SHEILA M. BRECK v. MARYLAND STATE POLICE
Court of Appeals, Barbera, March 27, 2017,
LEOBR – Secondary Employment, as defined in the LEOBR, applies only to off-duty employment contracted with a third party. It does not include on-duty overtime.

Facts
At the time of the events in question, Sheila Breck was a sergeant with the Maryland State Police Department (“MSP”).
In 2012, she was charged departmentally for filing a report containing false information. The charge was sustained.
In 2013, she began working uniformed overtime with NSA pursuant to an agreement between MSP and NSA. This work at NSA was in addition to the 40 hours per week during which she performed her primary duties at MSP.
The NSA overtime involved uniformed officers providing motorized patrol in marked vehicles.
In 2014, MSP developed a new practice where it did not allow officers to wear uniforms or work front-line assignments if they had a sustained departmental charge reflecting on their integrity.
Because of this, Breck could no longer work overtime at NSA. To supplement her income, Breck began working non-uniformed security at McDonald’s.
She filed suit against MSP claiming that they were violating the LEOBR by not allowing her to work secondary. She also claimed MSP violated the LEOBR by punishing her for being on an integrity list.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court held that MSP’s motivation for not assigning Ms. Breck to front-line law enforcement activities was a reasonable approach to the best use of MSP’s resources.
LEOBR – Secondary Employment – The LEOBR states that law-enforcement agencies in the state “may not prohibit secondary employment by law enforcement officers.”
LEOBR – Secondary Employment – The LEOBR allows agencies to “adopt reasonable regulations that relate to secondary employment by law enforcement officers.”
From the Case: Because the NSA contract was with MSP and not the individual officers (or a third party), it was not “secondary employment” under the LEOBR.
LEOBR – Integrity List – The LEOBR allows agencies to maintain a list of officers “who have been found or alleged to have committed acts which bear on credibility, integrity, honesty, or other characteristics that would constitute exculpatory or impeachment evidence.”
LEOBR – Integrity List – However, an agency may not “take punitive action against the law enforcement officer” based “solely” on the fact that they are on the list.
LEOBR – Punitive Action – Not every action taken with regard to an officer is a punitive one, even if she is transferred or has fewer opportunities as a result.
LEOBR – Punitive Action – Whether or not something is “punitive” under the LEOBR depends on the agency’s motivation for that action.
LEOBR – Punitive Action- If the action is based on an investigation and hearing process addressing an alleged wrongful act, potentially leading to punishment for that act, the action is punitive.
LEOBR – Punitive Action – But if the action is based on sensible agency administration in the best interests of the internal management, the action is managerial, not punitive.
LEOBR – Punitive Action – The LEOBR regulation of integrity lists is to make sure that officers are not punished twice for the same conduct. It does NOT mean that an officer cannot be punished for the underlying violation that got them put on the list.