Kent County PAB introduces new legal counsel; counsel outlines board's limited jurisdiction and aims

The Kent County Police Accountability Board on June 4 introduced Lawrence Scott as the board's new legal counsel. Scott, who said he now works in private practice advising several counties, told board members his primary role will be to ensure complaints are handled according to the law and to reduce the county's exposure to liability.

Scott said the state law that created police accountability boards leaves substantial room for local interpretation and was not well funded when it passed. "The legislature when they created it did not, use my words carefully, left a lot of room for interpretation," he said, adding that counties have implemented the statute in different ways.

Scott gave several examples to illustrate the board's limits. He said some complaints must be dismissed because they fall outside the PAB's legal authority: a complaint about a dog bite was dismissed because the complaint targeted the animal rather than a sworn officer; a cross-border vehicle pursuit that continued into Delaware was outside county jurisdiction; and an on-duty driving investigation initiated by fellow officers did not generate a civilian complaint within the PAB's scope.

Scott described the Administrative Charging Committee, or ACC, as more like a grand jury that determines charges, while the PAB's role is narrower. "The PAB does not have a lot of things to do in the sense of what people thought it was gonna be," he said, stressing that civilian review is often more nuanced than public expectations.

Board members and law enforcement leaders used the meeting's quarterly review to note they currently have too few cases to identify trends. The chair reported a single closed case for the quarter: an unlawful traffic stop that has been closed out. Board members said that limited caseload makes it difficult to assess training or policy gaps.

Scott said his job will be to make sure the board follows statutory rules and internal procedures, to give the public confidence in civilian oversight and to ensure law enforcement agencies receive a fair process. "My job really is to, just make sure that, when and if, we get complaints that are handled correctly, that we follow the rules, that we dot our i's and we cross our t's to minimize any potential liability to the county or the municipalities in that process," he said.

He also described procedural issues that have emerged elsewhere: defense attorneys can sometimes use procedural levers in trial-board processes to negotiate outcomes, and Scott said that as more officers choose trial boards the legislature or courts may need to clarify the statute's language.

The board accepted the previous meeting's minutes by voice vote at the start of the session and adjourned at 3:23 p.m. Its next meeting is scheduled for July 2, 2025, at 3 p.m.

Why it matters: The new counsel's explanation underscores that the PAB's authority is constrained by statute, that implementation varies among Maryland counties, and that limited caseloads may hinder the board's ability to find systemic problems.