110OAG003
Md. Att'y Gen.Feb 14, 2025Background
- The Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 established new statewide procedures for police misconduct complaints, with detailed rules for complaints involving members of the public, but less explicit guidance for complaints arising internally within police departments.
- Anne Arundel County requested an Attorney General opinion on which procedures—its countywide employee antidiscrimination policy or a department-specific disciplinary policy—apply to "fully internal" discrimination complaints between police officers (i.e., not involving the public).
- The County’s general policy provides for handling discrimination complaints against all county employees, including police, via progressive discipline; the Police Department policy tracks the state Act more closely, including disciplinary matrices and officer trial boards.
- The County’s attorney viewed the county’s general policy as controlling unless state law requires otherwise, prompting questions regarding preemption and conflict between state and local law.
- The Attorney General’s opinion addressed the extent to which the Police Accountability Act and regulations preempt local policies regarding handling internal complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State law fully preempts local procedures for internal police complaints | Local law should control absent express state preemption | State law and Police Department policy must control | No field preemption; local policies not categorically displaced |
| Whether police disciplinary policy always trumps county personnel policy | County antidiscrimination policy governs unless state law says otherwise | Police Department policy, by regulation, controls in disciplinary matters | State law does not require department policy to override countywide laws |
| Which specific procedures must county follow in internal discipline | Propose discipline based on progressive discipline, county hearing rights | Discipline must follow state matrix, trial board structure per Act | Disciplinary matrix and trial board process mandated by state law |
| Whether county personnel officials may investigate/file internal police complaints | County policy allows outside (non-police) personnel investigation and filing | Police Department policy requires internal handling | County policy allowed unless direct conflict with Act/regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of County Comm’rs v. Perennial Solar, LLC, 464 Md. 610 (field preemption analyzed by comprehensiveness of state law)
- Moats v. City of Hagerstown, 324 Md. 519 (noting LEOBR’s explicit field preemption)
- City of Hagerstown v. Blenard, 268 Md. 382 (local government authority over personnel discipline)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge No. 35 v. Mehrling, 343 Md. 155 (local authority and police disciplinary procedures)