Aug. 10, 2021) (quoting Chin v. City of Balt., 241 F.Supp.2d 546, 548 (D. Md. 2003)).

In Chin v. City of Baltimore, the court held that BPD is subject to suit for violation of § 1983 because it “is too interconnected with the government of the City” to constitute a state agency. 241 F.Supp.2d 546, 548 (D. Md. 2003). This court has repeatedly affirmed the holding in Chin.

The plaintiffs, Michael Chin and Sweet N Spicy Foods, Inc. ("Plaintiffs"), filed suit against the City of Baltimore, the Baltimore City Police Department, and Michael V. Wilhelm, in his individual and official capacities, alleging, in sum, that a search of Chin's person, business, and vehicles on May 22, 2001 violated various laws and constitutional rights. The court previously granted the motions to dismiss of the City of Baltimore and the Baltimore City Police Department.See Chin v. City of Baltimore, 241 F. Supp.2d 546 (D. Md. 2003). Now pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment by Wilhelm ("Defendant").

Chin v. City of Baltimore, 241 F.Supp.2d 546, 548-49 (D. Md. 2003).

The court explained that " ‘the BPD is too interconnected with the government of the City so as to constitute a State agency’ " and thus the BPD is subject to suit under § 1983. Id . at *10 (quoting Chin v. City of Balt. , 241 F. Supp. 2d 546, 548 (D. Md. 2003) ); see alsoBlades v. Woods , 107 Md. App. 178, 182, 667 A.2d 917, 919 (1995). The case of Chin v. City of Baltimore , 241 F. Supp. 2d 546 (D. Md. 2003), cited by the court in Chapman , is informative.

Based on the principles articulated in Monell, this Court has determined that the BPD is a "person" subject to suit under § 1983. Chin v. City of Baltimore, 241 F. Supp. 2d 546, 548 (D. Md. 2003).

This Court has held that the Baltimore City Police Department is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because the department is too interconnected with the government of the city. Chin v. City of Baltimore, 241 F.Supp.2d 546, 548 (D. Md. 2003) (citing Blades v. Woods, 107 Md.App. 178, 181, 667 A.2d 917, 918-19 (1995)). Thus, the Baltimore City Police Department is a “person” for purposes of § 1983 liability.

As earlier explained, the BPD is generally regarded as a State agency, and thus enjoys sovereign immunity as to State law claims. See Chin v. Cty. of Balt., 241 F.Supp.2d 546, 548-49 (D. Md. 2003); Cherkes, 140 Md.App. at 302-03, 326, 780 A.2d at 422, 436. Likewise, defendant Tuggle, in his official capacity, is extended the same immunity, because a suit against a public official in his official capacity is “essentially a claim against the [State] . . . .” Love-Lane, 355 F.3d at 783; see Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 (stating that “an official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity”).

Similarly, in Jones v. Chapman, ELH-14-2627, 2015 WL 4509871, at *10 (D. Md. July 24, 2015), a § 1983 death case involving various members of the BPD, this Court said that sovereign immunity protects the BPD against State law claims but not against § 1983 claims. The Court explained that, for the purpose of § 1983, "'the BPD is too interconnected with the government of the City so as to constitute a State agency'" and thus the BPD is subject to suit under § 1983. Id. at *10 (quoting Chin v. City of Balt., 241 F. Supp. 2d 546, 548 (D. Md. 2003)).

Indeed, this Court has repeatedly held that BPD is a "person" subject to suit under § 1983. See, e.g., Chin v. City of Baltimore, 241 F.Supp. 2d 546, 548 (D.Md. 2003) ("[T]he Baltimore Police Department is a 'person' subject to suit under § 1983."); Hector v. Weglein, 558 F.Supp. 194 (D.Md. 1982) (concluding that the BPD is amendable to suit under § 1983). The Court agrees with these conclusions.