Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Charges Against Annapolis Firefighter-Medic

The Appellate Court of Maryland has upheld the dismissal of criminal charges against an Annapolis firefighter who was accused of filing a false special incident report. Firefighter III/Paramedic Bridget Elizabeth Weiss was charged with one count of common law misdemeanor of misconduct in office stemming from an investigation into the death of a patient.

The factual allegations as explained in a footnote in the decision are as follows:

• Weiss and other paramedics responded to a call for an injured person, found Renardo Green in a disturbed mental state, behaving erratically, and bleeding on the floor.
• The paramedics bandaged Green’s hands and prepared him for transport to the hospital.
• During transport, Green’s condition deteriorated, and paramedics began lifesaving procedures. According to other pleadings in this case, we understand that Green died on the way to the hospital, and the paramedics were ordered to write special incident reports describing what occurred.
• We may take judicial notice of court dockets … and observe that Green’s survivors instituted a wrongful death action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in which they alleged that the paramedics, including Weiss, restrained Green on the gurney facedown, which they further alleged caused Green’s death.

The state concluded that the information Weiss provided in the special incident report was false, and charged her with the common law offense of misconduct in office. Weiss argued that the charge should be dismissed because it was not brought within one year of the submission of the report, and misdemeanors are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The state argued that a two-year statute of limitations applied because she was an “officer,” and that her status as an officer is a question of fact that should be decided by the jury. The trial court dismissed the charge, prompting the state to appeal.

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court, reasoning as follows:

• The crime of misconduct in office can be committed in any or all of three modalities: malfeasance (doing something wrong); misfeasance (doing something in a wrongful manner); or nonfeasance (failing to do something).
• Section 5-106(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”) provides for a one-year statute of limitations for all misdemeanors except for those that fit within a listed exception.
• The State argues that Weiss’s case falls within the exception for misconduct in office, which extends the statute of limitations for misdemeanors to two years.
• We begin with the words of the subsection creating the exception:
  • “A prosecution for … a misdemeanor constituting … criminal malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office committed by an officer … of a political subdivision of the State … shall be instituted within 2 years after the offense was committed.”
• Maryland Courts employ a four factor test to determine if a position constitutes an office (and to distinguish between an officer and an employee):
  • [1] The position was created by law and involves continuing and not occasional duties
  • [2] The holder performs an important public duty
  • [3] The position calls for the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State [and]
  • [4] The position has a definite term, for which a commission is issued, and a bond and an oath are required.
• We conclude, first, that the position of Firefighter III/Paramedic is not created by law. We note that there are licensure requirements, but those licensure requirements are not the same thing as an office that is created by law.
• We conclude, second, without reservation that the position of Firefighter III/Paramedic certainly “performs an important public duty” and thus, satisfies the second factor.
• We hold, third, that the position exercises none of the sovereignty of the State.
• Fourth, a Firefighter III/Paramedic does not take an oath of office, does not serve a term of office, and is not required to post a performance bond.
• Having applied the four factors, we hold that Weiss is not an “officer.” As a result, the two-year statute of limitations cannot apply to her.
• Because the charges were brought more than one year after the criminal acts were alleged to have occurred, the criminal information was not timely filed.
• And, as a result, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the criminal information. We affirm the decision of the circuit court to dismiss the criminal information.

Here is a copy of the decision: