Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oversight board hears CPD report: seven 2025 cases, two officer-involved shootings remain open
Summary
At a Jan. 28 Dorchester County Police Accountability Board meeting, a CPD lieutenant reported seven total 2025 cases — including two open officer-involved-shooting investigations — and said one incident prompted a taser-use policy change; the AGis handling the shooting probes.
The Dorchester County Police Accountability Board's ACC met Jan. 28 and heard a summary from a CPD lieutenant of the department's 2025 complaint activity. "For the calendar year of 2025, CPD had 7 total cases," the lieutenant said, adding that three were delivered to the ACC and two open cases involved officer-involved shootings.
The lieutenant said one of the shooting-related matters was processed as a use-of-force case and the other as a policy review, following guidance from the attorney general's office, and that the AG's report on those investigations is still pending. "They've not got back to us," the lieutenant said of the attorney general's staff.
The lieutenant also reported one case was unfounded, one involved an officer who was late for work and did not rise to ACC review, and one matter — though not the subject of a misconduct allegation or formal complaint — led the department to change its taser-use policy. The lieutenant noted two additional entries that appeared in internal counts were clerical blanks left open "for transparency reasons."
Board members and staff raised procedural and community-relations points: the lieutenant pointed to a public portal for compliments and said CPD received two compliments last year and one so far this year. Chair (acting presiding officer) and other members discussed the county's relationship with state authorities and the public perception of events involving immigration enforcement; the lieutenant clarified that CPD does not participate in ICE operations and described an instance in which an accident was misperceived as ICE involvement.
Board members did not take formal action on pending investigations during the open session. The meeting record shows the ACC later moved into a closed session to discuss complaints filed against a specific law-enforcement officer and to obtain legal advice under the Maryland statute cited in the meeting record.
The ACC did not announce a timeline for the AG's report or the internal trial board schedule during the open session.
