Opinion ID: 2556660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Officers' Citations

Text: The Respondents in this case are all police officers employed by Montgomery County. Each officerDean Cates, Randy Kucsan, Bill Tran, and Dana Waywas recorded speeding by the AEP in 2008. [7] The Officers were on-duty and driving official police vehicles when the cameras captured them speeding. In its initial review of the recordings, the AEP did not observe emergency lights or sirens, and issued initial citations to the Montgomery County Department of Police, the owner of the Officers' vehicles, as required by the statute. See TA § 21-809(d)(1). The Department compared the complaints against the CAD reports, and found no evidence that the Officers had been responding to an emergency at the time. The Department then forwarded the complaints to the Officers' respective divisions. The Officers' supervisors interviewed the Officers and, in each case, found no justification for the speeding violations. Accordingly, the Department sent memoranda to the AEP, directing them to reissue the citations in the Officers' names. [8] The Officers elected to plead not guilty and stand trial for their violations in the District Court, sitting in Montgomery County. The trials, heard together, occurred on March 9, 2009, and the District Court found each Officer guilty. The Officers appealed to the Circuit Court, where they received a de novo trial on July 13, 2009. At trial, the Officers stipulated to most of the facts. The Officers did not dispute that the speed cameras were properly functioning, and they admitted to driving the vehicles. Moreover, the Officer did not contest the CAD reports, which failed to show an emergency to which they were responding. Instead, the Officers advanced two due process arguments, each based on a concept of justified speeding. First, the Officers argued that the Department failed to follow the statutory procedure for re-issuing the citations, and instead created [its] own procedure, which is not by statute and without legislative authority. The Officers claim that this internal procedure caused delay, which prevented them from remembering their justification for speeding: Now, due, on a due process argument, we submit that the [O]fficers' due process rights have been violated. One, it's often weeks or months after they get the ticket where they're asked by their sergeant, Why were you going, why were you speeding? And I have not seen a case yet where the officer could recall a reason. If it's not on the CAD report, basically, their responses are, I have no explanation. And we submit that's a due process violation. . .    Secondly, Your Honor, the County has taken too much time in getting these tickets processed through their own internal investigation until the case comes to court. It's often months before the officer's required to go to court. Again, a due process violation. How are they going to recall that it wasn't because they were speeding to stop a kid from running in the street, chasing a ball; or a person in a wheelchair was spinning. The Officers' counsel then continued: [T]hat's exactly our argument, that there are many, many reasons for an officer to speed that are lawful and justified. But because they're not on the CAD report, or they don't recall, [they are liable for the citation]. . .    . . . [W]hen an officer is on duty in an authorized vehicle, they are entitled to speed for public safety and lawful reasons. For example, a ball is running, you know, running across a street, and a kid is going to run into the street. The officer may speed up to stop traffic, stop the boy.    . . . There are so many reasons for an officer to accelerate. And then they're asked, and that's why I brought up the time frames, you know, some of these times where they, between the ticket being issued and when the County says, Officer, you're responsible, is months later. We don't know exactly when he's questioned, but some of these are months later. And the, they can't remember. How are they going to remember what they did yesterday? I mean, an officer's in his car for eight hours, 10 hours. And if they're accelerating for a lawful purpose, and it's not on the CAD, or they can't remember, then they get the ticket. We're saying the whole process violates their due process.    . . .[T]he fact that an officer is speeding, and it's not on the CAD report, and he can't recall two months later why, violates his due process to force him to be penalized under a statute which is not incorporating their action. . . . Second, the Officers argued that the Department's unwritten investigation policy provided inefficient notice as to what speeding was justified and could lead to arbitrary results. The trial court agreed: [T]here's no written policy that says, We, we'll take reasons (a) through (d), but don't come in here with (e), (f), and (g)[.]    Why isn't that not arbitrary? What ifI'm not saying thiswhat if Captain A thinks it's a good reason, but Captain B doesn't think it's a good reason?    You're going to have two different results    . . . [Y]ou agree that Captain A could say the reason is fine, Captain B could say the reason is not fine, who knows what Captain C would say.    . . . The procedures do not have to be unduly sophisticated or unduly elaborate. . . . But it seems to me that if the Department is going to institute a system, it should be in writing, distributedit could be a page, it doesn't mean it has to be 200 pagessetting forth those elements which will result in exoneration, and those elements which will not. I understand there's always a gray area which is left to discretion, but it could be said, Point A, if you're doing (a), (b), and (c), and you can prove it, you win; B, if you're doing any of the things listed in B, you lose. Okay? For example, not on duty, going to Johnny's soccer game. Can't do that. It's against Department policy. And C could be the gray area. But it'll be delineated so that the individuals driving the vehicles know what's expected of them, and the individuals deciding these matters will know what's, what the parameters are. Like I'm saying, it does not have to be unduly formal; it could be a page or two. The Circuit Court thus reversed the Officers' convictions on the grounds that the Department violated their due process rights through its informal investigation policy for determining whether violations ought to be reissued. The State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. We granted the State's petition.