The Saint Mary's County Police Accountability Board on Dec. 18 reviewed three Administrative Charging Committee determination letters involving sheriff's office personnel and accepted ACC findings that the allegations were unfounded.

Chair Nick Cromwell summarized the three cases under review and the ACC's conclusions. He said the first incident, on Nov. 17, 2024, at North Sandgate Road in Mechanicsville involved three officers and escalated into a broad physical confrontation when officers attempted to place an individual under arrest. "This was basically a brawl in someone's front yard," Cromwell said, describing multiple family members and neighbors interfering with the arrest. The ACC reviewed body-worn camera and home-security footage and concluded the officers had lawful authority to arrest, the subject actively resisted, and use of force was necessary and proportional; the committee labeled the allegations unfounded.

Board members asked whether criminal charges related to the incident had been adjudicated. Cromwell said some charges have been resolved, but "there's still one ongoing case," and the ACC's administrative finding is separate from any criminal proceedings.

On the second matter, arising April 13, 2025, in the Southampton neighborhood of Lexington Park, the complainant alleged the traffic stop was the result of unlawful profiling. ACC documentation presented to the board says the officer was conducting stationary traffic enforcement, observed a vehicle lacking a required front license-plate feature, initiated a stop, issued a warning for the missing plate feature and then left the scene. The ACC found no merit to the profiling allegation and marked all related allegations unfounded.

The third case involved an incident on Feb. 23, 2025, with a complaint filed April 16, 2025, on Notch Road in the California area of St. Mary's County. The complainant alleged an unlawful stop, arrest without probable cause, an unlawful vehicle search and removal of a registration card, and false reporting, and suggested officers may have been influenced by racial bias. According to the ACC summary presented at the meeting, officers observed inadequate rear plate lighting, conducted a lawful stop, observed a visible alcohol container in plain sight and received an admission that the operator did not have a license; the operator refused field sobriety tests and was arrested. The ACC found the stop and subsequent search were lawful and recommended the allegations be unfounded for all officers involved.

Cromwell told the board the ACC's reviews were based on a combination of body-worn camera footage, agency investigations and other evidence. The board did not overturn any ACC determinations at the meeting.

The board's review was conducted under confidentiality rules the chair cited from a public-safety article, and Cromwell noted that personally identifiable investigatory material is redacted from materials provided to the PAB. He also reminded members that administrative determinations do not necessarily resolve separate criminal cases.

The meeting closed after a brief scheduling note and without any change to the ACC findings presented.