ACC reports two police‑complaint reviews; one officer exonerated and one terminated
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Administrative Charging Committee reviewed two complaints concerning Denton Police Department officers under a Maryland code provision read aloud at the PAB meeting; the ACC consulted legal counsel, cleared one officer and recommended termination in the other case, which the committee reported out to the Police Accountability Board.
The Police Accountability Board heard a readout from its Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) that reviewed two police complaints concerning officers from the Denton Police Department.
At the meeting the chair read the ACC report describing a closed session held on Feb. 12, 2025 to review the complaints and to consult with ACC counsel under the statute read aloud in the report (quoted as "Maryland code general provisions three-three 0 5 B 1 1"). The report said the ACC "discuss[ed] completed complaint investigations from Denton Police Department case number 2020Five-six and 2020Five-nine" and that the committee consulted with its attorney about the matters.
The ACC’s determinations, as read to the board, found that one complaint resulted in the officer being administratively exonerated and the other complaint resulted in termination. The chair listed ACC members present during the review as Nancy Nagel (chair), Jeff Martin (vice chair), Vadim Stegeef, Todd Lorde and Daniel Towers, and noted ACC attorney Stuart Barrow and PAB/ACC administrator Kim Raider were present for the committee’s review; representatives from the Denton Police Department also attended, identified as Lieutenant Jeffrey Jackson, Sergeant Jerry Stivers and Captain Jamie Seacrest.
The chair made clear the ACC had followed its counsel in the review and said the committee considered the statutory process through to "final disposition." The chair did not state any pending appeal or further action by the full board; the report was entered into the meeting record and participants indicated the ACC would provide additional documentation as needed.
The meeting record does not show a full‑board vote on the ACC’s determinations. The ACC’s findings were reported as committee actions rather than motions before the full board; the chair said the committee had consulted legal counsel and followed established procedures for closed‑session complaint reviews.
What happens next: the chair indicated the ACC file and report will be retained as part of the board’s records and that law‑enforcement agencies will handle any procedural postings or notifications tied to trial‑board processes. The PAB did not take further formal action on the two complaints during the public meeting.