Whether the statute of limitations for a civil rights claim should be equitably tolled when key evidence of police misconduct was fraudulently concealed and only publicly disclosed years after the initial incident

was argued as a Question of First Impression for the Fourth Circuit, on the topic noting inter alia, while there 2 The Bromwich Report released two months before suit was filed, includes approximately 20 direct references to Petitioner Simon’s case and Gladstone, Hankard, and Vignola, who only in 2019 was it publicly disclosed they were even involved at the frame-up scene, and being criminally prosecuted within the 5 year criminal statute of limitation, for Mr. Simon’s Civil Rights violations, which due to COVID closure delays, all three were only sentenced in 2023, over a year after a civil suit was filed. 3 “Issue One: Whether the trial Court’s grant of a Motion to Dismiss under Statute of Limitations, was legally correct and proper, based on the initial incident involving Officer Jenkins occurring in 2014, when it was unreasonable and practically impossible for Appellant to have “inquiry notice” to file a Civil Rights claim by 2017 and/or Appellant’s claims should otherwise have been “equitably tolled” due to Fraudulent Concealment when: (1) no one including Appellee Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) 3 was apparently four Federal District Court cases related to topic, all of which denied Motions to Dismiss with striking similarities to Petitioner’s case, of which at least four of Green v. Pro Football, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 714, 722-723 (D. Ct. Md. 2014), Johnson v. BPD, 2020 WL 1694349 (D. Ct. Md. 2020), Johnson v. BPD, 2022 WL 2209066 (D. Ct. Md. 2022), and Burley v. BPD, 422 F. Supp. 3d 986 (D. Ct. Md. 2019) supported the position taken by Petitioner, three that specifically addressed the important circumstances of the GTTF.4 claimed they knew Officers Gladstone, Vignola, and Hankard, participated, conspired, and fraudulently concealed their activities of planting evidence of a realistic BB gun, as part of a conspiracy to falsely arrest and imprison Simon for 317 days until a nol pross was entered, (2) later perjuring themselves before the Grand Jury to prevent discovery, (3) it is plausible a reasonable fact-finder would find it was the Federal criminal investigation and indictment made public in 2019 that gave rise to Appellant having inquiry notice, and (4) the three previously unknown ringleader coDefendants were found criminally guilty between 2019 through 2022, to conspiring to deprive Simon of his Civil Rights and/or perjury.” 4 The only case that differed in the Maryland Federal Courts, of which both the trial judge Julie Rubin and the Fourth Circuit’s unreported Opinion noted and adopted, was that of Rich v. H