Popkin v. Gindlesperger
426 Md. 1
| Md. | 2012Background
- The LEOBR provides procedural safeguards for officers during investigations and disciplinary hearings.
- Deputy Gindlesperger sought pre-hearing production of documents via subpoenas under LEOBR §3-107(d)(1).
- The hearing board denied production of certain documents before the hearing as not authorized by §3-107(d)(1).
- The circuit court held that §3-107(d)(1) allowed pre-hearing production, ordering production five days before the hearing based on document volume.
- Sheriff Popkin appealed, challenging the circuit court’s interpretation and seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3-107(d)(1) authorizes pre-hearing document production. | Gindlesperger argues the phrase 'in connection with a disciplinary hearing' broadly includes pre-hearing production. | Popkin contends the provision only governs production at or in connection with the hearing, not before it. | No; §3-107(d)(1) does not authorize pre-hearing production. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blondell v. Baltimore City Police Department, 341 Md. 680 (Md. 1996) (LEOBR safeguards in investigations and hearings)
- Abbott v. Administrative Hearing Board, 33 Md.App. 681 (Md. Ct. App. 1976) (early LEOBR interpretation)
- Mass Transit Administration v. Hayden, 141 Md.App. 100 (Md. Ct. App. 2001) (noting LEOBR procedures and notices)
- Miller v. Baltimore County Police Department, 179 Md.App. 370 (Md. Ct. App. 2008) (subpoena authority during pendency of investigation)
- Robinson v. Baltimore Police Department, 424 Md. 41 (Md. 2011) (statutory interpretation approach for LEOBR)
- State v. Johnson, 415 Md. 413 (Md. 2010) (statutory interpretation framework)