109OAG61 ( 2024 )

Gen. 61] 61
PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE OFFICERS – POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCIPLINE
– WHETHER A COMPLAINT OF POLICE MISCONDUCT
INVOLVING A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MUST STILL BE
INVESTIGATED IF THE COMPLAINT IS WITHDRAWN
May 10, 2024
The Honorable J. Travis Breeding
President, County Commissioners of Caroline County
You have asked whether a complaint of police misconduct
involving a member of the public may be withdrawn after it is filed
with a law enforcement agency pursuant to § 3-102 or § 3-103 of
the Public Safety Article. We conclude that, while a complainant
may seek to withdraw such a complaint, the withdrawal does not
alter the obligations that the Public Safety Article and its
implementing regulations place upon the law enforcement agency
to investigate the complaint and forward it to the appropriate
civilian charging committee, called an Administrative Charging
Committee (“ACC”), for a charging determination.
The relevant implementing regulations, adopted by the
Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission (the
“Commission”), divide complaints of misconduct involving a
member of the public into two broad categories: those that are not
eligible for mediation, and those that are (due to their minor and
nonviolent nature). As for the first category, the plain language of
the regulations, their purpose, and the purpose of the underlying
statute all lead us to the conclusion that a law enforcement agency
is prohibited from treating a complaint as resolved when the
complainant seeks to withdraw it. As for the second category, the
answer is less clear because the plain language and purpose of the
regulations are not necessarily inconsistent with the concept of
resolution by withdrawal in mediation-eligible cases. Still, the
overall framework of procedures that the Commission has adopted
for complaints of police misconduct does not currently permit a
mediation-eligible complaint to be resolved via withdrawal. To
authorize that result, the Commission would need to amend its
regulations. Thus, as the law currently stands, the desire of a
complainant to withdraw does not, for any category of complaint
of police misconduct involving a member of the public, relieve the
law enforcement agency of its obligation to investigate the
complaint and forward it to the ACC for a charging determination.
62 [109 Op. Att’y
I
Background
In the Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021, the
General Assembly repealed the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of
Rights, which governed disciplinary proceedings for police
officers, and replaced it with a new administrative system that
subjects police discipline to substantial civilian oversight. 2021
Md. Laws, ch. 59; see Revised Fiscal & Policy Note, H.B. 670,
2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 4-6, 21-25. That system is codified at Title
3, Subtitle 1 of the Public Safety Article. Among its other features,
the statutory scheme assigns responsibility for determining whether
to charge an officer with misconduct involving a member of the
public to a new type of civilian committee called an Administrative
Charging Committee. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety (“PS”) § 3-104.
Each county must establish an ACC to serve its law enforcement
agencies, and there is also a statewide ACC for State and bi-county
law enforcement agencies. PS § 3-104(a), (b); COMAR
12.04.09.04. Each ACC consists of five members, all civilians. PS
§§ 3-104(a)(2), (b)(2), 3-102(b)(1)(ii).
Under the statutory scheme, the disciplinary process begins
when an individual files a complaint of misconduct against a police
officer. The complaint may be filed directly with the law
enforcement agency that employs the officer or with a Police
Accountability Board (“PAB”), which must forward the complaint
to the law enforcement agency. PS §§ 3-103(a), 3-102(d).1
Although the PAB is only required to accept complaints from
members of the public, PS § 3-102(a)(3), any individual—whether
a member of the public or a person within the law enforcement
agency—may file a complaint with the law enforcement agency.
PS §§ 3-103(a), 3-104(d). The statutory charging process applies
so long as the alleged misconduct involves a member of the public,
regardless of whether a member of the public files it. PS § 3-
104(d).
After a complaint is filed, the statute provides that the law
enforcement agency must, upon completing an investigation,
forward the investigatory files to the appropriate ACC. PS § 3-
104(d). The ACC must then decide whether to charge the officer
1
The PAB is an oversight board for policy matters related to police
discipline. Each county must have one, and active police officers may
not serve on it. PS § 3-102. Among its other responsibilities, the PAB
appoints some ACC members and makes recommendations to the county
government “on changes to policy that would improve police
accountability.” Id.
Gen. 61] 63
with misconduct and, if so, what level of discipline to recommend.
PS § 3-104(e). When making these determinations, the ACC may
require the law enforcement agency to investigate the matter
further. PS § 3-104(f). If the officer is charged, the chief of the
law enforcement agency offers the police officer a level of
discipline that must be at least as severe as the ACC
recommendation. PS § 3-105(c). If the officer accepts the offer of
discipline, the matter concludes; otherwise, it goes to a trial board
for adjudication. Id.
The Commission has adopted regulations to implement this
portion of the statute. COMAR tit. 12, subtit. 4, ch. 9; see PS § 3-
114 (requiring the Commission to adopt implementing
regulations). These regulations provide that a “law enforcement
agency shall complete a thorough investigation upon receipt of a
complaint of alleged police officer misconduct,” unless the
complaint is eligible for mediation. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. After
completing this investigation, the agency forwards the matter to the
ACC if it involves a member of the public. COMAR 12.04.09.06C;
see PS § 3-104(d). The head of the agency may offer the ACC an
opinion about whether discipline is warranted. COMAR
12.04.09.06D(2)(a).
The regulations also detail how the ACC charging process fits
together with the Commission’s mediation program. On this point,
the regulations take up an issue that the 2021 legislation left
unaddressed. In 2016, the General Assembly required the
Commission to create a mediation program for complaints of
nonviolent misconduct. 2016 Md. Laws, ch. 519; see PS § 3-
207(d) (requiring the Commission to establish a mediation program
“to which a law enforcement agency may refer a nonviolent
complaint made against a police officer out of the standard
complaint process” and to create eligibility criteria for the program
by regulation). The 2021 legislation, however, did not speak to the
role of the mediation program in the new system for police
discipline, perhaps because the Commission had yet to set up the
program. See 50:5 Md. Reg. 182 (Mar. 20, 2023) (establishing the
mediation program).
The Commission adopted regulations to set up the mediation
program in March 2023, id., two months after it adopted the final
regulations to implement the standard ACC charging process, see
COMAR 12.04.09.9999 (administrative history of Chapter 9
reflecting its adoption on January 9, 2023). Together, the two sets
of regulations clarify the intersection between the mediation
program and the standard charging process. See id.; COMAR tit.
12, subtit. 4, ch. 11; COMAR 12.04.09.06. They provide that a
64 [109 Op. Att’y
complaint of misconduct filed by a member of the public is eligible
for mediation if no use of force is alleged and if the allegations fall
within the two lowest categories of misconduct on the six-category
scale contained in the Commission’s statewide disciplinary matrix.
COMAR 12.04.11.06A, B(1).2 If a complaint is eligible for
mediation, at the outset it is not covered by the investigation
requirement that the regulations impose on the agency. COMAR
12.04.09.06B (requiring an investigation of a complaint “which is
not eligible for mediation”). Instead, the regulations set up a
different process for mediation-eligible complaints. See COMAR
12.04.09.06A(1) (providing that such complaints “may, subject to
the agreement of the complainant, be handled outside of the formal
PAB and ACC complaint process”).
As a threshold matter, to refer complaints to mediation, a law
enforcement agency must first establish its own mediation program
by entering into a memorandum of understanding with an approved
mediation provider, developing program guidelines, and
forwarding the guidelines to the Commission for review. COMAR
12.04.11.04.3 For an agency that has complied with these threshold
requirements, its first step when receiving a complaint that is
eligible for mediation under the Commission’s regulations is to
decide whether mediation is appropriate. COMAR
12.04.11.06A(2). Even if the complaint is eligible, the agency may
opt against mediation and handle the matter instead through the
standard ACC charging process. See 12.04.11.06A(3), C.4 Next,
The two eligible categories are Category A, which covers “[c]onduct
2
that has or may have a minimal negative impact on operations or
professional image of the law enforcement agency,” and Category B,
covering “[c]onduct that has or may have a negative impact on the
operations or professional image of law enforcement agency; or that
negatively impacts relationships with other officers, agencies, or the
public.” COMAR 12.04.11.06A, 12.04.10.04D(2), (3).
3
We understand that, thus far, only a few law enforcement agencies
have complied with the threshold requirements for setting up mediation
programs. Although the regulations do not spell out this point, we
interpret them to mean that an agency that has not set up a mediation
program must handle complaints that would otherwise be eligible for
mediation (i.e., Category A and B complaints not involving use of force)
through the standard ACC charging process. See COMAR 12.04.11.08B
(providing that a complaint that is not successfully resolved through
mediation must be referred back to the standard ACC process).
4
Again, even though the regulations do not spell out this point, we
interpret them to mean that if an agency opts against mediation, it must
refer the complaint back to the standard charging process. See COMAR
12.04.11.08B; supra note 3.
Gen. 61] 65
if the law enforcement agency decides that mediation is
appropriate, it asks the complainant and the police officer if they
wish to participate. If either party declines, the matter goes back to
the standard ACC charging process. COMAR 12.04.11.07B, C.
Finally, where the parties agree to mediation, the agency refers the
matter to its approved mediation provider. COMAR 12.04.11.07D.
If the mediation results in an impasse, the agency must refer the
matter back to the standard ACC charging process. COMAR
12.04.11.08B. If the mediation produces a satisfactory resolution,
the agency reports that result to the PAB but does not forward the
matter to the ACC for any type of determination or approval.
COMAR 12.04.09.06A(2), COMAR 12.04.11.08E.
In summary, the provisions on police discipline in the Public
Safety Article, as implemented by the Commission’s regulations,
require law enforcement agencies to (1) investigate a complaint of
police misconduct involving a member of the public and (2)
forward the results of the investigation to the ACC for a charging
determination. This is the standard charging process. However, if
an agency has set up a mediation program with an approved
provider, the agency may, in its discretion and with the consent of
the parties, divert an eligible complaint of minor misconduct to
mediation instead of investigating it and forwarding it to the ACC.
The agency must refer the complaint back to the standard charging
process unless mediation produces a successful resolution.
II
Analysis
Because the regulations distinguish mediation-eligible
complaints from other complaints of misconduct involving a
member of the public, we address your question in two parts. First,
we consider whether the withdrawal of a complaint that is not
eligible for mediation alters the agency’s obligation to investigate
the complaint and forward it to the ACC. Second, we consider
what actions the agency must take when a complainant seeks to
withdraw a mediation-eligible complaint.
A. Complaints Not Eligible for Mediation
In our opinion, if a complainant seeks to withdraw a
complaint of misconduct that is not eligible for mediation under the
Commission regulations, the agency must nonetheless investigate
the complaint and forward it to the ACC for a charging
determination. The Commission’s regulations expressly state that
the law enforcement agency “shall complete a thorough
investigation upon receipt of a complaint of alleged police officer
66 [109 Op. Att’y
misconduct,” provided that the complaint is not eligible for
mediation. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. It is true that the statutory
provisions, standing alone, do not impose an investigation
requirement as clearly as this regulation does. The statutory
provisions do strongly imply that the law enforcement agency must
investigate all complaints involving members of the public, see PS
§ 3-104(d) (“On completion of an investigation of a complaint of
police misconduct involving a member of the public and a police
officer . . . the law enforcement agency shall forward to the
appropriate administrative charging committee the investigatory
files for the matter.”), PS § 3-104(f)(1) (noting that the ACC may
request information from the agency that “conducted the
investigation” and may “requir[e] additional investigation”), and
they expressly require the law enforcement agency to “immediately
review” complaints that are filed by a member of the public, PS §
3-113(a). But, unlike the regulations, the statute does not expressly
require the law enforcement agency to investigate all misconduct
complaints that involve a member of the public and that must, for
that reason, go to the ACC for charging determinations.
Nonetheless, even assuming that the statute itself would not compel
the same result as the regulation, the General Assembly has
delegated broad authority to the Commission to adopt
implementing regulations for the police discipline process. See PS
§ 3-114. As such, the regulation requiring the law enforcement
agency to investigate all complaints that are not eligible for
mediation is valid and must be followed given that it does “not
contradict the statutory language or purpose.” Lussier v. Maryland
Racing Comm’n, 343 Md. 681, 688 (1996).
We do not think that a complainant’s desire to withdraw a
complaint alters the clear investigation requirement that this
regulation imposes. The Supreme Court of Maryland confronted a
similar issue in the context of attorney discipline. A Maryland Rule
required Bar Counsel to “make an appropriate investigation of
every complaint [of attorney misconduct] that is not facially
frivolous or unfounded.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393
Md. 546, 561 (2006) (quoting former Md. Rule 16-731(b)). The
Court interpreted the plain language of this rule to mean that Bar
Counsel “should not dismiss [a] complaint merely upon the
Complainant’s subsequent request to withdraw, unless [Bar
Counsel] found the substantive complaint to be frivolous or
unfounded.” Id. at 562. The Court further reasoned that the purpose
of the investigation requirement supported this conclusion:
Indeed, if the Rule were construed otherwise,
it would allow an attorney under investigation
to avoid disciplinary actions by offering the
Gen. 61] 67
complainant incentives to withdraw the
complaint. Even though an individual
complainant may believe that he or she was
recompensed adequately as a result of the
attorney’s post-complaint gestures, allowing
an attorney to avoid a pending investigation
and potential disciplinary actions in such a
manner would be contrary and detrimental to
the purpose of the Maryland Rules of
Professional Conduct “to protect the public
and the public’s confidence in the legal
profession.”
Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Gore, 380 Md. 455, 471 (2004)). If the withdrawal of a complaint
nullified the investigation requirement, in other words, the subject
of the investigation would be incentivized to take up the matter
directly with the complainant, leaving the public’s interest in
ensuring adequate enforcement of the underlying conduct rules
unaddressed. See id.Although the context here is different, we think similar
reasoning applies. Not only does the plain language of the
Commission regulation require the law enforcement agency to
investigate every complaint that is not eligible for mediation, it
states that the agency’s receipt of the complaint triggers this
obligation. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. This language indicates that
withdrawal does not change the investigation requirement, as the
language ties the requirement to the information that the agency
learns rather than to the wishes of the complainant. See id.;
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ruddy, 411 Md. 30, 68 (2009)
(reiterating the holding of Lee and reasoning that “a complaint is
simply the mechanism by which Bar Counsel becomes aware of
possibly questionable attorney conduct”).
Further, this interpretation advances the purpose of the
regulation and its authorizing statute. In creating new procedures
for matters of police discipline where an allegation of misconduct
involves a member of the public, the General Assembly sought to
entrust charging determinations to a civilian committee—the ACC.
See PS § 3-104(d); Revised Fiscal & Policy Note, H.B. 670, 2021
Leg., Reg. Sess. at 5 (explaining the framework of the ACC
process). It would undermine this legislative purpose to allow the
law enforcement agency to terminate the investigation and
charging process, without giving the ACC the opportunity to
consider the matter, simply because the complainant decides to
68 [109 Op. Att’y
withdraw. Although withdrawal may indicate in some cases that
the matter does not warrant discipline, in others withdrawal may
occur even though the allegation of misconduct is well-founded
and even where the public has an interest in addressing the matter.
See Lee, 393 Md. at 562. We think that, under the statutory scheme,
it naturally rests with the ACC rather than the law enforcement
agency to parse these considerations. See PS § 3-104(d), (e). In
addition, interpreting the regulation to mean that withdrawal does
not cut off the investigation and charging process avoids creating
an incentive for the police officer to prevail upon the complainant
to withdraw. See Lee, 393 Md. at 562.
Although we have not found any discussion of withdrawn
complaints in the history of the legislation creating the ACC
charging process, we think that the legislative history, in a broader
sense, supports our reading of the regulation. As originally enacted
in 2021, the ACC charging process applied to any “complaint made
by a member of the public against a police officer.” 2021 Md.
Laws, ch. 59 (codified at PS § 3-104(d)). The process did not
govern internal complaints. Id. The next year, the General
Assembly revised this provision to its current form, so that the
charging process now covers any complaint “involving a member
of the public . . . regardless of whether the complaint originated
from within the law enforcement agency or from an external
source.” 2022 Md. Laws, ch. 141 (amending PS § 3-104(d)). The
process therefore governs internal complaints so long as they allege
misconduct towards the public. PS § 3-104(d). This change shows
that the General Assembly was concerned not with the source of a
misconduct allegation, but instead with ensuring that the ACC
would assess all allegations of misconduct so long as they involve
actions toward the public. See Revised Fiscal & Policy Note, S.B.
389, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 1 (explaining that the change,
ultimately enacted as part of S.B. 763, aimed to require “all
complaints of police misconduct involving a member of the public
to be forwarded to the appropriate [ACC]” (emphasis omitted)).
The General Assembly has made plain, in other words, that it is the
nature of the alleged misconduct that matters, not the source. We
think this point tends to suggest that a decision by the source—the
complainant—to withdraw does not alter the applicability of the
ACC charging process. See Ruddy, 411 Md. at 68.
We recognize that, in some cases, the withdrawal of a
complaint will suggest that it was unfounded or will leave the law
enforcement agency with limited avenues of investigation,
especially where the complainant chooses not to participate in the
Gen. 61] 69
process.5 Law enforcement agencies might reasonably question
whether they should be required to allocate resources to the
investigation of such complaints. We think, however, that the
regulations accommodate this concern. First, although the
regulations require a “thorough investigation,” they do not require
a wasteful or useless one. See COMAR 12.04.09.06B. The agency
may still calibrate the investigation to the circumstances. Where
an agency believes that it would not be productive to carry the
investigation of a withdrawn complaint beyond a certain point—
say, after interviewing the officer involved—the regulations do not
bar the agency from forwarding the matter to the ACC at that
juncture. The ACC may always request additional investigation if
it disagrees with the agency’s approach. COMAR
12.04.09.07A(2). The regulations even allow the agency chief to
influence the ensuing process by opining to the ACC that the matter
does not warrant discipline. COMAR 12.04.09.06D. In other
words, investigations and charging determinations for withdrawn
complaints may sometimes be more streamlined than for other
complaints. The essential requirement is only that the decision to
dispose of a withdrawn complaint without discipline must rest with
the ACC, not the agency.
B. Complaints Eligible for Mediation
The answer is less clear as to complaints that are eligible for
mediation. The regulation discussed above that expressly requires
other complaints to be investigated upon receipt does not, by its
plain terms, apply to mediation-eligible complaints. COMAR
12.04.09.06B (providing that “[a] law enforcement agency shall
complete a thorough investigation upon receipt of a complaint of
alleged police officer misconduct, which is not eligible for
mediation” (emphasis added)). We thus consider whether a law
enforcement agency must investigate a complaint that is eligible
for mediation when the complainant purports to withdraw the
complaint.
5
The agency does not have any authority to require the complainant
to participate in an investigation. The ACC, unlike the agency, has
subpoena power and could presumably subpoena a complainant,
although we imagine that it would reserve this power for matters where
there is a significant public interest in obtaining the complainant’s
evidence. See PS § 3-104(f). And the ACC, unlike the agency, also has
authority to dispose of a withdrawn complaint by determining that no
discipline is warranted. See PS § 3-104(e)(2). The point, once again, is
that the statute assigns these essential decisions to the ACC—not the law
enforcement agency.
70 [109 Op. Att’y
We note, at the outset, that this issue about the withdrawal of
mediation-eligible complaints is largely academic at this point.
The Commission promulgated its mediation regulations only
recently, in March 2023. See supra Part I. The Commission
informs us that, thus far, only a few of Maryland’s law enforcement
agencies have set up mediation programs. Under the regulations,
as explained earlier, an agency that does not have a mediation
program must address all complaints involving a member of the
public—even those that allege minor and nonviolent misconduct—
through the standard ACC charging process, which begins with an
investigation by the agency. See supra note 3.
In any event, we discuss the mediation issue briefly to provide
guidance to the Commission and the agencies. As noted above, the
plain language of the regulation that we have found controlling for
other complaints does not control this issue because it does not
directly apply the investigation requirement to mediation-eligible
complaints. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. And in a general sense, the
proposition that an agency should have discretion to consider a
mediation-eligible complaint resolved if it is withdrawn could
comport with the purpose of the regulatory scheme and its
underlying statute. Mediation seeks to work through the stated
concerns of the complainant. See COMAR 12.04.11.03B(6),
12.04.10.03B(8) (defining “mediation” to mean “a process in
which parties in a dispute work with one or more impartial
mediators who assist the parties in reaching a voluntary agreement
for the resolution of a nonviolent dispute or conflict”). By granting
the agency discretion to steer an eligible complaint to mediation
instead of investigating it, the regulations empower the agency to
treat the private concerns of the complainant as paramount where
the alleged misconduct is minor and nonviolent. See COMAR
12.04.11.06A(2). This grant of discretion stands in contrast to the
charging process for complaints that are not eligible for mediation,
where the public interest in addressing the allegation of misconduct
prevails over the complainant’s private concerns. See Lee, 393 Md.
at 562; supra Part II.A.
As such, there is an argument that allowing the agency to treat
a mediation-eligible matter as resolved if the complainant
withdraws would not conflict with the purpose of the mediation
regulations or the underlying statute. Nor do we think that granting
the agency this discretion would create a substantial incentive for
the police officer to pressure the complainant to withdraw, because
the mediation option allows the officer to pursue similar ends
(informal resolution of the complainant’s concerns) through
legitimate means. See COMAR 12.04.10.03B(8). The fact that
Gen. 61] 71
only minor complaints are eligible for mediation further reduces
the risk of improper pressure. See COMAR 12.04.11.06A, B(1).
Nonetheless, the Commission’s existing regulations cannot,
in our view, be interpreted to grant a law enforcement agency this
discretion. Under the regulations, withdrawal is not a method by
which any type of complaint, including a mediation-eligible
complaint, may be resolved. Instead, the regulations identify only
one way in which a complaint of misconduct involving a member
of the public may be resolved outside of the ACC charging process:
through a successful mediation. See COMAR 12.04.11.08. And
the regulations attach careful protocols to this form of resolution:
The agency must track and report each such resolution to the PAB.
COMAR 12.04.09.06A(2), 12.04.11.08E. Also, the mediator must
document a successful resolution in a written statement that
memorializes the parties’ understanding. COMAR 12.04.11.08C.
Both the complainant and the officer must sign this statement. Id.
In this way, the regulations safeguard against any
misunderstanding about whether either party wishes to send the
matter through the ACC process or any other misconstruction of
their positions. See id.
In our opinion, the fact that the regulations attach such
protocols to the only form of alternative resolution that they
recognize means that they cannot be interpreted to allow an agency
to treat a mediation-eligible complaint as resolved if it is
withdrawn. See Kor-Ko Ltd. v. Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, 451
Md. 401, 417 (2017) (reasoning that a regulation must be read
“within the context of the [regulatory] scheme to which it belongs,
considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the [agency] in enacting
the [regulation]” (alterations in original) (quoting Lockshin v.
Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 276 (2010))). If the Commission had
intended to allow an agency to consider the matter resolved when
the complainant withdraws a meditation-eligible complaint, we
think the regulations would more specifically address that situation.
Thus, in our view, if the Commission wishes to authorize
resolution by withdrawal for mediation-eligible complaints, it
would need to do so by regulation. To be clear, this choice rests
with the Commission; the statute does not require it to grant
agencies this authority. See supra Part I (explaining that the statute
does not address the intersection between the mediation program
and the ACC charging process). As we read the existing
regulations, unless the complainant and the officer sign a resolution
statement and the mediator reports that result in writing to the
agency, the agency must send the complaint through the standard
investigation and charging process—even if withdrawal cuts off
72 [109 Op. Att’y
the mediation process. See COMAR 12.04.11.08. Although the
regulations do not expressly impose this requirement on law
enforcement agencies when a mediation-eligible complaint is
withdrawn, they imply it by providing a mechanism for a
mediation-eligible complaint to avoid the ACC charging process
altogether only where a mediator documents that the complaint has
been successfully resolved. See id. Where mediation does not
deliver this result, the ACC charging process provides the only
avenue for handling a mediation-eligible complaint. See COMAR
12.04.09.06A, B.
III
Conclusion
We conclude that, under the Public Safety Article and its
implementing regulations, a law enforcement agency must
investigate a complaint of police misconduct involving a member
of the public and forward the matter to the appropriate ACC, even
if the complainant seeks to withdraw the complaint. Although the
Commission might conceivably establish a different rule by
regulation for those complaints that are eligible for mediation, it
has not done so. Under current law, withdrawal does not alter the
obligations of a law enforcement agency to investigate and forward
any type of misconduct complaint involving a member of the
public.
Anthony G. Brown
Attorney General of Maryland
Ben Harrington
Assistant Attorney General
Patrick B. Hughes
Chief Counsel, Opinions and Advice