Burton v. Intelligence & Investigative Div.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 0038,0038 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER BURTON v. INTELLIGENCE & INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No. 03-C-18-005910
UNREPORTED
Kehoe, Reed, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
Opinion by Reed, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Christopher Burton ("Appellant") brings this appeal, challenging the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. That court affirmed the Intelligence and Investigative Division ("IID") of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' ("DPSCS" or the "Department") decision to terminate the Appellant's employment as a law enforcement officer with the Department. Errol Etting, the IID Executive Director, issued disciplinary charges against Appellant for failure to perform his job duties adequately and for providing false statements related to a criminal investigation.
The Administrative Hearing Board (the "Board"), comprised of three law enforcement officers, found Appellant guilty of four of the five disciplinary charges brought against him and recommended the penalty of termination. The Executive Director and Secretary of the Department approved the Board's recommendation, and Appellant was subsequently terminated. Appellant appealed the Board's decision to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights ("LEOBR"), which is codified in Title 3, Subtitle 1, of the Maryland Public Safety Article. The circuit court affirmed, prompting this present appeal.
In bringing his appeal, Appellant presents two questions1 for our review, which we have rephrased for clarity:
For the following reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative and hold that the Board's decision was supported with substantial evidence. We decline to answer the second question because it is not properly before this Court to review. In all, we affirm the Board's conclusions and the Department's decision to terminate Appellant's employment.
The facts relevant to this case began on February 17, 2016 when Appellant observed an alleged excessive force incident perpetrated by two correctional officers against an inmate housed at the Brockbridge Pre-Release Facility ("BPRF"). On this date, Appellant volunteered to assist in interdiction at the BPRF. The interdiction was scheduled to be conducted by the Contraband Interdiction Team ("CIT"), the Special Operations Group ("SOG"), and the K9 Unit.
While providing assistance, Appellant observed two officers assaulting an inmate later identified as Marvin Davis. Appellant heard a CIT officer state to Mr. Davis, "You're going to fucking do as I say," to which Mr. Davis mumbled an inaudible comment. TheCIT officer then told Mr. Davis, "I want you to give me your shirt," however, Mr. Davis refused. Appellant then recounted that a SOG officer pushed him out of the way; stated, "I'm tired of [Mr. Davis'] fucking mouth;" then approached Mr. Davis from behind and placed him in a chokehold, taunting, "I will smash your motherfucking head into this wall." Appellant next alleged that another SOG officer intervened and repeatedly punched Mr. Davis in the left ribcage while he was still held in the chokehold. The two SOG officers then closed the bathroom door and in the ensuing struggle Mr. Davis fell to the floor. Appellant claimed he was not able to see the rest of the altercation from his vantagepoint but was able to hear that it had continued.
Shortly after, Mr. Davis was seen with blood stains on his shirt as the SOG officers escorted him to the medical unit. The medical staff noted that Mr. Davis sustained a head injury, suffered from disorientation, and exhibited swelling on the right side of his forehead. Given his injuries, Mr. Davis was sent to the Shock Trauma Unit.
Upon returning to his office that day, Appellant immediately reported the incident to his supervisor Lieutenant Mark Forrest who instructed him to report the matter to Captain Bobbie Jo Fockler. Appellant submitted his initial matter of record attesting to the facts discussed above. However, since he had not previously interacted with the officers involved, Appellant described the officers' appearances rather than identifying them by name.2 Nonetheless, Lt. Forrest and Capt. Fockler ordered Appellant to submit a revisedreport to include the names of the officers that assaulted Mr. Davis. Appellant updated the report then rewrote the matter of record for a third time that day, identifying Officer Jeremy Snyder as the officer that placed Mr. Davis in a chokehold while an unknown Caucasian male wearing a green uniform threw multiple punches to the left side of Mr. Davis' ribcage.
On February 19, 2016, Appellant rewrote the matter of record for a fourth time, identifying Sargent Brandon Wilt as the officer who placed Mr. Davis in a chokehold and Ofc. Snyder as the officer who struck Mr. Davis in the ribcage. That same day, Appellant wrote his fifth final matter of record, explaining why he revised the initial matter of record multiple times. In his final matter of record, he explained that he updated the report to include the names of the officers and inmate because he did not know their identities when he first submitted the report. Appellant then explains that after having reviewed photographs of the SOG officers, he revised the report for a fourth time, identifying Sgt. Wilt as the officer who initiated the chokehold. However, after speaking with Detective Sargent Candace Mills, Appellant realized that he misidentified Sgt. Wilt as one of the officers that assaulted Mr. Davis. Thus, he rewrote his matter of record withdrawing any mention of Sgt. Wilt and identifying Ofc. Snyder as the SOG officer that placed Mr. Davis in a chokehold. After this fifth revision, Appellant did not submit any other matters of record or written reports concerning the excessive force incident at the BPRF.
The incident sparked a series of investigations, one of which was an administrative investigation conducted by Det./Sgt. Mills. During his interview with Det./Sgt. Mills on February 22, 2016, Appellant identified Ofc. Snyder as the officer that placed Mr. Davis in a chokehold and stated that he was unable to identify the officer that had punched Mr.Davis in the ribcage. Given Appellant's final matter of record and the investigative findings, Sgt. Wilt was removed from further investigations. However, in February of 2017, Det./Sgt. Johnnathon Wright launched a criminal investigation into both Sgt. Wilt and Ofc. Snyder.
During the criminal and subsequent administrative investigation, Appellant made inconsistent statements on three occasions, which led to the administrative charges against him in this present appeal. Specifically, Appellant's statements during his interview with Det./Sgt. Wright on February 8, 2017, his conversation with Capt. Fockler on February 23, 2017, and his interrogation by Det./Lt. Scott Peterson on June 9, 2017, were the basis for the five disciplinary violations against him. He was charged with violations of (1) Personal Conduct, (2) Performance of Duty, (3) Insubordination, (4) Reports, and (5) Exception information.3 4 We have compartmentalized the facts relevant to these three dates for clarity.
On February 8, 2017, Det./Sgt. Wright interviewed Appellant by phone as part of his criminal investigation into Sgt. Wilt and Ofc. Snyder. During the interview, Det./Sgt. Wright had Appellant's February 17, 2016 written matter of record and asked questions pertaining to the facts alleged in the report. In that matter of record, Appellant only identified Ofc. Snyder by name and was unable to identify the other offending officer. When asked whether the matter of record was true, Appellant answered affirmatively. Det./Sgt. Wright proceeded to ask Appellant whether he was ever able to identify the other officer who struck Mr. Davis to which Appellant answered affirmatively, identifying Sgt. Wilt as the assailant. Appellant further distinguished that Ofc. Snyder was the one who placed the inmate in a chokehold, and he also identified Ofc. Presgraves as having possibly been at the scene of the incident. Det./Sgt. Wright included Ofc. Presgraves' name in his notes for further investigation. Based on Appellant's interview and matter of record, Det./Sgt. Wright drafted the application for statement of charges against Sgt. Wilt and Ofc. Snyder. However, he was unaware that Appellant revised his matter of record multiple times and withdrew any mention of Sgt. Wilt in his final matter of record.5
Appellant's disciplinary violations also stemmed from statements he made to Capt. Fockler regarding the then-pending criminal charges against Sgt. Wilt and Ofc. Snyder. On February 23, 2017, Capt. Fockler contacted Appellant by phone and "asked him to review the charging documents to verify [that] the information was correct since it directlycontradicted" Appellant's final matter of record on February 19, 2016. As previously mentioned, Appellant withdrew Sgt. Wilt's name from his final report and identified Ofc. Snyder as the SOG officer that placed Mr. Davis in a chokehold. He also reported that he was not able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial