That interpretation of the law is the product of a 2015 Maryland Court of Appeals decision that ruled that a woman who filed a complaint of misconduct against a Maryland State Police trooper had no right to view information from the investigation of a 2009 incident in which she was involved. In that case, Teleta Dashiell alleged that Sgt. John Maiello uttered a racial slur about her after leaving a telephone voice message for her. Dashiell was later informed in a letter that her complaint had been upheld and that disciplinary action had been taken against Maiello, but her request to see the investigation records was denied. Even her own statement to police was considered a confidential personnel record under state law.

Two bills introduced in this year’s session of the General Assembly aim to rectify that by shifting how police complaint files are categorized under the Public Information Act.

The prospective legislation, House Bill 698 and Senate Bill 362, would remove complaint files from a police officer’s personnel record, which would allow such files to be disclosed under some circumstances. Proponents of the bills say shifting the files gives custodians of records more discretion on whether to release personnel file information by allowing them to weigh a number of factors relevant to the case, such as whether disclosure would interfere with the work of law enforcement or whether it affects a right to a fair trial.

Maryland has made some progress on the issue of police accountability. A 2016 law called the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights allows civilian participation on trial boards that are established to oversee police misconduct complaints. But individual jurisdictions must still clear potential hurdles before the law can be enacted locally. But regarding the issue of transparency, Maryland still ranks at the back of the pack behind 27 other states, including Alabama, Georgia and Arizona, that do a better job at making complaint files more accessible to the public.

In its decision to prevent disclosure, the state’s highest court ruled that if complaint files against police officers may be disclosed, so would complaints against all public employees. But such an opinion fails to take into account the unique role police officers play in their interactions with the public and in how important it is for the public to have confidence in how their communities are being policed. That need for trust has become paramount in the wake of a number of high-profile incidents around the country of police violence and attacks on individual officers.

As we have maintained once before, public confidence in the police is critical to its ability to be effective. When the police investigate a misconduct charge, the public, and especially the aggrieved person, should be able to argue for access to information about that inquiry, to know that the complaint is being taken seriously and is being thoroughly looked into. By allowing information to be available for review, these bills would apply a similar standard to the police as is currently applied to the public. That serves and protects both the public and the police.