Public Safety and Policing...
Transcript of Public Safety and Policing...
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.
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,
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:
4 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
• 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).
Report and Recommendations 5
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
6 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
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.”
Report and Recommendations 7
• 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
8 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
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.
Report and Recommendations 9
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;
10 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
(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;
Report and Recommendations 11
(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.
12 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
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.
Report and Recommendations 13
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.
14 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
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.
Report and Recommendations 15
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.
16 Public Safety and Policing Workgroup
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.
Report and Recommendations 17
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
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
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
155
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