This article is part of MACo’s Policy Deep Dive series, where expert policy analysts explore and explain the top county policy issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Policy Deep Dives.
Police reform has been underway in Maryland for three years now since the passage of the Police Accountability Act of 2021. One of the major tenets of that legislation was the establishment of a civilian oversight process for allegations of police misconduct. An integral piece of this framework was for local governments to stand up the civilian oversight bodies which included Police Accountability Boards, Administrative Charging Committees, and Trial Boards.
While the Maryland General Assembly mandated a couple major elements and timelines at the state level, local governments were then intended to fill out the procedural details in accordance with the statutory framework. Despite delayed guidance and regulations from the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commissions, some confusion on interpretation of language, and incredibly tight timelines to recruit and train hundreds of participants, counties worked hard and collaborated with the state to bring the concept to life. With the programs now underway, a few hiccups remain in the process that the Maryland General Assembly will have a chance to consider in the 2025 legislative session.
For recent background, adjustments were made to the original bill structure in 2022, but the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions came and went with a handful of proposed changes to the police oversight systems that remain in the drawer. This includes elements at the request of local governments to help refine the process, as discussed at the 2023 MACo Summer Conference in a packed room full of county officials and state lawmakers. Some of these bills could get another look in the 2025 session as most stakeholders around the process have and continue to raise concerns, including the county governments.
Of the police accountability bills that were brought forward during the 2024 legislative session, MACo weighed in with support on SB621/HB 533 that was sponsored by Senator Jill P. Carter and Delegate Malcom Ruff, respectively. This was a bill that would authorize a county governing body to allow the local police accountability board to investigate police misconduct complaints and issue subpoenas in the execution of that duty. Currently the associated law enforcement agency is tasked with the investigation and then further review and inspection is conducted by the administrative charging committee, who can also conduct interviews as well as review files and documentation.
Neither of those bills passed out of their originating chamber, but counties support the idea that the local governments reserve the flexibility to adjust the process as necessary to ensure proper accountability that builds public trust. The ability to respond to the needs of the local communities is paramount. And to the contrary, if the local process is working, counties shouldn’t be mandated to make changes that the community doesn’t want when a good process is already in place.
Other bills for 2024 touched on the police accountability procedures but also did not pass. These bill were primarily spearheaded by Senator William Folden, a Republican from Frederick County, and they garnered co-sponsorship support from Senator William Smith, a Democrat and Montgomery County resident, as well as the Chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee in the Maryland Senate. As a non-partisan, non-profit organization MACo, and the county membership, appreciate bipartisan efforts, particularly around sensitive issues that have real life consequences for residents.
These bills generally proposed process based changes that add more efficiency and greater potential for accountability in the misconduct review procedures. For instance, SB 608 would have adjusted the filing timeline for charges from the administrative charging committee to be contingent on the conclusion of a criminal trial or reasonable assurance that a criminal trial will not take place. Essentially it would have effectuated more accountability by narrowing the potential of a mistrial from a 14th Amendment violation, where information from a different investigation is admitted as part of another ongoing case. This could lead to no accountability for a criminal or a civil claim, which is an adverse outcome to accountability.
Additionally, SB 606 and SB 607, were also primarily procedural fixes to streamline the process, and ensure it works effectively and as intended. SB 606 would reestablish the order to show cause process for an officer undergoing an investigation. And SB 607 specifically gives a local law enforcement agency authority to issue any discipline as necessary against an officer for routine infractions like a uniform violation and the like. It would not apply for anything required to go through the civilian oversight process.
The 2025 legislative session will mark the fourth one since the original police reform bill was passed. The coming months could be an indication as to whether it is time to start considering some small tweaks to make the process more efficient. A good look at the required year end reports from each county will also have the potential to inform this decision for the General Assembly. A clear and consistent process is necessary to establish community trust in the reforms. Keeping these decision local ensures residents feel they have a say in how misconduct oversight is handled, their concerns are being heard, and the process speaks to their needs. To that end, some changes to the state’s statutory foundation could go a long way to making sure the full intent of the legislation is realized.
