Cancelose v. City of Greenbelt

ROSALYN B. BELL, Judge. Ralph J. Cancelóse, a City of Greenbelt police officer, filed a complaint against the City to show cause why he should not receive a hearing under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR), Md.Code Ann. Art. 27, §§ 727-734D (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.). This action followed notice to him by the City of his termination as a police officer. The trial judge of the Circuit Court for Prince ⁶⁶⁴ George’s County dismissed Cancelose’s complaint.

He, in turn, has appealed, contending: —He is entitled to a hearing under the LEOBR prior to termination by the City; and —He is entitled to a hearing under the LEOBR prior to suspension by the City. Cancelóse was appointed a police officer for the City of Greenbelt in 1967. In August of 1987, Cancelóse was placed on a monthly evaluation procedure for unsatisfactory work performance. Each month thereafter, he met with his supervising sergeant and his patrol division commander and received oral evaluations which were later reduced to writing.

As a result of these oral and written work performance evaluations, the City’s Chief of Police suspended Cancelóse with pay in February, 1988. No hearing was held on this suspension. The Chief of Police then recommended to the City Manager that Cancelóse be dismissed from the force, writing in part: “Officer Cancelóse has not achieved or maintained an acceptable level of competence in spite of instruction, encouragement, and direction of his supervisors. During the rating period, a slight improvement was made, however, the evaluations at the culmination were even less acceptable than the initial one that induced the program. “Officer Cancelóse has been given every opportunity to conform to performance standards expected of each member of department and has failed to do so.

He shows no initiative whatsoever to complete the most routine and mundane tasks of a patrol officer. His failure to do so after supervisory intervention is paramount to insubordination and neglect of duty. He is universally distrusted by the rank and file, and as such, is a profound determent [sic] to the moral [sic] and safety of fellow officers.” The Chief of Police then specified the various aspects of Cancelose’s incompetence, which included, inter alia, refusing to improve his work, negligence in performing his ⁶⁶⁵ duties, and disrupting normal police operations. 1 As a result of the recommendation, the City Manager determined that Cancelose’s employment be terminated, effective March 26, 1988. As permitted by the City of Greenbelt Code, § 13-176, Cancelóse requested a hearing before the Employee Relations Board of the City.

A hearing was scheduled but postponed at Cancelose’s request. It has not yet been rescheduled. 2 Cancelóse filed a “Complaint for Show Cause Order” in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County under § 734 of the LEOBR. The two-count complaint alleged that Cancelóse had been denied his rights by the City under the LEOBR. The court issued an order requiring the City to show cause why the rights under the LEOBR should not be afforded and set the matter in for hearing.

The City moved to dismiss on the grounds of improper service and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court denied the motion on the first ground but granted the motion as to the second ground, rendering the following oral opinion: “THE COURT: This is an action by the plaintiff in this case to relief under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, which is Article 27, Section 727 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. “I find the following facts: that this action was filed and seeks specific relief by the defendant in this case, the City of Greenbelt, Maryland. I further find that htere [sic] is pending at this time relief extended to the plaintiff in this case under the City Charter of the City of Greenbelt in regards to his termination. ⁶⁶⁶ “After this suit was filed and at the hearing of this case a motion to dismiss was filed in this case, which I heard, and based on the facts and circumstances of this case and th[e] law, as I understand it to be, the motion to dismiss is granted. Dismiss the case.” We will affirm. —Termination— The LEOBR was enacted by the Legislature in 1974. 1974 Md.Laws, ch. 722.

The purpose behind the LEOBR is to guarantee law enforcement officers certain procedural safeguards during any investigation and subsequent hearing which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal. Abbott v. Administrative Hearing Board, Prince George’s County, 33 Md.App. 681, 682 , 366 A.2d 756 (1976), cert. denied, 280 Md. 727 (1977). Since the nature of the duties of police officers is different from that of other public employees, the establishment of different procedures covering any potential disciplinary action is justified. Abbott, 33 Md.App. at 688 , 366 A.2d 756 .

Thus, specific standards are set forth as to how a LEOBR investigation is to be conducted, including the place, time and method of any interrogation of the officer, and requires that the officer receive written notice of the nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation and that a written record be kept of the interrogation. § 728(b). Under the LEOBR, “[i]f the investigation or interrogation of a law enforcement officer results in the recommendation of some action, such as demotion, dismissal, transfer, loss of pay, reassignment, or similar action which would be considered a punitive measure ... before taking that action, the law enforcement