.2d 909, 31 Md. App. 448, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 507 (Md. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Lowe, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are asked to determine at what point the exercise of authority by a presiding officer at a public meeting may cause him to become civilly liable. We must also determine when an arresting officer may be so exposed to liability. The community in which the circumstances giving rise to this case occurred carries the delightful name of “Seat Pleasant.” To the Mayor, Henry T. Arrington, the seat occupied by him, while chairing the town meeting in question was anything but that. Meetings of the Mayor and Council of Seat Pleasant are held bimonthly. Alternate meetings are open to public attendance and participation. All of the meetings are presided over by the Mayor.

Suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County by Charles Edward Moore, the Town Manager, against Mayor Arrington, as well as Chief of Police Roy Burke and Deputy Charles L. Owens, for assault, battery and false arrest. The testimony at trial revealed the heated political divisiveness within the community which led to the incident at bar. This divisiveness was exemplified by the meeting of the Mayor and Council preceding the one at issue. After persistent interruptions, the Mayor abruptly adjourned that meeting, and then seemingly felt it necessary to draw a pistol when going to his car in an adjacent parking lot in the presence of some protesting townspeople.

At the next meeting after the pistol wielding incident, *450 held on August 16, 1973, there was expected even greater and more vociferous public participation. The anticipated public participation was viewed with some trepidation because a printed “flyer” entitled “SEAT PLEASANT MURDERERS” had been disseminated exhorting townspeople to attend the August 16th meeting. Among other charges made by the flyer (which we attach as Appendix No. 1) was that of governmental overspending including “ . .. full-time pay of a part-time manager.” The meeting room was thus prepared for substantial attendance by the public and news media. Chief of Police Burke was alerted by the Mayor to have a sufficient number of officers present to maintain order. A total of seven (including himself) was present, most of whom were inconspicuously clothed.

The testimony in the case indicated that the Mayor had generally conducted meetings “with some parliamentary procedure” although he deviated from “parliamentary procedure and Robert’s Rules ... to allow people an opportunity ... to voice their opinions.” In short, it appears that the meetings were generally informal, with the degree of procedural adherence dictated by the circumstances of the particular meeting.

The air was so charged with political cordite at the meeting of August 16, 1973, that as a precaution, in addition to added police security provided, a section of law was prefatorily read to the assembled throng. The Mayor described the preparations.

“We opened the meeting by reading a section of the Code, the Annotated Code of the State of Maryland, which indicated that it was a violation of the law to disrupt a public meeting. After having read that, I stated to the public that the meeting would be held with dignity and decorum, that everyone would be allowed to speak, that we had no intentions of suppressing anyone’s opinions. But that it would be done in an orderly fashion, and that I would attempt to recognize people in the order in which their hands were raised.”

*451 A Councilman Gallion was then recognized by the Mayor and he took the floor to denounce the political flyer that had been publicly circulated. In doing so he read from the flyer, and when he reached that portion critical of the town manager, appellee Moore rose from his seat to the right rear of the Mayor 1 and approached him. The testimony differs as to his manner of seeking the Mayor’s attention, but Moore clearly stated his purpose in doing so.

“BY MR. HOULON:

Q. What if anything next did you do after you got up?
A. I walked where I could make sure he would hear me.
Q. Am I standing approximately where you were?
A. I’d say back a bit. About two feet, probably.
Q. Here?
A. Right, and then —
Q. Then what did you do? Tell me.
A. I put my hand on the table.
Q. Your hand?
A. Right. That is a habit of mine, of talking with my hand and doing things. I wanted to make darned sure that he heard what I had to say.
Q. What did you say?
A. ‘Am I a part-time manager?’
Q. And in what tone of voice did you use?
A. The same as I just said now. ‘Am I a part-time manager?’
Q. How many times did you say it, if any?
A. I asked him that five times.
Q. Five times?
*452 A. Yes. Five times, but on three times he said, ‘Take a seat, Mr. Moore,’ and on the fourth time he said, ‘Get him out of here.’
Q. When he said, ‘Get him out of here,’ could you tell who he was speaking to?
A. No. I couldn’t. But I assumed that he meant Chief Burke because he came in the space between you and the man, now, between the two of us. And he put his hand on my chest, so I pushed him back.”

It is undisputed that Chief Burke came forward, placed himself between appellee and Mayor Arrington, and put his hands on appellee’s chest:

“Q; When Chief Burke came up to you, he put his hand on you?
A. Both hands, yes.
Q: Tell the jury what happened next.
A. Well, I did not mean to disobey the law at all, but for me to ask a question where I’m being accused of being a part-time manager, which is wrong, and then not to receive an answer but to be told — but to hear him say, ‘Get him out of here,’ deep- in my own heart I felt I should get an answer then.
So I waited. And Chief Burke pushed me and by being an ex-Army man, I immediately, my hand came up to defend myself. And we had a bit of a shuffle there until all of a sudden one officer grabbed my hand. And then the Chief had the other hand and all of a sudden I felt an arm around my neck.”

Mr. Moore testified that he not only knew the Chief, but that they were on good terms, although the manager’s own description of the “shuffle” belies that relationship.

“Q. And tell the jury what you did to the police officer? How you resisted? Tell them what you did to him. You took his coat, what did you do?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Farrell v. Theurer
816 A.2d 113 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
McCoy v. Hatmaker
763 A.2d 1233 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
Williams v. Mayor & City Council
736 A.2d 1084 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
Shoemaker v. Smith
725 A.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
Thomas v. City of Annapolis
688 A.2d 448 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1997)
Spaulding v. Newport
D. New Hampshire, 1996
Leese v. Baltimore County
497 A.2d 159 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Ladnier v. Murray
572 F. Supp. 544 (D. Maryland, 1983)
Snowden v. Anne Arundel County
456 A.2d 380 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)
Hector v. Weglein
558 F. Supp. 194 (D. Maryland, 1982)
Davis v. Muse
441 A.2d 1089 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
Bradshaw v. Prince George's County
396 A.2d 255 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1979)
Thompson v. Anderson
447 F. Supp. 584 (D. Maryland, 1977)
State v. Dominic
376 A.2d 124 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 A.2d 909, 31 Md. App. 448, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrington-v-moore-mdctspecapp-1976.