Opinion ID: 1991137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Conflict between the LEOBR and APA

Text: The Commission argues that the APA and the LEOBR do not conflict, and therefore the LEOBR does not supersede the APA. The Commission notes that this Court has previously harmonized the APA and the LEOBR and even specifically given effect to the provisions of the APA addressing the scope of judicial review in the context of an appeal from [an] LEOBR decision. [15] Officer Anderson argues that the LEOBR conflicts with the APA because, in her view, the plain meaning of the language in the LEOBR provides that judicial review of an administrative hearing board's not guilty finding is not permitted. We conclude that the APA is not the controlling statute in this case because the General Assembly intended for the LEOBR to provide an exclusive remedy for police officers when faced with disciplinary action. In Moats, we stated that when the General Assembly enacts a comprehensive administrative remedial scheme, that administrative remedy is generally deemed exclusive [and] [t]he Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights provides such a comprehensive remedial scheme. Moats, 324 Md. at 529-30, 597 A.2d at 977. [16] As we stated in Moats, [w]e believe that the LEOB[]R, an extremely comprehensive statute requiring nearly twenty pages in the Maryland Annotated Code, provides an `adequate and available' procedure. . . . Moats, 324 Md. at 524, 597 A.2d at 974. As in Moats, we hold that the LEOBR is an exclusive remedy. We agree with Officer Anderson that the Legislature did not authorize judicial review of a not guilty finding under the LEOBR and that the LEOBR and the APA are therefore in conflict on this point. To discern the legislative intent regarding reviewability of board decisions resulting in findings of not guilty under the APA, we need not look any further than the plain language of § 10-222. [17] Section 10-222(a)(1) states that a party who is aggrieved by the final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision. While the General Assembly chose to set forth other pre-requisites for judicial review (in addition to a finding of guilty) in § 3-108(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the LEOBR, the General Assembly, under § 10-222, required only that a party be aggrieved before it is authorized to seek review of a final decision under the APA. While we endeavor to harmonize the applicable provisions of the APA and LEOBR, we can do so only to the extent that they are consistent with each other, Gwin, 385 Md. at 462, 869 A.2d at 834, and to the extent that they are reconcilable. Ghajari, 346 Md. at 115, 695 A.2d at 149. Because the General Assembly, pursuant to § 10-222, provided that only an aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of a final agency decision, we must conclude that this section conflicts with the LEOBR, which restricts judicial review to those situations described, infra. Specifically, the LEOBR limits judicial review to the final decisions of the Chief, pursuant to § 3-108(d)(1), or his designee, pursuant to § 3-108(c)(1). These limitations on the right to judicial review under the LEOBR create a direct conflict between the LEOBR and the APA in that no such limitations are contained in the language of APA. Therefore, the LEOBR and APA are inconsistent, irreconcilable and cannot be harmonized as to matters that are subject to judicial review. In our view, that conflict must be resolved in favor of the law enforcement officer and not the Commission for two different reasons. First, the General Assembly clearly evidenced its intent that the LEOBR control in this situation by including specific language to that effect when it drafted the LEOBR. Section 3-102, Effect of Subtitle, states that . . . this subtitle supersedes any other law of the State, a county, or a municipal corporation that conflicts with this subtitle. By including this language, the Legislature expressly noted its desire that the LEOBR control over any conflicting statute, including the APA. We have stated that one can scarcely imagine a clearer statement of the scope of the LEOBR. The subtitle is to be a law that is supreme and all-encompassing, within its State-wide sphere of operations. Moats, 324 Md. at 527, 597 A.2d at 976. Because the APA conflicts with the LEOBR as to whether an agency can seek judicial review of a not guilty finding, the LEOBR controls and we further conclude that the Commission is not entitled to review in this case. In addition, the LEOBR supersedes the APA because the LEOBR was written with the express purpose of protecting the rights of police officers who work for specific state agencies, while the APA was written to apply more broadly to all State administrative agencies not specifically exempted. See Applicability note, Md.Code (1984, 2004 Repl.Vol.), § 10-201 of the State Government Article. The LEOBR, therefore, applies only to a specific subset of individuals who work for specific state agencies, whereas the APA applies to these individuals and globally to all other individuals working for all other State agencies (unless specifically exempted by the APA). It is well settled that when two statutes, one general and one specific, are found to conflict, the specific statute will be regarded as an exception to the general statute. Ghajari, 346 Md. at 116, 695 A.2d at 150 (citing Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Schlossberg, 306 Md. 48, 63, 507 A.2d 172, 180 (1986)). In Ghajari, we stated that when the statutes conflict, the specific statute is controlling and the general statute is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency. Ghajari, 346 Md. at 116, 695 A.2d at 150. In such a case, the court should give effect to the specific statute in its entirety and should retain as much of the general statute as is reasonably possible. Id. As a result, the LEOBR controls and the Commission is not entitled to judicial review of the Board's decision. [18]