In other words, even if someone’s complaint of misconduct by a police officer is found to be valid, the public, including the aggrieved party, is not entitled to know the outcome or other information regarding the official investigation. Such information is exempt from the Maryland Public Information Act, the court said.

The case that spawned this decision involved a 2009 incident in which a black woman, Teleta Dashiell, filed a complaint of misconduct against Maryland State Police Sgt. John Maiello, who had left his contact information on her answering machine. The message included a racial slur aimed at Dashiell, which the officer uttered after believing he had ended the call.

When Dashiell filed a complaint, she received a letter a few months later stating that her accusation had been upheld and that appropriate action had been taken regarding Maiello. However, the department balked when it came to providing further information about its investigation or what, if any, disciplinary action was taken.

In other words, this was declared a personnel issue and Dashiell had to take the department’s word for it that Maiello had been properly disciplined for his behavior.

The court argued that if sustained complaints against police officers required disclosure, so would complaints against all public employees. It also reasoned that, as the Sun story put it, “[M]andatory disclosure findings could chill the disciplinary process, rendering those in control less willing to sustain a finding of misconduct.”

This court decision suggests that Maryland’s PIA needs to be revisited by lawmakers. A police officer is not just another public employee. It’s critical that the public have confidence in the police, and shielding the outcomes of misconduct investigations runs counter to that end. As for the court’s fear that disclosure of sustained complaints could “chill the disciplinary process,” if the facts show that a charge of misconduct should be sustained, officers in charge are bound by law and duty to do so.

The rights and privacy of police officers need to be respected, but when official, on-the-job misconduct is involved, why should there be any expectation of privacy? As things stand now, Dashiell will never know if Maiello was disciplined for his misconduct and, if so, how. She simply has to take the MSP’s word for it that they handled the matter appropriately.

Public confidence in the integrity of the police is critical to its effectiveness. When a charge of misconduct is sustained by an internal police inquiry, members of the public — particularly those directly affected — have a vested interest in knowing the outcome of the investigation.

If current Maryland law doesn’t support that principle, it needs to change.