[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6575537,"mediaKeyId","3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7","parentId",3093160,"title","Baltimore County police internal affairs reports caseload leveling and plans to move offices","audioSeconds",142,"startMs",212000,"endMs",354000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7&start=212&end=354","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7/thumbnail_212000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6575537/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Baltimore-County-police-internal-affairs-reports-caseload-leveling-and-plans-to-move-offices","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575537-e9c422df7682908db75efa915b89ccd1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771059854&Signature=lTTWom2p~PkFB-DhbbayNa1E~LLCVqNz2lWzlPodN73AeI7pVLAk2zc7OmbUSjr--b0Z8nqH~eqsspeeAOCqdOSDr~HHt5JXEahMm1AmeGNMPM47KIn5X~XArDai-HTWFjLTPWXdd6yyZfaK3UzPUSluryAQH8HsftpV7Nw6798O2ojezA7majpngKEx9iURNJKQZBZ-z7E2F0ex2m8sFy1OzLodcRRP6YSzQmD3zaizPEzAh7jlfDs30M5rDmPBLWIC2WzK-yBZGc3Z4-0rCxru53qOSwsaZnh2ozcjSxw3jP6NmKsi8p3DLMoi88UNeXcfGpPlGi1OxoZgVHRBBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baltimore County","date","2025-04-23T13:05:52.063Z","article","Captain Brian Shanks, who leads the Baltimore County Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division, told the Police Accountability Board that intake of complaints has ‘‘leveled back to our pre-2023 levels’’ and that the department believes the overall process is functioning as intended. Shanks briefed the board on investigations, facilities changes and outreach.

Shanks said the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has been using Baltimore County and other Maryland agencies as examples in a national best-practices study and that PERF staff recently held a forum at Baltimore County headquarters to review implementation data. ‘‘They were very pleased with the stats and the work that they’re seeing, particularly by the Baltimore County Police Department,’’ Shanks said.

Shanks updated members on plans to relocate Internal Affairs from the Public Safety Building to off-site office space to increase perceived openness and accessibility for people wishing to file complaints. He told the board the department expects to move from the Public Safety Building at 700 East Joppa Road to renovated space at 305 Washington Avenue; demolition and renovation work were already underway and an initial target date mentioned was September, with a possible earlier move.

Shanks also answered a question about Officer Andrew Wilkins, reporting the officer had been discharged and was ‘‘doing fine’’ and that an administrative review was still underway.

The board thanked Shanks and requested the department supply additional detail about body-worn camera procedure and policy at a future meeting; staff flagged the topic as recurring in ACC cases and agreed to provide policy documentation and explanation at the next session.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Baltimore County Police Accountability Board Meeting, April 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Captain Brian Shanks of the Baltimore County Police Department’s internal affairs division briefed the Police Accountability Board on caseload trends, PERF’s use of county data for best-practices research, an office relocation and an update on Officer Andrew Wilkins.","taxTitle","Baltimore County, Maryland","taxId",3882,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6575541,"Administrative Charging Committee reviewed 73 cases; trial boards and legislation update presented",631,439000,1070000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7&start=439&end=1070","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7/thumbnail_439000.jpg","/articles/6575541/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Administrative-Charging-Committee-reviewed-73-cases-trial-boards-and-legislation-update-presented","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575541-e1476f03abfef50e1ed59ad6bcaac249/orig.mp4?Expires=1771059855&Signature=caEyjgBCOsSM8nSiheI9vMByA2nsyDH9d~gGARccaarzbHt7a7CfZkcyMR9XNGdoAobG6hN8zkbbXmGR-9XmMZzlePzSyq239LXFcH3hn5jbAHj7n4DfQUurDOy3~-RcrIJ8JHdm0wL0BRI2F~4q-BhMdluwjS22oagn0cNHhU3uNPq4VC0gILVROTUAERu2kkdaxq7~ohGK0W5E4jFc7V5jj8rFUJGdGnnWzvy1saYlqJGH9gtEmcDBCNNJAS6iposkksEqn5sVPHS-ZbEyz7vQsXh9ZMeiY8R-DrThSpa0~T3KmqvALQIZ6ICJUewAuQBhuekpL-pa86vlmdvY8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board staff provided a detailed recap of Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) proceedings since the board last met, saying the ACC reviewed and rendered opinions in 73 cases involving Baltimore County Police Department members.

The ACC summary itemized case categories and charging outcomes. According to the report, among the 73 cases there were 15 use-of-force complaints; several matters involved alleged procedural or reporting violations, body-worn camera policy compliance issues, false arrest and prisoner property claims, and other allegations. A number of complaints were not charged after ACC review; some were charged for specific policy violations. Board members asked staff to provide additional information for future meetings about body-worn camera policy and enforcement.

Staff also reviewed recent and upcoming trial board hearings. Since the last PAB meeting, the county has held four trial boards: one on an allegation of cheating on an exam (the officer was found guilty), a March hearing where an officer was found not guilty of altering a court document but pled guilty to failure to properly supervise a detainee, a scheduled March 14 board that did not proceed because the officer resigned, and an April 15 hearing on a departmental car accident (the officer found not guilty). Two trial boards were scheduled for late April and mid-May: one on alleged excessive use of force and a related reporting failure, and one on an alleged failure to take necessary police action.

Staff also walked the board through recent Maryland legislation affecting timelines and oversight. The meeting discussed a bill (identified in the presentation as Senate Bill 533/House Bill 238 in related references) that passed both chambers and would change the timeline for completing disciplinary investigations when a criminal case is pending. Under the change discussed, the ‘‘one year and one day’’ deadline for charging would be tolled while a related criminal case is pending; the statutory clock would begin when the criminal case concludes so the ACC receives a more complete evidentiary file. Staff said only that bill (the time-limit change) passed this session; other bills discussed (including proposals on expungement of unfounded complaints and varying trial-board composition ideas) did not receive committee votes.

Board members asked for follow-up. Multiple members requested that Baltimore County Police Department staff present the department’s body‑worn camera procedure at a future meeting to clarify when violations are found and how those determinations are made. ACC staff said internal affairs typically submits files well ahead of statutory deadlines, and that additional administrative law judge availability will help expedite trial boards.

","Board staff recapped 73 administrative charging committee cases, described trial-board outcomes and upcoming hearings, and summarized Maryland General Assembly bills affecting police discipline timelines.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6575546,"Baltimore County Police Accountability Board rejects motion to review public complaints",151,3243000,3394000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7&start=3243&end=3394","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3093160-421a2e17b040d6e042dbb0e3b57a9cb7/thumbnail_3243000.jpg","/articles/6575546/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Baltimore-County-Police-Accountability-Board-rejects-motion-to-review-public-complaints","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575546-7a520ff1bda4a8641a47067e5ba90bd5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771059855&Signature=dOPs5BlM3g6g09cCTZHkHEkjPpyTyXlq7uKm8JhsuPVpV203bag-ooCaVtT2D5jyFvmgm3fV5NZk5WwmdQko~GzUgdmwjoHFVVGLvbiobK4yHfcHmIJaiyIl-gXcLttPqGOUrH2BmOj34-9jJCYyWVgfTMunTA6ET4MswC~-iYamxxneT3x0K33KjM8bFCbANadlSQfJ8JwIIvHoBCwvC8z-t~0ZsEKHPZqtml3wl1TVJLTf1REGwR5kIm-AbpJJa6~I08w4e1b3BJRi9LO-hEOPDTrGcyN1ARxMCdfNr69oIDNqVVOMVVLVLje5l3FdlORaCIoll2wSp3szzfBNPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore County Police Accountability Board on a roll call vote declined a motion to change its rules of procedure to allow board members to review complaints of police misconduct filed by members of the public. The motion was moved by Peter Fitzpatrick and seconded by Karen White but did not receive enough votes to pass.

Board members and public commenters framed the issue as a dispute between transparency advocates and those citing legal and confidentiality limits. Supporters at the meeting argued the change would let board members ‘‘review the complaints you receive’’ and improve oversight. Opponents said the board’s authority and confidentiality rules are constrained by state law and that reviewing complaints piecemeal could be prejudicial or ineffective.

The motion would have modified the PAB’s rules to permit review of complaints ‘‘received by the PAB’’ (primarily those submitted via the board’s website). Public speakers urged passage. Claire Landers told the board, “I really, really urge you to build public confidence in this board…by adopting this board to allow PAB members to review the complaints filed.” Lorena Diaz of the ACLU of Maryland told members, “There is nothing in the statute or regulations that prohibits the PAB members from reviewing complaints,” and urged a yes vote as a step toward transparency.

Board members who opposed the motion raised legal and practical limits. Member Scott Richmond said he was ‘‘opposed to this motion’’ not because he disagreed with the goal but because he saw statutory constraints and potential confidentiality issues: he cited provisions of the Maryland Public Safety Article and said the statute “only authorizes the PAB to receive complaints of police misconduct filed by members of the public. It does not allow us to review them.” Richmond also expressed concern that hearing initial complaints without the full investigative file could be prejudicial and would not produce useful oversight without additional information.

Other speakers representing the public and advocacy organizations said they feared the current structure left most board members ‘‘in the dark’’ about the nature and patterns of complaints and therefore unable to identify trends or make policy recommendations. Peter Richgood, a public commenter, said the vote sent “an unfortunate message to the public” and argued confidentiality protections and procedural safeguards could allow members to see complaint details without violating privacy.

The motion was called and decided by roll call. The mover was Peter Fitzpatrick and the seconder was Karen White. The roll-call discussion recorded votes by seat: District 2 (Dan Williams) registered opposition; Districts 4, 5, 6 and 7 registered opposition; one at-large member (Miss Ford) recorded a yes; other members were recorded as absent or not voting during the tally call. The chair announced that by roll call the motion had failed.

The meeting record shows the board will keep the existing rules in place; the chair noted the change would have required the board to edit its rules of procedure and that implementation details would have been determined only if the motion had prevailed. Several public commenters and some board members said they intend to pursue statutory or procedural changes outside the board if necessary.

A national police-reform research group, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), is preparing a statewide review of Maryland’s Police Accountability Act implementation; speakers at the meeting said PERF’s study may provide comparative data the board can use in future rule or legislative discussions. The board’s next scheduled meeting was discussed at the end of the session.

Votes at a glance: the proposed rule change to allow PAB members to review complaints received by the PAB failed on roll call.

","A proposal to change the Police Accountability Board’s rules so all board members could review complaints submitted by members of the public failed after debate over confidentiality and statutory authority.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Baltimore County police internal affairs reports caseload leveling and plans to move offices

Administrative Charging Committee reviewed 73 cases; trial boards and legislation update presented

Baltimore County Police Accountability Board rejects motion to review public complaints