Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct asset‑forfeiture funds for deputies’ tasers after legal clarification
Summary
Following a legal clarification from the Maryland Assistant Attorney General referenced in the session, St. Mary’s County commissioners directed staff to pursue asset‑forfeiture funding to purchase tasers for deputies and discussed use of outside counsel for Sheriff’s disciplinary cases.
St. Mary’s County commissioners on May 20 directed staff to pursue funding for deputy tasers from local asset‑forfeiture funds after hearing legal clarification about outside counsel and forfeiture use.
During review of the sheriff’s budget, the issue of funding tasers arose. The sheriff said local asset‑forfeiture proceeds were the intended funding source and that cases in that fund are in process; staff estimated future clearances might yield roughly $60,000–$65,000 for FY2014. When a commissioner raised a legal concern about using asset‑forfeiture funds and outside counsel, the sheriff reported he had spoken with Assistant Attorney General Scott Curtis, who told the sheriff that the attorney general’s office does not “frown upon” use of outside counsel in disciplinary matters and that using private counsel in certain law‑enforcement disciplinary cases is common practice.
After discussion, commissioners signaled majority support for using asset‑forfeiture funds for tasers; the chair noted that the direction was to pursue the asset‑forfeiture route. Finance staff cautioned that the current local asset‑forfeiture balance is minimal at the moment but that some accounts are one‑year holds pending case resolution; cleared funds would be available for local spending in FY2014 if cases resolve as anticipated.
The board also discussed the nature of outside counsel and whether an explicit written opinion from the Attorney General would be required to change the county’s approach; commissioners said they would pursue clarity if needed. No formal contract award or procurement action occurred at the meeting; commissioners provided direction to staff to pursue the funding approach and to bring any formal purchase or procurement for approval as required.
Speakers referenced the balance in the asset‑forfeiture account (reported on the record as roughly "36 or 37 cents" for presently available funds) and discussed that other asset‑forfeiture case proceeds sometimes move into a one‑year account pending final resolution.
