Leibe v. Police Dep't of City of Annapolis

GILBERT, Chief Judge. The question posed to us by this appeal is: Does a routine periodic performance evaluation constitute an “investigation” for the purpose of triggering the protections afforded ³¹⁹ a police officer by the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights (LEOBR), Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 727 et seq.? If affirmatively answered, we must then decide whether under the LEOBR a reduction in rank resulting from a recision of a promotion is distinguishable from a demotion. Because our answer to the former query is negative, we need not consider, in any depth, the latter.

The Facts Paul C. Leibe is a law enforcement officer. He joined the Annapolis City Police Department (APD) in July, 1974, and became a tenured employee eighteen months later. In June, 1981, Leibe was promoted to the rank of patrolman first class (Pfc), subject to a probationary period of twelve months. At the time of his promotion, the Chief of Police, John C. Schmitt, advised Leibe that the promotion was issuing because of a recent decrease in the amount of sick leave used by Leibe.

Chief Schmitt also expressed the hope that Leibe’s sick leave usage would not increase beyond the then current level. About the time of Leibe’s promotion, Sergeant Jay Craig of the Inspectional Services Division of the APD inquired into possible abuse of sick leave by Leibe. Following the check Craig notified Chief Schmitt that the suspicions concerning Leibe were unfounded. On two occasions during the fall of 1981, Leibe was reprimanded by his shift commander, Lt.

Cassin B. Gittings, for excessive use of sick leave and productivity problems. Sgt. Craig also, in the fall of 1981, looked into a “possible pattern of sick leave used by Officer Leibe and Tamara Miller [Leibe’s girlfriend] . . . [a]nother employee.. .. They were off together occasionally on sick leave.” The suspicions were communicated to Chief Schmitt.

A performance evaluation prepared on December 26,1981, by Lt. Gittings rated Leibe “below average” for initiative, reliability and attitude, and “unsatisfactory” for sick leave. The remaining twenty categories were rated as “average” or ³²⁰ “above average,” with an overall rating of “average.” Lt. Gittings testified that he did not believe Leibe could be charged with a violation of APD regulations.

He, however, told Chief Schmitt that “Officer Leibe would be receiving a poor evaluation and may be reviewed for demotion.” On January 20,1982, Leibe was called into Chief Schmitt’s office where he was informed that his promotion was being rescinded. Leibe was told that the primary basis for the reduction in rank was his excessive use of sick leave in the previous six months. A memorandum written by Chief Schmitt to Thomas Engelke, a personnel administrator, contained a careful accounting of the sick leave used by Leibe since 1980. Leibe attempted to secure an appeal from Chief Schmitt’s actions, but his efforts were frustrated by a portion of the Annapolis City Civil Service Code. 1 Thereafter, Leibe filed a suit in which he requested reinstatement to the promoted rank, back wages, removal of adverse material from his personnel files or, alternatively, the right to a hearing and other procedural safeguards provided for under the LEOBR.

The trial court found that: “[T]he actions of the Defendants [APD] in demoting the Plaintiff [Leibe] were supervisory and administrative, not investigatory and punitive, in nature. The demotion was not punishment for any wrongdoing nor the result of a disciplinary type complaint and investigation. The demotion was an exercise of the Chief’s power and responsibility to effectively and efficiently operate the law enforcement agency.... [T]he Plaintiff [Leibe] is not entitled to the protection of the LEOBR.” (Emphasis supplied.) ³²¹ I. Leibe argues that the trial court erred in determining that he was not entitled to the protections of the LEOBR. He asserts that the demotion was a punitive action which resulted from an investigation.

The applicable sections of the Md.Ann.Code art. 27, §§ 728, 730, state, in pertinent part: “[§ 728.] (b) Whenever a law-enforcement officer is under investigation or subjected to interrogation by a law-enforcement agency, for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion or dismissal, the investigation or interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions: (3) The law-enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating officer, and all persons present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogator during any one interrogating session consistent with the provisions of subsection (b)(6) of this section. (5) The law-enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation. Upon completion of the investigation, the law-enforcement officer shall be notified of the name of any witness not less than ten days prior to any hearing.

(c) This subtitle does not limit the authority of the chief to regulate the competent and efficient operation and management of a law-enforcement agency by any reasonable means including but not limited to transfer and reassignment where that action