Maryland
How Armstrong v. McAlpin applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law (Government Official Immunities).
Maryland follows a subjective and objective standard to assess government official immunity. Officials are granted immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
In Maryland, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity provided that they were acting within the scope of their duties and did not violate clearly established rights.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that state officials are immune from liability unless they act with malice or in bad faith.
The court ruled that police officers are protected under qualified immunity when their actions do not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established.
The court determined that a law enforcement official was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence of malice or intent to harm.
Maryland's approach aligns closely with the federal standard set out in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, focusing on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct. However, Maryland's courts emphasize the subjective component of the official's intent more heavily than some federal cases.
Understanding government official immunity is crucial for the Maryland bar exam, particularly regarding the distinctions between malice, bad faith, and objective reasonableness.