As an attorney in the field, I feel compelled to point out the numerous inaccuracies about Maryland's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights in Susan Goering's recent commentary ("Reform Maryland's officers' bill of rights," Jan. 16).
Readers of The Sun deserve to have correct information about the officers bill of rights so they can come to a reasoned and fair assessment of the law that protects police from baseless accusations yet still allows management to take corrective action when warranted.
Ms. Goering says the law prohibits supervisors from questioning subordinate officers for 10 days following an incident of alleged misconduct. This is simply not true. An agency may require its employees to report what happened at any time, and employees have a public duty to comply.
Only under the most limited circumstances is an employee entitled to a 10-day delay in order to obtain an attorney to assist during an interrogation.
An interrogation is quite different from simply a report of what happened. Properly applied, the officers bill of rights does not impede the immediate investigation of an incident.
Ms. Goering also claims that excessive force complaints must be brought within 90 days. But the 90-day language does not prevent an agency from investigating incidents of excessive force. The provision is intended to deter frivolous complaints, not to restrict agency action.
The writer also claims that "all administrative actions must be brought within one year under current law." This completely ignores the next section of the law that provides an exception to the one-year requirement for incidents involving excessive force or criminal conduct — precisely the types of cases about which she is most concerned.
Critics of the officers bill of rights have ignored the fact that citizens file false complaints motivated by self-interest, such as the hope of reducing any criminal charges against themselves or garnering public sympathy in lawsuits for money damages even if they are undeserved. There must be a system in place to protect officers from false accusations and to protect the justice system from being abused by dishonest citizens. The officers bill of rights provides that protection.
When the law was first enacted police agencies routinely terminated the employment of officers without conducting any investigation and without giving them any opportunity for meaningful review. Such firings were often based on frivolous and even false accusations. The officers bill of rights strikes an appropriate balance to ensure that individual officers are not subjected to arbitrary disciplinary action while preserving management's ability to hold employees accountable for their actions.
This is the proper role of a hearing board made up of officers who understand the challenges of law enforcement work and a chief of police who is accountable to the public. Even the best-intentioned civilians cannot fairly evaluate police conduct without having had the experience of risking their own lives to protect the public, as our police officers do every day.
Karen J. Kruger
The writer is executive director and general counsel for the Maryland Sheriffs' Association and general counsel for the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association.