Board of Estimates approves $395,000 settlement in Fourth Amendment lawsuit against city
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Estimates approved a $395,000 settlement in Steven Bow v. Aaron Dale et al., a federal case arising from a March 30, 2021 Baltimore Police Department response. The law department cited a denied motion for summary judgment and exposure to attorney's fees as reasons to settle.
The Baltimore City Board of Estimates approved a $395,000 settlement in Steven Bow v. Aaron Dale et al., a federal lawsuit alleging excessive force and Fourth Amendment violations during a March 30, 2021 Baltimore Police Department response.
Deputy Solicitor Steven Salisbury told the board the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the city's motion for summary judgment, finding the officers entered the property without a warrant or probable cause. Salisbury said the plaintiff suffered serious injuries requiring surgery and that the litigation exposed the city to uncapped federal damages and attorney’s fees, which can be recoverable in successful constitutional claims.
Salisbury described the facts: officers entered an upstairs unit via an outdoor stair, a struggle occurred at the doorway and landing, pepper spray was used and the plaintiff fell over a railing before fleeing; body-worn camera footage was available, and the court characterized the record as the plaintiff “went over the balcony.” Salisbury said the lead officer—now retired—received written counseling requiring him to check restraining-order status in the future, and that a later review showed no restraining order barred the individual from being at the property.
Board members asked whether training or database checks had been added to reduce similar incidents; Salisbury said the officer was required to receive training on verifying restraining orders and that internal and external databases can be consulted to check status. A separate question about attorney's fees prompted Salisbury to explain that fees in cases alleging constitutional violations can accumulate over lengthy litigation and were included in the department’s settlement calculus.
A board member moved to approve the settlement; the motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote. No roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.
The law department listed the settlement under SB2610246 and identified the case by District Court docket MJM-23-1020. The board took no additional disciplinary actions beyond the written counseling described by Salisbury.
