Maryland Department of State Police v. Dashiell
117 A.3d 1
| Md. | 2015Background
- Complainant Teleta Dashiell alleged MSP Sergeant John Maiello left racially derogatory voicemail; MSP investigated and sustained the complaint and undertook disciplinary action documented in his personnel file.
- Dashiell (with ACLU) requested internal-investigation records (reports, witness statements, audio/video, charging documents, investigatory results) under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).
- MSP denied the request in full, invoking the MPIA’s mandatory "personnel records" exemption (§ 10-616) and other discretionary investigatory exemptions; MSP refused to provide an index or in camera access to withheld documents.
- Circuit Court granted MSP summary judgment, holding the records were personnel records exempt from disclosure; Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded, requiring an index and in camera review per this Court’s NAACP Branches decision.
- The Court of Appeals (majority) held the requested internal affairs records pertaining to the specifically identified trooper are personnel records mandatorily exempt under § 10-616(i), not reasonably severable for disclosure; it rejected the need for in camera review and concluded Dashiell is not a “person in interest.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether internal affairs records for a specifically identified trooper are "personnel records" exempt under § 10-616(i) | Dashiell: records are not personnel records or, if they are, redaction/sanitization would allow disclosure; sustained finding increases public interest | MSP: records concern discipline of a named employee and thus fall within the personnel-records exemption mandating denial | Held: Records relate to discipline of a specific officer and are personnel records exempt from disclosure under § 10-616(i) |
| Whether redaction/severing can render the records disclosable (per NAACP Branches) | Dashiell: names already public and redaction can permit disclosure of non-identifying substance | MSP: redaction is unlikely to be effective for records tied to a specific identified individual | Held: Redaction/in camera review unnecessary because records are personnel records tied to an identified officer and not sufficiently severable |
| Whether a complainant (Dashiell) is a "person in interest" entitled to investigatory records under § 10-618(f) | Dashiell: a complainant may be a person in interest and thus entitled to inspect investigatory records | MSP: "person in interest" means the subject of the record (the investigated officer), not the complainant | Held: Dashiell is not a person in interest under the statute; the term means the subject of the public record |
| Whether LEOBR or other law confers confidentiality that overrides MPIA | Dashiell: LEOBR does not prevent MPIA disclosure; public interest favors transparency especially for sustained misconduct | MSP: invoked LEOBR and MPIA exemptions to justify nondisclosure | Held: LEOBR does not govern third-party MPIA access; MPIA controls and mandates denial via personnel-records exemption in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland Dep’t of State Police v. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, 430 Md. 179, 59 A.3d 1037 (2013) (held redacted internal-police records that do not identify individuals may be disclosed)
- Montgomery Cnty. Maryland v. Shropshire, 420 Md. 362, 23 A.3d 205 (2011) (internal affairs records relating to discipline of identified officers are personnel records exempt from disclosure)
- Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 721 A.2d 196 (1998) (defines "personnel records" as documents directly pertaining to employment and an employee’s ability to perform a job)
- Office of Attorney Gen. v. Gallagher, 359 Md. 341, 753 A.2d 1036 (2000) (when § 10-616 applies, custodian must deny inspection)