Luciotti v. Town of Bladensburg

MICHAEL LUCIOTTI v. TOWN OF BLADENSBURG, et al.

No. 679--2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

April 20, 2022

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CAE20-19965

Wells C.J., Friedman, Wright, Alexander, Jr. (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Wright, J.

This appeal stems from an internal investigation initiated by the Town of Bladensburg Police Department (the "Department") regarding alleged misconduct by one of its officers, Michael Luciotti. Following that investigation, the Department met with Officer Luciotti to discuss its findings and proposed discipline. During that meeting, Officer Luciotti accepted the proposed punishment and waived his right to an administrative hearing. Immediately thereafter, the Department informed Officer Luciotti that he was under investigation for an unrelated matter. Some time later, Officer Luciotti attempted to rescind his prior waiver and proceed to an administrative hearing on the initial matter, but the Department refused.

Officer Luciotti later filed, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, a Verified Complaint for Show Cause Order, in which he asked the court to issue an order directing the Department to show cause as to why his right to an administrative hearing had not been violated. Following a hearing, the court denied Officer Luciotti's request and dismissed his complaint. In this appeal, Officer Luciotti presents a single question for our review, which we rephrased slightly as follows:

Did the circuit court err in denying the relief requested in the complaint for show cause order?

For reasons to follow, we hold that the circuit court did not err. We therefore affirm the court's judgment.

BACKGROUND

In February 2020, an unnamed citizen filed a complaint with the Department alleging that Officer Luciotti had addressed her in a discourteous manner while on duty (the "February 2020 incident"). The Department investigated the incident and found that Officer Luciotti had engaged in "unbecoming conduct" and had failed to exercise reasonable courtesy. For the unbecoming conduct charge, the Department recommended a five-day suspension with pay. For the failure to exercise reasonable courtesy charge, the Department recommended a $250.00 fine.

On November 17, 2020, representatives from the Department met with Officer Luciotti to discuss the investigation, charges, and disciplinary recommendations. At the conclusion of that discussion, Officer Luciotti agreed to accept the disciplinary recommendation and waive his right to an administrative hearing.

After Officer Luciotti signed the necessary paperwork indicating his intent to forego a hearing and accept punishment, the Department informed Officer Luciotti that he was being suspended, with pay, effective immediately. The suspension was based on a separate incident in which Officer Luciotti had allegedly engaged in "repeated unprofessional and insensitive disruptions during a department training on October 22, 2020[.]" (the "October 2020 incident").

On December 10, 2020, counsel for Officer Luciotti sent a letter to the Department indicating that Officer Luciotti wished to rescind his waiver and proceed to an administrative hearing on the charges stemming from the February 2020 incident. The Department did not respond.

Shortly thereafter, Officer Luciotti filed, in the circuit court, a Verified Complaint for Show Cause Order pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights ("LEOBR").^[1] Under the LEOBR, a law enforcement officer is entitled to an administrative hearing if a Departmental investigation "results in a recommendation of demotion, dismissal, transfer, loss of pay, reassignment, or similar action that is considered punitive[.]" Md. Code, Public Safety ("PS") § 3-107(a)(1).

In his complaint, Officer Luciotti alleged that, during his meeting with Department personnel on November 17, 2020, he had been told that, "by accepting the discipline and waiving his right to a hearing [regarding the February 2020 incident], he would return to work for his next-scheduled shift, and would essentially move forward with a 'clean slate,' i.e., he would not be facing any additional investigations or potential disciplinary action." Officer Luciotti maintained that he ultimately agreed to waive his right to a hearing because of those assurances. Officer Luciotti noted that, after he agreed to waive his right to a hearing, the Department informed him that he was suspended from duty pending its investigation into the October 2020 incident. Officer Luciotti alleged that the Department should have informed him about that disciplinary action and that he never would have waived his right to a hearing regarding the February 2020 incident had he known about the investigation into the other incident. Officer Luciotti alleged that, upon being informed of the suspension, he "immediately objected" and informed the Department that "he would never have signed the waivers and accepted the punishment had he been informed that he would be suspended pending a new investigation." Officer Luciotti also alleged that, "within minutes after he signed the waivers," he informed the Department that he wanted to retract the waivers and proceed to a hearing. Officer Luciotti argued that, because of his prompt retraction, the Department would not have been prejudiced in accepting the retraction and holding a hearing. Based on those allegations, Officer Luciotti asked the court to issue an order directing the Department to show cause as to why his right to a hearing had not been violated.

In response, the Department asserted that Officer Luciotti waived his right to a hearing freely and knowingly. The Department denied making any assurances or misleading Officer Luciotti in any way. The Department also denied Officer Luciotti's claims that he immediately objected to the waiver and that he attempted to retract the waiver minutes after he signed.

Hearing

At the hearing on Officer Luciotti's complaint, Tyrone Collington, the Chief of Police for the Bladensburg Police Department, testified that he was one of the Departmental representatives present at the meeting with Officer Luciotti on November 17, 2020. Chief Collington testified that the purpose of the meeting was to provide Officer Luciotti with the results of the investigation into the February 2020 incident. Chief Collington testified that Officer Luciotti was presented with a written statement of the charges and disciplinary recommendations and that the two read through the documents together. Chief Collington denied telling Officer Luciotti that he could return to work on his next scheduled shift or that he would not be facing any additional investigations for potential disciplinary action.

Chief Collington testified that, at the time of the meeting Officer Luciotti was also the subject of a third investigation into a complaint of excessive force (the "excessive force incident"). Chief Collington testified that the Department's investigation into that incident had been "stalled" because the matter had been referred to the Prince George's County State's Attorney's Office "due to the severity of the injuries that the victim sustained." Chief Collington stated that, on April 21, 2020, the Department sent a letter to Officer Luciotti informing him of that investigation, as well as the investigation into the February 2020 incident. Chief Collington testified that he never told Officer Luciotti that the investigation into the excessive force complaint would not go forward. Chief Collington testified that the two incidents and investigations were not connected in any way.

Chief Collington also testified about an investigation that had occurred in 2016 involving Officer Luciotti. That investigation involved "sick leave abuse and untruthfulness" and resulted in a disciplinary recommendation of forfeiture of medical leave time. Officer Luciotti ultimately accepted that punishment and waived his right to a hearing on those charges.

On cross-examination, Chief Collington was asked why he waited until after Officer Luciotti signed the waivers to give him the suspension paperwork and notice of the investigation into the October 2020 incident. Chief Collington responded that he wanted to "take care of one matter at a time[, ]" so he "took care of the [February 2020] incident" and then went into the October 2020 incident involving the suspension. Regarding the first incident, Chief Collington testified that he discussed the matter with Officer Luciotti thoroughly and that Officer Luciotti was given the opportunity to "step out of the room to seek advice about whether he should or should not sign the disciplinary action, to accept it." According to Chief Collington, Officer Luciotti did just that and then returned to the room and signed the waivers.

Chief Collington was also asked about the suspension letter, which stated that Officer Luciotti was being suspended because of the October 2020 incident. Chief Collington testified that Officer Luciotti had been suspended as a result of that incident and the excessive force incident. Chief Collington testified that the excessive force incident was not mentioned in the suspension letter because that incident "was being handled by the State's Attorney's Office."

Also during the hearing, the Department intended to call several other witnesses, all of whom were present during the November 17, 2020 meeting. The parties ultimately stipulated that those witnesses would testify that "no promises were made about any other charges" and that "Officer Luciotti did not bring up this other investigation or the excessive force."

In the end, the circuit court denied Officer Luciotti's request for a show cause order and...