Lexington Park, Md. — The Saint Mary's County Police Accountability Board on Nov. 20 reviewed six Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) determinations and reported the committee found the allegations in each complaint to be unfounded.

Chair Nick Cromwell said the ACC examined body-worn camera footage and other evidence in multiple cases and concluded that complaints were “exaggerated or inaccurate.” Cromwell summarized each case, giving incident and complaint dates, locations and the ACC’s determinations.

The matters under review included: an arrest on Shoreview Drive in Mechanicsville (incident date Sept. 7, 2024); a domestic-disturbance response on Webb Lane in Leonardtown (Sept. 7, 2024); a neighborhood canvass near Ada Way in Mechanicsville (Aug. 24, 2024); an arrest on 3 Notch Road in California (June 22, 2024); social-media–originated complaints about a traffic stop on Point Lookout Road in Great Mills (Jan. 29, 2025); and a child-welfare check on Janet Court in Lexington Park (Feb. 10, 2025). In each case the ACC reviewed a “long list of evidence,” including body-worn-camera recordings where available, and determined the complaints were unfounded.

The board noted that investigative files and personally identifiable information remain confidential under the board’s public-records rules until final disposition. Cromwell referenced “public article, section 3-104h,” and said sensitive material was redacted in the meeting’s public summaries.

Board member Josh clarified that the traffic-stop matter in Great Mills began with multiple reports to the PAB portal, Facebook posts and recorded phone calls. “This is actually the first incident based on the criminal allegations that we charged [the complainants] with false report,” Josh said, adding the criminal cases remain pending.

The ACC’s stated reasons for the findings included: body-worn video showing the officer’s recording of events; interviews or testimony that, when cross-checked with video and other records, did not support the complainant’s allegations; and, in one instance, language or communication issues that the ACC said likely contributed to a misunderstanding about the encounter.

No board action was taken to overturn any ACC determination at the meeting. Several members asked questions or requested clarifications, and Cromwell invited discussion before moving to the next agenda item.

The chair closed the case reviews portion of the meeting with no further public action. The meeting record notes that all six dispositions were reviewed during the session and that the board will continue to follow any related criminal proceedings separately.