Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Police Accountability Board (PAB) of Charles County, Maryland, held its regular meeting on July 23, 2026, beginning at approximately 4:00 PM. The meeting featured reports from law enforcement partners, a detailed discussion on trial board appeal limitations, an update on body‑worn camera policy enforcement, and internal PAB business including election of a vice chair.
Jerome Spencer, legal counsel for the Sheriff’s Office, updated the board on a pending appeal before the Maryland Appellate Court concerning the police accountability act’s provision that a trial board’s decision is final unless appealed by the officer. The agency (sheriff or chief) cannot appeal a trial board decision they disagree with. Sheriff Barry expressed frustration that in two of four termination cases over the past four years, trial boards sustained misconduct findings but did not order termination, leaving the sheriff with an officer he cannot trust (e.g., following a sustained truthfulness violation, which creates Brady material). The sheriff and Mr. Spencer argued that this structure undermines accountability and that agencies should be allowed to increase penalties, as was possible under the former Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights. Several board members (including Mr. Fletcher and Ms. Smith) acknowledged the need for legislative remedies. The board discussed the matrix used by trial boards and the importance of clearly articulating the impact of Brady violations in future cases. No vote was taken on this discussion item.
Chief (from Sheriff’s Office) reported that the agency has developed a progressive disciplinary matrix for violations of body‑worn camera activation policy. After a first violation, subsequent infractions will result in loss of take‑home car privileges. Supervisors are required to conduct monthly camera reviews, so violations can be detected without a complaint. All sworn officers (including detectives and the sheriff) are issued body‑worn cameras. The policy includes exceptions for emergency circumstances. Board members asked clarifying questions and confirmed the matrix applies to all camera‑equipped personnel.
Board member Mr. Hill nominated Quantrill Fletcher for vice chair. With no other nominations, Mr. Fletcher was unanimously elected by voice vote.
The board reviewed a draft public information pamphlet. A motion was made and seconded to add a brief synopsis of the trial board process and then forward the pamphlet to media for compilation. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair reported on a recent virtual meeting with Baltimore stakeholders. Further opportunities for statewide collaboration and committee assignments are expected. A joint meeting with the ACC is planned for October (date to be coordinated).
Good afternoon. Welcome to the PAB board meeting. The floor is open for a motion to adopt adopt the agenda. So move. Aye, Quan Sherrow Fletcher move that we adopt the agenda. Okay, it's been promptly moved there. Second. Second. It's been promptly moved second that the agenda be adopted as written. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Closed have the same right. No opposed no opposition. Okay. So then is the agenda is adopted. All right. So the first order of business on our agenda. Well, first we have a welcome to the uh law enforcement and uh Sheriff Barry. It's good to see you. Thank you for attending. Uh we'd love to see you and have you here. We love the chief as well, but it's always good to see the top man. So thank you so much for taking time to be here. And welcome to the rest of our wonderful law enforcement partners. Okay, so first piece of business is if if we have Mr. Copeland online, I think we need to have his oath of office done. I do not see Mr. Coke a lot. Okay. So we'll go ahead and move to our next item. We'll open the floor up to our law enforcement partners. Captain Robert Bagley with the La Plata Police Department. Uh for 2016, we've had three complaints so far. Two of them were from the same incident. Um separate officers, separate complaint on each officer, but stemming from the same incident. Uh one officer was exonerated by the ACC just yesterday, and as far as that complaint. And the ACC has the other complaint on the other officer on that same incident. Um, we're just waiting to hear back from them on that incident. And the other complaint we had, um, the officer was exonerated on all charges on that one, also. And we have one more that's getting ready to go to the ACC uh probably Monday as soon as the officer comes back from or the investigator comes back from a uh vacation. That's I think he's wrapped that investigation up and should be sent over to the ACC. That's all we had to report. Okay, thank you very much. Any questions of uh Laplato.