to a Judge of the Circuit Court of any County or of the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, it appears that the property taken is not the s Md. 271, 170 A.2d 220 (1961) and similar cases indicate that the existence of the first factor is sufficient to create public-official immunity, they are overruled.” James v. Prince George’s Cnty., 288 Md. 315, 323 n. 9, 418 A.2d 1173 (1980). The first factor is "that the individual actor, whose alleged negligent conduct is at issue, is a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent.” Id. at 323, 418 A.2d 1173. 8 . See, e.g., Cox v. Prince George’s Cnty., 296 Md. 162, 164, 460 A.2d 1038 (1983), superseded by statute C.J.P. §§ 5-401 to 5-404, as recognized by Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 688 A.2d 448 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247, 261, 587
holding pleading was sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss based on allegations that two police officers were under the control and supervision of the county when they maliciously and intentionally allowed and encouraged the police dog to attack and bite cox in clear and substantial excess of the force needed to restrain and detain him and that the two officers subsequently beat and further injured cox without justification holding that in 1998 the law was clearly established that excessive duration of a police dog bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding that policies regulating the uniforms and conduct of police officers are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless individual officers can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation based as it is on the countys method of organizing its police force and the promotion of safety of persons and property holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police