132 A.3d 895
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- In Nov. 2014 Montgomery County Police Chief directed Internal Affairs to begin video as well as audio recording of LEOBR interrogations; historically interrogations were audio-recorded only.
- Three MCPD officers were notified of LEOBR interrogations; the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) filed a show-cause petition in Circuit Court to enjoin videotaping on their behalf.
- The contested statute, P.S. § 3-104(k), requires a “complete record” of an interrogation and provides that the record “may be written, taped, or transcribed.”
- The circuit court granted the FOP’s petition, concluding that “taped” did not encompass videotape and enjoined videotaping of LEOBR interrogations; the three officers’ interrogations were completed without video.
- The Montgomery County Police Department appealed, arguing the LEOBR does not forbid video recording and that the statute’s permissive list is nonexclusive.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the injunction, holding videotaping is permitted to satisfy the § 3-104(k) “complete record” requirement, with guidance to record all participants when using video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3-104(k)’s phrase “may be written, taped, or transcribed” bars video recording of LEOBR interrogations | "Taped" means audio only; statute’s list is the exclusive means | The list is permissive; nothing forbids video and video better serves the "complete record" mandate | Video recording is permitted; § 3-104(k) does not forbid videotaping |
| Whether allowing videotape would frustrate LEOBR’s purpose or prejudice officers | Videotape could bias hearing boards and disadvantage officers when others’ testimony is only written/transcribed | Video furthers the statute’s goal of a complete record and balances departmental investigatory prerogatives | Video recording does not frustrate LEOBR; departments may use it but should record all present |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Town of Oxford v. Koste, 204 Md. App. 578 (framework for statutory construction: text, purpose, consequences)
- Kindley v. Governor of Maryland, 289 Md. 620 (laws are addressed to the future; consider later developments)
- Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., 427 Md. 561 (describing LEOBR purpose and protections)
- Mohan v. Norris, 386 Md. 63 (detailing procedural protections under LEOBR)
- Widomski v. Chief of Police of Baltimore County, 41 Md. App. 361 (record may be kept by combination of techniques)
- White v. State, 223 Md. App. 353 (recognition of video and digital evidence in recent practice)