Graham et al v. State of Maryland et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WEATHERLY GRAHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-1777-ABA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Two Baltimore City Sheriff’s Office Deputies were attempting to serve a warrant
on a public street when an approximately 68-pound dog that was unrestrained began
running toward them. When the dog, which was growling and baring its teeth, was
between three and eight feet from the officers, they shot the dog. Plaintiffs Weatherly
Graham, who owned the dog, and Justin Lane, who helped care for the dog, filed this
case, alleging the shooting was unconstitutional. Because the deputies’ conduct was
objectively reasonable even drawing all reasonable inferences from the admissible
evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, and because Plaintiffs have otherwise
not come forward with evidence sufficient to make out their common law causes of
action, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of the claims.
I. 	BACKGROUND1
On April 8, 2020, Deputies Alain Hawley and Scottie Washington of the
Baltimore City Sheriff’s Office (the “Deputies”) arrived at the 3500 block of West
1 On a motion for summary judgment, the Court “must construe the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.” Perdue v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, 999 F.3d
954, 958 (4th Cir. 2021). Because Defendants have moved for summary judgment, the
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 19

2
Franklin Street in Baltimore, Maryland, a residential block. ECF No. 50-4, Deposition of
Deputy Alain Hawley (“Hawley Dep.”) 5:14–16, 26:6–8; ECF No. 50-5, Deposition of
Officer Scottie Washington (“Washington Dep.”) 8:3–5, 25:17–20. The Deputies were
there to serve a temporary protective order and multiple warrants upon an individual
they believed resided at 3510 West Franklin Street. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 18:18–
19:10; ECF No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 25:17–20. The Deputies parked their car on the
corner of West Franklin Street and Edgewood Street, near 3500, exited their vehicle,
and began walking toward 3510. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 36:13–37:6, 39:8–21; ECF
No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 30:8–14.2
As the Deputies began walking up the street, they saw a brown pitbull dog
between 3509 and 3510. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 39:20–40:6, 66:1–4; ECF No. 50-
5, Washington Dep. 33:11–16, 36:8–9; ECF No. 50-6, Deposition of Kirby West (“West
Dep.”) 29:4–5. The dog weighed approximately 68 pounds. ECF No. 50-7, Deposition of
Weatherly Graham (“Graham Dep.”) 38:7–9. The Deputies were unfamiliar with the dog
and did not know if it was a stray dog or if it belonged to someone in the neighborhood.
ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 63:3–7, 64:1–8; ECF No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 60:6–9.
As the Deputies continued their approach to 3510 and were within approximately fifteen
to twenty feet of the dog, the dog began to stare at the Deputies, showed its teeth, and
following is a recitation of the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to Ms.
Graham and Mr. Lane.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all four-digit numbers beginning with “35” are references
to house numbers on West Franklin Street. Any references to addresses beginning with
“38” in the deposition transcripts will be construed as beginning with “35” as was
clarified by Deputy Hawley at the end of his deposition. See ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep.
132:7–20. Per the record, no events occurred on the 3800 block of West Franklin Street.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 19

3
began growling, prompting the Deputies to take a couple steps back. ECF No. 50-4,
Hawley Dep. 40:20–41:10; ECF No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 36:15–37:2, 60:3–6. The
dog then ran toward the Deputies at a high speed. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 41:9–14;
ECF No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 36:16–21; ECF No. 50-6, West Dep. 29:7–10, 32:10–
33:2. Deputy Hawley testified that the dog got from where it was originally standing,
about three houses away, to within a few feet of the Deputies within about two seconds.
ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 49:18–50:11. Once the dog was within between three and
eight feet of the Deputies,3 they unholstered their service weapons and each fired two to
three rounds at the dog. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 41:15–16; ECF No. 50-5,
Washington Dep. 36:19–37:20; ECF No. 50-6, West Dep. 30:10–20. Deputy Hawley
estimated that the entire incident, between when he first saw the dog and when he shot
it, occurred within approximately thirty seconds to one minute. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley
Dep. 50:20–51:13. The incident was witnessed by a neighbor, Kirby West, who lived at
3515 and was sitting on his porch as the incident occurred. ECF No. 50-6, West Dep.
13:2–6, 20:7–20, 26:12–14.
At the time of the shooting, the Deputies’ car was parked approximately 30 to 40
feet from where they were standing. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 72:16–73:9. At the time
the dog was shot, it had never touched, bitten, scratched, or jumped at either Deputy or
anyone else in the Deputies’ presence. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 99:21–100:3; ECF
No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 43:2–10. At the time of the shooting, both Deputies were
3 Deputy Hawley estimated that the dog was approximately six to eight feet away, or the
width of a car, at the time of the shooting. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 45:14–46:2;
99:14–20. Deputy Washington estimated that the dog was approximately three to five
feet away at the time of the shooting. ECF No. 50-5, Washington Dep. 39:17–19.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 19

4
armed with mace and a baton. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep. 29:6–15; ECF No. 50-5,
Washington Dep. 46:2–3. The Deputies did not attempt to use their mace or baton or
use verbal commands before discharging their weapon. ECF No. 50-4, Hawley Dep.
50:16–19, 51:14–52:18.
It was later determined that the dog’s name was “Boy” and that he belonged to
Weatherly Graham, who lived with Justin Lane and Chice Watkins at 3500. ECF No. 50-
7, Graham Dep. 41:9–14, 52:17–18; ECF No. 50-8, Deposition of Justin Lane (“Lane
Dep.”) 55:8–9; 56:8–13. Ms. Watkins was the only person home at the time of the
incident and had “let Boy out the door [and] went back in [the house] to grab
something.” ECF No. 50-7, Graham Dep. 63:17–1. The house has a small front yard, but
it is not enclosed by a fence; so, when Boy was let out of the house, he was free to roam
down the street. Id. 26:7–8; 27:6–18. Ms. Watkins had been inside the house for a few
minutes when she heard gunshots. Id. 64:1–8. Neither Ms. Graham nor Mr. Lane (the
Plaintiffs) witnessed the incident as they were both at work at the time it occurred. Id.
51:8–14; ECF No. 50-8, Lane Dep. 76:16–77:6.4
4 Those are the undisputed facts, or the admissible evidence that is disputed but is
recounted in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend certain other facts,
such as that Boy was in his own yard when he was shot, see ECF No. 51 at 14–16; that
assertion, however, is unsupported by any admissible evidence, because the undisputed
testimony of the eyewitnesses to the incident (including the neighbor, Mr. West) places
Boy outside of Plaintiffs’ yard. Other facts are disputed, such as about Boy’s general
demeanor at other times (see ECF No. 50-7, Graham Dep. 32:5–8, 45:14–21, 46:19–
47:2). But for the reasons discussed below, those disputes are immaterial; regardless of
Boy’s demeanor on other days, the undisputed admissible evidence establishes that the
Deputies’ conduct on April 8, 2020 was objectively reasonable.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 19

5
II. 	Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A moving party meets its burden when the nonmovant “fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case” and
when the nonmovant bears “the burden of proof at trial.” Celotox Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the non-moving party fails to confront the motion with
“sufficient evidence . . . for a jury to return a verdict for that party,” the movant is
entitled to summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986); Celotox, 477 U.S. at 323 (“[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential
element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (“When the
moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than
simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). In making
this determination, the Court views all facts, and all reasonable inferences drawn from
those facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at
587–88.
III. 	Discussion
A. 	The Deputies’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or
Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. “[I]t is well-settled that privately owned dogs are ‘effects’ under the
Fourth Amendment, and that the shooting and killing of such a dog constitutes a
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 19

6
‘seizure.’” Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 227 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Ray I”) (quoting Altman v.
City of High Point, N.C., 330 F.3d 194, 203–05 (4th Cir. 2003)). A warrantless seizure
of a dog is presumed to be unconstitutional; however, an officer’s seizure can be
constitutional if it is shown to have been “reasonable.” Altman, 330 F.3d at 205 (citing
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983)). “Under the basic reasonableness
calculus, a court must ‘balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s
Fourth Amendment interest against the importance of the governmental interests
alleged to justify the intrusion.’ The reasonableness calculus is objective in nature; it
does not turn upon the subjective intent of the officer.” Id. (citing Place, 462 U.S. at
703) (internal citations omitted); see Ray I, 948 F.3d at 227.
Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides the state analog to the
Fourth Amendment as a prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures without a
warrant or probable cause. Md. Const. Decl. of Rts. art. 26. “[T]he standard for
analyzing claims of excessive force by police officers are the same under Articles
24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights”; “the test is one of objective
reasonableness, as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment case[s].”
Smith v. Bortner, 193 Md. App. 534, 544 (2010).5
5 For the first time during the motions hearing, Plaintiffs requested that, should the
Court conclude that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the Maryland
Constitution, arguing that the Maryland Constitution is more protective than the United
States Constitution on this issue. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file supplemental
authority on this issue. See ECF No. 59. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ request to
distinguish between the federal and state constitutional claims, and to bifurcate them,
for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs not only forfeited this argument by not raising it in their
response to the motion for summary judgment, but affirmatively waived it when they
stated that, “[f]or purposes of both state and federal constitutional law, the touchstone
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 19

7
In assessing the reasonableness of law enforcement seizures of pets (including
deadly use of force), the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly acknowledged the significant
interest owners have in their pets. See Altman, 330 F.3d at 205; Ray I, 948 F.3d at 227.
But “dog owners forfeit many of these possessory interests when they allow their dogs to
run at large, unleashed, uncontrolled, and unsupervised, for at that point the dog ceases
to become simply a personal effect and takes on the nature of a public nuisance.”
Altman, 330 F.3d at 206; see also Davis v. Clayton, Case No. 7:17-cv-02076-LSC, 2018
WL 3475438, at *6 (N.D. Ala. July 19, 2018) (“When the Plaintiffs’ dogs escaped,
Plaintiffs’ possessory rights over the dogs greatly diminished”). “When a dog leaves the
control of his owner and runs at large in a public space, the government interest in
controlling the animal and preventing the evils mentioned above waxes dramatically,
while the private interest correspondingly wanes.” Altman, 330 F.3d at 205; see also
Brown v. Muhlenberg Tp., 269 F.3d 205, 210 (3rd Cir. 2001) (“Where a pet is found at
large, the state undoubtedly has an interest in restraining it so that it will pose no
danger to the person or property of others.”).
Of course, the fact that an animal is unrestrained does not necessarily entitle law
enforcement to use force, let alone deadly force, to restrain the animal. But “[i]f a dog is
showing signs of aggression (baring teeth, ears back, tail straight, lunging, growling,
snarling, barking, or charging), courts regularly find that it is reasonable for officers to
of the analysis is the reasonableness of the shooting.” ECF No. 51 at 21. Second,
regardless, Smith instructs that the objective reasonableness standard under Article 26
is the same as under the Fourth Amendment. See Smith, 193 Md. App. at 544 (cited in
ECF No. 51 at 21). Plaintiffs did not point any cases in its supplemental brief where a
different standard was applied to seizures under Article 26. See ECF No. 59 at 3–5; ECF
No. 60 at 1–2. Accordingly, the Article 26 claim will be analyzed under the same
standard as the Fourth Amendment claim.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 7 of 19

8
defend themselves.” Strong v. Perrone, Case No. 17-CV-6183-FPG, 2020 WL 1445877,
at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (citing Carroll v. Cnty. of Monroe, 712 F.3d 649, 652
(2d Cir. 2013)). And in some circumstances, “the use of deadly force against a household
pet” can be objectively reasonable—but “only if the pet poses an immediate danger and
the use of force is unavoidable.” Ray v. Roane, 93 F.4th 651, 654 (4th Cir. 2024) (Ray
II) (quoting Ray I, 948 F.3d at 230); see also Carroll, 712 F3d at 652 (finding lethal
force could be reasonable where the dog was growling, barking, and quickly approaching
the police officer); Grant v. City of Houston, 625 F. App’x 670, 677–78 (5th Cir.
2015) (finding lethal force was reasonably used where the dog was biting at police
officer’s legs and aggressively barking); Kendall v. Olsen, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1156, 1169 (D.
Utah Feb. 17, 2017) (finding lethal force was reasonably used where the dog charged at
the police officer and lunged with ears back and a straight tail while barking loudly,
snarling, and baring its teeth).
In weighing the relevant interests, a court must focus on the circumstances
confronting the officers at the moment they fired their weapons. Ray I, 948 F.3d at 227
(citing Greenidge v. Ruffin, 927 F.2d 789, 792 (4th Cir. 1991), and Altman, 330 F.3d at
205-06). And reasonableness is not determined based on what the officers’ best possible
response could have been in the situation, but rather whether, “under the circumstances
existing at the time the officers took the actions and in light of the facts known by the
officers, their actions were objectively reasonable.” Altman, 330 F.3d at 207. Even if in
“retrospect” it “may have been preferable if the officers attempted first to use nonlethal
force,” “[e]ven dog owners can find their pets to be unpredictable at times,” let alone “a
person who is not intimately familiar with the behavior of the particular animal . . . and
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 8 of 19

9
who is forced to confront the dog for the first time in an unsupervised, unenclosed
environment.” Id.
The Fourth Circuit’s opinions in Altman and Ray (both Ray I and Ray II)
illustrate why Defendants are entitled to summary judgment here. In Altman, the
Fourth Circuit found the officers’ actions to be reasonable in each of the four incidents at
issue. The first involved a large dog that had been reported for having chased and
attacked someone in the neighborhood; the officer shot the dog in the backside as it was
approximately ten to twelve feet away and walking away from the house back out toward
the public. Altman, 330 F.3d at 197. The second involved a pack of dogs, including 3 of
the plaintiff’s dogs and 2 strays, that were attacking people, including the officers; the
officer discharged his shotgun at the pack, killing two dogs. Id. at 198. The third
involved a large dog that had been reported for having bit someone while running loose
and then charged at the officer at full speed while growling and showing his teeth; the
officer discharged his shotgun when the dog was approximately five yards away. Id. at
198–99. The fourth involved a dog that a person had previously observed act
aggressively and then the dog ran toward a residential area once the officer arrived; the
officer shot the dog when it was approximately fifty yards away. Id. at 199. In ruling that
the officers’ actions were reasonable in each of these incidents, the court acknowledged
that the officer may have, in hindsight, had options other than using lethal force. But
based on the circumstances before the officers in the moments leading up to the
shooting, each officer had a substantial interest in self-defense or protecting the public
that sufficiently outweighed the dogs’ owners’ interests such that shooting the dogs was
objectively reasonable. Id. at 206.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 9 of 19

10
In Ray II, in contrast, a reasonable jury could have construed the admissible
evidence as showing that the dog posed no immediate threat, which would mean the
officer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable. Ray II, 93 F.4th at 657–58 &
n.4. The officer there approached the plaintiff’s house, where he was attempting to serve
an arrest warrant. Id. at 652. Instead of parking his car in the driveway like other
officers who were present, he parked his car in the plaintiff’s yard within the plaintiff’s
dog’s play area and exited his vehicle despite warnings from the other officers to wait.
Ray I, 948 F.3d at 225. And plaintiff’s dog was attached via zip-lead to two trees in the
yard that limited its movement. Ray II, 93 F.4th at 652. Despite having put himself in
the dog’s play area against direction and in contrast to the other officers, and despite the
dog being physically unable to reach the officer, the officer “stopped backing away from
Jax when the dog reached the end of the zip-lead, and then took a step towards the dog
before firing his weapon.” Id. at 656 (quoting Ray I, 948 F.3d at 228). There was
sufficient evidence there to require a jury trial regarding the disputed facts (but not on
the “ultimate question of objective reasonableness,” which “is a purely legal issue for the
court to decide”). Id. at 657 n.4, 658.
Here, Altman entitles Defendants to summary judgment, and Ray does not
counsel otherwise. There is no genuine dispute that Boy was on a public street or
sidewalk (not a fenced yard or attached to a zip line), was not leashed, and was without
supervision. Similar to Altman, Plaintiffs’ interest decreased significantly once Boy was
roaming free in the street and was not being actively supervised by anyone. The
Deputies did not arrive to West Franklin Street with any knowledge that a dog would be
present, and did not, for example, place themselves in the dog’s own yard or otherwise
unnecessarily put themselves in proximity with the dog. They were serving a warrant on
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 10 of 19

11
a public street, and the undisputed evidence establishes that the dog approached them—
and did so rapidly, showing its teeth. The undisputed admissible evidence also
establishes that the officers waited until the dog was just eight feet away from them (or
possibly as few as three feet) before using deadly force. And the Deputies could not, for
example, step outside the reach of the dog (such as in Ray, where the dog was restrained
by a zip lead) or get into their patrol vehicles, which were down the block. These facts
dramatically increase the Deputies’ interest in self-defense and in protecting the public
and establish that “the pet pose[d] an immediate danger and the use of force [wa]s
unavoidable,” Ray, 93 F.4th at 654, and thus that the Deputies’ decisions to shoot Boy
were objectively reasonable.
Plaintiffs argue that “Boy never touched, bit, scratched, or jumped on either of
the deputies or any other person while the deputies were present,” and that those facts
weigh in favor of finding that the Deputies’ actions were unreasonable, or at least that
there are sufficient factual disputes to proceed to a trial. See ECF No. 51 at 22–24.
However, in Altman, where the court found the officers’ actions to be reasonable, the
officers did not have to wait until the dogs committed actual harm in front of the
officers. Rather the test is whether the Deputies held a reasonable belief that they were
in imminent danger and that the use of force was unavoidable. Plaintiffs also argue that
the Deputies’ failure to attempt to use verbal commands, hand gestures, their mace, or
their baton prior to lethal force is also evidence that their actions were unreasonable. Id.
Although the Deputies had other options at their disposal, it is undisputed that the
entire incident, from the first time the officers saw the dog until the shooting, took place
within thirty to sixty seconds and, even more significantly, that the time from when the
dog began running toward the Deputies until it got within eight feet of them took only
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 11 of 19

12
about two seconds. The Court cannot determine reasonableness based on what the best
possible option could have been in hindsight but rather must consider the
circumstances confronting the Deputies in those two seconds. See Altman, 330 F.3d at
207; Ray I, 948 F.3d at 227. In those two seconds, the Deputies were confronted with a
loose, 68-pound, unfamiliar dog that was running directly toward them at full speed,
growling and baring its teeth. In these circumstances, based on the undisputed evidence
in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court holds that the Deputies’ actions were
reasonable such that the seizure was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution or Article 26 of the Maryland Constitution.
It is significant that the only eyewitnesses to the incident were the Deputies, and
Mr. West, the neighbor who observed the incident. Neither Ms. Graham nor Mr. Lane
were present. The eyewitnesses’ testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to
Plaintiffs, establishes the facts described above. Ms. Graham testified that Boy had a
“chill, laid back” temperament, did not generally bark, obeyed some hand commands,
and was generally “very friendly” around strangers. ECF No. 50-7, Graham Dep. 32:5–8;
46:17–47:2. Indeed, in some circumstances evidence of a dog’s demeanor can bear on
whether officers acted reasonably. See Myers v. Town of Elkton, 745 F. Supp. 3d 219,
239 (D. Md. 2024) (citing Strong, 2020 WL 1445877, at *4-5; Ray II, 93 F.4th at 656–
57; Stanton v. Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 234 (4th Cir. 2022)). But here, none of that evidence
contradicts the evidence of the eyewitnesses, and all the evidence by the eyewitnesses
establishes, for the reasons explained above, that the officers reasonably perceived that
they were in immediate danger and that the use of force was unavoidable.
Plaintiffs rely on this Court’s decision in Myers, 745 F. Supp. 3d at 219. But
unlike here, in Myers there were genuine disputes of material facts including regarding
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 12 of 19

13
whether the dog was acting aggressively, whether the officer had a reasonable belief that
he was in imminent danger of harm, whether the officer had unnecessarily created the
situation by entering a fenced yard despite being warned of the presence of dogs, and
whether the officer could have climbed out of the fenced area or deployed an alternative
to his firearm. Id. at 240. In that case, the officers were aware that there were three dogs
on the property prior to arriving and had been given specific instructions on how to
relay information to the residents without interacting with the dogs but chose not to
follow those instructions. Id. at 227–28.
The Court’s holding here is further supported by, for example, Davis, in which
the court held the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable when he shot and killed
one dog and tased the other as both were large dogs roaming free such that he could not
be sure if they had owners or if they were strays, they were near the dead dog that the
officer had been dispatched to take care of such that he believed that they may have
been the cause of its death, and the dogs aggressively barked at and charged at a city
employee. Davis, 2018 WL 3475438, at *1, 5.
For these reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and
V will be granted.6
6 Given that summary judgment will been granted based on Defendants’ constitutional
argument, the Court need not and does not analyze the Defendants’ qualified immunity
argument.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 13 of 19

14
B. 	The Deputies are also entitled to summary judgment as to the
state law claims
1. 	Trespass to chattels and conversion claims (Counts III
and IX)
Trespass to chattels is “an intentional use or intermeddling with the chattel in
possession of another [which] occur[s], inter alia, when ‘the chattel is impaired as to its
condition, quality, or value.’” United States v. Arora, 860 F. Supp. 1091, 1097 (D. Md.
1994) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 217(b), § 218(b) (1965); citing Walser
v. Resthaven Mem’l Gardens, Inc., 98 Md. App. 371, 395 (1993)) (internal citations
omitted). Conversion is “an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel
which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may
justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.” Id. (quoting Restatement
(Second) of Torts, § 222A(1); citing Staub v. Staub, 37 Md. App. 141 (1977)). “To
establish conversion, a plaintiff must prove: (1) plaintiff’s right to possess the property;
and (2) defendant’s intentional taking of the property without authority or permission.”
Froelich v. Erickson, 96 F. Supp. 2d 507, 525-26 (D. Md. 2000) (citing Travel Comm. v.
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 91 Md. App. 123, 183 (1992)). Claims for trespass to
chattels and conversion are similar but differ in degree (and thus in damages that are
awarded); however, a single interference with property only allows for recovery under
one theory. Staub, 37 Md. App. at 144–45.
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs had a right to possess their dog, Boy. The question
here is whether the Deputies’ actions constitute an intentional taking. Defendants argue
that their actions were not an intentional taking as they were acting in self-defense when
faced with a charging, unsupervised dog. ECF No. 50-1 at 19–20. Indeed, Maryland law
expressly protects from civil or criminal liability a person who kills a dog “that the
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 14 of 19

15
person sees in the act of . . . attacking a human being.” Md. Code Ann., Local Gov’t § 13-
105(a)(2), (b). “Attacking” is not defined in the statute. Finally, Defendants point to the
general proposition that “[i]f an injury was done by a defendant in justifiable self-
defense, he can neither be punished criminally nor held responsible for damages in a
civil action.” Balt. Transit Co. v. Faulkner, 179 Md. 598, 600 (1941) (citing New Orleans
& Ne. R.R. Co. v. Jones, 142 U.S. 18 (1891)). Plaintiffs’ primary argument as to why
summary judgment should not be granted for the trespass to chattels and conversion
claims echoes their argument from the Fourth Amendment claim that there are genuine
disputes of material facts regarding whether the Deputies were acting in self-defense.
ECF No. 51 at 28–29.
Here, for essentially the same reasons as those establishing that Defendants’
conduct was objectively reasonable for constitutional purposes, Defendants’ conduct did
not constitute trespass to chattels or conversion. It is clear from the undisputed
evidence that the Deputies reasonably believed they were in immediate danger and that
the use of force was unavoidable. Mr. West, the neighbor, also testified that he did not
think the Deputies had done anything wrong; he thought they were protecting
themselves and testified that he would have reacted in the same manner. ECF No. 50-6,
West Dep. 31:3–14. In short, the Deputies’ actions were in self-defense or in defense of
the public and, therefore, do not constitute an intentional taking. Accordingly, summary
judgment will be granted as to the Counts III and IX.
2. 	Gross negligence (Count VII)
Gross negligence is “something more than simple negligence, and likely more
akin to reckless conduct.” Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 187 (2007) (quoting Taylor v.
Harford Cnty. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 384 Md. 213, 229 (2004)). Gross negligence is “an
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 15 of 19

16
intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences
as affecting the life or property of another, and also implies a thoughtless disregard of
the consequences without the exertion of any effort to avoid them.” Id. (quoting
Liscombe v. Potomac Edison Co., 303 Md. 619, 495 A.2d 838, 846 (1985); Romanesk v.
Rose, 248 Md. 420, 423 (1968)) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment should not be granted for the gross
negligence claim because there are genuine disputes regarding whether the Deputies
were acting in self-defense. ECF No. 51 at 28–29. They further argue that Brooks v.
Jenkins and Anne Arundel Cnty. v. Reeves should be considered instructive on the state
law claims. Id. at 29–30; ECF No. 59 ¶¶ 2–6; that Brooks v. Jenkins, 220 Md. App. 444
(2014); Anne Arundel Cnty. v. Reeves, 474 Md. 46 (2021). Plaintiffs argue that both
cases “are factually similar to this case as officers shot a family dog which had not bitten
or harmed the officer, in the family’s yard, without first retreating or using non-lethal
alternatives.” ECF No. 51 at 30. But Plaintiffs overstate the factual overlap and the
courts’ conclusions in those cases.
In Brooks, the Appellate Court of Maryland explained that gross negligence
requires that the defendant “acted either with the intent to inflict injury or with ‘utter
indifference’ to the rights of others.” 220 Md. App. at 461–62. The court held that the
trial court had properly permitted the jury to consider the gross negligence claim as
there was video evidence that the dog was wagging her tail as she approached the deputy
and that she did not approach at an inordinate speed or in a crouched position and,
rather than using a lesser form of force, the deputy aimed his gun directly at the dog’s
chest. Id. at 462. In coming to this conclusion, the court stated that “the evidence
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 16 of 19

17
sufficed to support the jury’s finding that the Deputy overreacted to the potential threat,
responded with excessive force, and acted with reckless indifference.” Id.
In Reeves, the Supreme Court of Maryland held that, although the officer testified
that the dog growled and barked once as it approached him, a reasonable juror could
have found that the dog did not attack him, especially in light of the expert testimony
that the dog was facing away from the officer when he shot it. 474 Md. at 75. Although
the officer’s uniform had muddy paw prints from the plaintiff’s dog, the expert
testimony regarding the positioning of the dog at the time of the shooting, combined
with the fact that “like in Brooks, there was no evidence that [the dog] was vicious or
threatening,” provided sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find that the officer was
grossly negligent. Id. at 55, 75. Upon this finding, the court upheld jury’s verdict. Id.
Unlike in Brooks, it is undisputed that Boy approached the Deputies at a fast
speed and there is no evidence to indicate that Boy was wagging his tail or taking any
other action to indicate that he was coming to play rather than attack. Additionally,
unlike in Brooks and Reeves where both incidents occurred on the plaintiffs’ property,
the Deputies came face to face with an unknown dog in the middle of a public street and
therefore could not have known that Boy was a family pet or anything about his general
temperament. Furthermore, in Reeves, unlike here, the deputy did not shoot the dog
until after the dog had touched him and began walking away from him; accordingly,
any reasonable fear of imminent danger substantially decreased by the time the
shooting had occurred. Here, it is uncontested that the Deputies shot Boy as he was
approaching them. Nothing in Brooks or Reeves indicates that the decision was made
solely or even primarily based on the dog not having bitten or harmed the officers prior
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 17 of 19

18
to the shooting. See Brooks, 220 Md. App. at 461–62; Reeves, 474 Md. at 75. But see
ECF No. 51 at 30.
Because the Deputies’ actions were objectively reasonable, infra § III(A), there is
insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the Deputies acted with “reckless”
or “thoughtless disregard of the consequences.” Barbre, 402 Md. at 187. Accordingly,
summary judgment as to Count VII will be granted.
C. 	The State is entitled to summary judgment as to the negligence
claim (Count VI) as there was no breach of duty
A claim of negligence requires “(1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect
the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff
suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from
the defendant’s breach of the duty.” Valentine v. On Target, Inc., 353 Md. 544, 549
(1999) (quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lane, 338 Md. 34, 43 (1995)); see also Bobo v.
State, 346 Md. 706, 714 (1997). The question before the Court is whether the Deputies
breached a duty of reasonable care with regard to Plaintiffs’ dog.7
During the motions hearing, Defendants argued that, to the extent the Deputies
owed any duty to Plaintiffs, that duty was not breached as the Deputies were acting with
reasonable care when they shot the dog in self-defense. Plaintiffs argue that, for the
same reasons as stated in the prior claims, Defendants’ use of lethal force was not
justified and the Deputies breached their duty to Plaintiffs by unreasonably utilizing
their lethal weapons. ECF No.51 at 32.
7 The Court assumes, without deciding, that the Deputies owed a duty to Plaintiffs.
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 18 of 19

19
The Court holds that, for the same reasons the Deputies’ actions were objectively
reasonable, the Deputies utilized reasonable care and, therefore, did not breach any duty
they owed to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, summary judgment as to Count VI will be granted.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will
be granted8 and judgment will be entered for Defendants on all remaining counts. A
separate order follows.
Date: January 13, 2026
Adam B. Abelson
United States District Judge
8 Because the Court concludes Defendants are entitled to summary, the Court need not
address Defendants’ argument regarding Mr. Lane’s standing.
/s/
Case 1:23-cv-01777-ABA Document 61 Filed 01/13/26 Page 19 of 19