MENU

Sections

More

September 26, 2021

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

News News Homepage

K-9 Max Will Return to Service in St. Michaels

by

The St. Michaels Commissioners unanimously agreed Wednesday night to bring K-9 Max out of retirement after residents raised money to fund his continued service.

During the July 14 discussion, St. Michaels Police Chief Anthony Smith touted the benefits of having a narcotics dog and noted Max would likely be able to serve another three years before retiring due to age.

However, Smith noted that Max would be retired sooner if the state legalizes marijuana.

Narcotics dogs trained on marijuana in addition to other narcotics do not differentiate between those drugs. If marijuana is legalized in Maryland, police agencies will need to retire dogs that have been trained to alert on marijuana.

The chief and commissioners agreed that miscommunication had led to the decision to retire Max, with Smith saying he wold “take the heat for that” for not elaborating on the need to keep Max in service during budget deliberations.

“I think that this was a bit more of the discussion that everybody deserved to have” during the town’s budget meetings, Commissioner Jaime Windon said Wednesday night.

“I want to personally apologize to you, chief. Because when I agreed to retire Max, I was convinced and assured that this had the full support of the police department,” Windon said. “It’s clear, it’s abundantly clear tonight, that that’s not the case. I think it would have been a different discussion…. I just hope that that’s clear to everyone who has been confused or disturbed or feels that we have somehow failed the community by what seems to be thought of (as) a rash decision but I can assure you, from this seat it was never a rash decision.”

“I’ll bear sort of responsibility in that because I remember one session, (Commissioner) Tad (DuPont) asked me about what I thought about the dog,” Smith said.

He recalled that his reply was that Max was a deterrent. “I didn’t elaborate like I did tonight and probably going back, looking back, I probably should have.”

Paulette Florio, who presented the offer of donated funds to pay for Max on July 7,  thanked the commissioners for bringing the dog out of retirement.

“I can guarantee you that we have the money,” Florio said Wednesday night after DuPont wondered if the offer still stood. “I am keeping the donors anonymous and the money will be at the police department by the weekend.”

Smith had noted that the St. Michaels Police Department already had a framework in place to accept donations through its SMYLE program (St. Michaels Youth and Law Enforcement) and said residents previously had donated funds to help pay for food for Max.

Residents Raise Funds for Return of K-9 Max, Leading to Questions About Why St. Michaels Police Dog was Retired

by

Although he retired June 30, the issue of St. Michaels Police Department K-9 Max is on the agenda for tonight’s town meeting after residents collected donations to fund his continued service and questions were raised about why the dog was retired.

Max retired June 30 — the end of the town’s fiscal year — and was going spend his retirement with his handler, Cpl. Jason Adams, and his family.

In a July 1 Facebook post, the police department said Max had conducted more than 240 narcotics scans, leading to more than 120 arrests, since joining the force in March 2015. Many of those scans and arrests occurred while assisting other law enforcement agencies in Talbot County.

During public comments before a July 7 closed session, Paulette Florio said funds had been donated to pay for Max to return to service as a police dog.

“I just have some good news that I wanted to present to the commission,” Florio said. “And it has to do with the retired canine officer. Apparently it was a budget cut from what I understood from my investigation of the matter.

“And the town came together and we have a group of citizens who want the dog back and have the money to bring him back in full,” she said. “So we just don’t know where to send the money.

“So congratulations, you still have a canine officer to do his job. And he’s apparently good for another three years in canine officer world,” Florio said. (According to the National Police Dog Foundation, police dogs normally retire “around 10 years of age,” depending on health.)

“So where can we send the money? And how do we get him back?” Florio asked July 7.

Commission President Michael Bibb said the commissioners would have to discuss the proposal, but said “(t)he dog was not retired due to budget cuts.”

Bibb’s comment prompted St. Michaels Police Chief Anthony Smith to respond, with Smith saying Florio likely got some of her information from him “because I was led to believe that to some degree.”

The chief said Bibb, in fact, had been the one to tell him that Max would be retired and that one reason for the dog’s retirement “was because it was part of an agreement with the salary increase that we were going to get as police officers.

“So once I learned that information, to me, it became a budget issue,” he said. “And that’s what you informed me in my office about two weeks ago.

“So to me, if if it’s getting around that it’s a budget issue, that’s the impression that I got when you when you informed me that one of the reasons why we got a pay raise or (were) going to get a pay raise, (was) because Max is going to be retired,” Smith said.

The chief said he was opposed to retiring the K-9, but it was ultimately the decision of the town commissioners.

“We had a discussion in several of the meetings and I voiced my opinion that I wanted to keep the canine,” he said. “I think at one meeting, Commissioner DuPont … asked me what my thoughts was on Officer Max and I said he’s a good deterrent. And absolutely he is a deterrent.”

“Now, if the commissioners as a body want to get rid of the canine, that’s fine,” Smith said. “But certainly there should be a process where it should have went through the chief … because I was dead set against it from the very beginning.”

Commissioner David Breimhurst thanked the chief for his comments and the private citizens for offering the funds and asked that the issue be added to the agenda for the July 14 meeting.

Smith said a decision would need to be made soon because Max is required to have a certain amount of training each year.

“I know that’s an issue. I know it’s expensive. And I know that’s an issue with part of wanting to retire him but he’s got to get back and train, he said. “He can’t miss too much training. So thank you very much if you’re going to give us some consideration, but we do not want to go too much past July 14.”

Resident asks four commissioners to resign

Town resident John Garland, speaking before the July 7 closed session, asked for the immediate resignations of Commissioners Bibb, Breimhurst, DuPont, and Harrod.

“Last year, commissioners Bibb, DuPont, Breimhurst, and Harrod, who were collectively supported by St. Michaels Action Committee, known as SMAC, campaigned against two commissioners running for reelection by making unfounded claims,” Garland said. “They defeated those two commissioners by peddling lies and fear.

“Now it seems these same four commissioners did not follow Maryland’s open meeting laws in order to fire long term town manager,” he said. “Regardless of the closed meeting topic, the simple fact that four of our five commissioners sought to disregard open meetings laws is by far their worst behavior to date, in my opinion, and stands in direct irony to their campaign promises.

Garland did not specify how the commissioners may have violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act in connection with the June 24 closed session in which they voted 4-1 to dismiss longtime Town Manager Jean Weisman.

“Accountability is a two-way street,” Garland said July 7. “These four commissioners have broken their trust obligation with residents. And this doesn’t even include their other behaviors such as micromanaging town staff, effectively grinding down operations to a crawl and engaging in day-to-day town management activities which is not a function of their role as commissioners.

“As a town resident, I formally request the immediate resignations of Commissioners Bibb, DuPont, Breimhurst, and Harrod for legal negligence, dereliction of duty, and loss of public trust. I also request the proper process be followed to fill their seats.”

Following the public comments, the town commissioners voted 4-1 to go into closed session July 7 to discuss personnel matters. Commission Vice President Jaime Windon voted against the closed session, saying, “I’m not comfortable without a town attorney here today and I requested that.”

July 9 closed session discussed temporary town manager

The commissioners held a second closed session last week on Friday, July 9, and noted there would be no public comment before that closed session.

Bibb, Breimhurst, and DuPont voted July 9 in favor of a closed session for personnel matters. According to an audio recording of that vote, Windon apparently was attending remotely and her vote on closing the meeting could not be heard by her fellow commissioners and town staff. Harrod apparently was absent.

The written closing statement for the July 9 meeting identifies the reason for the closed session as “temporary town manager” and indicates that four commissioners voted to close the session (it appears the number 3 has been written over as the number 4) and one commissioner was absent.

SM070921closingstatement

The written closing statement for the July 7 meeting identifies the reason for the closed session as “temporary employment and attorney retainment.”

SM070721closingstatement

The town commissioners meet at 6 p.m. tonight for a regular monthly work session. The public may attend using Zoom.

To join the meeting by computer or smart phone, click this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3264261778. The meeting ID is 326 426 1778. To join by phone with audio only, call 1-301-715-8592 and enter meeting ID 326 426 1778.

Report: Harris Voted Against Honoring Officers Who Responded to Deadly Jan. 6 Capitol Riot

by

Axios reports: “The House voted 413-12 on Wednesday to honor police officers who responded to the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot with Congressional Gold Medals, among the highest of civilian honors.

“If passed by the Senate, the legislation would award one medal to the U.S. Capitol Police, another to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District Columbia and a third to the Smithsonian in recognition of the officers who responded to the siege.”

The 12 congressmen voting no, Axios reports, were all Republicans and included Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md.-1st, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

According to HuffPost, those voting against the measure primarily objected to two words: “The language that describes the Capitol as a ‘temple’ of American democracy and another line that categorizes the mob of pro-Donald Trump supporters that stormed the building as ‘insurrectionists.'”

The Washington Post reports that Harris, in a statement, said:

“The men and women on the thin blue line, including the brave men and women of the United States Capitol Police, should never be used as props for politically charged publicity stunts like this bill.

“I truly commend the Capitol Police for their actions on January 6th, and am very grateful for their service in keeping us safe each day. But I cannot support partisan charged language found in this bill.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.-5th, in a statement, said:

“It is deeply unfortunate that a number of House Republicans opposed this action as they attempt to erase the events of January 6 and deny the responsibility of a far-right, insurrectionist mob incited by former President Trump.

“The alternative resolution they have proposed insults the memory of the officer who was killed defending the Capitol and the two others who died as a result of the attack in its immediate aftermath, using language implying that the three officers did not lose their lives in the line of duty.

“Such disrespect for the heroes who courageously tried to protect the American people’s Capitol is disgusting.”

BILLS-117hr1085ih

POLITICO reported that: “A competing bill circulated by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) named the fallen officers but made no mention of Jan. 6 or the Capitol attack,” according to a copy of the bill it had obtained.

CQ Roll Call reported that: “Capitol Police officers stationed outside the chamber during the vote were overheard questioning which members voted against the bill.”

The Senate had previously voted to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who led rioters away from senators who were still in the Senate chamber, actions widely seen in video footage from a Huffington Post reporter.

Lawmakers Ask: Is Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights Necessary?

by

Members of the House Workgroup to Address Police Reform and Accountability in Maryland pushed back Thursday as Maryland law enforcement representatives steadfastly defended the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights.

“I hope that your group hasn’t completely misread the movement that’s going on across America,” said Workgroup Chairwoman Vanessa E. Atterbeary (D-Howard). “I hope you haven’t misread the tea leaves but change is a-comin’. I can’t sit here and say how change is coming because I don’t know that, but change is a-comin’.”

Lawmakers on the workgroup questioned police chiefs, sheriffs, state troopers, advocates and attorneys during a briefing Thursday about maintaining the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, which gives police due process safeguards in investigatory and disciplinary scenarios.

Maryland laid out the blueprint for the controversial statute in the 1970s and remains just one of 16 states to still have the law in effect.

In light of the summer’s civil unrest following the high-profile police deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky., advocates have decried the statute, demanding its repeal.

Calls for its removal have been compounded by the case of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man who was shot in the back seven times by police in Kenosha, Wis., last week.

Wisconsin also still maintains its Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights.

Del. Darryl Barnes (D-Prince George’s), the Legislative Black Caucus chairman, told a panel representing the Maryland Chiefs and Sheriffs Association that it’s “hard time” Maryland “lead by example” and put measures in place to fix police-community relations.

“As the chairman of the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus, I am frightened for my members as they come to me and tell me how afraid they are of the police,” he said.

Karen Kruger, an attorney for the Maryland Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, said she believes the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights should have been named the “Law Enforcement Accountability Act,” because it was established, in part, to grant power to management to investigate instances of alleged misconduct. She also expressed concern that its repeal could create obstacles in disciplining officers charged with misconduct.

Charles County Sheriff Troy Berry (D) said he’s concerned about what disciplinary procedure for police officers would look like should the law be repealed.

“If we take away the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights where it stands, I don’t know what we’re moving towards,” he said.

Berry referenced Jacob Blake, noting that his shooting investigation has been taken out of the hands of local law enforcement.

“As a sheriff, I’m held accountable for what criminally happens in our community and I think … it would be very difficult for me to sit idly by and let the outside organization do the investigation,” he said.

Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore City) asked the panel of chiefs what would happen to a Maryland police officer under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights if they were implicated in a situation similar to Floyd’s or Blake’s.

Kruger said a criminal investigation would open “immediately,” and that an internal investigation into the incident could occur simultaneously.

Atterbeary asked the group of managing officers if they would support civilians participating in misconduct investigations or serving on charging committees, having subpoena power and making trial boards more transparent by recording them and opening them to the public.

“I think we are looking to see what is it that you support so that the community feels like they are involved — so that the community feels like they understand what’s going on, and this isn’t a hidden process,” she said.

A bill passed in 2016 mandated that, under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, hearing board procedures be open to the public and police forces may permit up to two civilians to sit on the boards.

Kruger explained that chiefs have the authority to nominate citizens to these bodies, but that local municipalities must pass legislation approving the chief’s authority to appoint someone.

At the workgroup’s first meeting in June, Berry told lawmakers that no civilians have sat on a review board or undergone training.

Atterbeary questioned how civilians are recruited.

“If people don’t know it’s open to the public, then it really it’s kind of a meaningless, you know, ‘Wave the banner, we’re doing a great thing here,’” she said.

Kruger said she provided training to a group of civilians that expressed interest in sitting on the Baltimore City Police Department’s hearing review board a few weeks ago.

On each panel, the conversation ultimately came down to what would happen if the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights were repealed.

Attorney Michael Davey told lawmakers that, should the law be stricken, police would still be subject to due process under the constitution, but that the General Assembly would have little-to-no control over the state’s 148 law enforcement agencies’ varying departmental practices.

“If the LEOBR was repealed, there would be due process rights for law enforcement officers consistent with the civil service policies of each jurisdiction, so everyone would have their own policy based on the civil service policies that their jurisdiction has,” he said. “It would not be a straight state policy, it would be whatever the whatever is in place at that jurisdiction.”

Del. Wanika Fisher (D-Prince George’s) asked panelists why Maryland should remain in the minority of states that still has a Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights. She noted that, since 2005, only six officers have been charged in police killings.

According to the Mapping Police Violence database, 138 people were killed by police officers from 2013 to 2019.

“We appreciate officers who want to do their jobs, but you’re not the jury, judge and executioner,” Fisher asserted. “We pay a whole lot of other people to do that. That is not your job. I just got to be 100 with you. It’s just not.”

Kruger said the law may be called a “bill of rights,” but its purpose is to set up procedure.

“With respect to the impact of the LEOBR on police encounters that end in tragedy, I’m not sure we could really establish a nexus between those two things.”

Fisher responded that law enforcement’s ability to self-regulate is not working.

“I think it’s time to really question yourself,” she said. “Can you self regulate when only six officers in the state of Maryland have been held accountable since 2005? And I don’t really think you can, especially when your agency is dealing with life or death.”

By Hannah Gaskill

U.S. House Passes Police Reform Mandate, GOP Balks at Democrat Led Bill

by

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping police reform package Thursday night in response to massive civil unrest over police brutality.

The package cleared the chamber largely along partisan lines, with 236 lawmakers (mostly Democrats) voting for it and 181 lawmakers (180 Republicans and one Independent) voting against it. Three Republicans sided with Democrats in backing the bill — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Fred Upton of Michigan and Will Hurd of Texas.

“There is justifiable anger in this country because justice is not being upheld,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said on the House floor.

“That does not mean it’s never being upheld, but it ought to be always upheld. There is a deep frustration because some of those charged with enforcing our laws are doing so without tolerance, in a way that disregards the rights and welfare of victims without just cause. That does not damn all members of the police. In fact, not the majority. But it does damn actions that are inconsistent with justice and peace and tolerance and liberty,” Hoyer said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hailed the package on the House floor Thursday, saying it would “fundamentally transform the culture of policing to address systemic racism, curb police brutality and save lives.”

But the bill — passed one month after George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, was killed while in police custody — is unlikely to become law.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried and failed to advance a modest GOP bill Wednesday and is not expected to take up the Democrats’ more comprehensive measure.

The bill backed by Democrats and passed in the House is “a crucial first step to rooting out racial injustice in our police system,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in a statement, urging “Senate Republicans to listen to Americans, heed their calls for change, and allow immediate consideration of this legislation.”

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, threatened on Wednesday to veto the Democratic bill, arguing it would deter people from pursuing law enforcement careers, erode public safety and weaken relationships between police departments and communities.

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) urged Democrats to instead “get on board” with the GOP bill, which he said “has a real shot at becoming law.”

The Democratic legislation would ban chokeholds and no-knock warrants at the federal level, bar racial profiling, limit the transfer of military-grade equipment to state and local law enforcement officials and make it easier to prosecute police misconduct in the courts by eliminating the “qualified immunity” doctrine that shields law enforcement officials from lawsuits, among other things.

The bill drew objections from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which called increased funding for law enforcement a non-starter. “The role of policing has to be smaller, more circumscribed and less funded with taxpayer dollars,” ACLU legislative counsel Kanya Bennett  said in a statement when the bill was introduced this month.

House passage comes a day after Senate Democrats blocked a GOP bill authored by Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only Black Republican in the Senate GOP conference.

Scott’s bill would incentivize departments to increase the use of body cameras, improve training in de-escalation tactics and require that performance records be taken into greater account when making hiring decisions. It would also increase data collection on the use of force, weapon discharge and no-knock warrants, among other provisions.

Unlike the Democratic bill, it would not ban chokeholds or no-knock warrants at the federal level or make it easier for victims of police brutality to sue officers and seek damages. Nor would it bar racial and religious profiling or limit the transfer of military-grade equipment to state and local law enforcement officials.

McConnell tried to bring the bill to the floor Wednesday, but he fell five votes short of the 60 votes he needed to advance it.

Democrats and leading civil rights advocates called the Senate GOP bill “weak” and said it failed to live up to an historic moment in which diverse coalitions of protesters are taking to the streets to demand racial justice and equality in the wake of Floyd’s death. Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis officer who kneeled on Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes, was fired and has been charged with second-degree murder.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the GOP bill “weak tea” on the Senate floor Wednesday. He cited a letter from civil rights groups who said the bill “falls woefully short of the comprehensive reform needed to address the current policing crisis and achieve meaningful law enforcement accountability.”

On the other side of the Capitol, Pelosi said the GOP bill is “inconsistent with a genuine belief that Black lives matter” and said she hopes passage of the Democratic bill will force the Senate to act. The Senate, she said, has the choice to either honor Floyd’s life or do nothing.

McConnell, meanwhile, painted Democrats with the do-nothing label. “Our Democratic colleagues tried to say with straight faces that they want the Senate to discuss police reform — while they blocked the Senate from discussing police reform,” he said Thursday.

By Allison Stevens