Opinion ID: 1974418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the hearing before the designee of the secretary of personnel

Text: A hearing on the proposed decision of the ALJ was triggered by exceptions filed by The Maryland Penitentiary with the SOP. The Penitentiary claimed four errors of law and three errors of fact. It requested that the SOP: A. Reject the Proposed Decision as issued; B. Substitute [the SOP's] own Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; C. Sustain the Charges and each of them.... It suggested a choice of sanctions: D. Remove the employee From state service ...; or E. Demote the employee to CO-II; or F. Substitute a lengthy suspension. The designee of the SOP (SOPD) conducted the hearing. An employee of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services represented the Maryland Penitentiary, and the Director of Field Services for the Maryland Correctional Unit represented Anderson. The SOPD reviewed the entire record [including] the taped proceeding of the administrative hearing before the [ALJ]. Upon review of the record and hearing the oral arguments, the SOP adopt[ed] in part and reject[ed] in part the [ALJ's] proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The SOPD made these findings of fact: 1. On January 15, 1991, Sergeant William Anderson was the shift Officer In Charge (OIC) on the South Wing of the Maryland Penitentiary. 2. During the course of his morning security round, Sergeant Anderson saw an inmate being handcuffed outside of his cell which was a violation of Post Order 12 and a breach of security. 3. Upon reaching the cell, Sergeant Anderson noticed that Officer Dorsey was attempting to handcuff the inmate in the front by placing one cuff on his wrist and the other on a crutch. 4. Sergeant Anderson ordered that the inmate's wrists be cuffed together in front of him. 5. The inmate told Sergeant Anderson that he was a short timer and would take care of him when he got uptown. 6. The inmate argued with Sergeant Anderson. Mr. Anderson ordered the inmate to return to his cell. 7. The inmate backed partially into his cell, facing outward and Officer Dorsey moved into the doorway of the cell to remove the inmate's handcuffs. 8. Officer Dorsey was between Sergeant Anderson and the inmate and she was facing the inmate. 9. The inmate's verbal barrage against Sergeant Anderson continued and, with cuffed hands, he swung his crutch. 10. Sergeant Anderson order Officer Dorsey to step out of the cell and he entered the cell and asked the inmate to surrender the crutch. The inmate refused to let go of the crutch. 11. Sergeant Anderson and the inmate grappled for the crutch and with each other. 12. Sergeant Anderson grabbed the face of the inmate and shoved the inmate into the wall of the cell several times. Sergeant Anderson got the inmate positioned in a headlock. The two fell onto the bed and then rolled onto the floor. 13. Sergeant Anderson laid on top of the inmate pinning his arms; the inmate intertwined his legs with Sergeant Anderson's and both were unable to break the hold of the other. 14. When the scuffle began, Officer Dorsey took the keys from Officer Brandon, and went to call in a Signal 13 indicating an officer was in confrontation with an inmate. 15. Officer Brandon remained on the scene but did not assist Sergeant Anderson in subduing the inmate. 16. A response team reported to the cell pursuant to the Signal 13 call. 17. Lt. Wouldridge entered the cell and observed Sergeant Anderson and the inmate in the position described in Finding # 13 above. 18. Sergeant Anderson stood up after a response team member freed his legs. 19. Lt. Wouldridge escorted the inmate to the in-house medical facility for treatment of his injuries. The inmate was treated for abrasions and skin lacerations on his face and back. 20. The inmate was handcuffed in front throughout the entire incident. 21. The inmate had a history of verbal and physical assaultive behavior. 22. On January 16, 1991, Sergeant Anderson reported to work with a swollen arm, abrasions, bruises and lacerations, which caused him to seek medical treatment.... He did not report back to work until January 18, 1991. 23. All required incident and use of force reports were filed by the participants and observers who were on site at the time of the incident. 24. Sergeant Anderson was rated overall satisfactory in his efficiency reports for 1989 and 1990 and superior in the 1988 report. 25. On January 16, 1991, Sergeant Anderson was suspended pending charges for removal for his involvement in the January 15 incident. The SOPD complained that the ALJ apparently gave weight to only the testimony of Sergeant Anderson and Officers Dorsey and Brandon. She observed: It appears that he completed ignored, without explanation, the testimony of other witnesses. Even in relating the testimony of Sergeant Anderson, the [ALJ] ignored pertinent facts established in the record. She said, early on in her opinion: In light of relevant facts discovered in the record, I reasonably conclude that Mr. Anderson did use excessive force in dealing with the inmate.... She opined, Consequently, the charges against him should be sustained and his termination upheld. The SOPD noted that Anderson, Dorsey and Brandon testified at the hearing before the ALJ and each submitted two reports of the incident. All three of the officers reported that Mr. Anderson and the inmate became involved in a physical altercation. The SOPD observed: According to Mr. Anderson's direct testimony, Officer Dorsey was standing in the doorway of the cell attempting to remove the inmate's handcuffs. Out of concern for Officer Dorsey's safety, Mr. Anderson stepped between Dorsey and the inmate to remove the cuffs himself. He asked the inmate to surrender a crutch he was using and then reached for it. According to Mr. Anderson, the inmate snatched the crutch and swung it at him so he (Anderson) grabbed the inmate in the face area and slammed him against the wall of the cell several times. Mr. Anderson explained that he then got the inmate in a headlock. The inmate hit him in the body and Mr. Anderson reported that he hit the inmate in the side with his fist. The two fell against the bed and onto the floor, at which time the response team arrived to control the disturbance. The SOPD acknowledged that Anderson, Dorsey and Brandon maintained that Mr. Anderson confronted the inmate in order to protect himself and Officer Dorsey from personal injury. But the SOPD believed that [i]t was clear from Mr. Anderson's testimony that he considered the crutch a weapon and he believed that the inmate should not be allowed to retain it in his cell. However, the uncontroverted testimony that the inmate needed the crutch to navigate and that his hands were cuffed in front of him throughout the entire incident cannot be ignored. Also several of the witnesses confirmed management's contention that Mr. Anderson could have retreated from the cell and locked the inmate inside, instead of taking such an aggressive stance of trying to single-handedly wrest the crutch from the inmate. Consequently, the SOPD concluded, there were other non-forceful solutions available to Mr. Anderson. [Anderson's] own testimony concerning his involvement in the physical altercation ... leads one to reasonably conclude that he used more force than necessary to resolve the situation. The SOPD found that the Maryland Penitentiary had met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Anderson used excessive force in dealing with the inmate.... She concluded further that such behavior violates COMAR .47B, D & L; DCR 50-2.IV.A.4 & 19a; DCR 50-6, DCR 50-54, DCR 110-23, and the cited Post Order. But she agreed with the ALJ that the charges of violating COMAR .47L & DCR 50-2.IV.A.25 were not substantiated, even though she had just stated that COMAR .47L had been violated. Consequently, she said, I dismiss the proposal rendered by the Administrative Law Judge that Mr. Anderson be returned to duty. I believe that the employee's termination, as mandated by DCR 50-54.IV, should be sustained. (Emphasis added). The SOPD ordered that William Anderson be removed from his Correctional Officer III position at the Maryland Penitentiary, effective January 16, 1991 (the date of his suspension). Anderson, aggrieved by this final order, sought judicial review by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City pursuant to SG § 10-215.