St. Mary’s County in Maryland is taking a different approach when it comes to holding police officers accountable for their actions, and some people are concerned that this approach may not serve the best interests of the community.
Maryland’s Police Accountability Act, passed in 2021, was designed to ensure that police officers are held accountable when they do something wrong. During the August 15, 2024, meeting of the St. Mary’s County Police Accountability Board, members discussed how the county handles cases of police misconduct differently from other counties in Maryland.
In St. Mary’s County, a police officer’s actions must meet all three specific criteria for misconduct before the case is reviewed by the Administrative Charging Committee (ACC). These criteria are:
- If the officer deprives someone of their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
- If the officer breaks a criminal law.
- If the officer violates the rules or policies of their police department.
Board member Charles Shilling highlighted this during the meeting, noting, “Our county was the only county that was doing things a little differently. We’re not being given or asked to review those incidents that involved a citizen but not via a citizen complaint.”
Shilling went on to elaborate, explaining that St. Mary’s County is unique in how it interprets the requirements for police misconduct cases. “What we learned during the last training session,” Shilling said, “was that our county is the only one that requires all three criteria to be present before a case comes to the ACC.” He emphasized the significance of this approach, stating, “The rest of the state follows the interpretation that if any one of those criteria is met, the case should be reviewed. But in St. Mary’s, we’ve decided that it needs to be all three.”
Shilling also mentioned concerns raised during the training session, specifically regarding whether the county’s approach might lead to some cases being overlooked. “There’s a concern,” he noted, “that we might not be looking at incidents that involve citizens if they don’t directly file a complaint, but where there could still be significant issues at play.”
Why Does This Matter? Here’s what this approach means and why some believe it may not be in the best interest of the citizens of St. Mary’s County:
- Less Oversight: In St. Mary’s County, fewer cases are reviewed because they have stricter rules about what counts as police misconduct. This could mean that some problems with police behavior, especially those that aren’t criminal but still important, might not get the attention they deserve. If issues go unchecked, it might encourage a culture where minor violations are ignored, leading to bigger problems later. Over time, this could lead to a lack of accountability within the police force, making it harder to address serious issues when they arise.
- Citizens’ Concerns Might Be Ignored: Imagine you’re a citizen and you see a police officer doing something wrong. If that officer didn’t break a criminal law and didn’t violate someone’s constitutional rights, the ACC in St. Mary’s County might not even look into it. This could make people feel like their complaints aren’t taken seriously, which might discourage others from speaking up about future incidents. If citizens believe their voices aren’t heard, it could weaken trust in the system and make people feel disconnected from those who are supposed to protect them.
- Different from the Rest of the State: The state’s Attorney General’s Office suggested that the law was likely intended to allow any one of those three criteria (violating someone’s rights, breaking a law, or violating department rules) to be enough to trigger a review. However, St. Mary’s County interprets the law differently by requiring all three criteria to be met simultaneously. This approach could cause confusion and inconsistency in how police accountability is handled across the state.
- Risk of Overwhelming Workload Elsewhere: Other counties that follow the broader interpretation are dealing with a lot of cases. This can sometimes slow things down, but at least they’re making sure that even small issues are looked into. St. Mary’s County avoids these delays by being more selective, but this could also mean they miss out on catching some important problems. Over the past year, St. Mary’s County has only reviewed 26 cases under its stricter rules. If the county were to adopt the broader approach used by the rest of the state, this number could increase to 174 cases. “If we were to change and interpret the ‘and’ as an ‘or,’ we would be looking at 174 cases that would need to be reviewed by the ACC,” said Lieutenant Joshua Krum, highlighting the potential burden of adopting the broader interpretation. “That would literally paralyze the ACC.”
- Trust Issues: The biggest concern is the potential erosion of public trust. If citizens believe that legitimate complaints are not being reviewed because the county’s rules are too strict, they may lose faith in the accountability process. This could have long-term consequences for the relationship between the community and law enforcement, potentially exacerbating tensions rather than alleviating them. Once trust is lost, it’s hard to regain, and it could lead to more significant issues with public safety and cooperation between police and the community.
In summary, St. Mary’s County has adopted a distinct approach to reviewing police misconduct. While this method may streamline the process and reduce administrative burden, it also risks allowing certain issues to go unnoticed. Should citizens begin to feel that their concerns are not being adequately addressed, it could lead to more significant challenges in the future.
What is the Maryland’s Police Accountability Act of 2021?
The Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 is a comprehensive package of police reform laws passed by the Maryland General Assembly in response to calls for greater police accountability and transparency. This legislation was part of a broader effort to address issues of police misconduct and ensure that law enforcement agencies operate with greater oversight.
Key components of the Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 include:
- Repeal of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR): The act repealed the LEOBR, which had provided certain protections to police officers during investigations of alleged misconduct. The repeal was intended to make it easier to hold officers accountable for their actions.
- Creation of Police Accountability Boards (PABs): The act established PABs in each county to receive and review complaints of police misconduct. These boards are responsible for overseeing the police discipline process and making recommendations regarding the disposition of complaints.
- Administrative Charging Committees (ACCs): The act required the creation of ACCs in each county, which are tasked with reviewing the findings of police misconduct investigations and determining whether charges should be brought against officers.
- Body-Worn Cameras: The legislation mandated that all law enforcement agencies in Maryland adopt the use of body-worn cameras by 2025. This was intended to increase transparency and provide clear evidence in cases involving police interactions with the public.
- Use of Force Policies: The act required law enforcement agencies to adopt clear policies regarding the use of force, emphasizing de-escalation and the preservation of life.
- Independent Investigations: The legislation established an independent unit within the Maryland Attorney General’s Office to investigate all police-involved deaths, ensuring impartial investigations into incidents where civilians die as a result of police actions.
- Community Oversight: The act promoted greater community involvement in police oversight, including the participation of civilians in the police discipline process.
The Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 was part of a significant push to reform policing practices in the state, aiming to build public trust, enhance transparency, and ensure that officers who engage in misconduct are held accountable for their actions.
