SB 626
Department of Legislative Services
Maryland General Assembly
2021 Session
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
Third Reader - Revised
Senate Bill 626 (Senator Carter)
Judicial Proceedings Judiciary
Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 - Law Enforcement Officers - Use of
Force, Reporting, and Whistleblower Protections
This bill (1) establishes various requirements and prohibitions regarding the use of force
by law enforcement officers and criminal penalties for violations; (2) establishes specified
whistleblower protections with review by the Attorney General; (3) requires the Maryland
Police Training and Standards Commission (MPTSC) to require specified training;
(4) authorizes MPTSC to suspend or revoke the certification of a police officer under
specified circumstances relating to the use of force; and (5) requires each local law
enforcement agency to establish, maintain, and implement specified policies and guidance
for law enforcement agencies and include funds in its annual budget for specified training
and assessments. The bill also establishes various reporting requirements for local law
enforcement agencies and MPTSC and establishes procedures for noncompliance.
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: General fund expenditures increase by at least $155,300 in FY 2022; future
years reflect annualization and ongoing costs. Potential minimal increase in general fund
revenues due to the bill’s criminal penalty provisions.
(in dollars) FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
GF Expenditure 155,300 184,300 190,000 196,700 203,700
Net Effect ($155,300) ($184,300) ($190,000) ($196,700) ($203,700)
Note:() = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease
Local Effect: Local expenditures may increase, as discussed below. Potential minimal
increase in local revenues and expenditures due to the bill’s criminal penalty provisions. This
bill imposes a mandate on a unit of local government.
Small Business Effect: None.
 Analysis
Bill Summary:
Use of Force, Duty to Intervene, and Duty to Provide Medical Treatment
A law enforcement officer may not intentionally use “excessive force.” The bill defines
“excessive force” as force that an objectively reasonable law enforcement officer would
conclude exceeds what is necessary to gain compliance, control a situation, or protect a
law enforcement officer of others from harm, under the totality of the circumstances.
A law enforcement officer must make a reasonable attempt to intervene to terminate or
prevent the use of excessive force if the officer knows or reasonably should know that
another law enforcement officer is using or has expressed an intent to use excessive force
that is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury. A law enforcement officer may not
knowingly violate this requirement.
A law enforcement officer may not intentionally refuse to promptly provide, or make
reasonable efforts to obtain, appropriate medical treatment for a person who sustains a
serious bodily injury as a result of a law enforcement officer’s use of force.
A law enforcement officer who violates any of the above provisions is guilty of a
misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
Duty to Make a Report
A law enforcement officer must immediately make a report to any supervisory member of
a law enforcement agency, a State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Prosecutor
if the law enforcement officer has actual knowledge that another law enforcement officer
has engaged in (1) homicide, as specified; (2) the use of excessive force resulting in bodily
injury; (3) specified sexual crimes; (4) specified theft and related crimes; (5) perjury, as
specified; (6) specified fraud and related crimes; or (7) tampering with or fabricating
physical evidence, as specified. A law enforcement officer who violates any of these
provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a maximum penalty
of three years imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine.
Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission
MPTSC has the power and duty to require (1) for entrance-level police training and, as
determined by the commission, for in-service level training conducted by the State and
each county and municipal police training school, that the curriculum and minimum
courses of study include, as specified, training regarding individuals who are in crisis and
SB 626/ Page 2
(2) for entrance-level police training and at least every two years for in-service level police
training conducted by the State and each county and municipal police training school, that
the curriculum and minimum courses of study include training on the bill’s requirement to
intervene to terminate or prevent the use of excessive force.
MPTSC is authorized to suspend or revoke the certification of a police officer if the police
officer (1) fails to use “de-escalation,” as defined, as an alternative to using physical force,
under circumstances in which de-escalation did not increase the risk of physical injury
posed to the law enforcement officer or (2) misuses “less-lethal force,” as defined, against
a member of the public.
Local Law Enforcement Agency Requirements
By July 1, 2022, in consultation with MPTSC, each local law enforcement agency must
establish, maintain, and implement policies and guidance for law enforcement agencies on
prohibited actions relating to the improper use of force, specified principles regarding the
use of force, protecting officers from retaliation or discipline relating to the duty to
intervene and report the improper use of force by another officer, documenting uses of
force and conducting use-of-force investigations, and promptly providing, or making a
reasonable effort to obtain, appropriate medical treatment for a person injured as the result
of a law enforcement officer’s use of force.
By July 1, 2022, each local law enforcement agency must include funds in its annual budget
for (1) training and assessment of training, as specified, and (2) assessing supervisors in
the reinforcement of training objectives in real-world scenarios. By December 31, 2021,
and every six months thereafter, each local law enforcement agency must report to the
Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services (GOCPYVS)
specified data regarding the use of force that resulted in complaints, hospitalizations, or
death, as specified. GOCPYVS must analyze and summarize the reports submitted and, by
September 1 each year (1) submit a report of the analysis and summaries to the Governor,
each law enforcement agency, and the General Assembly and (2) publish the report on its
website. GOCPYVS must develop a standard form for reporting the required data.
Other Reporting Requirements and Procedures for Noncompliance
If a law enforcement agency fails to comply with the reporting provisions, GOCPYVS is
required to report the noncompliance to MPTSC. MPTSC is required to contact the law
enforcement agency and request that the agency comply with the reporting provisions.
In addition, by December 31, 2021, and each December 31 thereafter, MPTSC must review
a representative sample of the policies enacted by local law enforcement agencies relating
to use of force and the internal files of law enforcement agencies to determine compliance
SB 626/ Page 3
with specified requirements of the bill. If a local law enforcement agency is not in
compliance, MPTSC must contact the agency to request compliance, as specified. If the
local law enforcement agency does not comply within 90 days, (1) MPTSC must notify the
Executive Director of GOCPYVS and the Comptroller and (2) the local law enforcement
agency may not receive funds administered through the State Aid for Police Protection
(SAPP) Fund.
Whistleblower Protections
The bill prohibits a supervisor, an appointing authority, or the head of a law enforcement
agency from threatening or taking a “retaliatory action” against a law enforcement officer
who discloses specified information or, following such a disclosure, seeks a remedy under
the bill’s provisions or any other law or policy governing the law enforcement agency.
These protections apply to a disclosure of information that a law enforcement officer
reasonably believes demonstrates (1) an abuse of authority, gross mismanagement, or gross
waste of money; (2) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or (3) a
violation of law. A disclosure by a law enforcement officer that is otherwise prohibited by
law, is confidential by law, or that a law enforcement officer knew or reasonably should
have known would impede or was likely to impede an investigation is protected only if the
disclosure is made exclusively to the Attorney General, in writing, and contains specified
information.
A “retaliatory action” includes any recommended, threatened, or actual adverse
employment action, including:
 termination, demotion, suspension, or reprimand;
 involuntary transfer, reassignment, or detail to an assignment that a reasonable law
enforcement officer would find less favorable;
 failure to promote, hire, or take other favorable personnel action;
 engaging in any conduct that would dissuade a reasonable law enforcement officer
from engaging in activities protected under the bill; and
 any other retaliation against a law enforcement officer because the law enforcement
officer makes a disclosure protected under the bill’s whistleblower protections.
A law enforcement officer aggrieved by a violation of the bill’s prohibitions regarding
retaliatory actions may bring a civil action against the law enforcement agency for
equitable relief or damages. In a civil action brought under the bill, if the law enforcement
officer demonstrates – by a preponderance of the evidence – that the disclosure of
information was a contributing factor in the alleged retaliatory action, the law enforcement
agency has the burden of proving – by clear and convincing evidence – that the personnel
action would have occurred for legitimate reasons, even if the officer had not made the
SB 626/ Page 4
disclosure. In the civil action, the officer may seek, instead of reinstatement and back pay,
statutory damages of at least $5,000 for each instance of retaliatory action. The trier of fact,
in awarding statutory damages, must consider the severity of the prohibited retaliatory
action and the purposes of the bill’s whistleblower protections.
The bill details options for the court when a determination is made that an officer is entitled
to equitable relief or damages in a civil action, including the award of compensation for all
lost remuneration and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, the court must issue
an injunction against the law enforcement agency for any continuing violations of the bill’s
provisions. If the court determines that a civil action was brought by a law enforcement
officer in bad faith or without substantial justification, the court may award reasonable
attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses to the law enforcement agency.
The bill does not preclude an action for defamation or invasion of privacy. The bill’s
provisions may not be construed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of a law
enforcement officer provided under any federal, State, or local law or under a collective
bargaining agreement.
The Attorney General must (1) designate an assistant Attorney General to receive, from
law enforcement officers, any information that is otherwise protected by law from
disclosure; (2) investigate each allegation of illegality or impropriety; and (3) take
appropriate legal action.
The bill applies prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on
or application to any cause of action arising before its October 1, 2021 effective date.
Current Law:
Use of Force
Each law enforcement agency must require a police officer who is involved in a use of
force incident in the line of duty to file an incident report regarding the use of force by the
end of the officer’s shift unless the officer is disabled.
Common law allowed police officers to use any force necessary to effectuate a felony
arrest; however, in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held
that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing
suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has
probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious
physical injury to the officer or others.” In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the
Supreme Court expanded its definition to include the “objective reasonableness” standard.
The court held that the Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the
SB 626/ Page 5
officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The
“reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that
police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force
necessary in a particular situation.” In Randall v. Peaco, 175 Md. App. 320 (2007), the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals applied principles of the Graham v. Connor case and
stated that the test for determining the objective reasonableness of an officer’s conduct for
purposes of deciding a claim of excessive force brought under the State constitution is the
test the Supreme Court announced in Graham v. Connor.
Police Officer Training
Chapter 519 of 2016 reconstituted the former Police Training Commission as MPTSC, an
independent commission within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services. MPTSC operates approved police training schools and prescribes standards for
and certifies schools that offer police and security training. In consultation and cooperation
with various entities, it also sets minimum qualifications for instructors and certifies
qualified instructors for approved training schools.
MPTSC certifies persons as police officers who have met commission standards, including
submission to a criminal history records check and a specified psychological consultation.
An individual who is not satisfactorily trained in the 12-month probationary period may
not be employed as a police officer, and a police officer may not serve after certification
has been revoked, suspended, or allowed to lapse.
MPTSC requirements include, among other things, the adoption and recommendation of
best practices and standards for use of force and that the curriculum and minimum courses
of study include special training, attention to, and study of the application of
antidiscrimination and use of force de-escalation training at entrance-level police training
and at least every two years for in-service level police training conducted by the State and
each county and municipal police training school.
Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services
The State provides regular and supplemental grants to local government police operations
through various programs and funds administered by GOCPYVS. GOCPYVS plans,
promotes, and funds efforts with government entities, private organizations, and the
community to advance public policy, enhance public safety, reduce crime and juvenile
delinquency, and serve victims. Examples of grants administered by GOCPYVS include
the Maryland Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund, the Community
Program Fund, and the SAPP Fund.
SB 626/ Page 6
Maryland Whistleblower Law
The Maryland Whistleblower Law includes protections for Executive Branch employees,
including law enforcement officers employed by the State, that are substantively similar to
those required by the bill. It protects State Executive Branch employees who disclose
information believed to evidence abuse of authority, gross mismanagement or waste of
money, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, and/or a violation of
the law.
The Whistleblower Law prohibits reprisal against an employee who, after making a
disclosure, seeks a remedy provided by any law or policy. A complaint under this statute
must be brought within six months after the complainant first knew of, or reasonably should
have known of, the violation of the whistleblower protection. The Secretary of Budget and
Management, or a designee thereof, is required to conduct an investigation and determine
whether a violation occurred within 60 days. After reviewing a final decision under the
Whistleblower Law, the court may award costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees
to a prevailing complainant.
State Expenditures:
Office of the Attorney General
The protections provided under the bill’s whistleblower provisions generally already exist
in current law for State law enforcement agencies; however, the bill extends the protections
to all local law enforcement agencies in the State. Thus, the bill likely results in an increase
in whistleblower claims and cases referred to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
The bill requires OAG to designate one attorney to receive, investigate, and adjudicate
those claims. Therefore, general fund expenditures increase by at least $155,269 in
fiscal 2022, which accounts for the bill’s October 1, 2021 effective date. This estimate
reflects the cost of hiring one assistant Attorne