Gen. 61] 61

PUBLIC SAFETY

POLICE OFFICERS – POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCIPLINE 

– WHETHER A COMPLAINT OF POLICE MISCONDUCT 

INVOLVING A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MUST STILL BE 

INVESTIGATED IF THE COMPLAINT IS WITHDRAWN

May 10, 2024

The Honorable J. Travis Breeding

President, County Commissioners of Caroline County

You have asked whether a complaint of police misconduct 

involving a member of the public may be withdrawn after it is filed 

with a law enforcement agency pursuant to § 3-102 or § 3-103 of 

the Public Safety Article. We conclude that, while a complainant 

may seek to withdraw such a complaint, the withdrawal does not 

alter the obligations that the Public Safety Article and its 

implementing regulations place upon the law enforcement agency 

to investigate the complaint and forward it to the appropriate 

civilian charging committee, called an Administrative Charging 

Committee (“ACC”), for a charging determination. 

The relevant implementing regulations, adopted by the 

Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission (the 

“Commission”), divide complaints of misconduct involving a 

member of the public into two broad categories: those that are not 

eligible for mediation, and those that are (due to their minor and 

nonviolent nature). As for the first category, the plain language of 

the regulations, their purpose, and the purpose of the underlying 

statute all lead us to the conclusion that a law enforcement agency 

is prohibited from treating a complaint as resolved when the 

complainant seeks to withdraw it. As for the second category, the 

answer is less clear because the plain language and purpose of the 

regulations are not necessarily inconsistent with the concept of 

resolution by withdrawal in mediation-eligible cases. Still, the 

overall framework of procedures that the Commission has adopted 

for complaints of police misconduct does not currently permit a 

mediation-eligible complaint to be resolved via withdrawal. To

authorize that result, the Commission would need to amend its 

regulations. Thus, as the law currently stands, the desire of a 

complainant to withdraw does not, for any category of complaint 

of police misconduct involving a member of the public, relieve the 

law enforcement agency of its obligation to investigate the 

complaint and forward it to the ACC for a charging determination.
62 [109 Op. Att’y

I

Background

In the Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021, the 

General Assembly repealed the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of 

Rights, which governed disciplinary proceedings for police 

officers, and replaced it with a new administrative system that 

subjects police discipline to substantial civilian oversight. 2021 

Md. Laws, ch. 59; see Revised Fiscal & Policy Note, H.B. 670, 

2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 4-6, 21-25. That system is codified at Title 

3, Subtitle 1 of the Public Safety Article. Among its other features, 

the statutory scheme assigns responsibility for determining whether 

to charge an officer with misconduct involving a member of the 

public to a new type of civilian committee called an Administrative 

Charging Committee. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety (“PS”) § 3-104. 

Each county must establish an ACC to serve its law enforcement 

agencies, and there is also a statewide ACC for State and bi-county 

law enforcement agencies. PS § 3-104(a), (b); COMAR 

12.04.09.04. Each ACC consists of five members, all civilians. PS 

§§ 3-104(a)(2), (b)(2), 3-102(b)(1)(ii). 

Under the statutory scheme, the disciplinary process begins 

when an individual files a complaint of misconduct against a police 

officer. The complaint may be filed directly with the law 

enforcement agency that employs the officer or with a Police 

Accountability Board (“PAB”), which must forward the complaint 

to the law enforcement agency. PS §§ 3-103(a), 3-102(d).1 

Although the PAB is only required to accept complaints from 

members of the public, PS § 3-102(a)(3), any individual—whether 

a member of the public or a person within the law enforcement 

agency—may file a complaint with the law enforcement agency. 

PS §§ 3-103(a), 3-104(d). The statutory charging process applies 

so long as the alleged misconduct involves a member of the public, 

regardless of whether a member of the public files it. PS § 3-

104(d).

After a complaint is filed, the statute provides that the law 

enforcement agency must, upon completing an investigation, 

forward the investigatory files to the appropriate ACC. PS § 3-

104(d). The ACC must then decide whether to charge the officer 

1 The PAB is an oversight board for policy matters related to police 

discipline. Each county must have one, and active police officers may 

not serve on it. PS § 3-102. Among its other responsibilities, the PAB 

appoints some ACC members and makes recommendations to the county 

government “on changes to policy that would improve police 

accountability.” Id.
Gen. 61] 63

with misconduct and, if so, what level of discipline to recommend. 

PS § 3-104(e). When making these determinations, the ACC may 

require the law enforcement agency to investigate the matter 

further. PS § 3-104(f). If the officer is charged, the chief of the 

law enforcement agency offers the police officer a level of 

discipline that must be at least as severe as the ACC 

recommendation. PS § 3-105(c). If the officer accepts the offer of 

discipline, the matter concludes; otherwise, it goes to a trial board 

for adjudication. Id.

The Commission has adopted regulations to implement this 

portion of the statute. COMAR tit. 12, subtit. 4, ch. 9; see PS § 3-

114 (requiring the Commission to adopt implementing 

regulations). These regulations provide that a “law enforcement 

agency shall complete a thorough investigation upon receipt of a 

complaint of alleged police officer misconduct,” unless the 

complaint is eligible for mediation. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. After 

completing this investigation, the agency forwards the matter to the 

ACC if it involves a member of the public. COMAR 12.04.09.06C; 

see PS § 3-104(d). The head of the agency may offer the ACC an 

opinion about whether discipline is warranted. COMAR 

12.04.09.06D(2)(a).

The regulations also detail how the ACC charging process fits 

together with the Commission’s mediation program. On this point, 

the regulations take up an issue that the 2021 legislation left 

unaddressed. In 2016, the General Assembly required the 

Commission to create a mediation program for complaints of 

nonviolent misconduct. 2016 Md. Laws, ch. 519; see PS § 3-

207(d) (requiring the Commission to establish a mediation program 

“to which a law enforcement agency may refer a nonviolent 

complaint made against a police officer out of the standard 

complaint process” and to create eligibility criteria for the program 

by regulation). The 2021 legislation, however, did not speak to the 

role of the mediation program in the new system for police 

discipline, perhaps because the Commission had yet to set up the 

program. See 50:5 Md. Reg. 182 (Mar. 20, 2023) (establishing the 

mediation program).

The Commission adopted regulations to set up the mediation 

program in March 2023, id., two months after it adopted the final 

regulations to implement the standard ACC charging process, see

COMAR 12.04.09.9999 (administrative history of Chapter 9 

reflecting its adoption on January 9, 2023). Together, the two sets 

of regulations clarify the intersection between the mediation 

program and the standard charging process. See id.; COMAR tit. 

12, subtit. 4, ch. 11; COMAR 12.04.09.06. They provide that a 
64 [109 Op. Att’y

complaint of misconduct filed by a member of the public is eligible 

for mediation if no use of force is alleged and if the allegations fall 

within the two lowest categories of misconduct on the six-category 

scale contained in the Commission’s statewide disciplinary matrix. 

COMAR 12.04.11.06A, B(1).2 If a complaint is eligible for 

mediation, at the outset it is not covered by the investigation 

requirement that the regulations impose on the agency. COMAR 

12.04.09.06B (requiring an investigation of a complaint “which is 

not eligible for mediation”). Instead, the regulations set up a 

different process for mediation-eligible complaints. See COMAR 

12.04.09.06A(1) (providing that such complaints “may, subject to 

the agreement of the complainant, be handled outside of the formal 

PAB and ACC complaint process”). 

As a threshold matter, to refer complaints to mediation, a law 

enforcement agency must first establish its own mediation program 

by entering into a memorandum of understanding with an approved 

mediation provider, developing program guidelines, and 

forwarding the guidelines to the Commission for review. COMAR 

12.04.11.04.

3 For an agency that has complied with these threshold 

requirements, its first step when receiving a complaint that is 

eligible for mediation under the Commission’s regulations is to 

decide whether mediation is appropriate. COMAR 

12.04.11.06A(2). Even if the complaint is eligible, the agency may 

opt against mediation and handle the matter instead through the 

standard ACC charging process. See 12.04.11.06A(3), C.4 Next, 

2 The two eligible categories are Category A, which covers “[c]onduct

that has or may have a minimal negative impact on operations or 

professional image of the law enforcement agency,” and Category B, 

covering “[c]onduct that has or may have a negative impact on the 

operations or professional image of law enforcement agency; or that 

negatively impacts relationships with other officers, agencies, or the 

public.” COMAR 12.04.11.06A, 12.04.10.04D(2), (3). 

3 We understand that, thus far, only a few law enforcement agencies 

have complied with the threshold requirements for setting up mediation 

programs. Although the regulations do not spell out this point, we 

interpret them to mean that an agency that has not set up a mediation 

program must handle complaints that would otherwise be eligible for 

mediation (i.e., Category A and B complaints not involving use of force) 

through the standard ACC charging process. See COMAR 12.04.11.08B 

(providing that a complaint that is not successfully resolved through 

mediation must be referred back to the standard ACC process). 

4 Again, even though the regulations do not spell out this point, we 

interpret them to mean that if an agency opts against mediation, it must 

refer the complaint back to the standard charging process. See COMAR 

12.04.11.08B; supra note 3.
Gen. 61] 65

if the law enforcement agency decides that mediation is 

appropriate, it asks the complainant and the police officer if they 

wish to participate. If either party declines, the matter goes back to 

the standard ACC charging process. COMAR 12.04.11.07B, C. 

Finally, where the parties agree to mediation, the agency refers the 

matter to its approved mediation provider. COMAR 12.04.11.07D. 

If the mediation results in an impasse, the agency must refer the 

matter back to the standard ACC charging process. COMAR

12.04.11.08B. If the mediation produces a satisfactory resolution, 

the agency reports that result to the PAB but does not forward the 

matter to the ACC for any type of determination or approval. 

COMAR 12.04.09.06A(2), COMAR 12.04.11.08E.

In summary, the provisions on police discipline in the Public 

Safety Article, as implemented by the Commission’s regulations, 

require law enforcement agencies to (1) investigate a complaint of 

police misconduct involving a member of the public and (2) 

forward the results of the investigation to the ACC for a charging 

determination. This is the standard charging process. However, if 

an agency has set up a mediation program with an approved 

provider, the agency may, in its discretion and with the consent of

the parties, divert an eligible complaint of minor misconduct to 

mediation instead of investigating it and forwarding it to the ACC. 

The agency must refer the complaint back to the standard charging 

process unless mediation produces a successful resolution. 

II

Analysis

Because the regulations distinguish mediation-eligible 

complaints from other complaints of misconduct involving a 

member of the public, we address your question in two parts. First, 

we consider whether the withdrawal of a complaint that is not 

eligible for mediation alters the agency’s obligation to investigate 

the complaint and forward it to the ACC. Second, we consider 

what actions the agency must take when a complainant seeks to 

withdraw a mediation-eligible complaint.

A. Complaints Not Eligible for Mediation

In our opinion, if a complainant seeks to withdraw a 

complaint of misconduct that is not eligible for mediation under the 

Commission regulations, the agency must nonetheless investigate 

the complaint and forward it to the ACC for a charging 

determination. The Commission’s regulations expressly state that 

the law enforcement agency “shall complete a thorough 

investigation upon receipt of a complaint of alleged police officer 
66 [109 Op. Att’y

misconduct,” provided that the complaint is not eligible for 

mediation. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. It is true that the statutory 

provisions, standing alone, do not impose an investigation 

requirement as clearly as this regulation does. The statutory 

provisions do strongly imply that the law enforcement agency must 

investigate all complaints involving members of the public, see PS 

§ 3-104(d) (“On completion of an investigation of a complaint of 

police misconduct involving a member of the public and a police 

officer . . . the law enforcement agency shall forward to the 

appropriate administrative charging committee the investigatory 

files for the matter.”), PS § 3-104(f)(1) (noting that the ACC may 

request information from the agency that “conducted the 

investigation” and may “requir[e] additional investigation”), and 

they expressly require the law enforcement agency to “immediately 

review” complaints that are filed by a member of the public, PS § 

3-113(a). But, unlike the regulations, the statute does not expressly

require the law enforcement agency to investigate all misconduct 

complaints that involve a member of the public and that must, for 

that reason, go to the ACC for charging determinations. 

Nonetheless, even assuming that the statute itself would not compel 

the same result as the regulation, the General Assembly has 

delegated broad authority to the Commission to adopt 

implementing regulations for the police discipline process. See PS 

§ 3-114. As such, the regulation requiring the law enforcement 

agency to investigate all complaints that are not eligible for 

mediation is valid and must be followed given that it does “not 

contradict the statutory language or purpose.” Lussier v. Maryland 

Racing Comm’n, 343 Md. 681, 688 (1996). 

We do not think that a complainant’s desire to withdraw a 

complaint alters the clear investigation requirement that this 

regulation imposes. The Supreme Court of Maryland confronted a 

similar issue in the context of attorney discipline. A Maryland Rule 

required Bar Counsel to “make an appropriate investigation of 

every complaint [of attorney misconduct] that is not facially 

frivolous or unfounded.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 

Md. 546, 561 (2006) (quoting former Md. Rule 16-731(b)). The 

Court interpreted the plain language of this rule to mean that Bar 

Counsel “should not dismiss [a] complaint merely upon the 

Complainant’s subsequent request to withdraw, unless [Bar 

Counsel] found the substantive complaint to be frivolous or 

unfounded.” Id. at 562. The Court further reasoned that the purpose 

of the investigation requirement supported this conclusion:

Indeed, if the Rule were construed otherwise, 

it would allow an attorney under investigation 

to avoid disciplinary actions by offering the 
Gen. 61] 67

complainant incentives to withdraw the 

complaint. Even though an individual 

complainant may believe that he or she was 

recompensed adequately as a result of the 

attorney’s post-complaint gestures, allowing 

an attorney to avoid a pending investigation 

and potential disciplinary actions in such a 

manner would be contrary and detrimental to 

the purpose of the Maryland Rules of 

Professional Conduct “to protect the public 

and the public’s confidence in the legal 

profession.” 

Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 

Gore, 380 Md. 455, 471 (2004)). If the withdrawal of a complaint 

nullified the investigation requirement, in other words, the subject 

of the investigation would be incentivized to take up the matter 

directly with the complainant, leaving the public’s interest in 

ensuring adequate enforcement of the underlying conduct rules 

unaddressed. See id.

Although the context here is different, we think similar 

reasoning applies. Not only does the plain language of the 

Commission regulation require the law enforcement agency to 

investigate every complaint that is not eligible for mediation, it 

states that the agency’s receipt of the complaint triggers this 

obligation. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. This language indicates that 

withdrawal does not change the investigation requirement, as the 

language ties the requirement to the information that the agency 

learns rather than to the wishes of the complainant. See id.; 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ruddy, 411 Md. 30, 68 (2009) 

(reiterating the holding of Lee and reasoning that “a complaint is 

simply the mechanism by which Bar Counsel becomes aware of 

possibly questionable attorney conduct”). 

Further, this interpretation advances the purpose of the 

regulation and its authorizing statute. In creating new procedures 

for matters of police discipline where an allegation of misconduct 

involves a member of the public, the General Assembly sought to 

entrust charging determinations to a civilian committee—the ACC. 

See PS § 3-104(d); Revised Fiscal & Policy Note, H.B. 670, 2021

Leg., Reg. Sess. at 5 (explaining the framework of the ACC 

process). It would undermine this legislative purpose to allow the

law enforcement agency to terminate the investigation and 

charging process, without giving the ACC the opportunity to 

consider the matter, simply because the complainant decides to 
68 [109 Op. Att’y

withdraw. Although withdrawal may indicate in some cases that 

the matter does not warrant discipline, in others withdrawal may 

occur even though the allegation of misconduct is well-founded 

and even where the public has an interest in addressing the matter. 

See Lee, 393 Md. at 562. We think that, under the statutory scheme, 

it naturally rests with the ACC rather than the law enforcement 

agency to parse these considerations. See PS § 3-104(d), (e). In 

addition, interpreting the regulation to mean that withdrawal does 

not cut off the investigation and charging process avoids creating 

an incentive for the police officer to prevail upon the complainant 

to withdraw. See Lee, 393 Md. at 562. 

Although we have not found any discussion of withdrawn 

complaints in the history of the legislation creating the ACC 

charging process, we think that the legislative history, in a broader 

sense, supports our reading of the regulation. As originally enacted

in 2021, the ACC charging process applied to any “complaint made 

by a member of the public against a police officer.” 2021 Md. 

Laws, ch. 59 (codified at PS § 3-104(d)). The process did not 

govern internal complaints. Id. The next year, the General 

Assembly revised this provision to its current form, so that the 

charging process now covers any complaint “involving a member 

of the public . . . regardless of whether the complaint originated 

from within the law enforcement agency or from an external 

source.” 2022 Md. Laws, ch. 141 (amending PS § 3-104(d)). The 

process therefore governs internal complaints so long as they allege 

misconduct towards the public. PS § 3-104(d). This change shows 

that the General Assembly was concerned not with the source of a 

misconduct allegation, but instead with ensuring that the ACC 

would assess all allegations of misconduct so long as they involve 

actions toward the public. See Revised Fiscal & Policy Note, S.B. 

389, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 1 (explaining that the change, 

ultimately enacted as part of S.B. 763, aimed to require “all 

complaints of police misconduct involving a member of the public 

to be forwarded to the appropriate [ACC]” (emphasis omitted)). 

The General Assembly has made plain, in other words, that it is the 

nature of the alleged misconduct that matters, not the source. We 

think this point tends to suggest that a decision by the source—the 

complainant—to withdraw does not alter the applicability of the 

ACC charging process. See Ruddy, 411 Md. at 68.

We recognize that, in some cases, the withdrawal of a 

complaint will suggest that it was unfounded or will leave the law 

enforcement agency with limited avenues of investigation, 

especially where the complainant chooses not to participate in the 
Gen. 61] 69

process.5 Law enforcement agencies might reasonably question 

whether they should be required to allocate resources to the 

investigation of such complaints. We think, however, that the 

regulations accommodate this concern. First, although the 

regulations require a “thorough investigation,” they do not require 

a wasteful or useless one. See COMAR 12.04.09.06B. The agency 

may still calibrate the investigation to the circumstances. Where 

an agency believes that it would not be productive to carry the 

investigation of a withdrawn complaint beyond a certain point—

say, after interviewing the officer involved—the regulations do not 

bar the agency from forwarding the matter to the ACC at that 

juncture. The ACC may always request additional investigation if 

it disagrees with the agency’s approach. COMAR 

12.04.09.07A(2). The regulations even allow the agency chief to 

influence the ensuing process by opining to the ACC that the matter 

does not warrant discipline. COMAR 12.04.09.06D. In other 

words, investigations and charging determinations for withdrawn 

complaints may sometimes be more streamlined than for other 

complaints. The essential requirement is only that the decision to 

dispose of a withdrawn complaint without discipline must rest with 

the ACC, not the agency. 

B. Complaints Eligible for Mediation

The answer is less clear as to complaints that are eligible for 

mediation. The regulation discussed above that expressly requires 

other complaints to be investigated upon receipt does not, by its 

plain terms, apply to mediation-eligible complaints. COMAR 

12.04.09.06B (providing that “[a] law enforcement agency shall 

complete a thorough investigation upon receipt of a complaint of 

alleged police officer misconduct, which is not eligible for 

mediation” (emphasis added)). We thus consider whether a law 

enforcement agency must investigate a complaint that is eligible 

for mediation when the complainant purports to withdraw the 

complaint. 

5 The agency does not have any authority to require the complainant 

to participate in an investigation. The ACC, unlike the agency, has 

subpoena power and could presumably subpoena a complainant, 

although we imagine that it would reserve this power for matters where 

there is a significant public interest in obtaining the complainant’s 

evidence. See PS § 3-104(f). And the ACC, unlike the agency, also has 

authority to dispose of a withdrawn complaint by determining that no 

discipline is warranted. See PS § 3-104(e)(2). The point, once again, is 

that the statute assigns these essential decisions to the ACC—not the law 

enforcement agency.
70 [109 Op. Att’y

We note, at the outset, that this issue about the withdrawal of 

mediation-eligible complaints is largely academic at this point. 

The Commission promulgated its mediation regulations only 

recently, in March 2023. See supra Part I. The Commission 

informs us that, thus far, only a few of Maryland’s law enforcement 

agencies have set up mediation programs. Under the regulations, 

as explained earlier, an agency that does not have a mediation 

program must address all complaints involving a member of the 

public—even those that allege minor and nonviolent misconduct—

through the standard ACC charging process, which begins with an 

investigation by the agency. See supra note 3.

In any event, we discuss the mediation issue briefly to provide 

guidance to the Commission and the agencies. As noted above, the 

plain language of the regulation that we have found controlling for 

other complaints does not control this issue because it does not 

directly apply the investigation requirement to mediation-eligible 

complaints. COMAR 12.04.09.06B. And in a general sense, the 

proposition that an agency should have discretion to consider a 

mediation-eligible complaint resolved if it is withdrawn could 

comport with the purpose of the regulatory scheme and its 

underlying statute. Mediation seeks to work through the stated 

concerns of the complainant. See COMAR 12.04.11.03B(6), 

12.04.10.03B(8) (defining “mediation” to mean “a process in 

which parties in a dispute work with one or more impartial 

mediators who assist the parties in reaching a voluntary agreement 

for the resolution of a nonviolent dispute or conflict”). By granting 

the agency discretion to steer an eligible complaint to mediation 

instead of investigating it, the regulations empower the agency to 

treat the private concerns of the complainant as paramount where 

the alleged misconduct is minor and nonviolent. See COMAR 

12.04.11.06A(2). This grant of discretion stands in contrast to the 

charging process for complaints that are not eligible for mediation, 

where the public interest in addressing the allegation of misconduct 

prevails over the complainant’s private concerns. See Lee, 393 Md. 

at 562; supra Part II.A. 

As such, there is an argument that allowing the agency to treat 

a mediation-eligible matter as resolved if the complainant 

withdraws would not conflict with the purpose of the mediation 

regulations or the underlying statute. Nor do we think that granting 

the agency this discretion would create a substantial incentive for 

the police officer to pressure the complainant to withdraw, because 

the mediation option allows the officer to pursue similar ends 

(informal resolution of the complainant’s concerns) through 

legitimate means. See COMAR 12.04.10.03B(8). The fact that 
Gen. 61] 71

only minor complaints are eligible for mediation further reduces 

the risk of improper pressure. See COMAR 12.04.11.06A, B(1).

Nonetheless, the Commission’s existing regulations cannot, 

in our view, be interpreted to grant a law enforcement agency this 

discretion. Under the regulations, withdrawal is not a method by 

which any type of complaint, including a mediation-eligible 

complaint, may be resolved. Instead, the regulations identify only 

one way in which a complaint of misconduct involving a member 

of the public may be resolved outside of the ACC charging process: 

through a successful mediation. See COMAR 12.04.11.08. And 

the regulations attach careful protocols to this form of resolution: 

The agency must track and report each such resolution to the PAB. 

COMAR 12.04.09.06A(2), 12.04.11.08E. Also, the mediator must 

document a successful resolution in a written statement that 

memorializes the parties’ understanding. COMAR 12.04.11.08C. 

Both the complainant and the officer must sign this statement. Id. 

In this way, the regulations safeguard against any 

misunderstanding about whether either party wishes to send the 

matter through the ACC process or any other misconstruction of 

their positions. See id.

In our opinion, the fact that the regulations attach such 

protocols to the only form of alternative resolution that they 

recognize means that they cannot be interpreted to allow an agency 

to treat a mediation-eligible complaint as resolved if it is 

withdrawn. See Kor-Ko Ltd. v. Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, 451 

Md. 401, 417 (2017) (reasoning that a regulation must be read 

“within the context of the [regulatory] scheme to which it belongs, 

considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the [agency] in enacting 

the [regulation]” (alterations in original) (quoting Lockshin v. 

Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 276 (2010))). If the Commission had 

intended to allow an agency to consider the matter resolved when 

the complainant withdraws a meditation-eligible complaint, we 

think the regulations would more specifically address that situation. 

Thus, in our view, if the Commission wishes to authorize 

resolution by withdrawal for mediation-eligible complaints, it 

would need to do so by regulation. To be clear, this choice rests 

with the Commission; the statute does not require it to grant 

agencies this authority. See supra Part I (explaining that the statute 

does not address the intersection between the mediation program 

and the ACC charging process). As we read the existing 

regulations, unless the complainant and the officer sign a resolution 

statement and the mediator reports that result in writing to the 

agency, the agency must send the complaint through the standard 

investigation and charging process—even if withdrawal cuts off 
72 [109 Op. Att’y

the mediation process. See COMAR 12.04.11.08. Although the 

regulations do not expressly impose this requirement on law 

enforcement agencies when a mediation-eligible complaint is 

withdrawn, they imply it by providing a mechanism for a 

mediation-eligible complaint to avoid the ACC charging process 

altogether only where a mediator documents that the complaint has 

been successfully resolved. See id. Where mediation does not 

deliver this result, the ACC charging process provides the only 

avenue for handling a mediation-eligible complaint. See COMAR 

12.04.09.06A, B.

III

Conclusion

We conclude that, under the Public Safety Article and its 

implementing regulations, a law enforcement agency must 

investigate a complaint of police misconduct involving a member 

of the public and forward the matter to the appropriate ACC, even 

if the complainant seeks to withdraw the complaint. Although the 

Commission might conceivably establish a different rule by 

regulation for those complaints that are eligible for mediation, it 

has not done so. Under current law, withdrawal does not alter the 

obligations of a law enforcement agency to investigate and forward 

any type of misconduct complaint involving a member of the 

public.

Anthony G. Brown

Attorney General of Maryland

Ben Harrington

Assistant Attorney General

Patrick B. Hughes

Chief Counsel, Opinions and Advice