Misconduct & Discipline

A robust and well-functioning accountability system in which officers are held to the highest standards of integrity is critical to BPD’s relationship with the Baltimore community, and a priority of the Department. The Consent Decree outlines specific steps the Department must take in pursuit of an internal disciplinary process that treats complainants, officers, and witnesses with respect and dignity. The BPD’s reforms include updated policies and procedures for:

Public Integrity Bureau (PIB)
Complaint intake, classification, and communication
PIB administrative misconduct investigations
Criminal misconduct investigations
Referral of criminal and administrative misconduct investigations to outside entities
Disciplinary charges

Disciplinary hearings
Imposition of discipline
Community-centered mediation of misconduct complaints
Tracking misconduct investigations
Transparency measures, including training and oversight

Stages of a Misconduct Investigation

Every misconduct complaint received by BPD, including complaints made to BPD directly and those submitted to Baltimore City’s Police Accountability Board, will pass through the following stages within the Public Integrity Bureau (PIB) and Baltimore City Administrative Charging Committee (ACC):

Learn More About Each Stage

Stage 1: Intake

PIB receives a complaint accusing a BPD member (the respondent) of misconduct.

This complaint forms the basis of a case, which is assigned a case number.

PIB Intake creates a digital casebook in IAPro.

Stage 2: Classification

1. PIB Intake examines the complaint to determine if the complaint is ACC-Eligible or DRC-Eligible. Both types of complaints are investigated by BPD internal affairs.

ACC-ELIGIBLE COMPLAINTS	DRC-ELIGIBLE COMPLAINTS
A complaint of police misconduct involving a member of the public and a police officer	A complaint of police misconduct not involving a member of the public and a police officer.
At the conclusion of an internal affairs investigation, ACC-Eligible Complaints are presented to the Administrative Charging Committee (ACC), an external body of five civilians that determines whether completed ACC-Eligible Complaints are administratively charged, and, if charged, recommends discipline.	At the conclusion of a sustained internal affairs investigation, DRC-Eligible Complaints are presented to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC), an internal body that determines the recommended discipline.

2. PIB Intake examines the complaint to determine which allegations are contained within it based solely on the narrative of the complaint.

3. If, during the course of the investigation, a PIB detective uncovers additional possible misconduct, then the PIB detective adds these allegations to the case.

Stage 3: Assignment

PIB assigns the case to an investigator, who affirms they do not have any conflicts of interest.

If conflicts of interest emerge during the investigation, then a PIB supervisor reassigns the case to a different investigator.

Stage 4: Investigation

1. The investigation is completed when the investigator has collected enough evidence to determine a finding for each allegation in the case.

2. There are four possible findings for any allegation:

Sustained: The conduct did occur and was a violation of BPD policy.
Not Sustained: BPD cannot determine whether misconduct occurred.
Unfounded: The conduct did not occur or was not the act of the respondent.
Exonerated: The conduct occurred, but it was not a violation of BPD policy.

3. A finding of “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated” require a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof, meaning the finding is more likely true than not true. A finding of “unfounded” requires a “clear and convincing” standard of proof, meaning the evidence is “certain, plain to the understanding, and unambiguous,” and convincing.

Stage 5: Review

The PIB supervisor reviews the case for thoroughness, completeness, timeliness and that the required standard of proof is met to justify each finding.

The PIB supervisor passes the case up the PIB chain of command, with each level of command reviewing the findings for each allegation.

If no allegations are sustained, the case will be given a finding of not sustained, unfounded or exonerated, and the case is closed.

If any allegation is sustained, a charging document is drafted by Legal Affairs and the case and charges are presented to either the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC) or Administrative Charging Committee (ACC).

Stage 6: Discipline

The disciplinary process depends on whether the complaint is ACC-Eligible or DRC-Eligible.

DRC-Eligible Complaints:

1. The DRC reviews the findings for each case that includes a sustained allegation.

2. The DRC issues a disciplinary recommendation based on the Maryland Statewide Police Disciplinary Matrix, the circumstances of the case, and the respondent’s history.

3. Discipline is imposed when:

Respondent accepts the recommended discipline, or
Respondent, through counsel, negotiates agreed discipline with the Department that is less severe than the recommended discipline, or
Respondent elects a Trial Board, and the Trial Board concludes that the respondent committed the alleged misconduct. The Police Commissioner reviews the decision and may increase or approve the final discipline recommended by the Trial Board.

ACC-Eligible Complaints

1. The ACC reviews the investigative files for all complaints of police misconduct involving a member of the public and a police officer.

2. The ACC determines whether to “Administratively Charge” or “Not Administratively Charge” the police officer based on their review of the investigation.

3. If the ACC determines to “Administratively Charge” the police officer, then they issue a disciplinary recommendation based on the Maryland Statewide Police Disciplinary Matrix, the circumstances of the case, and the respondent’s history.

4. The ACC’s disciplinary recommendation is then reviewed by the BPD Police Commissioner who then has the option to “increase” the disciplinary recommendation to a higher level, but may not “decrease” the disciplinary recommendation below the ACC’s recommendation. The Police Commissioner’s disciplinary recommended to the respondent police officer.

5. Discipline is imposed when:

Respondent accepts the Police Commissioner’s recommended discipline, or
Respondent elects a Trial Board, and the Trial Board concludes that the respondent committed the alleged misconduct. The Police Commissioner reviews the decision and may increase or approve the final discipline recommended by the Trial Board.