Reprobate

Members
  • Content count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,671 Excellent

About Reprobate

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • Gender
    male
  1. Hi Ken, A check of the Maryland Judiciary Case Search reveals that on 5/1/15, Major Sam Cogan, Baltimore City Sheriff's Office, completed applications for charges for each of the involved officers, and criminal arrest warrants were issued by the District Court Commissioner. The below link relates to Officer Goodson. While I did not link the other five, there is similar information for each one in Case Search: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=6B02294452&loc=1&detailLoc=DSCR When a police officer is alleged to have committed a crime, and criminal charges are sought by the investigating entity, it is common practice Statewide to screen the case with the local State's Attorney's Office. In this case, while SA Mosby supported and authorized the charges, the Baltimore City SAO did not actually charge anyone.
  2. Hi Ken. Semantics aside, every adult in Md essentially has charging powers, in that if they are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime, they may respond to a District Court Commissioner and make application for a statement of charges against the person who victimized them. The court commissioner will review the application and on a determination of the existence of 'probable cause' that a crime was committed and the suspect named therein the application did it, issue a charging document, either a criminal summons or criminal arrest warrant. This is the exact procedure that police officers usually use to charge someone pursuant to an investigation. The District Court of Maryland website explains all this as well: http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/forms/criminal/dccr001br.html#2 As far as entities having the actual power to levy charges, you are right about the State's Attorney. The only other entity that can actually issue a charging document (versus applying for one) is the District Court Commissioner. See Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings 2-607: https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/NFFE78670A9DF11E183F7C076EF385880?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
  3. When an officer is accused of a violation of criminal law, that alleged violation of criminal law becomes the trigger for an internal investigation, as all police departments have policy/rules that require officers to obey all laws. The criminal case, which is a public record, is always adjudicated before the IA case, as the information developed during the criminal investigation can be used in support of the internal investigation. In MD, police internal investigations are, for the most part, deemed to be 'personnel records, not subject to disclosure,' The information developed in an internal investigation cannot be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal investigation. Additionally, interrogations of officers pursuant to internal investigations are considered by MD law to be 'compelled interrogations,' not subject to admission in a criminal proceeding. This is because a police officer under criminal investigation can "take the 5th" and refuse to answer questions. This same officer, when subject to an internal affairs interrogation, is ordered to submit to the interrogation and is ordered to be truthful. There is no '5th amendment privilege' in IA investigations. If he refuses to sit for an IA interrogation, most MD departments will use that to fire the officer. Any criminal case had to go first. SA Mosby could not use the outcome of an IA case in support of a criminal action. You are correct though, that if an IA case resulted in the termination of the accused officer(s), there may not have been a need for criminal action.
  4. Thanks for the kind comments. It does come from experience. In reviewing my post, I see that I did not complete the discussion about burden of proof in trial boards, which is much lower than a criminal trial. Criminal trial is 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' while a trial board is 'preponderance of evidence,' which translates into 'more likely than not.'
  5. Not quite. The trial board doesn't hear appeals of department personnel decisions. The officers are exposed to administrative charges alleging violations of department policy; some of the violations are serious enough to warrant termination on a finding of guilty by a trial board. The officers now have a number of choices...they can simply resign, they can attempt to adjudicate the administrative charges via a waiver of hearing board and negotiate a plea of some type, or they can have the charges heard by a department trial board. A trial board is civil hearing that operates much like a criminal trial. There is a department prosecutor presenting the facts to a board made up of sworn officers, one of whom must be the same rank as the accused officer. The accused officer is represented by defense. Witnesses and other information are presented and examined before this board, and the board will determine guilt or innocence. The burden of proof is lower than a criminal trial. In a trial board, the burden of proof is "beyond a A finding of not guilty on any administrative charge terminates the action relative to that charge. The trial board will recommend penalties for any administrative charge with a guilty finding. At the conclusion of the trial board, a trial board report is prepared by the chair of the trial board. This report is delivered to the police chief, who then reviews the report and all evidence and testimony presented at the trial board. While the police chief cannot change the findings of a trial board, the chief can deviate from the penalty recommended by the trial board. In sum, the trial board, if requested by the accused officer, will determine if the officer violated certain department policies. On a not guilty finding, the action ends. On a guilty finding, the board will recommend a penalty and prepare a trial board report for the police chief. The police chief will then either concur with the penalty as recommended by the board, lower it, or raise it. I share your opinion that in essence, they have been fired. Should any of these officers elect a trial board, and the board returns guilty findings on any administrative charge, most, if not all of these officers will be fired, regardless of the penalties recommended by the trial board. On the slim chance that a trial board would return not guilty findings on all charges for an officer, that officer cannot be fired.
  6. includes what may be a picture... http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2016/06/breaking-news-exclusive-cecil-county.html
  7. Maybe not. See Gersh v. Ambrose, a 1981 MD Ct of Appeals case out of Baltimore. Gersh was Deputy State's Attorney in Baltimore who made some disparaging remarks about Ambrose, a community activist at a Baltimore Community Relations meeting. Ambrose sued Gersh for his 'defamatory' remarks. Gersh claimed prosecutorial immunity. The court held "...that the privilege did not apply to the administrative proceeding in the Gersh case, as the proceeding was substantially β€œan ordinary open public meeting.”  291 Md. at 196, 434 A.2d at 551.   The proceeding did not resemble an adjudicatory administrative proceeding or a contested case administrative proceeding under the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act..." Prosecutors enjoy immunity for actions in court, but not necessarily in public. I'm sure those individuals who filed defamation suits against Mrs. Mosby will argue that a press conference on the courthouse steps is an open public meeting v. an adjudicatory administrative proceeding. There's loads of case law about this since Gersh v. Ambrose. These defamation cases may bring more.
  8. The Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission (MPCTC) is the entity that certifies all Maryland police officers. When a Maryland police officer leaves the employ of a Maryland police agency, the police agency must report that fact to MPCTC, which then moves to decertify the officer. Police agencies must also report why the officer is no longer with the policy agency, either "Retired," "Resigned," "Retired with Prejudice," or "Resigned with Prejudice." The last two reasons are generally used to report the 'seperation' of officers who have unadjudicated or outstanding misconduct issues, i.e. officer accused of lying, Internal Affairs investigation sustains the allegation, police department empanels an administrative hearing board (usually 3 members, similar to a military courts-martial) to hear the case, officer quits/retires before the case is held. Generally, an officer who resigns or retires with prejudice are not able to be hired and recertified by another Maryland LE. Same with out-of-State LE, but there are always exceptions. MPCTC usually catches the attempted rehire of problems officers when another agency attempts to recertify them in MD. As far as LEOSA and separated officers, an officer must have served with a police agency for 10 years, be retired in good standing and have a "retired" photo ID from that police agency. In my experience few, if any MD police agencies issue retirement credentials to officers who do not retire in good standing and have pending IA cases. But there are always exceptions. When I last checked, there are about 162 police departments in MD!
  9. Describe the overlap. From your view.
  10. http://jobaps.com/MD/sup/bulpreview.asp?R1=15&R2=005911&R3=0001 See "Minimum Education and Experience Requirements"
  11. Agreed.
  12. Describe the overlap. From your view.
  13. why?
  14. Should google, or any other service provider discover evidence of child exploitation on their servers, they are required by federal law to report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A