The Saint Mary’s County Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) has ruled that sheriff’s deputies acted lawfully and within department policy during a dog shooting incident that took place in Hollywood, Maryland, on February 18, 2024. Following a thorough investigation, the ACC determined that the deputies involved committed no misconduct, concluding that the use of force was necessary to protect an officer who was under attack.
Although this ruling was discussed during a meeting of the Saint Mary’s County Police Accountability Board (PAB), it is important for the public to understand that the PAB itself did not make the ruling. Instead, the ACC—a separate entity responsible for reviewing police misconduct cases—issued the final decision. The PAB plays an oversight role and reviews ACC case determinations as part of its broader responsibility to ensure accountability in law enforcement.
The incident began when two St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a reported violation of a court-issued protective order. Arriving at a residence in Hollywood during the early afternoon, they approached the front door and knocked three times, announcing their presence. After receiving no response, they turned to leave. Moments later, three unrestrained and aggressive dogs were released from the back door of the house. The homeowner later stated she was unaware that deputies were at the front door when she let the dogs out.
Following the incident, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) initiated an internal review to determine whether the deputies acted within the law and department policies. The ACC reviewed the case on three separate occasions, considering body-worn camera footage, officer statements, witness testimony, and official reports. After extensive evaluation, the committee found that the deputies had a legal right to be on the property, had acted in self-defense, and did not violate any departmental policies.
Many members of the public may wonder why this ruling was discussed in a Police Accountability Board (PAB) meeting if the ACC is the entity responsible for deciding misconduct cases. This is because the PAB oversees law enforcement accountability in the county, but it does not make disciplinary rulings. The ACC, which includes civilian members appointed by the PAB, is responsible for reviewing misconduct allegations and making final determinations. The PAB reviews ACC case rulings in public meetings to ensure transparency, discuss policy issues, and maintain oversight of law enforcement practices. In this case, the ACC determined that the deputies did not violate any laws or department policies, and the PAB reviewed the findings during their meeting to keep the public informed.
The investigation confirmed that the deputies had a right to be on the property. The home’s driveway was gated, which prevented vehicle access, so deputies walked through a wooded area to reach the front door. The homeowner had a history of allowing deputies and the general public to bypass the gate, and she never objected to their presence. Based on legal precedent, officers had the right to approach the home and attempt contact without a warrant.
The ACC also focused on whether the use of deadly force against the dog was justified. Reviewing body-worn camera footage, investigators confirmed that the attack was sudden and severe. The dogs charged aggressively and surrounded the deputy, who was bitten multiple times and knocked down. The dogs ignored verbal commands to stop, continuing their attack. The use of a firearm was determined to be justified under department policy, which states that officers may use deadly force if they are under immediate threat of serious injury or death.
Another issue reviewed by the ACC was the decision to euthanize the dog. After the shooting, Animal Control assessed the injured dog’s condition and advised euthanasia. The homeowner consented to the decision, and the process was carried out in accordance with established policies.
The committee also examined whether the deputies violated any other department policies, including trespassing, constitutional violations, search and seizure, and use of profane language. The ACC found that all serious allegations were either exonerated or deemed unfounded. However, the investigation did note that one deputy was recorded using a minor expletive after being attacked. The ACC declined to discipline the deputy, citing the high-stress nature of the situation and determining that the language was not intended to antagonize anyone.
Regarding the use of body-worn cameras, the ACC determined that the incident was fully recorded and that the deputies properly activated their cameras. There was no evidence of intentional misconduct related to camera usage.
With these findings, the ACC ruled that no misconduct occurred, and no disciplinary action was warranted against the deputies. The case was officially closed on December 18, 2024, with the final report delivered to the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office.
The incident has sparked discussions in the community regarding the use of force against animals and the responsibilities of pet owners to prevent such encounters. Sheriff Steve Hall addressed the ruling, stating, “This was a tragic and unfortunate incident, but our deputies had no choice in this matter. The safety of our officers and the public comes first. The ACC’s thorough review confirms that our deputies acted lawfully, professionally, and in self-defense.”
Some animal advocates have expressed concerns about the use of lethal force, while others have pointed out that the homeowner should have ensured the dogs were secured before opening the back door. Meanwhile, many residents in the area have supported the ACC’s decision, recognizing the danger faced by the deputy and the split-second decision he had to make.
The Saint Mary’s County Administrative Charging Committee officially closed the case on December 18, 2024, ruling that the deputies acted appropriately and within the law. While the loss of the dog is tragic, the ACC emphasized that the deputy’s actions were necessary to prevent further injury and that no wrongdoing occurred.
Although the ruling was discussed during a Police Accountability Board meeting, it is crucial to understand that the ACC made the decision, not the PAB. The PAB’s role is to review these decisions for transparency and oversight, ensuring law enforcement remains accountable to the public. With the case now closed, the Sheriff’s Office continues to stand by its deputies, reinforcing the importance of body-worn cameras and adhering to strict policies to ensure transparency and accountability in all use-of-force incidents.
