ACC reviews eight OPR cases: most allegations unfounded; three officers face administrative actions

The St. Mary's County Administrative Charging Committee reviewed eight OPR case determinations at the Police Accountability Board meeting on Aug. 21, 2025. The ACC found the majority of allegations unfounded or not administratively charged and recommended limited administrative discipline in a small number of matters.

Chairman Nick Cromwell read synopses and signed determination letters for each case on behalf of the ACC. Key outcomes summarized by case identifier follow.

- OPR 20243469 (incident 08/05/2023; complaint 06/19/2024; Point Lookout Road and Camp Cosima Road): Three officers involved. Allegations included discrimination, constitutional violations, search-and-seizure concerns and body-worn camera (BWC) activation. The ACC concluded the allegations were unfounded except for a technical BWC violation by one officer for failing to reactivate the camera after retrieving the complainant's helmet. The ACC classified the BWC lapse as a Class A procedural violation and recommended formal written counseling.

- OPR 20243365 (incident 06/10/2024; complaint 06/12/2024; 3 Notch Road): Three officers involved. Allegations included bias-based policing and profane language. The ACC found a reasonable suspicion supported the sobriety check, the complainant passed field sobriety tests, and the allegations were unfounded. No discipline recommended.

- OPR 20243939 (incident 07/11/2024; 21775 Great Mills Road): Two officers involved. Complaint alleged excessive force and BWC notification failures while taking a person for a mental-health evaluation. The ACC found the detention and force reasonable and necessary under applicable statutory standards and classified the allegations as unfounded or not administratively charged. The ACC suggested a uniform on-off indicator for BWCs to reduce inadvertent technical infractions.

- OPR 20244425 (incident reported 03/02/2024; Rowsby Hall, Lusby): One officer involved. Complaint alleged improper recording and trespass during juvenile interviews. The ACC found the officer did not violate expectations of privacy; allegations unfounded. No discipline recommended.

- OPR 20242844 (incident 05/25/2024; Windward Circle): Two officers involved. Complainant alleged mistaken arrest due to warrant-procedure errors. The ACC found Officer 1 failed to verify warrant status and improperly arrested a subject on what was a criminal summons; ACC agreed with sheriff's classification of the breach as a Class C violation and recommended three days loss of leave. The ACC also recommended training and process improvements tied to a recently implemented records-management system.

- OPR 20243637 (incident 06/24/2024; Spring Hill Road): Four officers involved. Complainant alleged excessive force, lost property and refusal to allow medical aid after an eviction. The ACC found most allegations unfounded, but concurred with sheriff's office that an officer committed a Class A technical violation (first in three years) for which formal written counseling was appropriate. The sheriff's office indicated it would file a property claim to reimburse the complainant for a lost cell phone.

- OPR 20244426 (incident 07/21/2024; Radford Lane): Three officers involved. Allegations of excessive force, profane language and BWC activation failures were reviewed. The ACC found the officers' actions supported by the investigation; allegations unfounded. No discipline recommended.

- OPR 20243951 (incident 04/15/2023; St. Andrew's Church Road and Bellwood Lane): Six officers involved. Allegations included discriminatory treatment, arrest authority and false statements. The ACC found investigative deficiencies and noted failures of supervision and recommended the sheriff's office review policies and training, especially coordination with Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) when impairment is suspected but breath tests are negative. No discipline was recommended against officers present because some investigating personnel had left the agency and thus fell outside the ACC's disciplinary purview.

Board discussion and context: County legal staff and the ACC repeatedly noted the protective value of body-worn camera footage in resolving contested claims; several members characterized many complaints reviewed that evening as unfounded and said body-worn camera records often corroborate officers' accounts. The ACC also identified systemic issues in a small number of matters — most notably warrant-verification processes and limited local DRE capacity — and recommended training and policy refinements. Chairman Nick Cromwell acknowledged two deputies by name for a separate commendation that members said demonstrated “above-and-beyond” service.

Why this matters: The ACC's determinations document how complaint allegations are adjudicated at the county level and highlight operational gaps — records-management and warrant-verification steps, DRE availability, and occasional body-worn camera technical errors — that the sheriff's office and county staff may address to reduce procedural mistakes or supervision lapses.

Sources: case synopses and determination summaries presented at the Aug. 21, 2025 ACC meeting by Chairman Nick Cromwell and county legal staff; comments from St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office sergeant during the meeting.