Public Safety and Policing Workgroupmgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/Committee/2016-PSP-Workgroup-Report.pdf · Delegate Michael A. Jackson . ... Public Safety and Policing Workgroup for

Public Safety and Policing Workgroup

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Annapolis, MarylandJanuary 2016

ii

Contributing Staff

Writers Alexandra Hughes

Victoria Gruber Claire Rossmark

Other Staff Who Contributed to This Report Shirleen M. Pilgrim Michelle J. Purcell Cathy C. Zablotny Nichol A. Conley

For further information concerning this document contact:

Library and Information Services Office of Policy Analysis

Department of Legislative Services 90 State Circle

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Baltimore Area: 410-946-5400 ● Washington Area: 301-970-5400 Other Areas: 1-800-492-7122, Extension 5400

TTY: 410-946-5401 ● 301-970-5401 TTY users may also use the Maryland Relay Service

to contact the General Assembly.

Email: [email protected] Home Page: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov

The Department of Legislative Services does not discriminate on the basis of age, ancestry, color, creed, marital status, national origin, race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability in the admission or access to its programs, services, or activities. The Department’s Information Officer has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Section 35.107 of the Department of Justice Regulations. Requests for assistance should be directed to the Information Officer at the telephone numbers shown above.

mailto:[email protected]

iii

Public Safety and Policing Workgroup

Membership Roster

Senator Catherine Pugh, Co-Chair Delegate Curt Anderson, Co-Chair

Senators Senator Joan Carter-Conway

Senator Guy Guzzone Senator Michael J. Hough

Senator J.B. Jennings Senator Nathaniel J. McFadden

Senator Wayne Norman Senator Victor R. Ramirez

Senator Jamie Raskin Senator Robert A. Zirkin

Delegates Delegate Vanessa E. Atterbeary

Delegate Luke Clippinger Delegate William Folden

Delegate Antonio L. Hayes Delegate Michael A. Jackson Delegate Nathaniel T. Oaks

Delegate Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk Delegate Brett Wilson Delegate C.T. Wilson

iv

1

Report and Recommendations

In May 2015, the Senate President and House Speaker created the joint legislative Public Safety and Policing Workgroup for the purpose of examining police training resources, recruiting and hiring practices, and community engagement policies; considering a statewide oversight panel for certain kinds of investigations; and reviewing the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights and its application and practice by law enforcement agencies across the State. The workgroup scheduled a total of eight public meetings during the 2015 interim during which it heard from over 85 witnesses from advocacy groups, community organizations, members of law enforcement, and the public to inform its decision making on recommendations for the 2016 legislative session. On June 8, 2015, the workgroup held an organizational meeting. Presentations included a law enforcement overview by the Department of Legislative Services and an overview of police training and certification by officials from the Maryland Police Training Commission. On June 23, 2015, the workgroup held a meeting focusing on recruiting and training practices for law enforcement. Presentations were made by several of the State’s police agencies. On July 23, 2015, the workgroup held a Town Hall meeting to hear from citizens and advocates regarding law enforcement issues across the State. On August 24, 2015, the workgroup held a meeting on the topic of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR). Presentations included an overview of LEOBR, and the perspectives of the Fraternal Order of Police, American Civil Liberties Union, CASA de Maryland, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Maryland Chiefs’ and Sheriffs’ Association about LEOBR. On September 22, 2015, the workgroup held its fifth meeting. A presentation was made by representatives of the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention explaining law enforcement data collection efforts involving traffic stops, SWAT team deployments, electronic control device use, and deaths involving a law enforcement officer. On October 21, 2015, the workgroup held a meeting focusing on best practices in law enforcement and community policing. The Maryland State Police Medical Director gave a presentation on psychological evaluations, and a representative of Community Mediation Maryland spoke on the topic of community policing and mediation. On November 24, 2015, the workgroup held a meeting at Morgan State University on the topic of policing practices. A representative from the Office of the Attorney General discussed

2 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup

recently issued police profiling guidelines and a professor and a psychologist spoke about psychological evaluations for police officers. The workgroup held its final meeting to discuss its recommendations and decisions on January 11, 2016. In addition, members of the workgroup participated in site visits to the Public Safety and Educational Training Center in Sykesville and the Frederick City Police Department Charles V. Main Training Facility, and attended Maryland State Police trial board proceedings. Presentation documents from the meetings of the workgroup are included in the Appendix. Other materials relating to the workgroup and its meetings may be accessed through the following link: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/Committee/2015-PSP-Workgroup-Master-Schedule.pdf Background Over the last several years, the General Assembly has considered numerous pieces of legislation regarding policing practices, law enforcement personnel training, serious police-involved incidents, and discipline. Deadly force incidents by police officers in several locations across the country (including Ferguson, Missouri; Staten Island, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; and North Charleston, South Carolina), have resulted in heightened scrutiny of police practices nationwide. In 2014, an investigative report by The Baltimore Sun found that since 2011, Baltimore had paid out approximately $5.7 million in judgments or settlements in more than 100 lawsuits brought by citizens alleging excessive use of force and other police misconduct. The city’s budget office also raised concerns over the city’s spending of $10.4 million from 2008 through 2011 to defend the Baltimore Police Department against misconduct lawsuits. On April 12, 2015, one day before the close of the 2015 legislative session, Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr., a 25-year-old African American man, was arrested by the Baltimore Police Department for possessing what the police alleged was an illegal switchblade. While being transported in a police van, Mr. Gray fell into a coma and was taken to the hospital. Mr. Gray died as a result of injuries to his spinal cord on April 19, 2015. Eyewitnesses contended that the police officers involved used unnecessary force against Mr. Gray while arresting him. Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts reported that, contrary to department policy, the officers did not secure Mr. Gray inside the van while transporting him to the police station. The autopsy found that Mr. Gray had sustained the injuries while in transport. Mr. Gray’s death resulted in a series of protests and widespread civil unrest. Subsequently, six police officers who were involved in Mr. Gray’s arrest and transport were charged with various crimes in connection with the incident, including second-degree depraved-heart murder,

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/Committee/2015-PSP-Workgroup-Master-Schedule.pdf

Report and Recommendations 3

manslaughter, reckless endangerment, assault, and misconduct in office. Prosecution of those cases is ongoing.

Several bills were introduced in 2015 addressing policing practices and civilian oversight. Among these were bills to address the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement officers. The Department of State Police reported that, as of mid-January 2015, there were at least 19 law enforcement agencies in the State using body-worn cameras or testing their use on a limited basis in pilot programs. Chapters 128 and 129 (Senate Bill 482/House Bill 533) required the Police Training Commission (PTC), by January 1, 2016, to develop and publish online a policy for the issuance and use of a body-worn camera by a law enforcement officer that addresses specified issues and procedures. The bills also created the Commission Regarding the Implementation and Use of Body Cameras by Law Enforcement Officers to study and make recommendations to PTC and the General Assembly, by October 1, 2015, regarding the best practices for the use of body cameras by a law enforcement officer. That commission was appointed and submitted its report to the General Assembly this fall.

In addition, because concerns had been raised in past years as to whether the use of body-worn cameras violated Maryland’s two party consent requirements under the State’s wiretap and electronic surveillance provisions, Chapters 128 and 129 also make it lawful for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer’s regular duty to intercept an oral communication with a “body-worn digital recording device” or an “electronic control device” capable of recording video and oral communications under specified circumstances. The bills make the interception of an oral communication by a law enforcement officer lawful if (1) the officer is in uniform or prominently displaying the officer’s badge or other insignia; (2) the officer is making reasonable efforts to conform to standards for the use of either type of device capable of recording video and oral communications; (3) the officer is a party to the oral communication; (4) the officer notifies, as soon as practicable, the individual that the individual is being recorded, unless it is unsafe, impractical, or impossible to do so; and (5) the oral interception is being made as part of a videotape or digital recording.

The federal Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 requires each state that receives funds through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance programs, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program to report information regarding individuals who die in the custody of law enforcement. While the State’s annual Uniform Crime Report (Crime in Maryland) contains data on the number of law enforcement officers killed or assaulted in the line of duty, it does not contain information on individuals who die in the custody of law enforcement.

Chapter 134 (House Bill 954) requires each local law enforcement agency, by

March 1, 2016, and by March 1 of each subsequent year, to provide the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) with information for the previous calendar year about each “officer-involved death” and “death in the line of duty” that involved a law enforcement officer employed by the agency. The information in the reports provided to GOCCP must include:


• the age, gender, ethnicity, and race of a deceased individual; • the age, gender, ethnicity, and race of the officer involved; • a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the death; • the date, time, and location of the death; and • the law enforcement agency of the officer who (1) died, if the incident involved an officer

who died in the line of duty or (2) detained, arrested, or was in the process of arresting the deceased, if the incident involved an officer-involved death. GOCCP must adopt procedures for the collection and analysis of the information required

to be included in the reports, analyze and disseminate the information reported by each agency, and submit an annual report on the incidence of officer-involved deaths and deaths in the line of duty in Maryland to the General Assembly by June 30 of each year.

Additionally, by October 15, 2016, GOCCP must report on the number of officer-involved deaths and deaths in the line of duty that occurred during the previous three calendar years. This report must include the same information required to be provided by local law enforcement agencies. Each local law enforcement agency must provide GOCCP with the three-year report information by August 15, 2016. An “officer-involved death” means the death of an individual resulting directly from an act or omission of a law enforcement officer while the officer is on duty or while the officer is off duty, but performing activities that are within the scope of the officer’s official duties. The term “death in the line of duty” means the death of a law enforcement officer occurring while the officer is acting in the officer’s official capacity while on duty or while the officer is off duty, but performing activities that are within the scope of the officer’s official duties.

There were also a number of measures passed with respect to policing practices and the Baltimore City Police Department. Chapter 133 (House Bill 771) applies to police practices in Baltimore City only. The Act requires the Police Commissioner of Baltimore City, by January 1 of each year, to report information concerning the Baltimore Police Department to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the members of the Baltimore City Delegation to the General Assembly, including information regarding the demographics of police officers within the department, recruiting events, use of force, civilian complaints, officer suspensions, and community involvement. The report must be made available to the public on the department’s website.

Chapter 126 (Senate Bill 321) requires the Baltimore City Police Department and the

Baltimore County Police Department to each establish a behavioral health unit, to the extent practicable, by October 1, 2016. The purpose of the units will be to divert appropriate individuals into treatment instead of the criminal justice system and prevent and reduce unnecessary use of force and loss of life. Each unit must consist of at least six officers who are specially trained to understand the needs of these individuals and in cultural sensitivity and cultural competency. Training for officers in behavioral health units must be developed in consultation with the Behavioral Health Administration in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH).


The Baltimore City Police Department must complete a study and make recommendations regarding implementation of the unit and the Act also requires the police departments of Baltimore City and Baltimore County to report to the General Assembly on or before October 1, 2018, on the number of emergency calls that their behavioral health units responded to from 2016 to 2018, and the disposition of those calls.

Chapter 127 (Senate Bill 413) reinstated the provisions of Chapter 173 of 2011 that

abrogated in 2014 by restoring the data collection and reporting program related to race-based traffic stops for a five-year period. The Act requires PTC, in consultation with the Maryland Statistical Analysis Center (MSAC), to develop a model policy against race-based traffic stops that a law enforcement agency can use to develop its own policy. In addition, the commission is required to develop a model format for the efficient recording of traffic stop data on an electronic device, or by any other means, for use by a law enforcement agency and guidelines that each law enforcement agency may use in data evaluation.

Law enforcement officers must record specified information in connection with each traffic stop, including the driver’s race and ethnicity, to evaluate the manner in which the vehicle laws are being enforced. Each law enforcement agency is required to compile the data collected by its officers and submit an annual report to MSAC by March 1 of each year reflecting the prior calendar year. The Act’s provisions do not apply to a law enforcement agency that is subject to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requiring similar data collection; however, such agencies are required to provide copies of the report made to DOJ in lieu of the bill’s reporting requirements.

MSAC is charged with analyzing the data based on a methodology developed in consultation with PTC. By September 1 of each year, MSAC must issue a report to the Governor and the General Assembly as well as to each law enforcement agency. Reports of noncompliance by law enforcement agencies are required to be made by the training commission and MSAC to the Governor and the Legislative Policy Committee. The Act took effect June 1, 2015, and terminates May 31, 2020.

In addition to these measures and the work of the workgroup and the Body Camera Commission, a major public safety and criminal justice reform effort has been underway through the Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council established in the 2015 session. Addressing the costs, purposes, and results of State sentencing and correctional practices has become a national concern.

In January 2010, the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership

with the Pew Center on the States, the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the Public Welfare Foundation, hosted a national summit on justice reinvestment. Since that time, several additional entities; including the states of Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin; have partnered with CSG to develop justice reinvestment initiatives seeking to devise strategies and policy options to “avert prison population growth by reducing property crime, holding offenders accountable with supervision, reinvesting


to strengthen supervision policies and practices to reduce recidivism, and supporting victims of property crime.”

Chapter 42 (Senate Bill 602), an emergency measure, established the Justice Reinvestment

Coordinating Council (JRCC) in GOCCP. The group met throughout the interim with technical assistance from CSG Justice Center and the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States. Interim work of the JRCC included convening an advisory stakeholder group including organizations with expertise in certain criminal justice issues and conducting roundtable discussions to seek public input. Using a data-driven approach, the work of the JRCC culminated in the development of a report issued in December 2015 with recommendations for a statewide framework of sentencing and corrections policies to further reduce the State’s incarcerated population, reduce spending on corrections, and reinvest in strategies to increase public safety and reduce recidivism. A number of other measures regarding public safety, criminal justice, and policing practices were considered during the 2015 session. At the request of a number of members of the General Assembly, the House Speaker and Senate President indicated that this workgroup would be appointed to review and make recommendations on these issues as well in a manner that engaged advocates, community groups, and members of the public. The Speaker and the President requested that the workgroup conclude its work and make recommendations for the 2016 session. Serious Police-involved Incidents and Use-of-force Standards

The workgroup was informed that most law enforcement agencies have policies that guide their use of force. These policies describe an escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. This continuum generally has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds.

There is no federal or national model use-of-force continuum, but the National Institute of Justice provides the following example of a use-of-force continuum: • Officer Presence – No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation.

• The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.

• Officers’ attitudes are professional and nonthreatening. • Verbalization – Force is not physical.

• Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as “Let me see your identification and registration.”

• Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include “Stop” or “Don’t move.”


• Empty-hand Control – Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation. • Soft technique: Officers use grabs, holds, and joint locks to restrain an individual. • Hard technique: Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.

• Less-lethal Methods – Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation. • Blunt impact: Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative

person. • Chemical: Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with

chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray). • Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs): Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an

individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.

• Lethal Force – Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual. • Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual’s actions.

Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights LEOBR (Title 3, Subtitle 1 of the Public Safety Article) is a State law enacted in 1974 to guarantee to law enforcement officers procedural safeguards in connection with an investigation that could lead to disciplinary action. The investigation or interrogation by a law enforcement agency of a law enforcement officer for a reason that may lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal must be conducted in accordance with LEOBR. LEOBR covers two major components of the disciplinary process: (1) the conduct of an internal investigation of a complaint that may lead to a recommendation of disciplinary action against a police officer and (2) procedures that must be followed once an investigation results in a recommendation that an officer be disciplined. Maryland’s LEOBR offers a set of protections to officers during internal investigations, such as limitations on the time, place, and duration of an interrogation. The statutes also protect the officer’s right to obtain certain information and to have an attorney present. When a complaint against a police officer is sustained by an internal investigation, unless the officer has been convicted of a felony, LEOBR entitles the officer to an administrative hearing before a board of sworn officers selected by the chief (for minor offenses, the board may be a single officer). Police agencies and officers may enter into collective bargaining agreements that allow an alternate method of forming the hearing board. LEOBR also contains requirements for the conduct of the hearing. A decision by a hearing board regarding an officer’s culpability is binding.

For cases in which the finding is guilt, the hearing board makes a punishment recommendation, which the chief may accept or reject, unless the agency and officers have a collective bargaining agreement that makes the hearing board’s punishment recommendation


binding on the chief. If the chief decides to impose a more severe punishment than the one recommended by the hearing board, the chief must document the reasons for that decision. Law enforcement leaders may not suspend an officer without pay unless that officer is charged with a felony. Critics contend that LEOBR prevents transparency and that it precludes meaningful community oversight of the law enforcement disciplinary process, which erodes community trust. Critics of LEOBR most frequently mention two specific provisions of the law as being most in need of consideration and revision. The first provision requires that a complaint alleging excessive force be filed within 90 days of the incident in order for disciplinary action to be undertaken by a law enforcement agency. Critics point out that a victim who is in the hospital, in jail, or otherwise unaware of or unable to pursue his or her rights within the 90-day timeframe would be prevented from filing an excessive force complaint. However, in Baltimore City Police v. Andrew, 318 Md. 3 (1989), the Court of Appeals held that the 90-day provision provides a timeframe in which a law enforcement agency must investigate a complaint, but “does not prevent the [law enforcement] agency from deciding, in its discretion, to investigate the circumstance and to take further action if that seems warranted,” after the 90-day period has expired. The General Assembly has not passed legislation invalidating the Andrew decision. LEOBR also requires that a complaint alleging excessive force be sworn to by the complainant before a notary public. The provision has been widely criticized as being unduly burdensome. The second provision that is most criticized requires the interrogation of an officer under investigation to be suspended for up to 10 days if the officer requests counsel. Critics contend that, given that law enforcement officers often have nearly immediate access to union counsel, this delay only impedes an investigation and delays the ability of a law enforcement agency to communicate effectively with the public. Some critics have also indicated that the delay may allow officers an opportunity to collude with colleagues or access case files that will help them craft a false story for use during an interrogation. Law enforcement agencies have contended that the provision has not had the effect of impeding an investigation or hampering community relations. Further, LEOBR only provides procedural protections in administrative disciplinary proceedings related to employment. In a criminal interrogation setting, an officer could invoke his or her rights under the Fifth Amendment and would not have to speak to an investigator or provide an account.

A number of citizens have suggested to the workgroup that administrative hearing board proceedings should be open to the public. LEOBR does not specifically address this issue. The Department of State Police and the Prince George’s County Police Department report that they allow members of the public to attend administrative hearing board proceedings on a space available basis. Law enforcement agencies may be reluctant to admit members of the public to these proceedings due to concerns relating to space and security, privacy of personnel records, and intimidation by attendees.


Maryland Police Training Commission, Training and Standards The Police Training Commission is a statutorily created entity within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services that has authority over police training schools and police officer certification. The commission consists of the following 16 members: • the President of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association; • the President of the Maryland Sheriffs Association; • the President of the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers, Inc.; • the Attorney General; • the Secretary of State Police; • the Police Commissioner of Baltimore City; • the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland; • the agent in charge of the Baltimore office of the FBI; • the President of the Eastern Shore Police Association; • a representative of the Maryland State Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police; • the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; • the Chairman of the Maryland Municipal League Police Executive Association; • three police officials of the State, appointed by the Secretary of Public Safety and

Correctional Services, with the approval of the Governor and the advice and consent of the Senate, representing different geographic areas of the State; and

• the President of the Police Chiefs’ Association of Prince George’s County.

The Secretary of State Police is the Chairman of the commission. The commission employs an executive director and other employees who perform general administrative and training management functions. Subject to the authority of the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the commission has the following specific powers and duties, as set forth in § 3-207 of the Public Safety Article: “(1) to establish standards for the approval and continuation of approval of schools that conduct police entrance-level and in-service training courses required by the Commission, including State, regional, county, and municipal training schools;

(2) to approve and issue certificates of approval to police training schools;

(3) to inspect police training schools;

(4) to revoke, for cause, the approval or certificate of approval issued to a police training school;


(5) to establish the following for police training schools:

(i) curriculum;

(ii) minimum courses of study;

(iii) attendance requirements;

(iv) eligibility requirements;

(v) equipment and facilities;

(vi) standards of operation; and

(vii) minimum qualifications for instructors;

(6) to require, for entrance–level police training and at least every 3 years for in–service level police training conducted by the State and each county and municipal police training school, that the curriculum and minimum courses of study include special training, attention to, and study of the application and enforcement of:

(i) the criminal laws concerning rape and sexual offenses, including the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and related evidentiary procedures;

(ii) the contact with and treatment of victims of crimes and delinquent acts;

(iii) the notices, services, support, and rights available to victims and victims’ representatives under State law; and

(iv) the notification of victims of identity fraud and related crimes of their rights under federal law;

(7) to certify and issue appropriate certificates to qualified instructors for police training schools authorized by the Commission to offer police training programs;

(8) to verify that police officers have satisfactorily completed training programs and issue diplomas to those police officers;

(9) to conduct and operate police training schools authorized by the Commission to offer police training programs;

(10) to make a continuous study of entrance–level and in–service training methods and procedures;

(11) to consult with and accept the cooperation of any recognized federal, State, or municipal law enforcement agency or educational institution;

(12) to consult and cooperate with universities, colleges, and institutions in the State to develop specialized courses of study for police officers in police science and police administration;

(13) to consult and cooperate with other agencies and units of the State concerned with police training;


(14) to develop, with the cooperation of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a uniform missing person report form to be available for use by each law enforcement agency of the State on or before October 1, 2008;

(15) to require, for entrance–level police training and annually for in–service level police training conducted by the State and each county and municipal police training school, that the curriculum and minimum courses of study include, for police officers who are issued an electronic control device by a law enforcement agency, special training in the proper use of electronic control devices, as defined in § 4–109 of the Criminal Law Article, consistent with established law enforcement standards and federal and State constitutional provisions;

(16) to require, for entrance–level police training and, as determined by the Commission, for in–service level training conducted by the State and each county and municipal police training school, that the curriculum and minimum courses of study include, consistent with established law enforcement standards and federal and State constitutional provisions:

(i) training in lifesaving techniques, including Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR);

(ii) training in the proper level and use of force;

(iii) training regarding sensitivity to cultural and gender diversity; and

(iv) training regarding individuals with physical, intellectual, developmental, and psychiatric disabilities;

(17) to develop, with the cooperation of the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission, a uniform identity fraud reporting form that:

(i) makes transmitted data available on or before October 1, 2011, for use by each law enforcement agency of State and local government; and

(ii) may authorize the data to be transmitted to the Consumer Sentinel program in the Federal Trade Commission; and

(18) to perform any other act that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the powers and duties of the Commission under Title 3, Subtitle 2 of the Public Safety Article.” It is the commission’s responsibility to certify as a police officer each individual who satisfactorily meets the established standards and submits to a criminal history records check. The commission is also required to adopt regulations that establish and enforce standards for prior substance abuse by individuals applying for certification as a police officer.


The commission has established the following minimum police selection standards, which are set forth in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR): • at least 21 years old; • U.S. citizen; • high school graduate or General Education Development (GED) certificate; • eligibility under federal and Maryland law to possess and use a handgun; • undergo a physical examination by a licensed physician and receive a positive

recommendation that the individual is “emotionally and mentally fit” and able to perform the duties of a police officer (as determined by the employing law enforcement agency);

• pass a drug screening test; • pass an oral interview to assess applicant’s ability to communicate; • compliance with prior drug use prohibitions; and • pass background and criminal history investigation, including fingerprint check, driver’s

license record check, military records, school records, credit history, personal reference interviews, polygraph examination, and criminal history records check with local, State, and national agencies.

Police officer certification is initiated by the law enforcement agency that proposes to hire an individual to be a police officer. A law enforcement agency may establish more restrictive selection standards than those required by the commission. There are approximately 16,900 certified police officers in Maryland. For entrance-level training, a candidate must receive a minimum of 750 hours of instruction on all commission-required subject areas and training objectives at a commission-approved academy. For annual in-service training, each law enforcement agency determines the annual training courses for its police officers. Proposed training courses are required to be approved by the Police Training Commission, and must include a minimum of 18 hours of instruction. Certain subject areas are required by State statute and regulation. Firearms training is included in the entrance-level and annual required training. The workgroup heard testimony from a number of individuals who recommended increased training and more flexible training hours as a way to improve law enforcement practices.


Community Policing

On December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing the Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Among the issues studied by the task force was the concept of increasing and improving community policing strategies. These strategies focus on the idea of creating collaborative partnerships between law enforcement and the communities they protect to avoid resentment and distrust. An interim report of the task force was published in March 2015 with a final report in May that stated:

“Yet mutual trust and cooperation, two key elements of community

policing, are vital to protecting residents of these communities from the crime that plagues them. By combining a focus on intervention and prevention through problem solving with building collaborative partnerships with schools, social services, and other stakeholders, community policing not only improves public safety but also enhances social connectivity and economic strength, which increases community resilience to crime. And, as noted by one speaker, it improves job satisfaction for line officers.” In Maryland in 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice provided funds through its

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services to establish a national training network of regional community policing institutes. Part of that network, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Community Policing Institute, was established in Maryland and grew to be a partnership of 17 agencies. These included: the Annapolis Police Department; Anne Arundel County Police Department; Baltimore City Police Department; Baltimore County Police Department; Citizens Planning and Housing Association; Harford County Sheriff’s Department; Howard County Police Department; The Johns Hopkins University; Maryland Community Crime Prevention Institute; Maryland Crime Prevention Association; Maryland Police Training Commission; Maryland State Police; Maryland Sheriff’s Association; Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department; Montgomery County Police Department; Prince George’s County Police Department; and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland.

The institute’s educational, training and technical assistance programs focused on three

areas: integrity and ethics; quality education; and interjurisdictional cooperation and collaboration for law enforcement agencies. There were workshops, seminars, and academic courses offered by the institute in each of these areas. The institute has not been in operation for over two years after the federal funding was no longer available.

A number of jurisdictions in the State have programs or policies in place consistent with

those outlined by the President’s task force; however, no statewide policy or program exists in this regard.


Alternative Dispute Resolution, Early Intervention The workgroup heard testimony from entities that provide mediation services and have done so on a limited basis in certain jurisdictions. Voluntary mediation between police and residents can be used in place of the traditional Internal Affairs investigation for complaints such as harsh language, unprofessional behavior, or disrespect.

Mediation gives both the resident and the officer a direct voice in a conversation where each can explain their experience of the situation. When appropriate, they can develop agreements for their future interactions and strengthen their relationship so that it can carry through stressful times and events. This process supports direct accountability, dialogue and understanding, and improved relationships between residents and police. The process is currently available in some Maryland jurisdictions and infrastructure exists in others that could be used to develop such a program on a more statewide basis.

The workgroup also heard testimony regarding several tools used in Frederick City

including psychological screenings after traumatic events, and “Early Intervention Screenings.” Under these screenings, when an officer receives three citizen or use-of-force complaints within 12 months, their commanding officer sits down with the officer for a nonpunitive conversation to discern any personal or professional issues which may be causing the increase in complaints.

Mental Health COMAR provides that before an applicant may be selected for a position as a police officer, the applicant shall be examined by a licensed, trained, and qualified mental health care professional and receive a positive recommendation from the mental health care professional indicating that the applicant is emotionally and mentally fit and able to perform the duties of a police officer as these duties are determined by the law enforcement agency.

The workgroup heard testimony that there is no statewide requirement that an officer undergo a psychological evaluation after a traumatic situation, although some individual law enforcement agencies in the State require this. There is also no ongoing stress counseling or evaluation required in the State despite evidence of significant stress and post-traumatic stress in the law enforcement profession.

Workgroup Recommendations The workgroup appreciates the participation of the many individuals in this process who offered significant and sincere recommendations for consideration. The workgroup believes that the State can improve the uniformity, standards, and best practices used by law enforcement agencies across the State.


The workgroup also believes that in addition to best practices and standards, reforms should be made regarding the response to serious police-involved incidents and subsequent disciplinary procedures under LEOBR.

Additionally, public processes and confidence are improved with increased access to

information in a transparent and open manner. The workgroup also supports measures that improve public participation and engagement and inform the public regarding law enforcement policies and standards.

The workgroup recognizes that a career in law enforcement is difficult and values the

service of law enforcement personnel who, with few exceptions, carry out their duties with honor. Finally, the workgroup believes incentives should be provided to support community policing efforts and to assist law enforcement officers in participating and engaging as members of the communities in which they work.

The workgroup thanks all who participated in this process and offers the following

recommendations: Recommendation No. 1: LEOBR complaint filing deadline triggering the requirement that disciplinary action be undertaken by a law enforcement agency shall be extended from 90 days to a year and a day. Recommendation No. 2: The requirement for notarization of a complaint alleging excessive force shall be eliminated, and replaced with a requirement that a complaint be signed by the complainant under the penalty of perjury. Recommendation No. 3: The public complaint process in each jurisdiction shall be uniform throughout the State, streamlined, and publicized on department websites. A complainant shall be required to divulge their identity in a manner that is sufficient for a department to contact them and verify the legitimacy of the complaint. When there is a final disposition of a complaint, the complainant shall be informed of the outcome. Recommendation No. 4: The time period for retaining an attorney for the internal investigation and disciplinary process under LEOBR shall be reduced from 10 days to 5 days. Recommendation No. 5: As is the case in some jurisdictions, all law enforcement agencies in the State shall open their administrative LEOBR hearing board proceedings to the public. The General Assembly shall strike the statutory prohibition against citizen participation to allow a jurisdiction to permit a citizen who has received training in LEOBR to sit as a member of the administrative hearing board. Recommendation No. 6: The law shall be changed to ensure that whistleblower protections are given to protect from retaliation officers who participate in investigations or who raise issues for investigation.


Recommendation No. 7: Each law enforcement agency shall require a use-of-force/incident report to be completed by the end of the shift unless the officer is disabled. Recommendation No. 8: Official department policies and collective bargaining agreements are public documents but are not easily available to the public. All department policies and collective bargaining agreements shall be available online. Recommendation No. 9: The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is primarily responsible for the administration of State prisons and correctional services with few law enforcement trained personnel or sworn law enforcement officers in the department. Law enforcement training and standards are significantly different from that of the State correctional system. An independent Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission (MPTSC) shall be established to focus solely on best practices, standards, and training in law enforcement and to create uniformity in policing practices across the State. Recommendation No. 10: The independent MPTSC shall include: representatives of State and local government; representatives of State and local law enforcement administrators; representatives of State and local law enforcement personnel; a representative of the Fraternal Order of Police; a representative of local State’s Attorneys; legislative members; members with expertise in community policing, policing standards, and mental health; and citizen members without relationships to law enforcement. Recommendation No. 11: The commission shall require each law enforcement agency to establish a confidential and nonpunitive early intervention policy for dealing with officers who receive three or more citizen complaints within a 12-month period. (Such a policy may not prevent the investigation of or imposition of discipline for a particular complaint.) Recommendation No. 12: MPTSC shall develop and require in-service anti-discrimination and use of force de-escalation training every other year for all law enforcement officers. Recommendation No. 13: MPTSC shall evaluate and modernize recruitment standards and practices to increase diversity in law enforcement departments and shall develop media strategies for recruiting women, African American, Latino, and other minority candidates. Recommendation No. 14: MPTSC shall develop a State certification that is transferrable between departments. Recommendation No. 15: MPTSC shall develop and require annual reporting to the commission by each department on the number of serious officer-involved incidents, the number of officers disciplined, and the type of discipline that was administered. Recommendation No. 16: The workgroup recommends that MPTSC review the National Institute of Justice example use-of-force continuum and develop by regulation a set of best practices and standards for use of force.


Recommendation No. 17: MPTSC shall develop standards for mandated psychological evaluation after traumatic incidents and for law enforcement officers returning from combat deployment as well as periodic psychological evaluations for all officers as determined appropriate by the commission. MPTSC shall also amend the Code of Maryland Regulations to require that an applicant for police officer undergo a pre-employment psychological evaluation by a psychologist. Recommendation No. 18: MPTSC, in consultation with DHMH, shall establish a confidential hotline that is available for law enforcement personnel to contact to speak to a trained peer law enforcement officer or a mental health professional who can assist with initial counseling advice and confidential referral to appropriate programs as needed. Recommendation No. 19: MPTSC shall develop a Police Complaint Mediation Program in which certain nonviolent complaints made against police officers are referred out of the standard complaint process and to voluntary mediation to be conducted by an independent mediation service. Recommendation No. 20: MPTSC shall develop best practices for establishment and implementation of a Community Policing Program in each jurisdiction. Annually, each department shall file their community policing program with MPTSC and the commission shall review each program and offer comments to the jurisdiction. All community policing programs shall be posted online. Recommendation No. 21: State grants and funding shall be increased to provide matching funds for local jurisdictions to increase community law enforcement programs such as the Police Athletic Leagues, the Explorers Program, and similar recreational activities. MPTSC and GOCCP shall also provide technical assistance to departments in applying for any federal, State, or foundation grants available for these purposes. Recommendation No. 22: Incentives shall be provided by the State and local jurisdictions to encourage law enforcement officers to live in the communities in which they police, particularly in high-crime, high-poverty areas. These incentives shall include measures like take home patrol cars, property tax credits, renter’s tax credits, and State and local income tax deductions for officers who live in the jurisdiction in which they work. Recommendation No. 23: LEOBR shall be amended to require that for use-of-force incidents, the trial board shall be composed of one member selected by the chief or sheriff, one member selected by the Fraternal Order of Police or the affected employee, and one member who is mutually agreed upon. The members must be selected from a pool of police officers who are not from the affected officer’s jurisdiction. One member must be of equal rank to the affected employee. A collective bargaining agreement may specify a different method of choosing a trial board.

18

Appendix 1. Law Enforcement Overview

19

20

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Ove

rvie

w

Pres

enta

tion

to th

e Pu

blic

Saf

ety

and

Polic

ing

Wor

kgro

up

Dep

artm

ent o

f Leg

isla

tive

Serv

ices

Offi

ce o

f Pol

icy

Anal

ysis

Anna

polis

, Mar

ylan

d

June

8, 2

015

21

Con

tent

s

•La

w E

nfor

cem

ent a

nd th

eir j

uris

dict

ion

in M

aryl

and

•La

w E

nfor

cem

ent F

undi

ng –

Sta

te a

nd L

ocal

•S

wor

n O

ffice

rs –

Sta

te a

nd L

ocal

•C

rime

Rat

es•

2015

legi

slat

ion

2

22

Law

Enf

orce

men

t in

Mar

ylan

d

Fede

ral

•Fe

dera

l law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es lo

cate

d in

Mar

ylan

d.

Exam

ples

•Fe

dera

lBur

eau

of In

vest

igat

ion

(FB

I)

•N

atio

nal S

ecur

ity A

genc

y (N

SA

)

•U

nite

d S

tate

s P

ark

Pol

ice

(US

PP

)

Stat

e

•S

tate

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s an

d S

tate

age

ncie

s’ p

olic

e fo

rces

.

Exam

ples

•D

epar

tmen

t of S

tate

Pol

ice

(DS

P)

•N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Pol

ice

(NR

P)

•M

aryl

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n A

utho

rity

(MdT

A)

Loca

l

•C

ount

ies,

she

riffs

, and

m

unic

ipal

ities

.

Exam

ples

•A

nne

Aru

ndel

Cou

nty

Pol

ice

Dep

artm

ent

•A

nne

Aru

ndel

Cou

nty

She

riff

•A

nnap

olis

City

Pol

ice

Dep

artm

ent

3

23

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Fun

ding

: Sta

te A

genc

ies

Fisc

al 2

014

•D

epar

tmen

t of S

tate

Pol

ice

(DSP

)$3

19.3

milli

on

•M

aryl

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n Au

thor

ity P

olic

e (M

dTA)

$82.

2 m

illion

•U

nive

rsiti

es$4

2.8

milli

on

•N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Pol

ice

(NR

P)$3

7.7

milli

on

•M

aryl

and

Tran

sit A

dmin

istra

tion

Polic

e (M

TA)

$28.

0 m

illion

•M

aryl

a nd

Cap

itol P

olic

e (D

GS)

$11.

8 m

illion

Tota

l = $

521.

8 m

illio

n

* U

nive

rsiti

es in

clud

e: B

owie

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

, Cop

pin

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

, Fro

stbu

rg S

tate

Uni

vers

ity, M

orga

n S

tate

Uni

vers

ity, S

alis

bury

Uni

vers

ity, T

owso

n U

nive

rsity

, U

nive

rsity

of B

altim

ore,

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mar

ylan

d (B

altim

ore,

Bal

timor

e C

ount

y, C

olle

ge P

ark,

and

Eas

tern

Sho

re).

* O

ther

sm

alle

r, sp

ecia

lized

Sta

te-a

genc

y po

lice

forc

es a

re n

ot in

clud

ed in

this

cha

rt.

* D

GS

: D

epar

tmen

t of G

ener

al S

ervi

ces

Sou

rce:

Gov

erno

rs’ B

udge

t Boo

ks, F

isca

l 201

64

24

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Fun

ding

: Loc

al

•Fi

scal

201

3 C

ount

y E

xpen

ditu

res:

$1.

5 bi

llion

(10.

0% o

f all

spen

ding

)•

Fisc

al 2

013

Mun

icip

al E

xpen

ditu

res:

$22

2.3

milli

on (1

7.2%

of a

ll sp

endi

ng)

•S

tate

Aid

to L

ocal

Jur

isdi

ctio

ns‒

Sta

tuto

ry F

orm

ula

Gra

nt –

Sta

te A

id fo

r Pol

ice

Pro

tect

ion

(SA

PP

)‒

Targ

eted

Crim

e G

rant

s•

Fede

ral A

id to

Loc

al J

uris

dict

ions

‒B

yrne

Jus

tice

Ass

ista

nce

Gra

nts

‒Ju

veni

le J

ustic

e G

rant

s‒

Viol

ence

Aga

inst

Wom

en F

orm

ula

Gra

nts

5

25

Stat

e A

id fo

r Pol

ice

Prot

ectio

n (S

APP

)

•Es

tabl

ishe

d 19

67, a

dmin

iste

red

by G

OC

CP

sinc

e 20

08.

•C

ount

ies

and

mun

icip

aliti

es m

ust m

eet m

inim

um p

olic

e pr

otec

tion

expe

nditu

re a

nd s

wor

n of

ficer

requ

irem

ents

.•

Fund

s es

sent

ially

dis

tribu

ted

on a

per

cap

ita b

asis

.•

Balti

mor

e C

ity e

xclu

ded

sinc

e fis

cal 2

002

in re

turn

for S

tate

’s

assu

mpt

ion

of B

altim

ore

City

Det

entio

n C

ente

r.•

Fisc

al 2

014

SAPP

Fun

ding

: $67

.3 m

illion

‒C

ount

ies:

$54

.5 m

illion

‒ M

unic

ipal

ities

: $12

.8 m

illion

6

26

SAPP

Per

Cap

ita F

undi

ng, F

isca

l 201

4

7

27

Swor

n O

ffice

rs: S

tate

Age

ncie

sAs

of O

ctob

er 3

1, 2

013

Agen

cyO

ffice

rs

DSP

1,52

6M

dTAP

462

Uni

vers

ities

333

NR

P23

6M

TA15

4D

GS

64O

ther

44

Tota

l Sta

te2,

819

8

28

Swor

n O

ffice

rs: L

ocal

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

genc

ies

As

of O

ctob

er 3

1, 2

013

Alle

gany

95

Cha

rles

311

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

2,42

2

Anne

Aru

ndel

857

Dor

ches

ter

91Q

ueen

Ann

e’s

71

Balti

mor

e C

ity2,

990

Fred

eric

k32

4St

. Mar

y’s

133

Balti

mor

e1,

905

Gar

rett

32So

mer

set

44

Cal

vert

121

Har

ford

391

Talb

ot87

Car

olin

e55

How

ard

507

Was

hing

ton

200

Car

roll

189

Kent

36W

icom

ico

206

Cec

il14

8M

ontg

omer

y1,

599

Wor

cest

er19

5

9S

ourc

e: C

rime

in M

aryl

and,

201

3 U

nifo

rm C

rime

Rep

ort,

Mar

ylan

d S

tate

Pol

ice

29

Swor

n O

ffice

rs: D

iver

sity

Stat

e of

Mar

ylan

d

Balti

mor

e C

ount

y

Mon

tgom

ery

Cou

nty

Anne

Aru

ndel

Cou

nty

How

ard

Cou

nty

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Cou

nty

10

Polic

e

Res

iden

ts

DSP

Pol

ice

Res

iden

ts

Polic

e

Res

iden

ts

Polic

e

Res

iden

ts

Polic

e

Res

iden

ts

Polic

e

Res

iden

ts

30

Crim

e in

Mar

ylan

dC

rime

Rat

e: O

ffens

es p

er 1

00,0

00 o

f Pop

ulat

ion

Cal

enda

r 200

3-20

13

2,50

0

3,00

0

3,50

0

4,00

0

4,50

0

5,00

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Cal

enda

r Ye

ar

Mar

ylan

dU

.S.

11

31

Crim

e R

ate

by C

ount

yC

alen

dar 2

013

12

32

2015

Pas

sed

Legi

slat

ion

Rel

atin

g to

Pu

blic

Saf

ety

and

Polic

ing

•C

hapt

er42

(SB

602)

Just

ice

Rei

nves

tmen

tCoo

rdin

atin

gC

ounc

il.

•C

hapt

er12

6(S

B32

1)B

altim

ore

City

and

Bal

timor

eC

ount

y–

Polic

eB

ehav

iora

lHea

lthU

nits

–Pi

lotP

rogr

am.

•C

hapt

er12

7(S

B41

3)Ve

hicl

eLa

ws

–R

ace-

Bas

edTr

affic

Stop

s–

Polic

yan

dR

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts.

•C

hapt

ers

128

and

129

(SB

482/

HB

533)

Publ

icSa

fety

–La

wEn

forc

emen

tO

ffice

rs–

Bod

y-W

orn

Dig

italR

ecor

ding

Dev

ice

and

Elec

tron

icC

ontr

olD

evic

e.

•C

hapt

er13

0(S

B88

2)B

altim

ore

City

Civ

ilian

Rev

iew

Boa

rd.

•C

hapt

er13

3(H

B77

1)B

altim

ore

Polic

eD

epar

tmen

t–

Rep

ortin

gon

Com

mun

ityPo

licin

g.

•C

hapt

er13

4(H

B95

4)Pu

blic

Safe

ty–

Dea

ths

Invo

lvin

ga

Law

Enfo

rcem

ent

Offi

cer

–R

epor

ts.

13

33

Con

clus

ion

14

34

Appendix 2. Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions

35

36

PRES

ENTA

TIO

N T

O T

HE

MAR

YLAN

DG

ENER

AL A

SSEM

BLY’

S JO

INT

WO

RKG

ROU

P O

N P

UBL

IC S

AFET

Y

BY

DEP

ARTM

ENT

OF

PUBL

IC S

AFET

Y AN

D C

ORR

ECTI

ON

AL S

ERVI

CES’

POLI

CE A

ND

CO

RREC

TIO

NAL

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NS

PRES

ENTE

RS:

J. M

ICH

AEL

ZEIG

LER,

EXE

CUTI

VE D

IREC

TOR

ALBE

RT L

. LIE

BNO

, DEP

UTY

DIR

ECTO

R

37

OU

TLIN

E O

F PR

ESEN

TATI

ON

A.BA

CKGR

OU

ND,

OVE

RVIE

W A

ND

AUTH

ORI

TY O

F:1.

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

COM

MIS

SIO

N;

2.ST

ATE

AGEN

CY –

POLI

CE A

ND

CORR

ECTI

ON

AL T

RAIN

ING

COM

MIS

SIO

NS

B.SE

LECT

ION

STA

NDA

RDS:

PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G CO

MM

ISSI

ON

C.PO

LICE

OFF

ICER

CER

TIFI

CATI

ON

PRO

CESS

D.TR

AIN

ING

REQ

UIR

ED B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G CO

MM

ISSI

ON

E.PO

LICE

AN

D CO

RREC

TIO

NAL

TRA

ININ

G RE

SOU

RCES

IN M

ARYL

AND

2

38

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

BACK

GRO

UN

D, O

VERV

IEW

AN

D AU

THO

RITY

1966

:•

Crea

ted

as a

n in

depe

nden

t ent

ity in

the

Exec

utiv

e De

part

men

t by

Chap

ter 2

86;

•Co

nsist

ed o

f 10

mem

bers

;•

Auth

ority

over

-“A

mem

ber o

f a p

olic

e fo

rce

or o

ther

org

aniza

tion

of

stat

e, co

unty

or m

unic

ipal

gov

ernm

ent w

ho is

re

spon

sible

for p

reve

ntio

n an

d de

tect

ion

of c

rime

and

then

enf

orce

men

t of t

he la

ws o

f the

stat

e….”

3

39

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

BACK

GRO

UN

D, O

VERV

IEW

AN

D AU

THO

RITY

•Du

ties (

whi

ch c

ontin

ue to

be

curr

ent d

utie

s of t

he

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issio

n) in

clud

ed:

Tr

aini

ng sc

hool

s:o

Sett

ing

stan

dard

s for

and

app

rovi

ng p

olic

e en

tran

ce-le

vel a

nd

in-s

ervi

ce tr

aini

ng sc

hool

s;o

Sett

ing

the

curr

icul

um, a

tten

danc

e re

quire

men

ts, e

ligib

ility

to

atte

nd, e

quip

men

t and

faci

litie

s fo

r pol

ice

trai

ning

scho

ols;

oSe

ttin

g m

inim

um q

ualif

icat

ions

and

cer

tifyi

ng p

olic

e tr

aini

ng

scho

ol in

stru

ctor

s;

4

40

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

BACK

GRO

UN

D, O

VERV

IEW

AN

D AU

THO

RITY

Po

lice

offic

er c

ertif

icat

ion

–Ce

rtify

“po

lice

offic

ers”

w

ho h

ave

satis

fact

orily

com

plet

ed tr

aini

ng [P

ublic

Sa

fety

Art

icle

, §3-

201

(e);

(IMPO

RTAN

T TO

NO

TE T

HAT

ALL

INDI

VIDU

ALS

WHO

HAV

E AR

REST

AN

D LA

W E

NFO

RCEM

ENT

AUTH

ORI

TY A

RE N

OT

SUBJ

ECT

TO T

HE A

UTH

ORI

TY O

F TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G CO

MM

ISSI

ON

–

E.G.

PO

LICE

CHI

EFS,

SHE

RIFF

S an

d th

eir p

rimar

y de

puty

chi

ef

or d

eput

y sh

eriff

[PU

BLIC

SAF

ETY

ARTI

CLE,

§3-

201

(e) (

3)].

SP

ECIA

L PO

LICE

OFF

ICER

S [P

UBL

IC S

AFET

Y AR

TICL

E, T

ITLE

3,

SUBT

ITLE

3];

VO

L UN

TEER

FIR

EMEN

IN C

ERTA

IN C

OU

NTI

ES [P

UBL

IC S

AFET

Y AR

TICL

E, §

§7-

302

& 7

-303

], ET

C.).

5

41

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

BACK

GRO

UN

D, O

VERV

IEW

AN

D AU

THO

RITY

St

udy

and

Cons

ulta

tion:

oM

ake

a co

ntin

uous

stud

y of

pol

ice

trai

ning

met

hods

and

pr

oced

ures

;o

Cons

ult a

nd c

oope

rate

with

fede

ral,

stat

e, o

r mun

icip

al

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s or e

duca

tiona

l ins

titut

ions

;o

Cons

ult a

nd c

oope

rate

with

uni

vers

ities

, col

lege

s and

in

stitu

tions

in th

e st

ate

for d

evel

opm

ent o

f spe

cial

ized

cour

ses o

f stu

dy fo

r pol

ice

offic

ers i

n po

lice

scie

nce

and

polic

e ad

min

istra

tion.

Re

gula

tions

–es

tabl

ish ru

les a

nd re

gula

tions

to

carr

y ou

t its

dut

ies

6

42

TRAI

NIN

G D

UTI

ES A

DDED

SIN

CE 1

966

(PU

BLIC

SAF

ETY

ARTI

CLE

§3-

207

and

COM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

12)

TO R

EQU

IRE

TRAI

NIN

G RE

LATE

D TO

:•

Rape

, sex

ual o

ffens

es, s

exua

l abu

se a

nd

expl

oita

tion

of c

hild

ren

and

rela

ted

evid

entia

ry

proc

edur

es;

•Co

ntac

t with

and

trea

tmen

t of v

ictim

s of c

rimes

an

d de

linqu

ent a

cts;

•N

otic

es, s

ervi

ces,

supp

ort a

nd ri

ghts

ava

ilabl

e to

vi

ctim

s;

7

43

TRAI

NIN

G D

UTI

ES A

DDED

SIN

CE 1

966

(PU

BLIC

SAF

ETY

ARTI

CLE

§3-

207

and

COM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

12)

TO R

EQU

IRE

TRAI

NIN

G RE

LATE

D TO

:•

Not

ifica

tion

of v

ictim

s of i

dent

ity fr

aud

and

rela

ted

crim

es o

f the

ir rig

hts u

nder

fede

ral l

aw;

•Li

fe sa

ving

tech

niqu

es, i

nclu

ding

CPR

;•

Prop

er le

vel a

nd u

se o

f for

ce;

•Se

nsiti

vity

to c

ultu

ral a

nd g

ende

r div

ersit

y;•

Indi

vidu

als

with

phy

sical

, int

elle

ctua

l, de

velo

pmen

tal a

nd p

sych

iatr

ic d

isabi

litie

s.

8

44

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

BACK

GRO

UN

D, O

VERV

IEW

AN

D AU

THO

RITY

1970

(CHA

PTER

401

):•

Depa

rtm

ent o

f Pub

lic S

afet

y an

d Co

rrec

tiona

l Ser

vice

s cr

eate

(Cha

pter

401

);•

*Pol

ice

Trai

ning

Com

miss

ion

desig

nate

d as

an

agen

cy

of th

e De

part

men

t of P

ublic

Saf

ety

and

Corr

ectio

nal

Serv

ices

;•

A re

pres

enta

tive

of D

epar

tmen

t add

ed to

Com

miss

ion

mem

bers

hip.

*PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G CO

MM

ISSI

ON

CO

NTI

NU

ES T

O B

E AN

AGE

NCY

OF

THE

DEPA

RTM

ENT

OF

PUBL

IC S

AFET

Y AN

D CO

RREC

TIO

NAL

SER

VICE

S (P

UBL

IC S

AFET

Y AR

TICL

E, §

3-30

2, A

NN

OTA

TED

CODE

OF

MAR

YLAN

D)

9

45

FUN

DIN

G S

OU

RCE

FOR

TRAI

NIN

G C

ENTE

R19

88:

•Ho

use

Bill

640

(Cha

pter

446

) (in

resp

onse

to a

dire

ctiv

e at

pag

e 11

in th

e 19

87 Jo

int C

hairm

en’s

Repo

rt o

n Ho

use

Bill

400-

the

Gene

ral C

onst

ruct

ion

Loan

of 1

987)

w

as e

nact

ed to

est

ablis

h a

met

hod

of fi

nanc

ing

the

cons

truc

tion

of a

cen

tral

ized,

stat

e-of

-the

-art

Pub

lic

Safe

ty T

rain

ing

Cent

er.

•La

w E

nfor

cem

ent a

nd C

orre

ctio

nal T

rain

ing

Fund

was

es

tabl

ished

.•

Trai

ning

Fun

d’s U

NIQ

UE

sour

ce o

f rev

enue

was

a $

5.00

sp

ecia

l cos

t ass

esse

d by

bot

h th

e Di

stric

t Cou

rt a

nd

circ

uit c

ourt

s in

crim

inal

and

traf

fic ca

ses.

10

46

FUN

DIN

G S

OU

RCE

FOR

TRAI

NIN

G C

ENTE

R

1996

and

succ

eedi

ng y

ears

:•

Addi

tiona

l fun

ds w

ere

crea

ted

for p

urpo

ses

othe

r th

an la

w e

nfor

cem

ent,

finan

ced

on th

e ba

sis o

f re

venu

e fr

om c

ourt

cas

es.

2005

:•

Hous

e Bi

ll 14

7, (C

hapt

er 4

44):

Repe

aled

the

Law

En

forc

emen

t and

Cor

rect

iona

l Tra

inin

g Fu

nd a

nd

the

sour

ce o

f rev

enue

(Dist

rict a

nd c

ircui

t cou

rt

fees

) for

fina

ncin

g th

e Fu

nd.

11

47

POLI

CE A

ND

CORR

ECTI

ON

AL

TRAI

NIN

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NS

•Jo

int a

dmin

istra

tive

staf

f ent

ity o

f the

:

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issio

n; A

ND

Co

rrec

tiona

l Tra

inin

g Co

mm

issio

n.

•St

aff P

ositi

ons:

•20

05 =

140

•20

15 =

116

12

48

POLI

CE A

ND

CORR

ECTI

ON

AL

TRAI

NIN

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NS

•Th

e Po

lice

and

Corr

ectio

nal T

rain

ing

Com

miss

ions

st

aff e

ntity

is a

par

t of t

he D

epar

tmen

t of P

ublic

Sa

fety

and

Cor

rect

iona

l Ser

vice

s (Pu

blic

Saf

ety

Artic

le, §

3-20

6, C

orre

ctio

nal S

ervi

ces A

rtic

le, §

8-20

6, a

nd st

ate

oper

atin

g bu

dget

cod

e Q

00G0

0).

•Lo

cate

d at

and

adm

inist

ers t

he P

ublic

Saf

ety

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng C

ente

r (PS

ETC)

, a S

tate

fa

cilit

y in

Syk

esvi

lle, M

aryl

and.

13

49

POLI

CE A

ND

CORR

ECTI

ON

AL

TRAI

NIN

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NS

PS

ETC

prov

ides

the

follo

win

g fo

r Pol

ice,

Co

rrec

tiona

l, Pa

role

and

Pro

batio

n, a

nd

Juve

nile

Ser

vice

s Per

sonn

el T

rain

ing:

○Ac

adem

ic C

lass

room

s;○

Phys

ical

Tra

inin

g Ce

nter

;○

Fire

arm

s Tra

inin

g Fa

cilit

y (E

stab

lishe

d In

200

0);

○Dr

iver

Tra

inin

g Fa

cilit

y (E

stab

lishe

d In

199

8);

○O

n-sit

e Re

siden

tial D

orm

itory

Hou

sing;

○Co

ntra

ctor

Ope

rate

d Di

ning

Fac

ility

14

50

POLI

CE A

ND

CORR

ECTI

ON

AL

TRAI

NIN

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NS

PS

ETC

hous

es:

○St

aff a

dmin

istr

ativ

e of

fices

for:

DPSC

S Po

lice

and

Corr

ectio

nal T

rain

ing

Com

mis

sion

s;

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng (E

ntra

nce-

Leve

l Aca

dem

y, S

uper

viso

rs,

Inst

ruct

ors)

;

Corr

ectio

nal T

rain

ing

(Ent

ranc

e-Le

vel A

cade

my,

Par

ole

and

Prob

atio

n Pe

rson

nel);

Ce

rtifi

catio

n/Tr

aini

ng R

ecor

ds o

f Pol

ice,

Cor

rect

iona

l and

Ju

veni

le S

ervi

ces

Pers

onne

l

Lead

ersh

ip D

evel

opm

ent I

nstit

ute;

Cr

ime

Prev

entio

n In

stitu

te

DARE

(Dru

g Aw

aren

ess a

nd R

esis

tanc

e Ed

ucat

ion)

St

ate

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng A

cade

my;

De

part

men

t of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Tra

inin

g Ac

adem

y;

Depa

rtm

ent o

f Juv

enile

Ser

vice

s Tr

aini

ng A

cade

my.

15

51

*MIN

IMU

MPO

LICE

SEL

ECTI

ON

STA

NDA

RDS

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.04

)*A

pol

ice

agen

cy m

ay e

stab

lish

mor

e re

stric

tive

sele

ctio

ns st

anda

rds

than

thos

e re

quire

d by

the

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issio

n (C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

04J).

At t

he

requ

est o

f a p

olic

e ag

ency

hea

d, th

e Co

mm

issio

n m

ay

wai

ve a

ny se

lect

ion

stan

dard

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.04

K).

●Ag

e (a

t lea

st 2

1 ye

ars o

f age

);●

Citiz

ensh

ip (U

.S. C

itize

nshi

p);

●Ed

ucat

ion

(Hig

h Sc

hool

Gra

duat

ion

or G

ener

al E

duca

tion

Deve

lopm

ent [

GED]

cert

ifica

te);

●El

igib

ility

und

er fe

dera

l and

Mar

ylan

d la

w to

pos

sess

and

use

a

hand

gun;

16

52

*MIN

IMU

MPO

LICE

SEL

ECTI

ON

STA

NDA

RDS

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.04

)(C

ontin

ued)

•Ph

ysic

al E

xam

inat

ion

by a

lice

nsed

phy

sicia

n, a

nd re

ceiv

e a

posit

ive

reco

mm

enda

tion

that

the

indi

vidu

al is

phy

sical

ly

able

to p

erfo

rm d

utie

s of a

pol

ice

offic

er (a

s det

erm

ined

by

the

empl

oyin

g la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

y), a

nd p

artic

ipat

e in

en

tran

ce-le

vel t

rain

ing;

•M

enta

l exa

min

atio

n by

a q

ualif

ied

men

tal h

ealth

pr

ofes

siona

l, an

d re

ceiv

e a

posit

ive

reco

mm

enda

tion

that

th

e in

divi

dual

is “e

mot

iona

lly a

nd m

enta

lly fi

t” a

nd a

ble

to

perf

orm

the

dutie

s of a

pol

ice

offic

er (a

s det

erm

ined

by

the

empl

oyin

g la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

y); a

nd•

Pass

dru

g sc

reen

ing

test

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.15

).

17

53

*MIN

IMU

MPO

LICE

SEL

ECTI

ON

STA

NDA

RDS

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.04

)●

Pass

Ora

l Int

ervi

ew to

ass

ess

appl

ican

t’s a

bilit

y to

com

mun

icat

e;

●Co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith P

rior D

rug

Use

Pro

hibi

tions

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.16

); an

d●

Pass

Bac

kgro

und

and

Crim

inal

Hist

ory

Inve

stig

atio

n, in

clud

ing:

Fi

nger

prin

t Che

ck;

Dr

iver

’s Li

cens

e Re

cord

Che

ck;

M

ilita

ry R

e cor

ds;

Sc

hool

Rec

ord s

;

Cred

it Hi

stor

y;

Pers

onal

Re f

eren

ces I

nter

view

s;

Po

lygr

aph

E xam

inat

ion

and

Cr

imin

al H

istor

y Re

cord

s Che

ck w

ith lo

cal,

Stat

e an

d na

tiona

l age

ncie

s (F

BI N

atio

n al C

rime

Info

rmat

ion

Cent

er).

18

54

POLI

CE O

FFIC

ER C

ERTI

FICA

TIO

N P

ROCE

SS

Ther

e ar

e ap

prox

imat

ely

16, 9

00 c

ertif

ied

polic

e of

ficer

s in

Mar

ylan

d.

Polic

e of

ficer

cer

tific

atio

n is

initi

ated

by

the

law

en

forc

emen

t age

ncy

that

pro

pose

s to

hire

an

indi

vidu

al to

be

a po

lice

offic

er.

The

agen

cy

initi

ates

the

cert

ifica

tion

proc

ess b

y fil

ing

an

“app

licat

ion

for c

ertif

icat

ion”

(AFC

) with

the

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issio

n.

19

55

POLI

CE O

FFIC

ER C

ERTI

FICA

TIO

N P

ROCE

SS

“Pro

visi

onal

Cer

tific

atio

n” a

s a P

olic

e O

ffic

er•

An in

divi

dual

rece

ives

“pro

visio

nal c

ertif

icat

ion”

as a

po

lice

offic

er if

the

indi

vidu

al m

eets

the

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng

Com

miss

ion’

s and

the

hirin

g ag

ency

’s se

lect

ion

stan

dard

s;

•Pr

ovisi

onal

cer

tific

atio

n le

ngth

–36

5 da

ys;

•36

5-da

y pe

riod

perm

its in

divi

dual

to p

erfo

rm la

w

enfo

rcem

ent d

utie

s whi

le a

wai

ting

the

oppo

rtun

ity to

co

mpl

ete

polic

e of

ficer

trai

ning

.

20

56

POLI

CE O

FFIC

ER C

ERTI

FICA

TIO

N P

ROCE

SS

Polic

e O

ffice

r “Ce

rtifi

catio

n”:

•In

divi

dual

requ

ired

to m

eet:

Al

l sel

ectio

n st

anda

rds;

Su

cces

sful

ly c

ompl

ete

requ

ired

trai

ning

; and

Su

cces

sful

ly c

ompl

ete

field

trai

ning

pro

gram

.•

Auto

mat

ical

ly re

new

ed a

nnua

lly if

:

Indi

vidu

al h

as m

et re

quire

d an

nual

trai

ning

;

Indi

vidu

al c

ontin

ues t

o m

eet s

elec

tion

stan

dard

s. 21

57

POLI

CE O

FFIC

ER C

ERTI

FICA

TIO

N P

ROCE

SS

Polic

e O

ffice

r Cer

tific

atio

n:•

Expi

res i

f the

indi

vidu

al is

:

No

long

er e

mpl

oyed

by

the

agen

cy th

at re

ques

ted

polic

e of

ficer

cer

tific

atio

n fo

r the

indi

vidu

al; O

R

Dece

rtifi

ed b

y th

e Po

lice

Trai

ning

Com

miss

ion

“Rec

ertif

icat

ion”

ofa

form

er P

olic

e O

ffic

er

An in

divi

dual

form

erly

cer

tifie

d as

a p

olic

e of

ficer

may

be

“Re

cert

ified

” if t

he in

divi

dual

mee

ts re

quire

d tr

aini

ng. A

n in

divi

dual

who

has

not

bee

n ce

rtifi

ed a

s a

polic

e of

ficer

with

in fi

ve y

ears

mus

t com

plet

e en

tran

ce-le

vel t

rain

ing.

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.07

)22

58

POLI

CE O

FFIC

ER C

ERTI

FICA

TIO

N P

ROCE

SS

Cert

ifica

tion

Uni

t of t

he P

olic

e an

d Co

rrec

tiona

l Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issi

ons

•Re

ceiv

es a

nd re

view

s (on

beh

alf o

f the

Pol

ice

Trai

ning

Com

miss

ion)

app

licat

ions

for:

Po

lice

offic

er c

ertif

icat

ion;

In

stru

ctor

cer

tific

atio

n;

Appr

oval

of t

rain

ing

cour

ses;

and

Po

lice

trai

ning

aca

dem

ies.

•Au

dits

sele

ctio

n an

d tr

aini

ng re

cord

s of p

olic

e tr

aini

ng a

cade

mie

s and

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s;

23

59

POLI

CE O

FFIC

ER C

ERTI

FICA

TIO

N P

ROCE

SS

Cert

ifica

tion

Uni

t of t

he P

olic

e an

d Co

rrec

tiona

l Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issi

ons

•M

aint

ains

reco

rds r

elat

ed to

the

empl

oym

ent,

trai

ning

and

cer

tific

atio

n of

eac

h in

divi

dual

pol

ice

offic

er.

•Re

cord

s are

mai

ntai

ned

in a

n el

ectr

onic

form

at b

y a

“ski

lls m

anag

e r”

syst

em, w

hich

is a

ppro

xim

atel

y 20

(t

wen

ty) y

ears

old

, has

lim

ited

capa

bilit

y, an

d ha

s be

en sl

ated

to n

o lo

nger

be

supp

orte

d by

its p

aren

t co

mpa

ny, C

row

n Po

inte

.

24

60

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d En

tran

ce-L

evel

Tra

inin

g (C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

09)

•M

inim

umof

750

hou

rs (a

ppro

xim

atel

y 5

mon

ths)

;•

Com

plet

ed a

t Com

miss

ion-

appr

oved

aca

dem

y (C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

10);

•Re

quire

d to

pro

vide

inst

ruct

ion

on a

ll co

mm

issio

n-re

quire

d su

bjec

t are

as (C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

09C)

, and

trai

ning

obj

ectiv

es (C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

09D(

3)(a

)).

25

61

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d An

nual

In-s

ervi

ce T

rain

ing

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.02

)•

Each

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncy

dete

rmin

es th

e an

nual

tr

aini

ng c

ours

es fo

r its

pol

ice

offic

ers;

•Pr

opos

ed tr

aini

ng c

ours

es a

re re

quire

d to

be

appr

oved

by

the

Polic

e Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issio

n;•

Min

imum

of 1

8 ho

urs;

•Ce

rtai

n su

bjec

t are

as a

re re

quire

d by

Sta

te st

atut

e (P

ublic

Saf

ety

Artic

le §

3-20

7(6)

,(15)

and

(16)

) and

re

gula

tion

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

1.12

A(6)

AN

D (7

)).

26

62

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d Fi

rear

ms T

rain

ing

(CO

MAR

12.

04.0

2)•

Trai

ning

is re

quire

d to

be

prov

ided

by

Com

miss

ion-

cert

ified

Fire

arm

s Ins

truc

tors

.•

Entr

ance

-Lev

el F

irear

msT

rain

ing:

Requ

ired

for i

ndiv

idua

ls au

thor

ized

to u

se o

r car

ry a

fir

earm

(han

dgun

and

long

gun

–sh

otgu

n, a

utom

atic

fir

earm

, sni

per l

ong

gun)

;

Requ

ires s

ucce

ssfu

l com

plet

ion

of c

lass

room

inst

ruct

ion,

tr

aini

ng a

nd q

ualif

icat

ion

cou

rse

of fi

re fo

r the

fire

arm

au

thor

ized

to b

e us

ed o

r car

ried;

M

inim

um 1

,000

roun

ds fi

red.

27

63

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d Fi

rear

ms T

rain

ing

(Con

tinue

d)•

Annu

al fi

rear

ms c

lass

room

inst

ruct

ion,

trai

ning

and

qu

alifi

catio

n:

Requ

ires a

min

imum

of 2

hou

rs o

f cla

ssro

om

inst

ruct

ion,

whi

ch sh

all i

nclu

de le

gal a

spec

ts in

the

use

of fi

rear

ms (

rule

s for

use

of d

eadl

y fo

rce;

al

tern

ativ

es to

use

of d

eadl

y fo

rce;

judg

men

tal a

nd

deci

sion

trai

ning

in u

se o

f dea

dly

forc

e; c

rimin

al, c

ivil

and

adm

inist

rativ

e lia

bilit

y fo

r misu

se o

f dea

dly

forc

e)

Min

imum

of 9

0 ro

unds

fire

d.

28

64

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d Fi

rear

ms T

rain

ing

(Con

tinue

d)

Requ

ires s

ucce

ssfu

l com

plet

ion

of a

qu

alifi

catio

n da

y-fir

e an

d re

duce

d lig

ht c

ours

e of

fire

;

Al

l fire

arm

s tra

inin

g co

urse

s are

app

rove

d (o

n be

half

of th

e Po

lice

Trai

ning

Com

miss

ion)

by

the

Cert

ifica

tion

Staf

f, su

ppor

ted

by th

e fir

earm

s tra

inin

g st

aff o

f the

Pol

ice

and

Corr

ectio

nal T

rain

ing

Com

miss

ions

.

29

65

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d El

ectr

onic

Con

trol

Dev

ice

Trai

ning

(C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.05)

•Tr

aini

ng is

requ

ired

to b

e pr

ovid

ed b

y co

mm

issio

n-ce

rtifi

ed e

lect

roni

c co

ntro

l dev

ice

inst

ruct

ors;

•In

itial

and

annu

al tr

aini

ng re

quire

d of

indi

vidu

als

auth

orize

d to

use

or c

arry

an

elec

tron

ic c

ontr

ol

devi

ce;

•Cl

assr

oom

inst

ruct

ion

is re

quire

d on

topi

cs su

ch a

s “j

udgm

ent a

nd d

ecisi

on m

akin

g,”

“leg

al

cons

ider

atio

ns,”

“afte

r-ca

re m

easu

res,”

“po

tent

ial

colla

tera

l occ

urre

nces

,” et

c.

30

66

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NRe

quire

d In

stru

ctor

Tra

inin

g An

d Ce

rtifi

catio

n (C

OM

AR 1

2.04

.06)

Inst

ruct

or a

pplic

ants

are

requ

ired

to:

Be

an

empl

oyee

or r

etai

ned

as a

n in

stru

ctor

by

a la

w

enfo

rcem

ent a

genc

y or

aca

dem

y;

M

eet t

he P

olic

e Tr

aini

ng C

omm

issio

n’s s

elec

tion

stan

dard

s fo

r ins

truc

tors

.

31

67

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

N

Requ

ired

Firs

t-lin

e Su

perv

isor

and

Ad

min

istr

ator

Tra

inin

g (P

ublic

Saf

ety

Artic

le

§3-

215

and

COM

AR 1

2.04

.01.

13)

•In

divi

dual

to c

ompl

ete

com

miss

ion-

requ

ired

trai

ning

with

in 1

yea

r of b

eing

pro

mot

ed to

po

sitio

n of

firs

t-lin

e su

perv

isor o

r adm

inist

rato

r;•

Trai

ning

is a

min

imum

of 3

5 ho

urs.

32

68

TRAI

NIN

G B

Y TH

E PO

LICE

TRA

ININ

G C

OM

MIS

SIO

NVo

lunt

ary

Trai

ning

(For

Pol

ice

Exec

utiv

es)

Prov

ided

by

the

Lead

ersh

ip D

evel

opm

ent

Inst

itute

•In

con

junc

tion

with

col

lege

, uni

vers

ities

, fed

eral

ag

enci

es a

nd p

rivat

e or

gani

zatio

ns, p

rese

nts

exec

utiv

e se

min

ars f

or a

nd o

ther

trai

ning

for

publ

ic sa

fety

lead

ers t

hrou

ghou

t Mar

ylan

d.

33

69

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

RES

OU

RCES

IN M

ARYL

AND

Publ

ic S

afet

y Ed

ucat

ion

and

Trai

ning

Cen

ter

(Sta

te-o

pera

ted

Faci

lity

in S

ykes

ville

, Mar

ylan

d)

Trai

ning

Aca

dem

ies

(19)

•Ag

ency

Aca

dem

ies

An

ne A

rund

el C

ount

y Po

lice

Acad

emy

–Da

vids

onvi

lle, M

D

Balti

mor

e Ci

ty P

olic

e Ac

adem

y –

Balti

mor

e, M

D

Balti

mor

e Co

unty

Pol

ice

Trai

ning

Aca

dem

y –

Dund

alk,

MD

Fr

eder

ick

City

Pol

ice

Acad

emy

–Fr

eder

ick,

MD

34

70

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

RES

OU

RCES

IN M

ARYL

AND

•Ag

ency

Aca

dem

ies (

cont

inue

d)

Harf

ord

Coun

ty S

herif

f Aca

dem

y –

Bel A

ir, M

D

How

ard

Coun

ty P

olic

e Ac

adem

y –

Mar

riott

s vill

e, M

D

Mar

ylan

d N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Pol

ice

Acad

emy

–Sy

kesv

ille,

MD

M

aryl

and

Stat

e Po

lice

Acad

emy

–Sy

kesv

ille,

MD

M

aryl

and

Tran

spor

tatio

n Au

thor

ity A

cade

my

–Du

ndal

k, M

D

Mar

ylan

d Po

lice

& C

orre

ctio

nal T

rain

ing

Com

miss

ion

Acad

emy

–Sy

kesv

ille,

MD

M

ontg

omer

y Co

unty

Pol

ice

Acad

emy

–Ro

ckvi

lle, M

D

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s C

ount

y Po

lice

Aca d

emy

–La

nham

, MD

So

uthe

rn M

aryl

and

Crim

inal

Just

ice

Acad

emy

–W

elc o

me,

MD

W

ashi

ngto

n M

etro

polit

an T

rans

it Ac

adem

y –

Was

hing

ton,

DC

35

71

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

RES

OU

RCES

IN M

ARYL

AND

•Co

llege

Aca

dem

ies

An

ne A

rund

el C

omm

unity

Col

lege

Just

ice

Inst

itute

–Ar

nold

, MD

Ha

gers

tow

n Co

mm

unity

Col

lege

Pol

ice

Acad

emy

–Ha

gers

tow

n, M

D

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s C

ount

y Co

mm

unity

Col

lege

; Prin

ce

Geor

ge’s

Mun

icip

al P

olic

e Ac

adem

y –

Larg

o, M

D

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mar

ylan

d Po

lice

Acad

emy

–Co

llege

Par

k, M

D

Wor

-Wic

Com

mun

ity C

olle

ge; E

aste

rn S

hore

Crim

inal

Ju

stic

e Ac

adem

y –

Salis

bury

, MD

36

72

POLI

CE T

RAIN

ING

RES

OU

RCES

IN M

ARYL

AND

FIRE

ARM

RAN

GES

(A 2

010

Repo

rt re

veal

ed th

at 8

0.7%

of M

aryl

and

polic

e of

ficer

s rec

eive

fire

arm

s tra

inin

g @

the

follo

win

g ra

nges

)

•An

ne A

rund

el C

ount

y Po

lice

Depa

rtm

ent (

1 ou

tdoo

r cov

ered

rang

e)

•M

aryl

and

Nat

iona

l Gua

rd R

ange

s at G

unpo

wde

r (Ba

ltim

ore

City

Pol

ice

Depa

rtm

ent

& o

ther

age

ncie

s)

•Ba

ltim

ore

City

Pol

ice

Depa

rtm

ent (

Indo

or R

ange

at N

orth

Eas

t Pol

ice

Dist

rict i

n Ba

ltim

ore

City

)

•Ba

ltim

ore

Coun

ty P

olic

e De

part

men

t (on

e ou

tdoo

r and

one

indo

or ra

nge)

•Li

bert

y Fi

rear

m F

acili

ty (M

aryl

and

Stat

e Po

lice

and

othe

r law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s)

•M

ontg

omer

y Co

unty

Pol

ice

Depa

rtm

ent (

1 ou

tdoo

r ran

ge a

nd 1

indo

or ra

nge)

•M

aryl

and

Nat

iona

l Cap

ital P

ark

and

Plan

ning

Com

miss

ion

Rang

e in

Prin

ce

Geor

ge’s

Coun

ty (P

rince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Pol

ice

and

appr

oxim

atel

y 32

oth

er M

aryl

and

law

en

forc

emen

t age

ncie

s)

•M

aryl

and

Polic

e an

d Co

rrec

tiona

l Tra

inin

g Co

mm

issio

ns a

t the

Pub

lic S

afet

y Ed

ucat

ion

& T

rain

ing

Cent

er (S

ykes

ville

, MD)

37

73

74

Appendix 3. Introduction to the LEOBR

75

76

Intro

duct

ion

to

the

LEO

BR

Pres

ente

d by

Kar

en J

. Kru

ger

Gen

eral

Cou

nsel

Mar

ylan

d C

hief

s of P

olic

e A

ssoc

iatio

n, M

aryl

and

Sher

iffs’

Ass

ocia

tion

Funk

& B

olto

n, P

.A.

1

77

“Th

e go

vern

men

t has

a c

ompe

lling

inte

rest

in

ens

urin

g th

at fr

ont-

line

inte

rdic

tion

pers

onne

l are

phy

sica

lly fi

t, an

d ha

ve

unim

peac

habl

e in

tegr

ity a

nd ju

dgm

ent.”

Natio

nal T

reas

ury

Unio

n Em

ploy

ees

v. V

on R

aab,

486

U.S

. 65

6, 6

71 (1

989)

.

2

78

Cl

evel

and

Boar

d of

Edu

catio

n v.

Lou

derm

ill,

470

U.S.

532

(198

5)

Publ

ic e

mpl

oyee

s ha

ve a

pro

pert

y in

tere

st in

th

eir g

over

nmen

t job

s

Entit

led

to d

ue p

roce

ss b

efor

e go

vern

men

t em

ploy

er c

an d

epriv

e of

that

inte

rest

Pr

e-te

rmin

atio

n no

tice

and

a rig

ht to

be

hear

d

3

79

Th

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent O

ffic

ers’

Bill

of R

ight

s (L

EOBR

) is

base

d on

con

stitu

tiona

l con

cept

s an

d is

des

igne

d to

pro

tect

the

due

proc

ess

right

s of

law

enf

orce

men

t off

icer

s.

A

stat

utor

y ex

pres

sion

of p

roce

dure

s de

sign

ed to

insu

re fa

irnes

s to

law

en

forc

emen

t em

ploy

ees.

4

80

Pr

oced

ural

Rig

hts:

How

dis

cipl

ine

is im

pose

d on

law

enf

orce

men

t off

icer

s.

N

ot S

ubst

antiv

e Ri

ghts

: M

eani

ng th

e re

ason

s w

hy d

isci

plin

e m

ay b

e im

pose

d.

G

oal:

To

insu

re fa

irnes

s, n

otto

dim

inis

h m

anag

emen

t pre

roga

tives

, res

tric

t pol

ice

activ

ity o

r dilu

te p

olic

e ac

coun

tabi

lity.

5

81

19

60’s

era

of c

ivil

unre

st

Po

lice

unpr

epar

ed –

resp

onse

so

met

imes

exc

essi

veCo

mpl

aint

s of

pol

ice

brut

ality

in

crea

sed

–so

me

legi

timat

e an

d so

me

with

out m

erit

N

egat

ive

perc

eptio

n of

pol

ice

6

82

Su

prem

e Co

urt e

xpan

ded

due

proc

ess

right

s fo

r ci

tizen

s,

espe

cial

ly u

nder

4th

amen

dmen

tPo

lice

activ

ity c

lose

ly s

crut

iniz

edEm

ploy

men

t con

ditio

ns w

orse

ned

for

polic

e em

ploy

ees

7

83

N

umbe

r of p

olic

e un

ions

exp

ands

an

d st

rikes

by

polic

e oc

cur

in

larg

e ci

ties

Un

ions

won

impr

ovem

ents

in

sala

ries

and

bene

fits

as w

ell a

s pr

otec

tions

in d

isci

plin

ary

proc

ess

M

anag

emen

t for

ced

to b

arga

in

over

term

s &

cond

ition

s of

wor

k

8

84

Sh

ould

n’t a

llega

tions

of p

olic

e m

isco

nduc

t be

inve

stig

ated

bef

ore

disc

iplin

e is

take

n?Sh

ould

n’t a

n of

ficer

hav

e a

right

to

disp

ute

the

fact

ual f

indi

ngs

or to

ex

plai

n hi

s or

her

act

ions

?

9

85

19

74--

Firs

t Sta

te to

ena

ct B

ill o

f Ri

ghts

for p

olic

e of

ficer

s

Co

vers

two

com

pone

nts

of th

e di

scip

linar

y pr

oces

s: (1

) the

con

duct

of

an in

tern

al in

vest

igat

ion

and

(2)

proc

edur

es to

be

follo

wed

bef

ore

an

offic

er m

ay b

e di

scip

lined

as

a re

sult

of a

n in

vest

igat

ion.

10

86

Co

ntem

plat

es th

e ag

ency

rece

ivin

g a

spec

ific

com

plai

ntRe

quiri

ng a

n in

vest

igat

ion

into

the

com

plai

ntAn

d a

due

proc

ess

sche

me

(not

ice

& he

arin

g) b

efor

e an

y pu

nitiv

e ac

tion

may

be

impo

sed

11

87

St

atut

e ha

s be

en a

men

ded

appr

oxim

atel

y 44

tim

es

Som

e ba

sed

on a

ppel

late

cas

e ru

lings

So

me

in r

espo

nse

to r

eque

sts

from

FO

P –

few

er b

ased

on

man

agem

ent r

eque

sts

An

d so

me

chan

ges

wer

e in

adve

rten

tly m

ade

by c

ode

revi

sers

12

88

LE

OBR

is a

n ad

min

istr

ativ

e la

w p

roce

ss -

form

of

civ

il la

w b

ut h

as s

imila

ritie

s to

crim

inal

pr

oced

ure

Re

latin

g to

the

inte

rnal

ope

ratio

n an

d fu

nctio

ns o

f a g

over

nmen

t age

ncy

Co

ncer

ning

the

adm

inis

trat

ion

or

impl

emen

tatio

n of

par

ticul

ar le

gisl

atio

n

13

89

Ju

dici

al-l

ike

in p

roce

dure

but

less

form

al

Th

e ag

ency

is in

terp

retin

g an

d ap

plyi

ng it

s ow

n ru

les

and

regu

latio

ns to

its

empl

oyee

Th

e ag

ency

is c

onsi

dere

d to

be

the

expe

rt in

th

is in

terp

reta

tion

and

its d

ecis

ions

are

“pr

esum

ptiv

ely

corr

ect”

14

90

LE

OBR

rig

hts

do n

ot a

ttac

h in

situ

atio

ns

invo

lvin

g:

G

ood

faith

mis

take

s, la

ck o

f tra

inin

g, in

corr

ect b

ut

reas

onab

le in

terp

reta

tion

of la

w o

r re

gula

tion

In

abili

ty to

per

form

the

esse

ntia

l fun

ctio

ns o

f the

jo

b

Poor

per

form

ance

15

91

3-

101

Def

initi

ons

3-

102

Effe

ct o

f Sub

title

3-

103

Righ

ts G

ener

ally

3-

104

Righ

ts D

urin

g In

vest

igat

ion/

Inte

rrog

atio

n

3-10

5Sh

ow C

ause

App

licat

ion

3-

106

Lim

itatio

ns o

n Ch

arge

s

16

92

3-

107

Hea

ring

by H

earin

g Bo

ard

3-

108

Dis

posi

tion

3-

109

Judi

cial

Rev

iew

3-

110

Expu

ngem

ent

3-

111

Sum

mar

y Pu

nish

men

t

3-11

2Em

erge

ncy

Susp

ensi

on

3-11

3Fa

lse

Stat

emen

t

17

93

D

efin

ition

s

“Law

enf

orce

men

t off

icer

” ide

ntifi

es w

ho is

en

title

d to

the

right

s

Auth

oriz

ed to

mak

e ar

rest

s an

d m

embe

r of

a

liste

d la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

y

Exce

ptio

ns in

clud

e ch

iefs

, spe

cial

ly a

ppoi

nted

of

ficer

s an

d pr

obat

iona

ry o

ffic

ers

(exc

ept i

n ex

cess

ive

forc

e ca

ses)

18

94

Co

nflic

ting

law

s ar

e su

pers

eded

and

loca

l law

is

pre

empt

ed

Au

thor

ity o

f the

chi

ef n

ot li

mite

d –

he/s

he

may

“reg

ulat

e th

e ef

ficie

nt o

pera

tion

and

man

agem

ent o

f a la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

y by

an

y re

ason

able

mea

ns…

”

19

95

M

isce

llane

ous

issu

es:

◦Pr

otec

ts r

ight

to e

ngag

e in

pol

itica

l act

ivity

◦Pe

rmits

age

ncy

to r

easo

nabl

y re

gula

te s

econ

dary

em

ploy

men

t of o

ffic

e rs

◦Pr

ohib

its a

genc

y fr

om r

equi

ring

offic

er to

di

sclo

se fi

nanc

ial i

nfor

mat

ion

◦Pr

ohib

its d

iscr

imin

atio

n ag

ains

t an

offic

er w

ho

has

asse

rted

his

or

her

LEO

BR o

r co

nstit

utio

nal

right

s

20

96

◦Age

ncy

may

not

ado

pt a

ny

regu

latio

ns th

at p

rohi

bit a

n of

ficer

's

right

to b

ring

suit

rela

ted

to th

e of

ficer

’s d

utie

s

◦Off

icer

may

wai

ve in

writ

ing

LEO

BR

right

s

21

97

“T

he in

vest

igat

ion

or in

terr

ogat

ion

by

a la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

y of

a la

w

enfo

rcem

ent o

ffic

er fo

r a

reas

on th

at

may

lead

to d

isci

plin

ary

actio

n,

dem

otio

n, o

r dis

mis

sal s

hall

be

cond

ucte

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

this

se

ctio

n.”

22

98

Sh

all b

e (1

) a s

wor

n la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

offic

er o

r (2

) if r

eque

sted

by

the

Gove

rnor

, the

Att

orne

y Ge

nera

l or t

he

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

’s d

esig

nee

23

99

M

ay n

ot b

e in

vest

igat

ed u

nles

s th

e co

mpl

aint

is s

wor

n to

and

file

d w

ithin

90

days

of t

he a

llege

d br

utal

ity

Bu

t see

Bal

timor

e Ci

ty P

olic

e v.

And

rew

, 318

M

d. 3

(198

9) a

ndM

aryl

and

Stat

e Po

lice

v.

Resh

, 65

Md.

App

. 167

(198

5) A

genc

y no

t ba

rred

from

inve

stig

atin

g ac

t of b

ruta

lity

even

whe

n sw

orn

com

plai

nt n

ot fi

led;

pu

rpos

e of

sec

tion

is to

det

er fr

ivol

ous

com

plai

nts

not r

estr

ict a

genc

y ac

tion.

24

100

Be

fore

an

inte

rrog

atio

n, o

ffic

er s

hall

be

info

rmed

(1) i

n w

ritin

g of

the

natu

re o

f the

in

vest

igat

ion;

(2) o

f the

nam

e, r

ank

and

com

man

d of

the

offic

er in

cha

rge

of th

e in

vest

igat

ion,

the

inte

rrog

atin

g of

ficer

and

ea

ch p

erso

n pr

esen

t dur

ing

an

inte

rrog

atio

n.

25

101

In

terr

ogat

ion

mus

t be

cond

ucte

d at

a

reas

onab

le h

our,

pre

fera

bly

whe

n th

e of

ficer

is

on

duty

, unl

ess

“the

ser

ious

ness

of t

he

inve

stig

atio

n is

of a

deg

ree

that

an

imm

edia

te

inte

rrog

atio

n is

requ

ired.

”

At

the

polic

e un

it w

here

the

inci

dent

alle

gedl

y oc

curr

ed o

r at

ano

ther

rea

sona

ble

and

appr

opria

te p

lace

.

26

102

O

n re

ques

t, of

ficer

und

er in

terr

ogat

ion

has

a rig

ht to

be

repr

esen

ted

by c

ouns

el o

r ot

her

resp

onsi

ble

repr

esen

tativ

e w

ho s

hall

be

pres

ent a

nd a

vaila

ble

for c

onsu

ltatio

n at

all

times

dur

ing

the

inte

rrog

atio

n.

The

inte

rrog

atio

n sh

all b

e su

spen

ded

for n

o m

ore

than

10

days

unt

il re

pres

enta

tion

is

obta

ined

.

27

103

Al

l que

stio

ns a

sked

by

and

thro

ugh

one

inte

rrog

atin

g of

ficer

dur

ing

any

one

sess

ion.

Ea

ch s

essi

on s

hall

be fo

r a r

easo

nabl

e tim

e pe

riod

and

allo

w fo

r pe

rson

al n

eces

sitie

s an

d re

st p

erio

ds a

s re

ason

ably

nec

essa

ry.

O

ffic

er u

nder

inte

rrog

atio

n m

ay n

ot b

e th

reat

ened

with

tran

sfer

, dis

mis

sal o

r di

scip

linar

y ac

tion.

28

104

Co

unse

l may

: (1)

requ

est a

rece

ss a

t an

y tim

e to

con

sult

with

the

offic

er;

(2) o

bjec

t to

any

ques

tion

pose

d; a

nd

(3) s

tate

on

the

reco

rd o

utsi

de th

e pr

esen

ce o

f the

off

icer

the

reas

on fo

r th

e ob

ject

ion.

29

105

A

com

plet

e re

cord

of t

he e

ntire

inte

rrog

atio

n,

incl

udin

g al

l rec

ess

perio

ds, m

ust b

e ke

pt

Re

cord

may

be

“writ

ten,

tape

d or

tran

scrib

ed”

W

hen

inve

stig

atio

n co

mpl

eted

, and

on

requ

est b

y th

e of

ficer

, age

ncy

mus

t giv

e hi

m

a co

py o

f the

rec

ord

of th

e in

terr

ogat

ion

at

leas

t 10

days

bef

ore

a he

arin

g

30

106

Te

sts

and

Exam

inat

ions

: Age

ncy

may

or

der o

ffic

er to

sub

mit

to te

sts,

ex

amin

atio

ns a

nd in

terr

ogat

ions

that

re

late

to th

e su

bjec

t mat

ter

of th

e in

vest

igat

ion

If

offic

er re

fuse

s, a

genc

y m

ay ta

ke

disc

iplin

ary

actio

n

31

107

If

agen

cy o

rder

s of

ficer

to s

ubm

it to

te

sts,

res

ults

of t

ests

, exa

min

atio

ns o

r in

terr

ogat

ions

are

not

dis

cove

rabl

e or

ad

mis

sibl

e in

a c

rimin

al p

roce

edin

g ag

ains

t the

law

enf

orce

men

t off

icer

32

108

Ag

ency

may

ord

er o

ffic

er to

sub

mit

to a

po

lygr

aph

exam

inat

ion,

but

resu

lts a

re n

ot

adm

issi

ble

in a

hea

ring

unle

ss b

oth

part

ies

agre

e to

the

adm

issi

on o

f the

resu

lts.

Ri

ght t

o ha

ve c

ouns

el p

rese

nt a

t pol

ygra

ph o

r to

rev

iew

que

stio

ns b

efor

ehan

d.

Off

icer

ent

itled

to c

opy

of r

epor

t.

33

109

At

leas

t 10

days

bef

ore

a he

arin

g, th

e ag

ency

mus

t pro

vide

to th

e of

ficer

: (1)

the

nam

e of

eac

h w

itnes

s; (2

) eac

h ch

arge

and

sp

ecifi

catio

n ag

ains

t the

off

icer

; (3)

a c

opy

of th

e in

vest

igat

ory

file

and

any

excu

lpat

ory

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

that

the

offic

er a

nd

his

law

yer:

(1) e

xecu

te a

con

fiden

tialit

y ag

reem

ent a

nd (2

) pay

rea

sona

ble

char

ge

for

repr

oduc

ing

the

mat

eria

l.

34

110

Id

entit

y of

con

fiden

tial s

ourc

esN

on-e

xcul

pato

ry in

form

atio

nRe

com

men

datio

ns a

s to

cha

rges

, di

spos

ition

, or

puni

shm

ent

35

111

M

ay n

ot b

e pl

aced

in th

e of

ficer

’s

pers

onne

l file

unl

ess

he h

as a

n op

port

unity

to r

evie

w, s

ign,

rec

eive

a

copy

of a

nd c

omm

ent i

n w

ritin

g on

the

adve

rse

mat

eria

lAd

vers

e m

ater

ial m

ay b

e m

aint

aine

d in

the

inte

rnal

inve

stig

atio

n or

in

telli

genc

e di

visi

on fi

les

36

112

La

w e

nfor

cem

ent o

ffic

er w

ho is

den

ied

a rig

ht g

rant

ed u

nder

this

sub

title

may

ap

ply

to th

e ci

rcui

t cou

rt fo

r an

orde

r th

at d

irect

s th

e ag

ency

to s

how

cau

se

why

the

right

sho

uld

not b

e gr

ante

d.

37

113

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e ch

arge

s m

ust b

e “f

iled”

w

ithin

one

yea

r af

ter

the

act t

hat g

ave

rise

to th

e ch

arge

s “c

omes

to th

e at

tent

ion

of th

e ap

prop

riate

age

ncy

offic

ial.”

Th

e 1

year

lim

itatio

n do

es n

ot a

pply

to

char

ges

that

rel

ate

to c

rimin

al a

ctiv

ity

or e

xces

sive

forc

e

38

114

Al

low

s ag

ency

to k

eep

a lis

t of o

ffic

ers

who

ha

ve c

omm

itted

or

are

alle

ged

to h

ave

com

mitt

ed b

ad a

cts

that

ref

lect

on

cred

ibili

ty

Pr

ohib

its a

genc

y fr

om d

isci

plin

ing

offic

er

sole

ly b

ecau

se h

is o

r he

r nam

e is

on

the

list

Re

quire

s ag

ency

to n

otify

off

icer

that

his

or

her n

ame

is o

n th

e lis

t

39

115

If

inve

stig

atio

n re

sults

in a

rec

omm

enda

tion

of p

uniti

ve a

ctio

n, th

e of

ficer

is e

ntitl

ed to

a

hear

ing

on th

e is

sues

bef

ore

a he

arin

g bo

ard

befo

re th

e ag

ency

take

s th

e ac

tion

Bu

t an

offic

er w

ho h

as b

een

conv

icte

d of

a

felo

ny is

not

ent

itled

to a

hea

ring.

40

116

Ag

ency

mus

t giv

e no

tice

of th

e rig

ht to

a

hear

ing

boar

d an

d th

e tim

e an

d pl

ace

of th

e he

arin

g an

d th

e is

sues

invo

lved

M

embe

rs o

f the

boa

rd a

re a

ppoi

nted

by

the

chie

f –on

e m

embe

r is

the

sam

e ra

nk a

s th

e ac

cuse

d of

ficer

Co

llect

ive

Barg

aini

ng A

gree

men

t can

allo

w fo

r “a

ltern

ativ

e m

etho

d of

form

ing

a he

arin

g bo

ard”

41

117

Al

low

ing

offic

er to

“str

ike”

app

oint

ed

mem

bers

Ag

reei

ng to

a th

ird p

arty

civ

ilian

arb

itrat

or a

s a

mem

ber

of th

e bo

ard

Al

low

ing

unio

n re

pres

enta

tive

to s

elec

t the

pe

er o

ffic

er

Requ

iring

all

boar

d m

embe

rs to

be

from

ot

her

agen

cies

42

118

H

earin

g Bo

ard

chai

r or

chie

f aut

horiz

ed to

is

sue

subp

oena

s to

req

uire

witn

esse

s to

at

tend

hea

ring

and

brin

g do

cum

ents

, etc

.

Each

par

ty m

ust b

e gi

ven

“am

ple

oppo

rtun

ity

to p

rese

nt e

vide

nce

and

argu

men

t abo

ut th

e is

sues

invo

lved

.”

Boar

d au

thor

ized

to a

dmin

iste

r oat

hs

Each

par

ty m

ay b

e re

pres

ente

d by

cou

nsel

43

119

Th

at in

form

atio

n co

mm

only

acc

epte

d by

re

ason

able

and

pru

dent

indi

vidu

als

in th

e co

nduc

t of t

heir

affa

irs is

adm

issi

ble

Bo

ard

mem

bers

may

take

not

ice

of k

now

n fa

cts

and

may

util

ize

thei

r exp

erie

nce,

te

chni

cal c

ompe

tenc

e an

d sp

ecia

lized

kn

owle

dge

to e

valu

ate

the

evid

ence

44

120

Th

e bu

rden

of p

roof

is o

n th

e ag

ency

Th

e st

anda

rd o

f pro

of is

a p

repo

nder

ance

of

the

evid

ence

Th

e st

anda

rds

of e

vide

nce

are

adm

inis

trat

ive

law

, not

crim

inal

law

N

o pr

esum

ptio

ns o

f tru

th a

re m

ade

rega

rdin

g th

e fa

cts

in d

ispu

te, i

nclu

ding

no

pres

umpt

ion

of in

noce

nce

45

121

N

o pr

esum

ptio

ns a

re m

ade

abou

t witn

ess

cred

ibili

ty; f

act-

base

d ev

alua

tion

of th

e w

itnes

ses

and

evid

ence

is re

quire

d

Boar

d sh

ould

app

ly p

rofe

ssio

nal e

xper

tise

and

com

mon

sen

se to

the

fact

s pr

esen

ted

Co

nclu

sion

s m

ust b

e lo

gica

lly d

educ

ed fr

om

the

evid

ence

46

122

H

earin

g bo

ard

deci

sion

mus

t be

in w

ritin

g an

d in

clud

e fin

ding

s of

fact

A

findi

ng o

f not

gui

lty te

rmin

ates

the

actio

n

If

findi

ng o

f gui

lt is

mad

e, b

oard

mus

t ac

cept

add

ition

al e

vide

nce

and

then

mak

e re

com

men

datio

n of

pen

alty

to th

e ch

ief

47

123

W

ithin

30

days

, the

chi

ef m

ust r

evie

w th

e he

arin

g bo

ard

and

issu

e a

final

ord

er

The

pena

lty re

com

men

datio

n is

not

bin

ding

on

the

chie

f

To in

crea

se th

e re

com

men

ded

pena

lty, t

he

chie

f mus

t go

thro

ugh

addi

tiona

l pro

cedu

res,

in

clud

ing

a m

eetin

g w

ith th

e of

ficer

Chie

f not

aut

horiz

ed to

cha

nge

fact

ual

findi

ngs

or v

erdi

cts

48

124

O

ffic

er h

as a

rig

ht to

app

eal t

o ci

rcui

t cou

rt

Appe

al is

“on

the

reco

rd” a

nd a

dmin

istr

ativ

e la

w p

rinci

ples

app

ly

Agen

cy d

ecis

ions

”pre

sum

ed to

be

corr

ect”

–co

urt a

utho

rized

to c

onsi

der e

rror

s of

law

Ei

ther

par

ty m

ay a

ppea

l to

the

Cour

t of

Appe

als

49

125

O

ffic

er m

ay r

eque

st to

hav

e re

cord

s ex

pung

ed a

fter

3 y

ears

if e

xone

rate

d by

the

inve

stig

atio

n or

foun

d no

t gui

lty b

y a

hear

ing

boar

d

Evid

ence

of a

form

al c

ompl

aint

aga

inst

an

offic

er is

not

adm

issi

ble

in a

n ad

min

istr

ativ

e or

judi

cial

pro

ceed

ing

if th

e of

ficer

was

ex

oner

ated

or

foun

d no

t gui

lty

50

126

Su

mm

ary

puni

shm

ent m

ay b

e im

pose

d:◦

For m

inor

vio

latio

ns◦

The

fact

s ar

e no

t dis

pute

d by

the

offic

er◦

The

offic

er w

aive

s rig

ht to

a h

earin

g◦

The

offic

er a

ccep

ts th

e pu

nish

men

t◦

Puni

shm

ent d

oes

not e

xcee

d a

3 da

y su

spen

sion

w

it ho u

t pa y

or $

150

fine

51

127

Al

low

s th

e ch

ief t

o im

pose

an

“em

erge

ncy

susp

ensi

on” w

hen

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f the

pu

blic

and

the

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncy

Su

spen

sion

mus

t be

with

pay

Ch

ief m

ay a

lso

susp

end

the

“pol

ice

pow

ers”

of

the

offic

er a

nd a

ssig

n hi

m/h

er to

ad

min

istr

ativ

e du

ties

inst

ead

Su

spen

sion

may

con

tinue

unt

il m

atte

r is

re

solv

ed

52

128

If

an o

ffic

er is

cha

rged

with

a fe

lony

, the

chi

ef

may

impo

se a

n “e

mer

genc

y su

spen

sion

of

polic

e po

wer

s” w

ithou

t pay

In

eith

er c

ase,

(pai

d or

unp

aid)

the

offic

er is

en

title

d to

a “p

rom

pt h

earin

g”

53

129

A

pers

on m

ay n

ot k

now

ingl

y m

ake

a fa

lse

stat

emen

t, re

port

, or

com

plai

nt d

urin

g an

LE

OBR

inve

stig

atio

n or

pro

ceed

ing.

A

pers

on w

ho v

iola

tes

this

sec

tion

is s

ubje

ct

to th

e pe

nalti

es o

f the

Crim

inal

Law

Art

icle

.

54

130

131

5t

ham

endm

ent t

o th

e U.

S. C

onst

itutio

n pr

ovid

es to

all

citiz

ens

the

right

aga

inst

sel

f-in

crim

inat

ion,

als

o re

ferr

ed to

as

the

right

to

rem

ain

sile

nt

The

right

app

lies

in c

rimin

al in

vest

igat

ions

an

d pr

osec

utio

ns

Gov

ernm

ent e

mpl

oyee

s do

not

giv

e up

this

rig

ht b

y vi

rtue

of t

heir

empl

oym

ent (

Garr

ityca

se)

56

132

If

the

gove

rnm

ent e

mpl

oyer

/law

enf

orce

men

t ag

ency

com

pels

an

empl

oyee

to a

nsw

er

incr

imin

atin

g qu

estio

ns, t

hose

sta

tem

ents

ca

nnot

be

used

aga

inst

the

empl

oyee

in a

cr

imin

al p

rose

cutio

n (“u

se” i

mm

unity

)

Com

puls

ion

may

eve

n re

sult

in im

mun

ity

from

pro

secu

tion

alto

geth

er (“

tran

sact

iona

l” im

mun

ity)

Ga

rrity

and

sec

tion

3-10

4 (l)

57

133

5t

ham

endm

ent r

ight

to c

ouns

el w

hen

a pe

rson

is in

cus

tody

and

bei

ng s

ubje

cted

to

ques

tioni

ng re

late

d to

a c

rimin

al in

vest

igat

ion

If

pers

on re

ques

ts c

ouns

el, i

nter

roga

tion

mus

t cea

se u

ntil

coun

sel i

s o

btai

ned

6t

ham

endm

ent –

whe

n “f

orm

al c

rimin

al

proc

eedi

ngs”

hav

e co

mm

ence

d ag

ains

t the

pe

rson

58

134

O

n re

ques

t, of

ficer

und

er in

vest

igat

ion

has

a rig

ht to

hav

e co

unse

l pre

sent

at a

n in

terr

ogat

ion

An

inte

rrog

atio

n m

ay b

e su

spen

ded

for u

p to

10

day

s to

get

a la

wye

r, if

nee

ded

La

w e

nfor

cem

ent o

ffic

er m

ay b

e re

pres

ente

d by

cou

nsel

at a

hea

ring

befo

re a

hea

ring

boar

d

59

135

136

Appendix 4. GOCCP

137

138

An

over

view

of R

ace

Bas

ed T

raffi

c St

op, S

WAT

D

eplo

ymen

t, EC

D D

isch

arge

, and

Dea

ths I

nvol

ving

a

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Offi

cer d

ata

colle

ctio

n in

M

aryl

and

Gov

erno

r's O

ffice

of C

rime

Con

trol &

Pre

vent

ion

Sept

embe

r 22,

201

5

Publ

ic S

afet

y&

Pol

icin

g W

orkg

roup

Pre

sent

atio

n

139

In

2001

,th

eM

aryl

and

Gen

eral

Ass

embl

ypa

ssed

Chs

.34

2an

d34

3w

hich

requ

ired

data

colle

ctio

non

ever

yla

wel

igib

letra

ffic

stop

inM

aryl

and.

In

2011

,the

Mar

ylan

dG

ener

alA

ssem

bly

pass

edSB

14w

hich

rein

stat

edth

isda

taco

llect

ion

proc

ess.

In

Aug

ust

2011

,G

OC

CP

prov

ided

fund

ing

toM

SPto

crea

tea

mod

ifica

tion

ofth

eE-

TIX

(Ele

ctro

nic

Traf

ficIn

form

atio

nEx

chan

ge)i

nter

face

,whi

chin

clud

esa

repo

rting

entry

data

base

that

allo

ws

for

all

law

enfo

rcem

ent

agen

cies

tosu

bmit

traff

icst

opre

cord

sel

ectro

nica

llyth

roug

hM

SP,w

hosu

bmits

alll

awen

forc

emen

tdat

ato

MSA

Cby

Mar

ch1st

each

year

.

C

hapt

er12

7of

2015

rein

stat

edth

isda

taco

llect

ion

proc

essf

oran

addi

tiona

lfiv

eye

ars.

Tr

affic

stop

sex

clud

edfr

omda

taco

llect

ion

incl

ude

traff

icst

ops

that

resu

ltfr

omch

eckp

oint

sor

road

bloc

ks,

stop

sof

mul

tiple

vehi

cles

afte

ran

acci

dent

orem

erge

ncy,

the

use

ofra

dar,

lase

r,va

scar

tech

nolo

gy,a

ndlic

ense

plat

ere

ader

s.

M

SAC

subm

itsa

repo

rtto

the

Gov

erno

r,th

eG

ener

alA

ssem

bly,

and

each

law

enfo

rcem

ent

agen

cyon

the

data

findi

ngsb

ySe

ptem

ber1

stea

chye

ar.

140

D

emog

raph

icin

form

atio

non

the

driv

er;

A

genc

yth

atm

ade

the

stop

;

D

ate

(Mon

th)o

fthe

stop

;

Ti

me

ofda

yth

est

opoc

curr

ed;

Le

ngth

ofst

op;

Ve

hicl

ere

gist

ratio

nin

form

atio

n;

C

ount

yof

resi

denc

e;

R

easo

nfo

rthe

stop

;

R

easo

nfo

rthe

sear

ch,i

fone

was

cond

ucte

d;

Ty

peof

sear

ch;

O

utco

me

ofth

ese

arch

;

O

vera

llou

tcom

eof

the

traffi

cst

op.

141

63

% m

ale

B

ig 5

cou

ntie

s acc

ount

ed fo

r 2/3

of t

he tr

affic

stop

s in

the

stat

e

N

early

80%

of t

he d

river

s wer

e M

aryl

and

Res

iden

ts

M

ost c

omm

on s

top

reas

ons:

equi

pmen

t vio

latio

nsre

gist

ratio

ntra

ffic

sign

s, si

gnal

s, an

d m

arki

ngs

spee

ding

2.5%

39.5

%

6.5%

2.9%

47.2

%

1.4%

Rac

e/E

thni

city

of D

rive

r in

Tra

ffic

Sto

ps

Asi

an

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

His

pani

c

Oth

er

Whi

te

Unk

now

n

22.0

% 35.7

%

42.4

%

Tim

e of

Tra

ffic

Sto

p (2

4 hr

s)

0000

-080

008

00-1

600

1600

-240

0

76.0

%

16.0

%

4.0%

3.0%

1.0%

Len

gth

of T

raff

ic S

top

0-5

Min

utes

6-10

Min

utes

10-1

5 M

inut

es15

-30

Min

utes

30 M

inut

es o

r mor

e

142

3.

9% o

f mal

es a

nd 1

.8%

of f

emal

es w

ere

sear

ched

M

ales

Fem

ales

2.

3%

Asi

an0.

9%

Asi

an4.

6%

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1.7%

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

5.1%

H

ispa

nic

1.6%

H

ispa

nic

2.2%

O

ther

1.

2%

Oth

er3.

3%

Cau

casi

an1.

9%

Cau

casi

an

M

ost c

omm

on s

earc

h re

ason

s wer

e in

cide

nt to

arr

est,

prob

able

cau

se, a

nd th

e dr

iver

giv

ing

cons

ent

W

hen

a se

arch

was

con

duct

ed 4

.1%

of m

ales

and

4.2

% o

f fem

ales

had

an

item

(s) c

onfis

cate

d by

law

enf

orce

men

t (c

ontra

band

, pr

oper

ty, o

r bot

h)M

ales

Fem

ales

2.

8%

Asi

an1.

6%

Asi

an4.

5%

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

3.5%

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

1.8%

H

ispa

nic

1.6%

H

ispa

nic

2.3%

O

ther

5.

5%

Oth

er5.

6%

Cau

casi

an4.

8%

Cau

casi

an

Th

e tra

ffic

stop

out

com

es a

re sh

own

belo

w b

y ra

ce:

War

ning

Cita

tion

Rep

air O

rder

Arr

est

54.2

% A

sian

33.3

%

Asi

an11

.0%

A

sian

1.4%

A

sian

50.9

% A

fric

an A

mer

ican

3

6.4%

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

10

.5%

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

2.

3%

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an39

.3%

H

ispa

nic

45.8

%

His

pani

c 11

.7%

H

ispa

nic

3.3%

H

ispa

nic

52.6

%

Oth

er

36.5

%

Oth

er

10.0

%

Oth

er

1.0%

O

ther

54.2

%

Cau

casi

an33

.7%

C

auca

sian

10

.2%

C

auca

sian

1.9%

C

auca

sian

143

2013

Rac

e B

ased

Tra

ffic

Sto

p D

ata A

naly

sis

http

://go

ccp.

mar

ylan

d.go

v/m

sac/

docu

men

ts/T

SDR

epor

t201

4.pd

f

144

http://goccp.maryland.gov/msac/documents/TSDReport2014.pdf

In

2009

,the

Mar

ylan

dG

ener

alA

ssem

bly

pass

edSe

nate

Bill

447/

Hou

seB

ill12

67.T

his

law

requ

ires

law

enfo

rcem

ent

agen

cies

that

mai

ntai

ned

aSW

ATTe

amas

apa

rtof

itsre

gula

rde

ploy

men

tan

dop

erat

ion,

tore

port

spec

ific

activ

atio

nan

dde

ploy

men

tin

form

atio

nto

MSA

C.

A

SWAT

Team

isde

fined

asa

spec

ialu

nitc

ompo

sed

oftw

oor

mor

ela

wen

forc

emen

toff

icer

sw

ithin

ala

wen

forc

emen

tag

ency

train

edto

deal

with

unus

ually

dang

erou

sor

viol

ent

situ

atio

nsan

dha

ving

spec

iale

quip

men

tand

wea

pons

,suc

has

rifle

sm

ore

pow

erfu

ltha

nth

ose

carr

ied

byre

gula

rpol

ice

offic

ers.

M

SAC

and

the

Polic

ean

dC

orre

ctio

nal

Trai

ning

Com

mis

sion

s(P

CTC

)w

orke

dw

ithla

wen

forc

emen

tan

dle

gal

repr

esen

tativ

esto

deve

lop

ast

anda

rdiz

ed,

effic

ient

,us

er-f

riend

lyfo

rmat

tore

cord

and

repo

rtda

tare

quire

dun

dert

hisl

aw.

La

wen

forc

emen

tage

ncie

ssu

bmitt

edan

exce

lspr

eads

heet

toM

SAC

byJa

nuar

y15

than

dJu

ly15

thof

each

year

.

M

SAC

subm

itted

are

port

onth

efin

ding

sto

the

Gov

erno

r,th

eG

ener

alA

ssem

bly,

and

each

law

enfo

rcem

enta

genc

ySe

ptem

ber1

stea

chye

ar.

Th

isla

wsu

nset

ted

onJu

ne30

,201

4.

145

Th

enu

mbe

roft

imes

the

SWAT

Team

was

activ

ated

and

depl

oyed

;

Th

elo

catio

nw

here

the

SWAT

Team

was

depl

oyed

(e.g

.,zi

pco

de);

Th

ele

gal

auth

ority

for

each

activ

atio

nan

dde

ploy

men

t(i.

e.,

Arr

est

War

rant

,Se

arch

War

rant

,Bar

ricad

e,Ex

igen

tCirc

umst

ance

s,or

Oth

er);

Th

ere

ason

for

each

activ

atio

nan

dde

ploy

men

t(i.

e.,

Part

IC

rime,

Part

IIC

rime,

Emer

genc

yPe

titio

n,Su

icid

al,o

rOth

er);

W

heth

erfo

rcib

leen

tryw

asus

ed;

W

heth

erpr

oper

tyor

cont

raba

ndw

asse

ized

;

W

heth

era

wea

pon

was

disc

harg

edby

aSW

ATTe

amm

embe

r;

Th

enu

mbe

rofa

rres

tsm

ade;

W

heth

eran

ype

rson

ordo

mes

tican

imal

was

inju

red

orki

lled

bya

SWAT

Team

mem

ber;

W

heth

erth

ere

wer

ean

yin

jurie

sofa

SWAT

Offi

cer.

146

R

ough

ly 1

,600

SW

AT d

eplo

ymen

ts o

ccur

red

each

yea

r fro

m 3

5-40

pol

ice

agen

cies

.

SW

AT d

eplo

ymen

ts in

Mar

ylan

d w

ere

activ

ated

and

initi

ated

, alm

ost e

xclu

sive

ly

(90-

93%

) in

conj

unct

ion

with

the

exec

utio

n of

a se

arch

war

rant

sign

ed b

y a

judg

e.

Th

ese

sear

ch w

arra

nts a

lmos

t una

nim

ousl

y (9

5-98

%) w

ere

initi

ated

as a

resp

onse

to

a Pa

rt I F

elon

y C

rime

or a

Par

t II C

rime

drug

inve

stig

atio

n.

2/

3 of

SW

AT d

eplo

ymen

ts in

volv

ed fo

rcib

le e

ntry

.

80

-87%

invo

lved

the

seiz

ure

of il

lega

l pro

perty

or c

ontra

band

.

A

t lea

st o

ne a

rres

t was

mad

e in

2/3

of a

ll de

ploy

men

ts.

A

dis

char

ged

wea

pon

or in

jury

of a

per

son

by a

SW

AT te

am o

ffice

r occ

urre

d in

less

th

an 2

% o

f all

depl

oym

ents

.

A

n in

jury

or d

eath

of a

dom

estic

ani

mal

and

the

deat

h of

a p

erso

n by

a S

WAT

Tea

m

mem

ber d

urin

g a

depl

oym

ent a

lso

occu

rred

in le

ss th

an 2

% o

f tot

al d

eplo

ymen

ts.

147

SWAT

Dep

loym

ent D

ata

FY 2

010

FY 2

011

FY 2

012

FY 2

013

FY 2

014

Tota

l SW

AT D

eplo

ymen

ts1,

618

1,64

11,

651

1,65

01,

689

Age

ncie

s th

at R

epor

ted

at le

ast 1

Dep

loym

ent

3936

3738

35

Lega

l Aut

horit

y w

as a

Sea

rch

War

rant

91

.8%

90.3

%89

.5%

90.5

%93

.1%

Rea

son

for D

eplo

ymen

t was

a P

art I

or P

art I

I Crim

e95

.1%

96.9

%96

.0%

96.4

%98

.2%

Forc

ible

Ent

ry w

as U

sed

69.1

%68

.1%

65.8

%68

.2%

70.6

%

Prop

erty

or C

ontra

band

was

Sei

zed

81.5

%83

.3%

85.0

%84

.9%

87.1

%

At l

east

1 A

rres

t was

Mad

e63

.4%

62.8

%66

.0%

65.2

%60

.3%

A fi

rear

m w

as d

isch

arge

d11

1022

2135

An

Ani

mal

was

Inju

red

32

12

2

An

Ani

mal

was

Kill

ed3

22

25

A p

erso

n w

as In

jure

d16

1320

2323

A p

erso

n w

as K

illed

11

02

5

A S

WAT

Offi

cer w

as In

jure

dN

ot R

epor

ted

Not

Rep

orte

d10

911

148

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

014

SW

AT T

eam

Dep

loym

ent D

ata A

naly

sis

http

://go

ccp.

mar

ylan

d.go

v/m

sac/

docu

men

ts/S

WAT

Rep

ortF

Y20

14.p

df

149

http://goccp.maryland.gov/msac/documents/SWATReportFY2014.pdf

In

2011

,the

Mar

ylan

dG

ener

alA

ssem

bly

pass

edSe

nate

Bill

652/

Hou

seB

ill50

7.Th

isla

wre

quire

sla

wen

forc

emen

tage

ncie

sth

atis

sue

Elec

troni

cC

ontro

lDev

ices

(EC

Ds)

,al

sokn

own

asta

sers

,to

repo

rtce

rtain

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

gth

eus

eof

thos

ede

vice

sto

MSA

C.

A

nEl

ectro

nic

Con

trolD

evic

eis

defin

edas

apo

rtabl

ede

vice

desi

gned

asa

wea

pon

capa

ble

ofin

jurin

g,im

mob

ilizi

ng,

orin

flict

ing

pain

onan

indi

vidu

alby

the

disc

harg

eof

anel

ectri

calc

urre

nt.

M

SAC

and

the

Polic

ean

dC

orre

ctio

nalT

rain

ing

Com

mis

sion

s(PC

TC)w

orke

dw

ithla

wen

forc

emen

tand

lega

lrep

rese

ntat

ives

tode

velo

pa

stan

dard

ized

,effi

cien

t,us

er-

frie

ndly

form

atto

reco

rdan

dre

port

data

requ

ired

unde

rthi

slaw

.

La

wen

forc

emen

tage

ncie

ssu

bmit

anex

cels

prea

dshe

etto

MSA

Cby

Mar

ch31

stof

each

year

.

M

SAC

subm

itsa

repo

rtto

the

Gov

erno

r,th

eG

ener

alA

ssem

bly,

and

each

law

enfo

rcem

enta

genc

yon

the

findi

ngsb

ySe

ptem

ber1

stea

chye

ar.

150

Th

enu

mbe

roft

imes

anEC

Dw

asdi

scha

rged

byth

eag

ency

inth

epa

stye

ar;

Th

etim

e,da

te,a

ndlo

catio

n(z

ipco

de)o

fthe

disc

harg

e;

Th

ety

peof

inci

dent

(e.g

.non

-crim

inal

,crim

inal

,ort

raffi

cst

op)i

nw

hich

the

pers

onag

ains

tw

hom

the

ECD

was

disc

harg

edw

asin

volv

edpr

ior

toth

edi

scha

rge;

Th

ere

ason

for

each

disc

harg

e(e

.g.n

on-th

reat

enin

gno

n-co

mpl

ianc

e,th

reat

offo

rce,

and

use

offo

rce)

;

Th

ety

peof

mod

eus

ed(e

.g.p

robe

,driv

est

un,o

rbot

h);

Th

epo

into

fim

pact

ofea

chdi

scha

rge

(e.g

.,ar

m,b

ack

tors

o,bu

ttock

s,fr

ont

tors

o,gr

oin/

hip,

head

,leg

,nec

k,si

de,c

loth

ing,

orm

iss)

;

151

Th

enu

mbe

rof

ECD

cycl

es,

the

dura

tion

ofea

chcy

cle,

and

the

dura

tion

betw

een

cycl

esof

the

disc

harg

e;

Th

era

ce,g

ende

r,an

dag

e,of

each

pers

onag

ains

twho

mth

eEC

Dw

asdi

scha

rged

;

Th

ety

peof

wea

pon

(e.g

.,fir

earm

,edg

ed,b

lunt

forc

e,or

othe

r),i

fany

,po

sses

sed

byth

epe

rson

agai

nstw

hom

the

ECD

was

disc

harg

ed,a

ndth

eth

reat

ofan

yw

eapo

n;

A

nyin

jury

orde

ath

resu

lting

from

the

disc

harg

eot

her

than

punc

ture

sor

lace

ratio

nsca

used

byth

eEC

Dco

ntac

tor

the

rem

oval

ofEC

Dpr

obes

;

Th

ety

peof

med

ical

care

,ifa

ny,p

rovi

ded

toth

epe

rson

agai

nstw

hom

the

ECD

was

disc

harg

ed,

othe

rth

anth

etre

atm

ent

for

punc

ture

sor

lace

ratio

nsca

used

byth

eEC

Dco

ntac

tort

here

mov

alof

ECD

prob

es.

152

92

law

enfo

rcem

enta

genc

iesi

nM

aryl

and

use

Tase

rs.

EC

Ddi

scha

rges

are

mos

tlik

ely

tooc

curi

nde

nsel

ypo

pula

ted

area

sdu

ring

the

even

ing

hour

s(4

:00p

m–

12:0

0am

shift

).

Th

em

ajor

ityof

disc

harg

esoc

curd

urin

gla

wen

forc

emen

t’sin

itial

resp

onse

toa

crim

inal

inci

dent

and

whe

na

pers

onfa

iled

toco

mpl

yw

ithla

wen

forc

emen

toffi

cero

rder

s.

Pr

obe

mod

ew

asm

ostc

omm

only

used

durin

gan

ECD

disc

harg

ein

whi

cha

pers

on’s

cent

erm

ass

(i.e.

,fr

onta

ndba

ckto

rso)

was

the

mos

tfre

quen

tapo

into

fim

pact

.The

rew

ere

very

few

ECD

disc

harg

esth

atm

ade

cont

actw

ithm

ore

sens

itive

area

soft

hebo

dy(i.

e.,h

ead,

neck

,and

groi

n).

O

nav

erag

e,an

ECD

disc

harg

ein

cide

nton

lyin

volv

edon

efiv

ese

cond

cycl

e;ho

wev

er,i

fm

ore

than

one

cycl

edi

doc

cur,

the

pers

onw

asgi

ven

appr

oxim

atel

y5-

7se

cond

s(o

nav

erag

e)to

reco

ver

befo

rean

othe

rele

ctric

alcu

rren

tmad

eco

ntac

t.

Pe

rson

sw

how

ere

tase

dpo

sses

sed

aw

eapo

nab

out2

0%of

the

time

and

show

eda

thre

atof

aw

eapo

nab

out1

0%of

the

time.

2

deat

hsre

sulte

dfr

oman

ECD

disc

harg

esi

nce

2012

.

In

jurie

sres

ultin

gfr

oma

tase

rdis

char

geoc

curr

edin

roug

hly

25%

ofth

ein

cide

nts.

A

ppro

xim

atel

y60

%of

the

indi

vidu

als

who

wer

eta

sed

rece

ived

addi

tiona

lm

edic

alca

re,

mai

nly

hosp

italc

are.

153

EC

D D

isch

arge

Dat

a20

1220

1320

14To

tal E

CD

Dis

char

ges

1,06

892

897

7A

genc

ies

that

Rep

orte

d at

leas

t one

EC

D d

isch

arge

6556

574:

00 p

m -

12:0

0 am

shift

48.1

%44

.4%

45.1

%EC

D D

isch

arge

s on

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

62.0

%60

.8%

68.9

%EC

D D

isch

arge

s on

Cau

casi

ans

33.3

%32

.5%

26.0

%EC

D D

isch

arge

s on

Mal

es93

.5%

93.4

%93

.1%

ECD

Dis

char

ges

on P

erso

ns a

ges

18-4

481

.6%

80.5

%79

.9%

Res

pons

e to

a C

rimin

al In

cide

nt71

.6%

77.7

%78

.8%

Subj

ectw

as N

onth

reat

enin

g an

d N

onco

mpl

iant

56.7

%54

.9%

64.7

%Su

bjec

t use

dFo

rce

or T

hrea

tene

dto

use

For

ce43

.3%

45.1

%35

.3%

Prob

e M

ode

74.7

%73

.5%

79.1

%C

ente

r Mas

s Poi

nt o

f Im

pact

71.9

%68

.8%

66.4

%M

edia

n N

umbe

r of c

ycle

s1

11

Med

ian

Dur

atio

n of

Cyc

le5

seco

nds

5 se

cond

s5

seco

nds

Med

ian

Dur

atio

n be

twee

n M

ultip

le E

CD

cyc

les

7 se

cond

s6

seco

nds

4 se

cond

sW

eapo

n Po

sses

sed

by th

e Su

bjec

t21

.7%

21.2

%16

.1%

Thre

at o

f Wea

pon

5.7%

20.1

%9.

4%In

jurie

s re

sulti

ng fr

om a

n EC

D d

isch

arge

24.3

%19

.8%

33.6

%So

me

type

of m

edic

al c

are

rece

ived

54.9

%57

.7%

65.4

%

Dea

ths r

esul

ting

from

an

ECD

Dis

char

ge0

11

154

2014

Ele

ctro

nic

Con

trol D

evic

e (E

CD

) Dis

char

ges A

naly

sis

http

://w

ww.

gocc

p.m

aryl

and.

gov/

msa

c/do

cum

ents

/EC

D_D

ata_

Rep

ort_

2015

.pdf

155

http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/msac/documents/ECD_Data_Report_2015.pdf

May

12,

201

5G

over

nor H

ogan

sign

ed H

ouse

Bill

954

, “D

eath

s In

volv

ing

a La

w E

nfor

cem

ent O

ffice

r.”

For t

he fi

rst t

ime

in M

aryl

and,

a le

gal m

echa

nism

is n

ow in

pla

ce

for c

aptu

ring

and

repo

rting

to th

e pu

blic

eac

h tim

e a

citiz

en d

ies

durin

g a

polic

e en

coun

ter,

or a

law

enf

orce

men

t offi

cer d

ies i

n th

e lin

e of

dut

y. Dea

thsI

nvol

ving

a L

aw

Enf

orce

men

t Off

icer

156

2010

–20

13Th

e M

aryl

and

Stat

istic

al A

naly

sis C

ente

r (M

SAC

) at G

OC

CP

was

th

e St

ate

Rep

ortin

g C

oord

inat

or a

nd d

ata

repo

sito

ry fo

r the

fede

ral

Arr

est R

elat

ed D

eath

s (A

RD

) pro

gram

.

2014

The

prog

ram

end

ed (a

lthou

gh M

SAC

con

tinue

d to

col

lect

the

data

) du

e to

legi

slat

ive

suns

et, b

ut re

cent

ly p

asse

d fe

dera

l leg

isla

tion

unde

r the

Dea

ths i

n C

usto

dy R

epor

ting

Act

will

hav

e G

OC

CP

assu

min

g th

e St

ate

Rep

ortin

g C

oord

inat

or ro

le o

nce

agai

n fo

r the

fe

dera

l pro

gram

.

Dea

thsI

nvol

ving

a L

aw

Enf

orce

men

t Off

icer

157

Def

ined

by

HB

954

The

deat

h of

an

indi

vidu

al re

sulti

ng d

irect

ly fr

om a

n ac

t or

omis

sion

of a

law

enf

orce

men

t offi

cer,

whi

le th

e of

ficer

is o

n du

ty

or w

hile

the

offic

er is

off

duty

, but

per

form

ing

activ

ities

that

are

w

ithin

the

scop

e of

the

offic

er’s

offi

cial

dut

ies.

Wha

t is a

n “O

ffic

er-in

volv

ed d

eath

?”

158

Incl

udes

indi

vidu

als w

ho d

ie a

s the

resu

lt of

:

H

omic

ide

(by

L.E.

)

Acc

iden

tal i

njur

y re

sulti

ng in

dea

th

Nat

ural

cau

ses

Su

icid

e

Med

ical

Con

ditio

n / i

llnes

s

Ove

rdos

e / I

ntox

icat

ion

The

Offi

ce o

f the

Chi

ef M

edic

al E

xam

iner

(OC

ME)

det

erm

ines

th

e ca

use

of d

eath

.

Wha

t is a

n “O

ffic

er-in

volv

ed d

eath

?”

159

A

ge,g

ende

r,et

hnic

ity,a

ndra

ceof

the

dece

ased

;

A

ge,g

ende

r,et

hnic

ity,a

ndra

ceof

the

offic

erin

volv

ed;

A

brie

fdes

crip

tion

onth

eci

rcum

stan

cess

urro

undi

ngth

ede

ath;

D

ate,

time,

and

loca

tion

ofth

ede

ath;

Th

ela

wen

forc

emen

tage

ncy

ofth

eof

ficer

who

:

1.D

ied;

OR

2.D

etai

ned,

arre

sted

,orw

asin

the

proc

esso

farr

estin

gth

ede

ceas

ed.

160

Dat

a fr

om 2

010

-201

4

Cau

se o

f D

eath

->H

omic

ide

by L

aw

Enf

orce

men

t*A

ccid

enta

l In

jury

to S

elf

Suic

ide

Med

ical

C

ondi

tion

orIl

lnes

s

Ove

rdos

eor

Into

xica

tion

Nat

ural

C

ause

sPe

ndin

gU

nkno

wn

orU

ndet

erm

ined

Tot

al

2010

81

73

221

2011

184

82

32

2012

265

73

41

2013

196

21

12

31

2014

173

23

227

Tota

l88

1926

47

15

215

2

* O

CM

E do

es n

ot m

ake

a de

term

inat

ion

on ju

stifi

catio

n

161

3 ye

ar h

isto

ry L

egis

lativ

e R

epor

tD

ata

perio

d co

vere

d:

Janu

ary

1, 2

012

–Ju

ne 3

0, 2

015

Dat

a su

bmis

sion

due

to M

SAC

: La

w E

nfor

cem

ent s

ubm

issi

on re

quire

d by

8/1

5/16

Legi

slat

ive

Rep

ort D

ue:

Oct

ober

15,

201

6D

ata

Sour

ce:

Rep

orte

d by

law

enf

orce

men

t to

MSA

CSu

nset

: N

/AN

otes

:Th

is is

a 1

tim

e re

port

due

10/1

5/16

Ann

ual

Legi

slat

ive

Rep

orts

Dat

a pe

riod

cove

red:

Ja

nuar

y 1

–D

ecem

ber 3

1 (f

irst r

epor

t cov

ers J

uly

1 –

Dec

embe

r 31,

201

5)D

ata

subm

issi

on d

ue to

MSA

C:

Law

Enf

orce

men

t sub

mis

sion

requ

ired

by M

arch

1Le

gisl

ativ

e R

epor

t Due

:Ju

ne 3

0D

ata

Sour

ce:

Rep

orte

d by

law

enf

orce

men

t to

MSA

CSu

nset

: N

one

Not

es:

Firs

t rep

ort d

ue 6

/30/

16. L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent s

tarte

d co

llect

ing

data

on

7/1/

15.

162

Don

Hog

an

Dire

ctor

of L

egis

latio

n do

nald

.hog

an@

mar

ylan

d.go

v41

0-82

1-28

55

Gre

g C

oste

rM

SAC

Dire

ctor

greg

ory.

cost

er@

mar

ylan

d.go

v41

0-82

1-28

59

Jeffr

ey Z

ubac

kR

esea

rch

Chi

efje

ffey.

zuba

ck@

mar

ylan

d.go

v41

0-82

1-28

43

163




Que

stio

ns?

164

Appendix 5. Maryland Office of the Attorney General

165

166

167

Endi

ng D

iscr

imin

ator

y Pr

ofili

ng

Pre

sent

ed b

y:Z

enit

a W

ickh

am H

urle

y, C

ouns

el fo

r C

ivil

Rig

ht a

nd

Leg

isla

tive

Affa

irs

Tiff

any

Har

vey,

Dep

uty

Cou

nsel

for

Civ

il R

ight

s an

d L

egis

lati

ve A

ffair

s

168

Purp

ose

of th

e G

uida

nce

•P

rovi

des

stat

ewid

e un

iform

gui

danc

e on

whe

n po

lice

may

con

side

r ra

ce, e

thni

city

, nat

iona

l or

igin

, gen

der,

gend

er id

enti

ty, s

exua

l or

ient

atio

n, d

isab

ility

or

relig

ion

in la

w

enfo

rcem

ent

acti

vity

•

Res

pons

ive

to t

he c

all f

rom

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Dep

artm

ent

of J

usti

ce•

Aim

s to

hea

l com

mun

itie

s an

d re

stor

e tr

ust

•D

emon

stra

tes

Mar

ylan

d’s

com

mit

men

t to

eq

ualit

y un

der

the

law

169

Wha

t doe

s it d

o?•

Cre

ates

neu

tral

ity

in la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

acti

viti

es U

NL

ESS

spe

cific

cha

ract

eris

tics

are

ne

cess

ary

in t

he in

vest

igat

ion

of a

cri

me.

•C

reat

es tw

o di

stin

ct s

tand

ards

in p

olic

ing:

–R

outi

ne la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

acti

vity

–In

vest

igat

ive

law

enf

orce

men

t ac

tivi

ty

170

Rou

tine

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Act

ivity

•E

xam

ple

1: A

n of

ficer

con

duct

ing

a tr

affic

st

ops

alon

g a

bus

y in

ters

tate

bel

ieve

s th

at

peop

le o

f a

cert

ain

ethn

icit

y ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

invo

lved

in t

he t

rans

port

atio

n of

ille

gal

narc

otic

s. B

ased

on

that

ass

umpt

ion,

she

fo

cuse

s on

dri

vers

of

that

eth

nici

ty, a

nd w

hen

she

wit

ness

es a

tra

ffic

viol

atio

n, s

tops

the

vehi

cle.

•

Impr

oper

.

171

Rou

tine

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Act

ivity

•E

xam

ple

2: O

ffice

rs d

evel

op a

“dr

ug c

ouri

er

prof

ile”

that

focu

ses

on th

e am

ount

and

typ

e of

lugg

age

a tr

avel

er is

car

ryin

g, h

ow th

e tr

avel

er p

aid

for

his

or h

er ti

cket

, and

whe

n th

e tr

avel

er a

rriv

es a

t th

e ai

rpor

t. T

he

offic

ers

then

que

stio

n pe

ople

at

BW

I ai

rpor

t ba

sed

upon

this

pro

file.

•

Perm

issi

ble.

172

Rou

tine

Law

Enf

orce

men

t Act

ivity

•E

xam

ple

3-L

ocal

law

enf

orce

men

t offi

cers

se

lect

ivel

y ap

proa

ch in

divi

dual

s fo

r in

terv

iew

s an

d in

vest

igat

e th

eir

imm

igra

tion

sta

tus

sole

ly

base

d up

on h

ow w

ell t

hey

appe

ar to

spe

ak

Eng

lish.

•Im

prop

er.

173

Inve

stig

ativ

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Act

ivity

Spec

ific

Offe

nse

•E

xam

ple

1-A

con

fiden

tial

info

rman

t wit

h a

hist

ory

of p

rovi

ding

tru

thfu

l inf

orm

atio

n te

lls

polic

e th

at a

n in

divi

dual

of

a ce

rtai

n na

tion

alit

y w

ill b

e de

liver

ing

narc

otic

s to

a

part

icul

ar p

lace

at

a pa

rtic

ular

tim

e.

•Pe

rmis

sibl

e.

174

Inve

stig

ativ

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Act

ivity

Spec

ific

Offe

nse

•E

xam

ple

2-A

wom

an fl

ags

dow

n a

polic

e of

ficer

and

rep

orts

that

she

was

rob

bed

by a

ta

ll m

an in

his

20’

s of

a p

arti

cula

r ra

ce.

Bas

ed

on t

his

repo

rt, f

or th

e ne

xt 2

4 ho

urs,

law

en

forc

emen

t offi

cers

det

ain

and

ques

tion

eve

ry

man

of

that

rac

e w

ithi

n a

two-

mile

rad

ius.

•

Impr

oper

.

175

Inve

stig

ativ

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Act

ivity

Spec

ific

Offe

nse

•E

xam

ple

3-Po

lice

rece

ive

calls

in th

e ea

rly

mor

ning

ho

urs

for

two

robb

erie

s ne

ar o

ne a

noth

er in

a

resi

dent

ial n

eigh

borh

ood.

One

vic

tim

des

crib

ed th

e pe

rpet

rato

rs a

s be

ing

of a

par

ticu

lar

race

. W

hile

in

vest

igat

ing

the

othe

r ca

ll, t

he p

olic

e ob

serv

e a

vehi

cle

driv

e ve

ry s

low

ly d

own

the

resi

dent

ial s

tree

t, th

en

spee

d aw

ay.

The

veh

icle

occ

upan

ts w

ere

of t

he r

ace

iden

tifie

d by

the

vic

tim

. T

he o

ffice

rs s

top

the

vehi

cle

to in

vest

igat

e.

•Pe

rmis

sibl

e.

176

Inve

stig

ativ

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Act

ivity

Spec

ific

Crim

inal

Org

aniz

atio

n•

Exa

mpl

e 1-

A w

oman

flag

s do

wn

a po

lice

offic

er a

nd t

ells

him

tha

t a g

roup

of

men

of

a pa

rtic

ular

rac

e ar

e m

embe

rs o

f a

neig

hbor

hood

gan

g. T

he o

ffice

r de

tain

s an

d qu

esti

ons

ever

y m

ale

of t

hat r

ace

in t

he a

rea.

•

Impr

oper

.

177

Inve

stig

ativ

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Act

ivity

Spec

ific

Crim

inal

Sch

eme

•E

xam

ple

1-Po

lice

rece

ive

info

rmat

ion

that

in

auto

the

ft r

ing

is b

eing

run

in o

ne u

rban

co

mm

unit

y at

a s

peci

fic lo

cati

on b

y a

grou

p of

pe

ople

of

a pa

rtic

ular

eth

nici

ty.

Polic

e in

a

neig

hbor

ing

coun

ty d

ecid

e to

con

duct

veh

icle

st

ops

on a

ll pe

ople

of

that

eth

nici

ty.

•Im

prop

er.

178

Inve

stig

ativ

e La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Act

ivity

Spec

ific

Crim

inal

Sch

eme

•E

xam

ple

2-A

rel

iabl

e co

nfid

enti

al in

form

ant

tells

pol

ice

that

a g

roup

of

men

bel

ongi

ng t

o a

part

icul

ar r

elig

ious

sec

t ar

e st

ockp

iling

wea

pons

at

a r

esid

ence

adj

acen

t to

a s

peci

fic p

lace

of

wor

ship

. T

he p

olic

e in

clud

e th

at in

form

atio

n in

an

app

licat

ion

for

a se

arch

war

rant

of

that

re

side

nce

as a

par

t of

tha

t in

vest

igat

ion.

•P

rope

r.

179

Nex

t Ste

ps•

1. S

urve

y se

nt to

all

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es in

Mar

ylan

d.•

2. D

evel

opm

ent o

f tr

aini

ng c

urri

culu

m.

•3.

Tra

inin

gs o

ffere

d at

var

ious

loca

tion

s ac

ross

the

stat

e.

180

Than

k yo

u.

•zh

urle

y@oa

g.st

ate.

md.

us•

thar

vey@

oag.

stat

e.m

d.us

181



Documents

Public Safety and Policing Workgroupmgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/Committee/2016-PSP-Workgroup-Report.pdf · Delegate Michael A. Jackson . ... Public Safety and Policing Workgroup for