Prince George’s County, Maryland v. Steven Morales

QUESTION

Provide a summary of a court case regarding the following
1. the liability of an off duty sworn officer for actions taken while the officer was employed by a private sector employer; or

2. the liability of a private business (such as a bar, restaurant, or store) for the actions of a security employee–(be sure to indicate whether the employee was a sworn law enforcement officer, and whether the employee was off duty at the time of the incident)

3. identify the area resulting in the employee or employer’s liability (ie. negligence, tort liability, etc)

ANSWER

Prince George’s County, Maryland v. Steven Morales

In the PG County v. Steven Morales case (2016), a police officer who was off-duty, working security semi-uniformed, was ruled to be “within the scope of his employment” despite being hired by a different institution and working on light-duty, both of which violated departmental policies. An officer of the county was working extra-duty as part of a security team at a college fraternity party. This violated the policies of the police department, as police officers were prohibited from participating in such employment (Findlaw). The officer, Richardson, had recruited other officers and a friend to provide security. While he arrived at the party in his vehicle, the other police officers used police vehicles.

Besides, Richardson had his gun belt, a ballistic vest, service gun, a shirt with “PGPD” lettering (Prince George’s Police Department), handcuffs, and police badge while providing security at the party. While on the security provision duty, Richardson encountered Morales, an individual who was attending the party. Richardson had to use force on Morales to prevent him from getting into the party since his words did not work. Morales claimed that the officer had hit him for no reason. The jury listening to the case found that Richardson used excessive force, passing a judgment of a fine against him and his employer (PGPD). The employer was forced to pay the civil judgment for the tort committed by their employee (the officer) within the scope of their employment.

The officer had acted to maintain peace using tools provided to him by the employer. Therefore, he was doing work that he was employed to do, in an area that he was authorized to work and during his authorized work hours. Also, the PG County Code (Sec 18-163) provided that “sworn police officers are held to be always on duty, although periodically relieved from the routine performance thereof” (PGPD). Richardson was, therefore, within the scope of his employment.

Works Cited

Findlaw. “Prince George’s County, Maryland v. Steven Morales.” FindLaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1756138.html.

PGPD. “Code of Ordinances.” Municode Library, Prince George’s County, MD, https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george’s_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITI17PULOLAPRGECOMA_SUBTITLE_18PO_DIV5PODE_SD2RUCOPOOF_S18-163PEREDU.

“PG v. Morales.” Maryland Criminal Law and Policy, 30 Nov. 2016, https://www.mdcrime.org/2016/11/30/pg-v-morales/#more-1463.