Notice...

Please be advised: The WicBury Crapper and it’s staff take no responsibility for metering, publishing, filtering, or maintaining comments from our readers. Although we do our best screen most comments, some harassing, ignorant, or offensive comments may be posted by our readers.All comments are the sole responsibility of their respective commenters. By reading this blog you expressly consent to not being offended by the information contained herein and agree not to take legal action for any information contained herein against any member of the WicBury Crapper or it's staff or board. If this blog or any of it's content offends you, please leave now.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Spotlight on LEOBOR

OCEAN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT v. DALE C. MARSHALL

We recently received an e-mail from a reader asking us to produce a new weekly article which outlines LEOBOR and frankly we thought it was a damn good idea. So each week or whenever we feel like it, we will be posting a "Spotlight on LEOBOR" for our readers. We recommend reading it over frequently. We have found that a lot of line personnel are not aware of their rights as a Law Enforcement Officer in Maryland. This is an excellent way to be ready in case of an internal investigation or other related matter! We are looking for a columnist who is interested in posting and researching this area. Please note, we are not attorneys and this should not take the place of legal council. This is for informational purposes only.


Under the LEOBR, Article 27, section 728(b)(5)(i) (nowPublic Safety, section 3-104(d)(2)), a law enforcementofficer under investigation shall be informed of the “natureof the investigation” prior to any interrogation.

This weeks spot light is on a 2004 case involving the Ocean City Police Department vs. an Ocean City Police Sgt. who was suspended without pay for eight days. It was found by the maryland appellete court that the Sgt. was never properly informed of the accusations aganst him. Below is a copy of what he was served and deemed to be insufficiant in its explanation of charges and accusations. Judgement for the defendant.

Be advised that a complaint has been lodged concerning a situation in which you were alleged to have been involved. The details of the complaint as they are known are as follows: On January 8, 2002 you were involvedin captureing [sic] a suspected bank robber.This occurred at 47th and the BEACH, O.C. M.D. Your actions prior to and after the capture have come into question. You are further advised that other issues may arise concerning this complaint as the investigation progresses, at which time you will be informed as to their nature. * * *You have the right to be represented by an attorney or any other responsible representative of your choice. Should you desire representation, advise your attorney or other representative of your interview. [italics indicate handwriting].

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cool, very informative! I'm going to check it out when I can. Good to know this kind of stuff.

Anonymous said...

Wow, this sounds familiar...wcso...they love to do this stuff