BEL AIR, MD – A new directive from Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown is stirring debate among law enforcement leaders who say the state’s guidance on working with federal agencies could limit police cooperation and create unnecessary confusion.
The memo, released last week, lays out how Maryland officers must apply state law when partnering with federal agents.
Brown said the move ensures officers uphold Maryland’s standards on use of force, civil rights, and accountability, even during joint operations with federal agencies.
Key Points
- Attorney General Anthony G. Brown released guidance outlining state law obligations when Maryland police work with federal agents
- The memo restricts local officers from participating in civil immigration enforcement and mandates adherence to Maryland’s use-of-force and accountability standards
- Law enforcement leaders, including Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler, questioned the timing and intent of the guidance
State guidance aims to reaffirm Maryland law
Brown’s office said the document was created to help agencies “collaborate lawfully and productively with federal agents” without violating Maryland law. The guidance explicitly states that Maryland officers cannot enforce civil immigration laws or assist federal agencies in doing so, a policy that aligns with state limits enacted in recent years. It also reminds officers that they must continue using body-worn cameras, identify themselves during stops, and comply with local oversight and disciplinary rules, even when part of federal task forces.
Local officials express frustration and confusion
The directive drew immediate reaction from sheriffs and police chiefs across the state, some of whom said the memo merely repeats existing law while hinting at political motives.
Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler said he was “disappointed” that the Cassilly Administration appeared to support the Attorney General’s position, calling the move “unexpected” and “puzzling.” Several law enforcement leaders voiced concern that the message could discourage cooperation with federal partners on major investigations, including those involving violent crime or narcotics.
Concerns over timing and federal cooperation
Some officers privately questioned whether the guidance was intended as a signal against federal immigration enforcement efforts, pointing to what they described as an “intimidation tactic” that may complicate future collaboration.
Key provisions of the guidance include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Maryland law establishes statewide standards governing the use of force that Maryland officers generally must heed, even when working with federal agents.
2. While performing regular police functions, Maryland officers may not enforce civil immigration laws or assist federal agents in enforcing such laws.
3. Maryland officers must properly use body-worn cameras in accordance with State law and agency policy, identify themselves when making stops, and comply with other key State-law requirements that do not govern federal agents.
4. Unlike federal agents, Maryland officers are subject to civilian oversight in misconduct matters and face substantial exposure to civil liability for violations of State or federal law.
While the Attorney General’s office framed the guidance as a transparency measure, others saw it as a political statement during a period of heightened federal activity in Maryland.
Brown stands by state-first approach
Brown maintained that Maryland law enforcement agencies must prioritize compliance with state statutes regardless of changing federal priorities. His office emphasized that the guidance protects officers from potential legal exposure and strengthens community trust.
“Maryland’s law enforcement officers are governed by Maryland law and the communities they serve,” Brown said, reaffirming his stance that the state will not compromise its accountability standards.
