Wilson v. Baltimore City Police Department

WENNER, Judge. On October 31, 1990, appellant, Deborah Wilson, a Baltimore City Police Officer, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking injunctive relief and a petition to Show Cause against appellees, the Baltimore City Police Department (Police), and its Commissioner, Edward V. Woods (Woods), in his official capacity. In her complaint, appellant alleged that administrative charges were brought against her by appellees after the statute of limitations in the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) had expired. On May 20, 1991, appellees moved for summary judgment.

Appellant responded, and moved for summary judg ⁴³⁸ ment. The motion was granted on June 16, 1991. Appellant thereupon noted this appeal. She asks us: “Is the Baltimore City Police Department barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Section 730(b)(1) of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights from bringing departmental charges against a police officer when the Department failed to serve the charges upon the accused officer within one year of acquiring knowledge of the incidents giving rise to the charges?” We shall answer appellant’s question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND The facts of this case are not in dispute. As we said, appellant is a Baltimore City Police Officer. On July 12, 1989, Anthony Smelgus filed a complaint against appellant with the Police. According to Smelgus, he was involved in an automobile accident with appellant while she was off-duty, was not properly insured, and presented false information concerning her insurance.

The Internal Investigation Division of the Police conducted an investigation and charged appellant with having made false statements and having engaged in misconduct, bringing discredit upon the Police. On July 5,1990, Major Daniel O. Caulk, appellant’s commanding officer, signed the Departmental Charging Document. The charging document was then sent to the Administrative Bureau, where Deputy Commissioner Ronald J. Mullen approved the charges on July 6, 1990. A disciplinary hearing was set for October 4, 1990.

The charges were served upon appellant on July 17, 1990. Appellant then filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking injunctive relief. In her complaint, appellant alleged that the one year statute of limitations in the LEOBR meant that formal charges had to be served by the Police upon the charged officer within one year from the date of the complaint having come to the attention of ⁴³⁹ the Police. For reasons we will explain, we disagree and shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

I. Pursuant to the LEOBR, “administrative charges may not be brought against a law enforcement officer unless filed within 1 year after the act that gives rise to the charges comes to the attention of the appropriate law enforcement agency official.” Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 730(b)(1) (1992) (emphasis added). According to appellant, “because of different conditions that exist in reference to administrative (versus judicial) filings, traditional definitions of filing, generally applied to the judicial setting, are inapplicable in construing this term in the LEOBR.” Thus, as appellant sees it, the charges against her were not filed under the LEOBR until they were served upon her on July 17, 1990, more than one year after the complaint against her was brought to the attention of the police. As a result, appellant asserts that the circuit court erroneously failed to grant her motion for summary judgment and also erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. The standard for reviewing the grant of summary judgment is well established in Maryland.

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, “we are concerned primarily with deciding whether a material factual issue exists, and in this regard, all inferences are resolved against the moving party.” King v. Bankerd, 303 Md. 98, 111 , 492 A.2d 608 (1985). As in the case sub judice, when the alleged error in granting summary judgment is not that there are material facts in dispute, but that the prevailing party was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, our review is limited to “whether the trial court was legally correct” in granting summary judgment. Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 320 Md. 584, 592 , 578 A.2d 1202 (1990). See also, Brewer v. Mele, 267 Md. 437 , 298 A.2d 156 (1972). ⁴⁴⁰ To ascertain whether the trial court was legally correct in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment, we must determine what the legislature intended in using the word “filed” in §