The Maine Criminal Justice Academy in Vassalboro in November 2020. Rich Abrahamson/Morning Sentinel

The state police academy is considering new rules that would allow it to discipline Maine law enforcement officers when their behavior does not rise to the level of criminal charges but is deemed unprofessional.

The Maine Criminal Justice Academy has released a draft proposal for the new code of conduct, which would allow the academy’s board of trustees to discipline officers for certain behavior, including harassing people, falsifying written or verbal communications in official reports, possessing a controlled substance and engaging in conduct while on duty that would “significantly diminish the public’s confidence” in officers.

A public comment on the draft rules ended Sunday, three years after the Maine Legislature expanded the academy’s disciplinary powers and provided the public with more information about misconduct by police and corrections officers.

The changes are a “long time coming,” Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce said in a phone interview Wednesday.

“We’re moving toward what people were crying for back in 2020 with law enforcement – police reform and trying to professionalize the law enforcement profession,” he said.

The academy certifies all law enforcement and corrections officers in the state. Its board of trustees, comprised of a number of representatives from law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and town managers, has only been able to discipline officers for criminal misconduct, with few exceptions.

The board currently decertifies about five to six officers a year, Brian Pellerin, the board’s outgoing chair and a chief deputy for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Police chiefs in Maine are required by law to report officers’ criminal conduct to the board, regardless of whether the officer faces charges. If an officer is convicted or accused of a crime, the board has the authority to review the conduct and take action, which could mean issuing a letter of reprimand, suspension or revoking their certificate to be a law enforcement officer in the state.

But not all police misconduct can be defined by criminal laws, creating a gap in what the academy is able to consider. For example, an officer who lies or commits sexual harassment may not be reported to the trustees. And low-level, Class E crimes aren’t currently considered severe enough for the board to step in, Pellerin said.

The draft rules say that officers would be subject to discipline for:

• Harassing someone because of their race, color, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry, national origin or familial status. This would include unwelcome advances, comments, jokes and other verbal or physical conduct.

• Misrepresenting information or lying to obtain a certificate from the board.

• Misrepresenting information or lying in connection with their duties as an officer, including falsifying official reports. There is an exemption for when officers are conducting interviews or interrogations as part of official investigations.

• Disclosing information that the officer knew, or should have known, was confidential.

• Doing anything while on duty or in uniform that would significantly diminish the public’s confidence in them or law enforcement broadly.

• Possessing controlled substances, including marijuana, in violation of federal law.

The changes were spurred around 2018 when the former Oxford County sheriff resigned amid sexual harassment allegations. The academy faced pressure from legislators because former sheriff Wayne Gallant’s actions weren’t considered a criminal matter, Pellerin said.

The 2021 law, which passed with police support, also came about after the Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News published a joint three-part investigation that showed the Maine State Police had a pattern of not disclosing public information about trooper misconduct, even when final discipline had been issued. Final discipline decisions in Maine are public records under state law.

“There was a lot of frustration with the fact that we were really kind of limited in what we can do,” Pellerin said. “We don’t want to have an adversarial relationship with the Legislature. We’re a tool for them and they’re a tool for us.”

After that law was passed, the academy started a rule-making process that resulted in the release of the draft code of conduct last month.

Under the proposed changes, the chief administrative officers of a law enforcement or corrections agency – such as a sheriff, police chief or head of state police – also would face discipline if they fail to report a conviction or misconduct by an officer to the board as required; fail to report the findings of an investigation requested by the board within 30 days; or allow or fail to stop and report an officer’s unethical or unprofessional conduct.

Joyce, the Cumberland County sheriff, said he had a few initial concerns, but he said they were alleviated after talking to Pellerin.

LOCKING IN EXPECTATIONS

But his department is accredited, he said, meaning it already follows certain standards for reporting misconduct to the academy. Where the change might have more of an impact is on smaller, unaccredited agencies, he said.

“It’s just locking expectations of the academy in, so that … nobody can play dumb that they didn’t know what was going on,” Joyce said.

Tara Wheeler, a criminal justice research associate at the University of Maine’s Catherine E. Cutler Institute, agreed. She said having these expectations in writing will help smaller agencies that may not have policies on reporting certain conduct.

“Different agencies have different regulations about officer conduct, so making a statewide standard that all officers are held to is probably a benefit,” Wheeler said.

The board posted its draft rules on state websites and solicited comments from various police unions and groups, like the Maine Sheriffs Association, Maine Chiefs of Police Association and the Teamsters Local 340. The board now has 120 days to vote on the rules.

“This isn’t something that’s happened overnight,” Pellerin said. “This is a process that’s gone through multiple drafts to kind of find that sweet spot of capturing what we wanted to capture without becoming the internal affairs department for every police department.”

He said the board has yet to review the comments, and couldn’t provide copies to a reporter, but he said that the board will review them at its next meeting when trustees can choose whether or not to consider the recommendations in the comments. That meeting has not yet been scheduled. 

“The reason for public comment is just to identify those unintended consequences of something that maybe we haven’t considered,” Pellerin said.