Bill
HB 186
HB 186 replaces the chair rule for police-discipline trial boards from judges to qualified attorneys, broadening the pool while preserving due process and chair duties.
Status & Key Dates
- Sponsor: Delegate Adriana (Del.) Young (pre‑filed Nov 1, 2024; introduced Jan 8, 2025; First Reader Feb 20, 2025).
- Assigned: Judiciary Committee.
- If enacted, effective date specified in the bill: October 1, 2025.
- Note: Several different bills numbered “HB 186” appear in other states/documents; this summary addresses the Maryland Judiciary bill titled “Police Discipline — Trial Board Composition.”
Purpose / Intent
- To broaden and alter who may serve as the judicial member (chair) of police discipline trial boards by replacing the statutory requirement that the chair be an administrative law judge or retired judge with a requirement that the chair be a “qualified attorney” meeting specified qualifications. The aim is to expand the pool of eligible chairs while preserving due‑process functions of the trial board.
Key Provisions
- Trial board composition (local agencies)
- Replaces the prior requirement that one member be an actively serving or retired administrative law judge or a retired District/Circuit Court judge with an attorney who satisfies statutory “qualified attorney” criteria.
- Other members remain: (1) a civilian appointed by the county police accountability board (not a member of the administrative charging committee), and (2) a police officer of equal rank to the accused, appointed by the agency head.
- Trial board composition (statewide / bi‑county agencies)
- Similarly replaces the administrative judge requirement with a qualified attorney appointed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
- Qualified attorney criteria (mirrors Maryland constitutional judicial qualifications)
- U.S. citizen; resident of Maryland; registered to vote in State elections; at least 30 years old; admitted to practice law in Maryland.
- Residency requirements: at least 5 years in the State and at least 6 months in the trial board’s jurisdiction immediately before appointment.
- Must be “most distinguished for integrity, wisdom, and sound legal knowledge.”
- Roles & duties
- The qualified attorney must serve as the trial board chair, rule on motions, and prepare the written decision (findings, conclusions, recommendations).
- Existing duties previously assigned to judges on trial boards now apply to qualified attorneys.
- Other procedural rules preserved
- Trial board hearings are generally public (with enumerated exceptions to protect privacy/safety).
- Members must receive MPTSC (Maryland Police Training & Standards Commission) training before serving.
- Timelines and appeal pathways remain: the board must issue a written decision within 45 days of final hearing; a police officer may appeal (generally within 30 days) to the appropriate circuit court on the record.
Who Would Be Affected
- Directly: county and statewide law enforcement agencies required to convene trial boards, police officers subject to disciplinary proceedings, police accountability boards, and appointing authorities (county executives; Chief Administrative Law Judge for statewide agencies).
- Indirectly: courts receiving appeals, Maryland Police Training & Standards Commission (training obligations), and local/state budgets if compensation changes.
Fiscal / Operational Impact
- Department of Legislative Services (fiscal analysis) estimates potential minimal increases in State and local expenditures if compensation for appointed attorneys is higher than current judge compensation. Revenues unaffected.
- Operationally, the change may ease a shortage of available judges to chair trial boards by expanding the eligible pool to experienced attorneys, potentially speeding scheduling and disposition of disciplinary matters.
Procedural / Legal Notes
- The bill does not alter the rest of Chapter 59 (2021) police accountability framework (police accountability boards, administrative charging committees, trial board role, right to representation, etc.).
- Appeal standards remain unchanged (appeal on the record to circuit court).
- Training requirement for all trial board members is retained.
Concise takeaway
- HB 186 swaps the requirement that trial boards be chaired by judges for a requirement that they be chaired by attorneys who meet specified, constitutionally‑based qualifications, preserving existing powers and duties of the chair while expanding the candidate pool — with likely modest fiscal effects and operational benefits in addressing judge availability.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
