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

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.