The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the Prince George’s County Police Chief complied with the procedural requirements of Maryland’s former Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) when he rejected an Administrative Hearing Board’s recommendation to demote a police sergeant and instead terminated his employment. Sergeant Shaun Urbina appealed only the discipline imposed for one charge — violating a department rule prohibiting officers from intentionally violating any law — after pleading guilty in criminal court to misconduct in office.
The disciplinary charges arose from a July 2020 vehicle pursuit. Officers responded to a report that occupants of a vehicle were creating a disturbance at a gas station by demanding free gas and repeatedly blowing the horn. When the vehicle fled, Urbina, who was the on-duty supervisor, pursued it. According to the Department’s investigation, Urbina deactivated his emergency equipment before the pursuit ended, advised dispatch that the pursuit had concluded while continuing to follow the vehicle, and failed to terminate the pursuit as shift commander. The fleeing driver ultimately lost control of the vehicle and struck a telephone pole, killing both occupants. Urbina later pleaded guilty to one count of misconduct in office based on his conduct during the incident and received a suspended three-year sentence and one year of supervised probation.
The Department issued a Disciplinary Action Recommendation charging Urbina with seven violations and proposing termination for the violation-of-law charge based on his guilty plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Hearing Board found Urbina guilty of six charges, including the violation-of-law charge, but recommended a lesser penalty of demotion to corporal and removal from one promotional cycle. Before deciding whether to increase that recommendation, the Chief reviewed the hearing record, notified Urbina that he was considering a harsher penalty, and met with Urbina and his attorney to hear their arguments. The Chief ultimately issued a Final Disciplinary Action terminating Urbina’s employment.
On appeal, Urbina argued that the Chief failed to satisfy former LEOBR § 3-108(d)(5), which permitted a police chief to increase a hearing board’s recommended discipline only after personally reviewing the record, meeting with the officer, disclosing any extra-record communications relied upon, and “stat[ing] on the record the substantial evidence relied on to support the increase of the recommended penalty.” Urbina contended that the Chief merely announced a different result without identifying the substantial evidence supporting the harsher discipline.
The Court rejected that argument, concluding that the Chief satisfied the statute by identifying the specific facts supporting termination. In his written decision, the Chief emphasized Urbina’s guilty plea and conviction for misconduct in office, his admission during the meeting that he accepted responsibility, and the seriousness of the misconduct given that he was “a 15-year veteran” serving as the acting lieutenant and shift commander. The Chief further explained that the conviction constituted “an integrity violation,” affecting Urbina’s “overall credibility,” his “ability to testify as a witness for the State,” and his ability “to remain a certified police officer.” The Court held that these findings constituted substantial evidence supporting the decision to increase the discipline from demotion to termination and therefore complied with the procedural requirements of former LEOBR § 3-108(d)(5).
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding Urbina’s termination.
In the Matter of Shaun Urbina, No. 736, Sept. Term 2025, 2026 WL 1800842 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 23, 2026).