The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed a decision finding no liability by state actors in connection with the arrest 

This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In this instance, we are asked to determine whether the State may be subject to civil liability for an arrest under circumstances in which, after interviewing a victim, a deputy obtained legal advice from the State’s Attorney’s Office that there was probable cause to believe that an individual had committed a statutory criminal offense, a judicial officer found probable cause to issue a warrant, and thereafter a trial judge acquitted the individual of the charge based upon the trial judge’s interpretation of the statute in question.

The issues presented in this case arise in the context of Petitioner, Valerie Rovin’s, arrest and prosecution for violating the juror intimidation statute, Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law Article (“CR”) § 9-305 (2021 Repl. Vol.). Ms. Rovin, upset by a jury’s verdict rendered against her daughter in a criminal trial, went to the jury foreperson’s workplace on the same day to confront him about the verdict. According to the foreperson, Ms. Rovin yelled at him, acted in an aggressive and threatening manner, and told him, among other things, that she was going to have an individual from Nicaragua “take care of him.” The foreperson immediately reported this exchange to the Sheriff’s Office. The deputy sheriff who investigated the matter consulted with prosecutors in the State’s Attorney’s Office, who advised the deputy that Ms. Rovin’s conduct violated the juror intimidation statute.

Thereafter, the deputy applied for a statement of charges. A District Court Commissioner determined that there was probable cause to issue a warrant for Ms. Rovin’s arrest. At the close of the State’s case at Ms. Rovin’s bench trial, her counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that her conduct did not constitute juror intimidation under the statute because Ms. Rovin’s daughter’s criminal trial had concluded, and thus the foreperson was no longer serving on a jury and his service had concluded. The State disagreed with Ms. Rovin’s narrow interpretation of the statute and argued that the foreperson’s jury service was for the period of his summons, and that as a result of Ms. Rovin’s actions, the foreperson was dismissed from his jury service early. The circuit court determined that although Ms. Rovin’s actions were “very improper” and may have been evidence of juror “retaliation,” her actions did not fit within the conduct prohibited by the juror intimidation statute, and it therefore entered a judgment of acquittal.

Ms. Rovin then filed a civil suit against, among others, the State’s Attorney and Assistant State’s Attorney who advised the deputy and subsequently prosecuted her, and the deputy who applied for the charges and sought a warrant for her arrest. She asserted that the defendants, through their conduct in causing her arrest and prosecution, committed common law torts and violated her rights under various articles of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. After the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and the matter was appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, this Court granted certiorari to determine, among other things, whether absolute immunity barred the claims.