Police Officer Immunity: When It Applies and When It Does Not
Published .
The general concept
Police officers may have immunity from personal tort liability for some conduct performed in their official roles, but the protection is not automatic for every act connected to police work. The analysis can involve separate doctrines: whether the officer owed a duty to this particular person, whether the conduct was discretionary or ministerial, and whether a statute protects the officer or the government entity.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland common-law public-official immunity generally protects a police officer from liability for negligent acts committed while carrying out discretionary duties within the scope of official authority. A discretionary decision involves meaningful personal judgment about how to use police power; a ministerial task is controlled by a definite rule or instruction. The public-duty doctrine is different: police ordinarily owe duties to the public, not an individually enforceable duty to protect each person from harm. A special relationship or an affirmative act creating specific reliance may change the duty analysis. Immunity also depends on the claim, the officer’s conduct and the applicable State or local statute. Intentional misconduct, malice, gross negligence, conduct outside official duties, or a ministerial failure may defeat or alter a particular defense. The facts and the source of the claim matter.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Howard v. Crumlin, 239 Md. App. 515 (2018); Houghton v. Forrest, 412 Md. 578 (2010); Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 5-303, 5-507, and 5-522.