*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other

document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the

rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No. 480002-V

UNREPORTED

September Term, 2020

RITA MICHELLE TROTTER

Filed: June 3, 2021

______________________________________________________________________________

order, a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction and a writ of mandamus. The circuit

court granted the preliminary injunction which enjoined appellees from “referencing the

alleged instances of untruthfulness” contained in Trotter’s background investigation file,

and a June 3, 2019 letter from the State’s Attorney Office for Montgomery County, during

an administrative hearing on unrelated charges. After the hearing, appellees filed a Motion

to Dismiss and/or a Motion for Summary Judgment, regarding the permanent injunction

and writ of mandamus. The court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss and this timely

appeal followed.

Appellant presents the following question for our review:

1. Did the Circuit Court err in dismissing Appellant’s complaint for Writ of

and background investigation, RCPD became aware that Trotter’s police powers had been

______________________________________________________________________________

2

suspended pending an internal investigation concerning “allegations that [Trotter] did not

tell the truth or placed incorrect information on a traffic citation.” Notwithstanding the

investigation, Trotter was offered employment with RCPD on July 10, 2006, which she

accepted. In October of 2006, Trotter was notified by MCPD that the internal investigation

Unsatisfactory Performance and Untruthful Statements. Trotter has remained a member of

RCPD since 2006.

In June of 2019, Trotter received a letter signed by the State’s Attorney for

Montgomery County, stating:

The purpose of this letter is to formally advise you that, under the

Maryland Rules, our Office is required to make certain disclosures to defense

counsel in all future cases where you will be called as a witness.

Specifically, we must disclose that the files of the Office of the Chief

disclosure obligation when making decisions on whether or not to go forward

in cases which you are involved.

Approximately a month later, Trotter sent a request to the Acting Chief of Police of

MCPD to confirm the status of any investigative material in her file, noting that in

accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Montgomery County and

the Union representing the law enforcement officers of MCPD, FOP Lodge #35, all internal

affairs records pertaining to a specific employee five (5) years after their separation from

MCPD are to be destroyed. MCPD replied and stated, “[t]he Montgomery County

______________________________________________________________________________

3

Department of Police Internal Affairs Division does not have any files pertaining to PO1

Trotter as the employee separated from the Montgomery County Department of Police

more than 5 years ago.”

In August 2019, the RCPD charged Trotter with violating several of its departmental

hearing. Prior to the hearing, Trotter filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery

County against RCPD and the City of Rockville seeking a temporary restraining order,

preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and writ of mandamus. The court issued a

preliminary injunction, enjoining RCPD from “referencing the alleged instances of

untruthfulness contained in two (2) pages of [Trotter’s] background investigation file, as

(“SAO”), at the upcoming hearing board . . .” The court scheduled a subsequent hearing

because in the future, “if any potential charges were raised against Corporal Trotter . . .

and if the hearing board finds that Corporal Trotter is guilty of any violations of the

Department, general orders[,] or policy[;] then the hearing board is allowed to look at

things such as past performance and [Trotter’s] disciplinary record to determine what . . .

discipline . . . would be appropriate.” Trotter argued that RCPD might attempt to use the

information previously enjoined against her in a future hearing. The City of Rockville

______________________________________________________________________________

4

countered that Trotter’s concerns were speculative and that if she were subsequently

charged, she would have the opportunity to seek appropriate relief from the court. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that a writ of

mandamus was not “the proper remedy.”

In Maryland, there are two types of mandamus actions: “one for the judicial

enforcement of non-discretionary acts, the other for the judicial review of adjudicatory

administrative decisions.” Wilson v. Simms, 380 Md. 206, 228 (2004); See also Mayor and

City Council of Baltimore v. ProVen Mgmt., Inc., 472 Md. 642, 669 n.9 (2021) (revisiting

the established differences between common law mandamus and the administrative

perform a non-discretionary duty or function—to enforce the law . . . [.]” Id. (citing City of

mandamus must have a clear legal right to performance of the particular duty imposed on

the agency; and (2) the agency action under review is not discretionary or dependent on

personal judgment. The action must be “purely ministerial” or the public official’s

obligation to act is “clear and unequivocal.” See Falls Road Community Ass’n v. Baltimore

County, 437 Md. 115, 139–140 (2014) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Maryland

Rule 15-701 addresses common law mandamus actions. See Priester v. Baltimore Cty,

______________________________________________________________________________

5

Maryland, 232 Md. App. 178, 187 n.8 (2017); See also Maryland Rule 15-701(a)

(explaining that the “Rule applies to action for writs of mandamus other than

administrative mandamus pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 400 of these Rules or mandamus in

aid of appellate jurisdiction”) (emphasis added).

administrative decisions where there is both a lack of an available procedure for obtaining

review and an allegation that the action complained of is illegal, arbitrary, capricious or

unreasonable.” ProVen Mgmt., Inc., 472 Md. 642, 669 n.9 (2021) (quotations and citation

omitted); See also Maryland Rule 7-401(a) (administrative mandamus “govern actions for

judicial review of a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency where review

administrative mandamus. The present case is an appeal from the denial of a common law

have an interest in her employer disclosing confidential personnel information which will

undoubtedly affect her ability to perform her duties.” Appellant asserts that she has no

avenue to address the notification by RCPD to the SAO, that she has a substantial right and

that is her property interest in retaining her position which requires procedural due process.

______________________________________________________________________________

6

A writ of mandamus under common law, however, requires a clear legal right,

which is a right to the performance of a ministerial act.

“Ministerial acts are duties in

respect to which nothing is left to discretion and are distinguished from those allowing

freedom and authority to make decisions and choices.” ProVen Mgmt., Inc., 472 Md. 642,

Wilson, 380 Md. at 223. “[I]f the right be doubtful, or the duty discretionary, or of a nature

to require the exercise of judgment, or if there be any ordinary adequate legal remedy to

which the party applying could have recourse, [the] writ will not be granted.” Id. (quoting

Jones, 364 Md. at 673).

Appellant also contends she has “a clear property interest in retaining her position,”

which affect her ability to retain her position.” Appellant’s only authority to support this

1

Maryland courts have long recognized that:

It is well established that common law mandamus is an extraordinary remedy

that is generally used to compel inferior tribunals, public officials or

administrative agencies to perform their function, or perform some particular

duty imposed upon them which in its nature is imperative and to the

performance of which duty the party applying for the writ has a clear legal

right. Or stated another way, “[a] common law writ of mandamus is one

where the relief sought involves the traditional enforcement of a ministerial

______________________________________________________________________________

7

substantial right to a promotion, as it was a position the individual never held. Appellant

provides no authority for her argument that she has a clear legal right to the redaction of

background investigation documents controlled by RCPD. Nor, does she provide any

argument that RCPD has a legal duty to redact the information.

of mandamus was not proper, held that while there was a clear legal right for the petitioner

to have their employment position reinstated by the Order of an Administrative Law Judge,

the petitioner did not have clear legal right to back pay because it was not expressly written

in the order. See Wilson v. Simms, 380 Md. 206, 229 (2004). The Court found that the

applicable statute, “Section 12-402(a) [of the State Personnel and Pensions Article] defines

them.” Id. at 225 (emphasis added). “In order for a grievant such as Wilson to be entitled

to maintain a record of an applicant’s background investigation, which includes

“interviews of current and past employers within the last 5 years.” COMAR

12.04.01.05(A)(2)(d)(iii). The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (“LEOBR”)

Maryland Code, Public Safety Article Section §3-110 provides:

(a) On written request, a law enforcement officer may have expunged from

______________________________________________________________________________

8

(1)(i) the law enforcement agency that investigated the complaint:

1. exonerated the law enforcement officer of all charges in the

complaint; or

2. determined that the charges were unsustained or unfounded;

(b) Evidence of a formal complaint against a law enforcement officer is not

admissible in an administrative or judicial proceeding if the complaint

resulted in an outcome listed in subsection (a)(1) of this section.

MD PUBLIC SAFETY §3-110 (West). We note that while the provision allows for the

expungement of documents, “it does not explicitly command it.” Wilson, 380 Md. at 226.

Thus, appellant has no clear legal right to the redaction or expungement of the documents

in question.

Appellant also asserts that “it was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ for Chief Brito and

RCPD to (1) search through Trotter’s personal file, unprompted by the SAO . . . [,] (2)

conclude that Trotter had made untruthful statements while employed with MCPD merely

due to the reference of an ‘allegation’ that untruthful statements had been made . . .[,] and