Baltimore Jury Awards $75,000 in Excessive Force Case
A man was awarded money after being sprayed with tear gas and tackled by police during civil unrest. He filed a lawsuit alleging excessive force. Video showed him approaching police, and an officer sprayed him with tear gas before he was taken to the ground and removed from the area. The jury heard testimony about the incident and the circumstances surrounding it.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Settlement
- Amount
- $75,000
- County
- Baltimore City County, MD
- Resolved
- 2015
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Excessive force
Settlement Context
This settlement of $75,000 is above the median of $14,800 for other cases resolved by settlement. The typical range is $6,500 to $50,000, based on 136 cases in our database.
Case Overview
During the 2015 civil unrest in Baltimore, a man approached police officers after they ordered a crowd to comply with a curfew. A bystander's video showed the man yelling and demanding to be arrested. A lieutenant then sprayed the man with a chemical irritant, which the parties disputed as pepper spray or tear gas, and a sergeant subsequently took him to the ground. He was then removed from the intersection as the crowd began throwing bottles. In April 2016, the man filed an excessive force lawsuit against the officers in Baltimore City Circuit Court.
During the five-day trial, the plaintiff's attorneys presented the bystander video, arguing it showed the plaintiff being sprayed in the face at close range and pulled to the ground by his hair after being incapacitated. Testimony suggested the lieutenant used a form of tear gas for crowd dispersal, which department policy required a public warning for. The plaintiff testified he was participating in civil disobedience by breaking curfew and expected arrest but not excessive force. The defense countered that the officers faced a rapidly evolving, sometimes violent situation and that the plaintiff approached them threateningly and aggressively.
After one day of deliberations, a Baltimore jury awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in January 2018. The verdict indicated the jury likely found the officers' use of force to be excessive under the circumstances described. The Baltimore Law Department indicated it would consult on a potential appeal. The plaintiff was one of several individuals who filed similar lawsuits against police actions during the unrest, with his case being the first to proceed to trial.
Understanding This Case
- This case was resolved through a settlement, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a trial. Settlements typically resolve faster and provide guaranteed compensation.
- This case was resolved in Baltimore City County, Texas. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2015, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want to check your case value?
Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Baltimore City County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
On August 1, 2013, a pedestrian was injured in a hit-and-run accident at the intersection of Eighth Avenue and 40th Street in New York City. The pedestrian was in a crosswalk when an unknown vehicle struck her, causing severe personal injuries. The driver fled the scene without identifying themselves. On July 15, 2016, the injured party filed a claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MUAIC), asserting compliance with applicable state insurance law and claiming to be a covered person who had sustained a serious injury. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries, alleging the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the unknown driver and that all other available remedies had been exhausted. MUAIC responded with several defenses, arguing that the plaintiff's injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by her own conduct, or that she had not sustained a "serious injury" as defined under the state's insurance law. MUAIC also contended that the plaintiff might receive reimbursement from collateral sources, which would entitle the corporation to offset costs. The case proceeded to trial, and on November 18, 2019, a jury returned a verdict in favor of MUAIC, awarding no damages to the plaintiff.
One driver rear-ended another vehicle stopped at a red light. The driver who was hit filed a lawsuit seeking damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The parties reached a settlement agreement.
One driver's pickup truck was struck from behind by another pickup truck. This happened shortly after the first pickup truck was struck by a third vehicle. The driver of the first pickup truck claimed an injury. The second pickup truck sustained significant damage.
One driver was proceeding through an intersection when their vehicle collided with another vehicle making a left turn. The injured driver claimed injuries to their back and neck. The case involved a claim against the injured driver's own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits after an initial settlement with the at-fault driver's insurer.
One driver was stopped at a stop sign when their pickup truck was struck from behind by another pickup truck. The driver and a passenger in the first truck claimed injuries. The passenger's claim was settled before trial. The driver's claim proceeded to trial, where the jury found the second driver liable for the accident.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.