Glass v. Anne Arundel County
453 Md. 201
| Md. | 2017Background
- In Sept. 2010 Gary Glass (petitioner) was stopped by off‑duty Officer Mark Collier; Glass filed internal affairs (IA) complaints and multiple Public Information Act (PIA) requests to Anne Arundel County Police Department.
- Glass submitted a broad 2011 PIA request seeking Collier’s IA file; County withheld the IA file under the PIA personnel‑records exception and prevailed in initial litigation.
- In Feb. 2012 Glass submitted a broader “any and all” PIA request (no date limit) seeking all records referencing him; Police Records Manager Christine Ryder coordinated searches including archived emails stored with the County Office of Information Technology (OIT).
- OIT’s keyword search returned many emails; Ryder estimated substantial review fees and sought direction; Glass sued challenging the adequacy of searches, asserted improper withholding and excessive fees.
- Multiple Circuit Court rulings produced additional email disclosures and mixed rulings on adequacy; the Circuit Court later found some knowing and willful violations, but the Court of Special Appeals reversed those findings; the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether archived emails were within Police Department custody and whether search was reasonable | Glass: archived emails were within Department control; County failed to conduct reasonable searches and withheld responsive pre‑Nov 2011 emails | County: archived emails were effectively in OIT custody; Ryder merely offered fee options and did not deny access | Ryder/Police were proper custodians for archived emails; archived emails remained within Department control, but no clear and convincing evidence of a knowing and willful PIA violation because County sought fees and requested direction rather than flatly denying access |
| Whether Officer Collier’s IA file had to be disclosed or redacted under NAACP Branches/severability | Glass: his broad 2012 request sought records about him (not an IA file) and NAACP Branches requires severing/redacting non‑identifying material | County: IA file concerns a specifically‑identified officer and is a personnel record exempt from disclosure under Shropshire and Dashiell | IA file concerning a specifically‑identified officer is a personnel record and may be withheld in full; severability/redaction not effective here; no knowing and willful violation in withholding |
| Whether search of Police Chief’s office was adequate | Glass: Ryder knew chief’s files were chronological and failed to direct a date‑range search, causing omission (e.g., Aug. 25, 2011 letter) | County: Glass’s request was unbounded and Ryder reasonably sought guidance; no single date range was mandated | Search was reasonable given the open‑ended request; failure to find one letter did not establish clear and convincing evidence of a knowing and willful violation |
| Whether remedial/follow‑up searches and damages were warranted (knowing & willful standard) | Glass: County’s litigation‑period failures and earlier search gaps show knowing and willful conduct meriting damages and court‑ordered remedial searches | County: searches were reasonable; any gaps were litigated and remedied; no clear and convincing evidence of knowing and willful misconduct | Court: No clear and convincing evidence that County knowingly and willfully violated PIA; injunctive remedial searches and damages not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery County v. Shropshire, 420 Md. 362 (2011) (internal affairs records related to discipline of a specific officer are personnel records exempt from disclosure)
- Maryland Dep’t of State Police v. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, 430 Md. 179 (2013) (aggregate complaint records can be disclosed with redaction where identity of individual officers is removed)
- Maryland Dep’t of State Police v. Dashiell, 443 Md. 435 (2015) (NAACP Branches does not permit disclosure of IA records tied to a specifically identified officer; redaction often ineffective)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1241 (4th Cir. 1994) (agency search adequacy judged by whether it was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records)
- Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (FOIA search standard: good‑faith efforts using reasonable methods likely to produce requested information)