Commission to ask Montgomery County Police Department to clarify role of private reward program after informant received $2,000 of advertised “up to $10,000”

At the ACP meeting on July 13, commissioners voted to send a short letter to the Montgomery County Police Department asking the department to clarify on its website how it is involved with private nonprofit reward programs that advertise rewards for information.

The discussion began after the commission reviewed public comment No. 98, in which a retired MPD officer described a 2022 Silver Spring shooting investigation in which a confidential informant contributed information that led to a guilty plea but, according to the commenter, received $2,000 while the public call for information had advertised a reward of "up to $10,000." Chair Susan read the comment to the commission and opened the matter for discussion.

Commissioners raised two separate concerns: whether the payout amount in an individual case adhered to the advertised terms, and whether public perception that the police department controls such payments could erode trust if that perception is incorrect. "If word on the street is 'don't talk to them because you're not going to get that reward,' that undermines public trust," Sherry (planning subcommittee member) said during the discussion.

Several commissioners said the nonprofit that administers the rewards — referred to in the discussion as a Crime Solvers–type group — appears to be a 501(c)(3) and that a volunteer board convenes to determine awards. Francisco said his understanding, based on information provided to the commission, is that the reward process is handled by an outside nonprofit rather than directly by MCPD. "My understanding from what Susan has told us is that this reward system is actually handled outside of MCPD," Francisco said.

After debate over the commission's authority and the limits of transparency (including concerns about confidential informant privacy), commissioners agreed a narrow, practical step was appropriate. Sherry proposed a concise draft letter asking Chief Yamada to publish clarifying language on MCPD’s website about the department’s relationship with nonprofits that offer rewards and how such awards are advertised and administered. Sherry summarized the suggestion in plain terms: "Dear Chief Yamada, we recently got a letter about a reward that was offered by a private group. Would it be possible for you to put on your website a clarification of the policy that you all have regarding rewards offered by private groups?"

Sherry moved that the commission send such a letter; John seconded. The motion carried by voice vote with multiple ayes recorded and no formal opposition. Sherry volunteered to draft a short letter and to circulate it for review before the next meeting. The commission also agreed to send a standard automated acknowledgement to the commenter and to follow up with a personal reply describing the commission's action; any departmental responses and the commission's correspondence will be posted on the commission website.

Next steps: Sherry will draft the letter for review; the commission will send the letter to MCPD and post relevant correspondence on its website. The item will appear for follow-up at the next meeting.