First civilian participates in Annapolis police trial board

General Assembly debates reform to change process

Minor Carter listened to testimony for nine hours in an Annapolis Police Department conference room before he was told he couldn’t vote on the outcome in an officer’s disciplinary hearing.

Carter is the first civilian member to join a city administrative police hearing since a 2016 law allowed public participation.

The Annapolis police chief selected Carter as a public representative next to the three-person board chaired by law enforcement officers last month, a step that marks a change in how the Annapolis department runs disciplinary hearings — for now.

An intense debate in the General Assembly could change the process in the future for Annapolis and all departments in Maryland.

At the start of deliberation, Carter was informed for the first time the limits of his role — that he didn’t get to vote on whether the officer was guilty of policy violations. Enraged and feeling misled, Carter threw his stack of papers off his desk, slammed his fist on his table and said not knowing he was a spectator, rather than a voting member of the commission.

Maryland Transportation Authority Police Maj. Richard Ricko, who presided over the hearing, assured Carter his opinion on behalf of Annapolis residents was important. Ricko then explained to Carter the department policy they were debating.

Carter, a retired attorney who has served on various police commissions and city boards over the years, reflected on his position in a happier light a week later. Ricko declined to comment. “It was new to everybody,” Carter said, adding that he would have taken part regardless of voting power. “I think the process worked well. I think it’s a different

viewpoint (to add a civilian). I think having civilian participation brings an openness to the hearings.”

But the speed and ability in which a civilian could learn, and then judge, police procedures are among ardent concerns of the bills in the General Assembly. Opponents of reforming the disciplinary process say introducing more civilian members could make imposing punishment longer and more difficult. Advocates for repealing the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, which outlines the disciplinary process, say throwing civilian members on established hearing boards is ineffective.

A civilian member can’t ensure departments are properly disciplining officers without a vote or even the ability to read investigative case files deemed confidential “personnel records” in the law, they say.

State House priority

Police hearing boards mirror employee grievance processes where an employee’s peers who are familiar with an agency’s standards hear their case.

But they’re also tried similar to criminal proceedings with attorneys representing both sides. Following Freddie Gray’s death in police custody in Baltimore in 2015, the state General Assebmly required police hearing boards to be open to the public and allowed up to two non-voting civilians to sit on the board in 2016.

Now, in the wake of national discussions on race and policing after Minneapolis man George Floyd died in police custody last year, lawmakers in Annapolis are trying to overhaul LEOBR to increase public involvement. The Senate and House of Delegates each have policing legislation that could shift the authority to reprimand officer wrongdoing into civilian hands.

How to discipline police officers, and what process to do so, is perhaps the most contentious difference between the two proposals. Democratic lawmakers are racing to pass sweeping reforms before the session ends April 12.

Supporters of changing the disciplinary process say administrative hearings skirt accountability in their current form. Misconduct investigated by police and presented to boards chaired by police present an opportunity for departments to sidestep discipline for fellow officers, they argue.

“(The public) doesn’t have a right to know what the investigation was like. How did they investigate it? Were all the facts presented in the trial board? That’s the problem,” said Randy Williams, a retired Baltimore County police sergeant who is of 18 people on an Annapolis advisory committee exploring how to design a long-sought civilian review board in the city.

The creation of a board that could review and possibly investigate public complaints against police — separate and independent of a department’s disciplinary process — is in its infancy in Annapolis.

Karen Kruger, the lead in-house attorney for the Maryland Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs Association, said police departments often successfully discipline officers despite a case being challenged in a hearing board. She said departments prevail and officers are found guilty in a majority of cases she’s prosecuted over 25 years representing departments. And officers who appeal their final punishment for review by a circuit court judge, an entitled right included in the law, find the court usually rules in favor of the department, she said.

“Obviously, communities should have a voice in how their communities are policed,” Kruger said. “But how far, how deep into actual police operations should that go?”

Disciplinary hearings

Carter joined what is likely the final city hearing board chaired exclusively by fellow officers.

Officers charged with policy violations can accept a punishment offered by an internal investigator or they can challenge the punishment at a public hearing board. If taken to a board, the panel hears witness testimony, details of the internal investigation and returns a verdict on what punishment to impose.

But board decisions are only recommendations. The police chief has the final call.

Carter and the board were tasked in March with recommending punishment for Cpl. David Stokes after the officer disputed the facts in an investigation that levied 19 administrative charges against him. He was found not guilty on eight charges he challenged by taking his case to the board. He was found guilty of 11 other department policy violations.

Officers rarely contest their punishments in a hearing board, sometimes called a police trial board. At the Annapolis police department, 184 officers have accepted punishment proposed by internal investigators from 2016 to 2020. In that time, seven officers have challenged their discipline in a hearing.

Police unions have been strongly arguing the General Assembly not repeal LEOBR because hearing boards are due process protections that can shield officers from being targeted unfairly by internal investigators and appointed police chiefs. Stokes violated policy when he left his handgun and police radio under the seat of his truck that was later robbed and the gear stolen.

Stokes testified that he only challenged his case in a hearing board because he felt unfairly treated by management when a lieutenant charged him with numerous obstruction charges. The charges came after Stokes asked to speak to his attorney when Lt. Brian Della requested to search his car as part of the investigation. Stokes was found not guilty on those charges.

Hearing boards are the only public part of the lengthy administrative process.

In Annapolis, internal investigations are confidential and officers can only discuss the investigation with their legal counsel.

And in all Maryland jurisdictions, the initial punishment recommended for an officer, which can be contested, is confidential under current state law.

So is the final punishment decided by a police chief after a hearing. The hearing’s topic and the identity of the officer are unknown until the minute the hearing starts.

The House of Delegates on Tuesday passed a Senate bill allowing public access to disciplinary records and complaints against law enforcement officers.

“The laws have to change to give the civilian oversight teeth,” Williams said.