Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel grants motion to dismiss complaint against Deputy Jacob Rourke
Summary
A hearing panel in Dorchester County on Feb. 17, 2026, granted a motion to dismiss a Police Accountability Act complaint against Deputy First Class Jacob Rourke for lack of evidence; the complaining witness, Eugene Williams, did not appear though a subpoena had been issued.
A Dorchester County hearing panel granted a motion to dismiss a Maryland Police Accountability Act complaint against Deputy First Class Jacob Rourke on Feb. 17, 2026, after the panel concluded the department did not present sufficient evidence to prove a policy violation.
Lorraine Frazier, the hearing chair, opened the proceeding at the Dorchester County office building in Cambridge and identified the case as MPAADORC012536750 involving Deputy Rourke. Major John Stitchberry and Captain Priscilla Rogers appeared for the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office; Michael Davie appeared on behalf of the deputy.
Counsel for the deputy argued the stop was supported by probable cause, citing the vehicle's movement into the right shoulder and later into a turn lane in the early morning hours and the presence of historic license tags and commercial insignia. "I make a motion to dismiss based on the department's failure to meet the burden of proof of a violation," Michael Davie said during the hearing.
Panel members reviewed service records for the complaining witness, Eugene Williams. The record shows the original hearing notice was mailed and a subpoena was sent the previous Tuesday to a P.O. Box address; the sheriff's office reported it had not received return mail and had not heard from Williams since an April 2025 interview.
After discussion, a panel member voiced concurrence with the motion to dismiss and Chair Lorraine Frazier announced her ruling: "I'm granting the motion to dismiss, for the lack of evidence proving the violation," and said the panel would issue a written decision within 45 days memorializing the ruling.
The chair and participants noted the session was open to the public and being livestreamed; they also discussed that the panel could move to closed session and stop the stream if needed. The hearing concluded shortly after the ruling, with a participant who had been late apologizing for the delay.
The written decision is expected to be issued within 45 days and will set out the panel's findings and reasoning.
