City of Brunswick v. Christopher Handler

City of Brunswick · Appellate Court of Maryland · March 2, 2026 · No. No. 1437, September Term, 2024

Summary

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the Maryland Police Accountability Act requires each law enforcement agency to establish a trial board process for all matters for which a police officer is subject to discipline. The court concluded that this requirement applies to internal disciplinary matters, including letters of reprimand that do not involve a member of the public, and affirmed the writ of mandamus issued by the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

Holdings

  1. Public Safety § 3-106(a)(1) unambiguously requires every law enforcement agency to establish a trial board process for all matters for which a police officer is subject to discipline, including internal disciplinary matters that do not involve a member of the public.
  2. Because Handler was subject to discipline for both letters of reprimand, appellants' denial of his request for trial board process violated Public Safety § 3-106(a)(1), and the circuit court properly granted a writ of mandamus.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Maryland Public Safety § 3-106(a)(1), which requires each law enforcement agency to establish a trial board process to adjudicate all matters for which a police officer is subject to discipline, applies to disciplinary matters that do not involve a member of the public.
  2. Whether the Circuit Court for Frederick County properly granted Handler's petition for a writ of mandamus after appellants denied his request for a trial board hearing.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (18)

  • Nesbit v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65, 72(followed)
  • Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392(followed)
  • Wiggins v. Griner, 155 Md. App. 530, 533(followed)
  • Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 387-88(followed)
  • Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 242 Md. App. 417, 427(followed)
  • Willis v. Montgomery Cnty., 415 Md. 523, 536(followed)
  • Kushell v. Dep't of Nat. Res., 385 Md. 563, 577(followed)
  • Arundel Corp. v. Marie, 383 Md. 489, 502(followed)
  • Baires v. State, 249 Md. App. 62, 80(followed)
  • Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC, 412 Md. 308, 327(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…