J. THOMAS MANGER, et al. v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY LODGE 35, INC.
Court of Special Appeals, Zarnoch, Feb. 25, 2016,
LEOBR – Requirement that interrogation of officer may be written, taped, or transcribed does not prohibit video taping the interrogation.

To the extent that a police department uses video technology, it should endeavor to record all present at the interrogation, and especially the interrogator and the officer under investigation.

There are two “interesting” things about this opinion.

One: The Court’s interpretation of the statute.
PS 3-104 reads

(k) Record of interrogation. —

(1) A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all recess periods, of the law enforcement officer.

(2) The record may be written, taped, or transcribed.

The court COULD have merely decided that “taped” could include videotape or that a videotape contains both an audio and video track, thereby satisfying the requirement.

Instead, it found that “written, taped, or transcribed” is not a complete list of ways to satisfy the “complete record” requirement.

Interesting.

Two:
The Court declined to decide the obvious next question: what about digital video?

Given this 2016 decision, when VHS tapes are nearing extinction, why leave open the standard method by which video recording is performed?

This might make sense if the Court HAD relied on “taped” in its decision, but instead the Court looked to whether video taping was consistent with the legislature’s intent… which would be precisely the same analysis performed in deciding digital video.