and therefore, the pleading failed to demonstrate that the officers’ actions were performed “without legal justification or excuse, but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced by hate, the purpose being to deliberately and willfully [cause] injur[y]” to appellant’s place of business and residence. Town of Port Deposit, 113 Md.App. at 416, 688 A.2d 54. Thus, this Court finds that appellant’s complaint did not sufficiently allege that the officers acted with actual malice, and the circuit court correctly granted the officers’ motion on that basis. In addition, there is no special relationship between appellant and the police officers eliminating government immunity and imposing tort liability on the officers. Ashburn v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 306 Md. 617, 634-35, 510 A.2d 1078 (1986) (<HOLDING>). “In order to impose a special relationship
holding that transportation of arrestee to police station is service of police under the ada holding that police procedures set forth in the transportation article requiring officers to detain and investigate drunk drivers did not provide injured pedestrian with a civil cause of action absent police assuming a special relationship recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding that the presence of uniformed police officers following a walking pedestrian and requesting to speak with him without doing anything more does not constitute a seizure