Baltimore County police Internal Affairs officials told the Baltimore County Administrative Charging Committee at a public meeting in the Historic Courthouse that the department treats unintentional errors in reports differently from intentional misrepresentations — and that the latter can trigger termination and disclosure to prosecutors.

The distinction, presented by Captain Jeffrey Shanks and Major Rick Hart of the Baltimore County Police Department, affects both internal discipline and whether a prior investigation must be disclosed and may be used to challenge an officer’s credibility in court. "We interpret the inaccuracy of report under category B," Shanks said, and "misrepresentation of fact ... would be under [the state disciplinary] matrix" as a termination case.

Why it matters: committee members were told that a finding of misrepresentation can have consequences beyond department discipline. Major Hart said such a finding must be disclosed to the state's attorney and defense counsel and may be raised in cross-examination, which can affect whether an officer’s testimony is relied on in criminal cases. "If someone is labeled a liar, that’s pretty big for us," Hart said.

What IA described: presenters gave examples that, according to their slides, distinguish common accidental mistakes — such as reliance on a report template or a misremembered witness detail — from intentional concealment or false statements. Shanks described inaccuracy as "a simple mistake" that often results from template text or confusion; he described misrepresentation as "intentional ... trying to hide the fact."

Presenters outlined routine instances that may be treated as mistakes — for example, leaving a standard line in a report when the specific evidence is absent — and contrasted them with examples they described as deliberate, such as asserting no evidence existed when body-worn camera or other proof contradicted that assertion. The department’s administrative sergeant, Dan Sager, compiled multiple slide examples, the presenters said; they offered the committee a copy of the PowerPoint for members to keep.

Access and appeals: committee members asked whether officers can see investigation reports. Shanks said officers may review investigatory reports with permission from the head of Internal Affairs; sustained findings are typically part of the review process but access is handled case by case. The presenters described the appeals process: if Internal Affairs recommends termination for misrepresentation and that decision is appealed, the case can proceed to a trial board where findings may differ.

Committee action: after the presentation, the committee voted unanimously to enter a closed session to review investigatory files under Maryland law. The motion to enter closed session cited Maryland Code, Public Safety, §3-104(h), and passed unanimously.

Votes at a glance:
- Motion to adopt minutes of the Aug. 1, 2025 meeting — mover: Sean Feuer; second: Christopher Sewey; outcome: approved (yes: 4). The committee had established a quorum earlier.
- Motion to enter closed session to review investigatory files under Maryland Code, Public Safety, §3-104(h) — mover: Sean Feuer; second: Christopher Sewey; outcome: approved (unanimous).
- Motion to adjourn and set the next meeting for Oct. 3, 2025, at 12 p.m. in Room 118 and by Webex — mover: Sean Feuer; second: Christopher Sewey; outcome: approved (unanimous).

The committee closed its public session after the votes. The presenters told members they would email the PowerPoint examples to the committee. The meeting record shows Tamisha Peterson joined before the closed-session motion; the committee reconvened in open session and adjourned, setting the Oct. 3, 2025 meeting time and place.