|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MONTGOMERY COUNTY v. SHROPSHIRE
23 A.3d 205 (2011)
420 Md. 362
MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND, et al.
v.
Edward SHROPSHIRE, et al.
No. 84, September Term, 2010.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
June 29, 2011.
Karen L. Federman Henry, Division Chief (Marc P. Hansen, Acting County Atty., and Kathryn Lloyd, Associate County, Atty., Office of the County Attorney, Rockville, MD), on brief, for appellants.
Martha L. Handman (Martha L. Handman, P.C., Gaithersburg, MD), on brief, for appellees.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA, JJ.
BATTAGLIA, J. In this declaratory judgment action,1 we consider the intersection of the Maryland Public Information Act, Maryland Code (1984, 2009 Repl.Vol.), Sections 10-611 et seq. of the State Government Article,2 with the authority of the Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General to obtain records of a police department internal investigation. Specifically, we are asked whether records of an investigation undertaken by the County Police Department's Internal Affairs Division, related to alleged violations of administrative rules of the Department by Sergeant Edward Shropshire and Captain Willie Parker-Loan, Appellees, in connection with an automobile accident involving Assistant Fire Chief Gregory J. DeHaven, can be disclosed to the County's Inspector General. After a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ordered the disclosure of records of the internal investigation, but not information "of a personal nature." Both parties appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, but, before the appeal could be decided by the intermediate appellate court, we granted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Sergeant Shropshire and Captain Parker-Loan,3
Montgomery County v. Shropshire, 415 Md. 607, 4 A.3d 512 (2010), to consider the following questions: 1. Does the Maryland Public Information Act, Md.Code Ann., State Gov't § 10-616(i) require the custodian of records to deny the Montgomery County Inspector General access to records of a police department internal investigation of whether the petitioners violated department work rules? 2. Are records of a police department internal investigation of the petitioners protected from disclosure to the Montgomery County Inspector General under Md.Code Ann., State Gov't § 10-615(1) as records made confidential by the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights [LEOBR], Md.Code Ann., Public Safety § 3-104(n)?[4] We shall hold that records of an internal investigation pertaining to the alleged violation of administrative rules are "personnel records" pursuant to Section 10-616(i) of the State Government Article5 and, therefore, may not be disclosed under the Maryland Public Information Act to the Montgomery County Inspector General. Background and Procedural History
1. Sections 3-401 et seq. of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol.), otherwise known as the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, govern claims for declaratory relief.
2. All references to the Maryland Public Information Act throughout are to Sections 10-611 et seq. of the State Government Article, Maryland Code (1984, 2009 Repl.Vol.), unless otherwise noted.
3. Although Sergeant Shropshire and Captain Parker-Loan filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the County had filed the first appeal in the Court of Special Appeals, and retains the position of "Appellant," because no decision had been issued by the intermediate appellate court. See Rule 8-111(a) ("When no prior appellate decision has been rendered, the party first appealing the decision of the trial court shall be designated the appellant and the adverse party shall be designated the appellee.").
4. Because of our disposition of the first issue, we need not and will not address the second question presented.
5. Section 10-616, governing "required denials," provides, in relevant part:
(a) In general.—Unless otherwise provided by law, a custodian shall deny inspection of a public record, as provided in this section.
* * *
(i) Personnel records.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian shall deny inspection of a personnel record of an individual, including an application, performance rating, or scholastic achievement information.
(2) A custodian shall permit inspection by:
(i) the person in interest; or
(ii) an elected or appointed official who supervises the work of the individual.
6. The Circuit Court judge entered judgment in favor of Montgomery County with respect to this count.
7. In a declaratory judgment action, "the court must enter a declaratory judgment, defining the rights and obligations of the parties or the status of the thing in controversy, and that judgment must be in writing and in a separate document." Lovell Land v. State Highway Admin., 408 Md. 242, 256, 969 A.2d 284, 292 (2009), quoting Allstate v. State Farm, 363 Md. 106, 117 n. 1, 767 A.2d 831, 837 n. 1 (2001). Although the Circuit Court failed to enter a proper declaratory judgment in the present case, this oversight is not a jurisdictional defect. We will "review the merits of the controversy and remand for entry of an appropriate declaratory judgment by the circuit court." Bowen v. City of Annapolis, 402 Md. 587, 609, 937 A.2d 242, 255 (2007), quoting Bushey v. Northern Assurance, 362 Md. 626, 651, 766 A.2d 598, 611 (2001).
8. Montgomery County, MD—OIG Home Page, http://www.montgomerycounty md.gov/ oigtmpl.asp?url=/content/InspectorG/index.asp (last visited June 27, 2011).
9. All references to Sections 3-101 et seq. of the Public Safety Article are to Maryland Code (2003), unless otherwise noted.
10. Function Code 301 states the policy governing disciplinary proceedings as follows:
Discipline must be fair and equitable. A disciplinary action against an employee must be initiated promptly when it is evident that the action is necessary to maintain an orderly and productive work environment. Except in cases of theft or serious violations of policy or procedure that create a health or safety risk, disciplinary actions must be progressive in severity. The severity of the action should be determined after consideration of the nature and gravity of the offense, its relationship to the employee's assigned duties and responsibilities, the employee's work record, and other relevant factors.
11. Section 5, subsection L of Function Code 301 provides that Internal Investigative Reports are confidential:
Reports of internal investigations, including witness statements, are confidential. Authorization for access to these reports can only be granted by the Chief of Police, or designee.
12. The Internal Affairs Division investigation in the present case concluded that there were "no administrative violations" by Sergeant Shropshire or Captain Parker-Loan; as a result, we do not address whether records of "sustained" complaints may be disclosed to a County's Inspector General.
13. Section 10-617 of the State Government Article, governing exemptions from disclosure for "specific information," is not implicated in the present case.
14. Sergeant Shropshire and Captain Parker-Loan refer to Section 10-615(1) of the State Government Article, asserting that the records concerning alleged administrative rule violations are "confidential" by virtue of State law, namely the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, Section 3-104(n) of the Public Safety Article. Because we shall hold that the internal affairs records constitute "personnel records" pursuant to Section 10-616(i) of the State Government Article, we do not reach this argument.
15. A "Rubik's Cube" is a "puzzle consisting of a plastic cube with colored squares that you turn to make each side of the cube a different color." Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, http://www.oxfordadvanced learnersdictionary.com/dictionary/Rubik% 27s + Cube + %7C31%7C (last visited June 27, 2011).
16. Subsequently, in Baltimore Police v. State, 158 Md.App. 274, 857 A.2d 148 (2004), the intermediate appellate court considered whether certain portions of a law enforcement officer's personnel file could be disclosed to a defendant in a criminal case. The defendant sought records of an Internal Affairs Division investigation concerning an accusation that a detective, who had participated in the defendant's arrest and was scheduled to testify at his trial on drug charges, had been dishonest in an unrelated matter, to cross-examine the officer at trial. The Court of Special Appeals, guided by Kirwan, agreed that the records indeed constituted "personnel records," but determined that the trial judge could compel disclosure after having balanced the criminal defendant's need for relevant information in the records against the privacy rights of other persons and the custodian's duty to maintain confidentiality. Id. at 290, 857 A.2d 148, 857 A.2d at 158, citing Blades v. Woods, 107 Md.App. 178, 185, 667 A.2d 917, 921 (1995).
17. The County also states that even if the internal affairs investigation records are "personnel records," the Inspector General requires access to those records to investigate the efficacy of the standards and methods employed by the Department. The County's assertion of a special need is without merit, because the Inspector General can obtain information about Sergeant Shropshire's and Captain Parker-Loan's handling of the traffic accident by culling primary sources.
1. As this case describes, a general statutory term followed by a list of particulars is to be interpreted narrowly to "include only those things or persons of the same class or general nature as those specifically mentioned." In re Wallace W., 333 Md. 186, 190, 634 A.2d 53, 55-56 (1993). The rule applies when:
(1) the statute contains an enumeration by specific words; (2) the members of the enumeration suggest a class; (3) the class is not exhausted by the enumeration; (4) a general reference supplementing the enumeration, usually following it; and (5) there is not clearly manifested an intent that the general term be given a broader meaning than the doctrine requires.
Id.
2. The officers also allege that disclosure would be improper because the IAD records are made "confidential by law" pursuant to the Law Officer's Bill of Rights ("LEOBR"). This Court has employed a balancing test when dealing with the confidentiality interest of a police officer under the LEOBR. In Robinson v. State, 354 Md. 287, 730 A.2d 181 (1999), a robbery conviction was reversed because petitioner was not allowed access to prior statements by police officer witnesses made to the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) of the Prince George's County Police Department. The IAD was investigating the discharge of the officer's weapon during the defendant's arrest. The LEOBR "limits access to the internal investigation file to the affected officer, and then only to exculpatory information, and does not expressly provide for access by anyone else." 354 Md. at 308, 730 A.2d at 192. Nevertheless, this Court held that the trial court's denial of the defendant's request to examine those records was in error, as it violated the defendant's right under the "Jencks" rule, see generally Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 582-83, 530 A.2d 743 (1987), vacated, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815, 100 L.Ed.2d 916, aff'd in part and vacated on other grounds, 314 Md. 111, 549 A.2d 17 (1988), to examine all written reports or statements previously made by a witness to determine whether they contained any inconsistency with the testimony given at trial. In reaching this conclusion, the Court balanced the confidentiality interest "against the confrontation and due process rights of the defendant[,]" reasoning that "[w]hile confidentiality does go to discoverability, it does not guarantee insulation of the confidential matter from disclosure." 354 Md. at 309, 730 A.2d at 193.
Here, the police officers' confidentiality interest must be balanced against the public interest in transparency. The Inspector General was created specifically to "prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in government activities[.]" Montgomery County Code § 2-151(a)(2). Indeed, the public has a vital interest in preventing abuse in government activities. On the other side of the scale, the possibility that the IAD file will be released to the public at large is minor, because under the County Code, the "Inspector General must comply with any restrictions on public disclosure of the document or information that are required by federal or state law." Montgomery County Code § 2-151(l)(1). Thus, the confidentiality interest extends only to preventing the Inspector General from viewing the file. Here, the Inspector General is acting as the government's auditor of the IAD, much like the IAD was the government's auditor of the underlying police investigation. I do not see how the officers view their confidentiality interest as being further hindered by the same type of investigation.
|
|
|
|
|