[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-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",[32,73,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":67,"_71":55,"_72":55},"mediaId",6208380,"mediaKeyId","3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc","parentId",3748068,"title","Board discusses SB 533 changes, 72-hour victim-advocate duty and record-expungement concerns","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",3756000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc&start=3756&end=3756","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc/thumbnail_3756000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208380/Carroll-County/Maryland/Board-discusses-SB-533-changes-72-hour-victim-advocate-duty-and-record-expungement-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208380-142d8ad8f1fe028591bf4d49745357ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167387&Signature=IxSUqiLumkC5Q3jMMzeuYxB4S4t~VXkxPNqTp8fRTMUhO6vidzkPjbJHybWeCbuVWGf3ffDGiwFH9n5NUEu0iMh3fTHjBmv6XpHRKhph8XdOea~dhCWHJTfjZsl1Tsreq6fuouurDM7YpabmExYz1iTuNSQE152JXTWQ7noabyVUJ2~IhKAwz1EmFsdh9Aa8--tU3xFhAbTUbzL3OaDyig5ZlbOJfh~kWvoJ~oda144fxZ~2VyBRSnpA7KROkMznIMpXCi8EjbjDkksuin8u6M9svJwbqNGBQcdPr3zxC7Xh5~ONG4j8vPJJBvNFZpo5BgRu~P6h2bko~MK8nYOIrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-10T23:46:55.027Z","article","PAB and ACC members reviewed language from a recent amendment to the Police Accountability Act, cited in the meeting as Senate Bill 533, and noted the law changes will take effect Oct. 1, 2025. The amendment sets new timeframes for investigations and ACC jurisdiction: investigators must deliver cases to the ACC within a timeframe described in the amendment (discussed at the meeting as roughly 334 days from intake), the ACC has a 30-day review window with a possible 30-day extension, and the total maximum ACC jurisdictional period was described in the meeting as 395 days.

Members also discussed statutory duties for a department-appointed victim’s rights advocate, including a requirement the advocate contact complainants promptly (meeting participants cited a 72-hour contact requirement). Several chiefs described how, in smaller agencies, the chief or a supervisor typically serves as the designated advocate and fields intake inquiries; if an inquiry is resolved at intake it is closed as an inquiry rather than routed into a formal complaint process.

A substantive portion of the meeting focused on record retention and whether exonerated or unfounded complaints should remain on an officer’s permanent record. Participants reported Maryland previously had a process allowing expungement in some cases (one participant referenced LEOBR-era provisions) but said that process was removed at the state level. Board members debated options ranging from never retaining exonerations on permanent records to setting a time-limited retention for unfounded or exonerated items. Several speakers recommended the PAB include a recommendation to the county commissioners and to state legislators in the PAB’s end-of-year report asking for statutory change to allow removal or time-limited retention for unsubstantiated complaints.

Participants also described an “early intervention” review process that departments run periodically (for example, every six months) when officers have multiple complaints, even if the complaints are not sustained, so agencies can address patterns proactively.

Board members agreed that any change to retention or expungement policy will require action in the General Assembly; they discussed starting with a recommendation that exonerated findings not be retained or that unfoundeds be removed after a short, legislatively defined period as a practical compromise to present to legislators and law‑enforcement stakeholders.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Police Accountability Board June 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Members reviewed an amendment to the Police Accountability Act (Senate Bill 533), which sets new investigation timeframes and takes effect Oct. 1, 2025, and debated whether exonerated or unfounded complaints should remain on officers’ permanent records, noting that any change will require legislative action in Annapolis.","taxTitle","Carroll County, Maryland","taxId",7748,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":74,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":75,"_41":76,"_43":77,"_45":78,"_46":79,"_48":80,"_50":81,"_52":82,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":55,"_72":55},6208385,"ACC reports 43 incidents over two years; policy violations most common category",687,1833000,2520000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc&start=1833&end=2520","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc/thumbnail_1833000.jpg","/articles/6208385/Carroll-County/Maryland/ACC-reports-43-incidents-over-two-years-policy-violations-most-common-category","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208385-5cd94b6fc2e635ecde1e7b5c4536b1c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167387&Signature=bQf9WoZEgblSr0qCQWia3SsY9T~shJrUnYiakCmhQhzXOZWUK1gufH5DlmhjDS26GjBz7ieAxh3o5Bu4~BYn2U5CQ7YzYwJO~4iO5TdlbnYdOliTxPgztSeIezRaGOe6Y5~CRI4PgIrKIOOm1BoJ9jo7X-C3mX9auvlZJUXmVMDrqBoyjVTHQf14n54h2KKH-03Y0gd6GVulTPZCUCck~rJxPe5VNqiGSUtIhNOPSdNr3pPTgI0VD0RnTBPOyYGLb7m4MjWo8ibCVqJnhz~CA~Vq130oPY9NXbCNGWeJHCc10DGG0iuIIX-uFH0JhKnzZZjunLUgpsqUiDLBCsCrMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Carroll County Advisory Complaint Committee reported 50 logged complaints covering 43 incidents between May 2023 and May 2025 and presented a categorical analysis that identified department policy violations as the most frequent sustained finding.

Committee members explained that they counted incidents rather than individual complaint filings (because one incident can produce multiple complaints). Using incidents, the committee found 14 incidents classified as department policy violations, 11 as professionalism/rudeness, 10 as unauthorized search/Amendment concerns, and seven as excessive use of force. Of the 14 policy-violation incidents, six resulted in administrative charges; most other complaints were not administratively charged.

The ACC also presented a per‑jurisdiction comparison using anonymized Department A–F labels. The numbers cited in the meeting were: Department A (population 176,639) — 11 complaints; Department B (population 44,000) — 1 complaint; Department C (population 5,500) — 2 complaints; Department D (population 20,500) — 10 complaints; Department E (population 7,400) — 5 complaints; Department F (population 6,395) — 13 complaints. The presenter emphasized these figures are descriptive, not explanatory, and said he did not draw conclusions about department performance without further analysis.

ACC members noted limits of raw complaint counts. Several speakers argued sustained findings and administratively charged incidents are the more meaningful metrics than the count of complaints alone. The ACC reported an abbreviated adjudication process adopted to reduce staff time on frivolous investigations and preserve resources for more serious cases.

Members said they will re-run the analysis to emphasize administratively charged/sustained incidents and begin tracking whether complaints stemmed from traffic stops versus other call types. The ACC also discussed use of a short form for intake and the need to communicate trends back to officers so they can review policy areas prompting inquiries.

The committee asked staff to continue updating the complaint log monthly and to include the categorical analysis in the annual report to the county commissioners.","Advisory Complaint Committee (ACC) members reviewed two years of complaint data (May 2023–May 2025), reporting 50 logged complaints representing 43 incidents and identifying department policy violations as the largest sustained category.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_46":91,"_48":92,"_50":93,"_52":94,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":95,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":96,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":55,"_72":55},6208389,"Carroll County PAB outlines outreach, baseline survey and goals after technical session",382,795000,1177000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc&start=795&end=1177","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3748068-ba8db5383f9b2b4f17becc4b8b5ad8cc/thumbnail_795000.jpg","/articles/6208389/Carroll-County/Maryland/Carroll-County-PAB-outlines-outreach-baseline-survey-and-goals-after-technical-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208389-3368eac1216925c877c7f28212b528f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167387&Signature=npedHsReX7tA1qWlzBbmqaQ~3RPkEFUy3SASG0zM~-eJzRskdlnB7mVlW12cVRjfcOGUTiStSBIAPhHElbAl6n6COM9omACPKzJPz5Day2p5n~CMtRu-5rTlwFLeLhWz5J0TboqhZRnR-8N7XxvdO78~Ga4OzGzMVuVkwoL6pgHyRsLlesmQ7E7lEIT6BQoeHj68rIQl3Ui4XXeeNVqrnry2ro-M2ci8ZLmAa7QGF89TqzZG6gmy0kRKdo0cxliMBZnUYpCmFTYLo3zQBxflprAZudJxLvoNeCUFrM1JaBkxeBYbpOU8T87CEmQPx9GSbeK-XFnOH3ATYXinXompaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Carroll County Police Accountability Board reviewed a technical-session summary from an earlier meeting and identified three priorities: public outreach, a baseline assessment of civilian sentiment, and defining measurable goals for policing improvement.

Board members said the PAB will make the complaint tracker (now called the complaint log) available on request through the County Attorney’s Office rather than publishing the full tracker on the public website. The log is updated monthly after Advisory Complaint Committee (ACC) meetings and will be turned into a narrative for the PAB’s end-of-year report.

Board members noted limited public awareness of the PAB and the Accountability Act. The PAB plans targeted outreach — including PDFs and brochures for events — to explain what constitutes a complaint and when to contact a department’s victim’s rights advocate, and to reduce unnecessary or unfounded formal complaints.

The PAB said it will pursue a separate working session focused on outreach, solicit input from chiefs and agencies before that session, and consider requesting county funds to support outreach activities. The board asked staff to gather cost estimates and examples of outreach used in other counties for use in budget requests to the Carroll County commissioners.

Next steps include another PAB meeting to drill down into outreach plans, development of informational materials, continued maintenance of the complaint log and incorporation of the log’s narrative into the annual report to the commissioners.","Members of the Carroll County Police Accountability Board (PAB) summarized a technical-session review and identified three near-term priorities: public outreach to raise awareness of the PAB and the Accountability Act, establishing baseline civilian sentiment about policing, and adopting measurable goals for improving policing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board discusses SB 533 changes, 72-hour victim-advocate duty and record-expungement concerns

ACC reports 43 incidents over two years; policy violations most common category

Carroll County PAB outlines outreach, baseline survey and goals after technical session