Complaint Marks the Second Time A Saint Mary’s Sheriff Is Hauled into Court for First Amendment Violations

Complaint Marks the Second Time A Saint Mary’s Sheriff Is Hauled into Court for First Amendment Violations

By Ken Rossignol

THE CHESAPEAKE TODAY

LEONARDTOWN, MD. – Following the events of election eve in 1998 when St. Mary’s County Sheriff Richard Voorhaar, States Attorney Richard Fritz, and six deputies were cited in a 1983 Civil Rights Complaint in Federal Court, the defendants were found guilty in a landmark First Amendment decision in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals in 2003 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they acted to remove all available copies of the ST. MARY’S TODAY newspaper from newsstands before voters going to the polls. The defendants admitted that the law officers’ seizure of newspapers in the raid was to prevent voters from reading critical articles of Sheriff Voorhaar and Richard Fritz before voting that day.

In a newly filed lawsuit by journalist John E. O’Connor, who conducts special investigations for THE CHESAPEAKE TODAY, St. Mary’s Sheriff Steve Hall is cited in a complaint filed in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County of violating the First Amendment and the Maryland Public Information Act for taking actions to illegally trademark publicly-owned logos and photos that have been created with public funds. Sheriff Hall has applied such symbols and trademarks to public documents and then issued stern warnings to the public regarding the use of photos and other documents to which the symbols have been affixed against the use of such publicly funded images.

O’Connor is a former St. Mary’s County Commissioner, elected in 2014 and 2018 to four-year terms, and is a police officer in Maryland, in addition to being a candidate for St. Mary’s County Sheriff in 2022. O’Connor is expected to be a candidate for Sheriff of St. Mary’s County in 2026.  

Steve Hall was elected in 2022 and is not likely to run again after the scandal of his son Trent Allen Hall being arrested on cocaine charges in Calvert County and admitting on police video that he bought the cocaine in St. Mary’s County during the time his father has been serving as Sheriff. The St. Mary’s Sheriff’s Department has been imploding, and nearly three dozen deputies have fled the agency for jobs with other law enforcement agencies since he became Sheriff.

 It appears that the social media campaigns of the St. Mary’s Sheriff’s Department are better planned and energies expended than the job being done to retain and recruit law officers, leaving the public without the protection of authorized deputies to protect the public. The recent rise in murders, carjacking attempts, and robberies in Lexington Park, as well as the daily drama of speeding and dangerous traffic offenses, can be attributed to the attrition in the number of sworn personnel in the department.

O’Connor’s Complaint (embedded in this article) states that the restrictions on the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are as follows:

1. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendant to comply with its obligations under the MPIA and to safeguard Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to access government records in the exercise of his freedom of the press.

2. Plaintiff requested unaltered booking photos from the Defendant under the MPIA on November 1, 2024. Despite statutory obligations, the Defendant failed to provide these public records as requested.

3. Defendant’s trademark policy imposes unconstitutional restrictions on the use of public records containing its badges, logos, and other symbols, creating a chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms.

4. The Defendant’s actions violate both the MPIA’s principles of government transparency and the constitutional rights of the press and public to freely access and disseminate information about government activities.

The Complaint asks the Court to follow court rules and expedite immediate hearings for judicial relief by taking precedence on the docket, hearing at the earliest date possible, and ” being expedited in every way.”

O’Connor sought public records on November 1, 2024, which were then provided but adorned with the Sheriff’s Department symbols and otherwise altered instead of complying with the public records request.

The public relations effort being operated by Sheriff Hall is being conducted to provide the citizens a view of the law enforcement efforts that are not aligned with the actual incidents of serious crime but to put a good face on a bad situation through such efforts as “shop with a cop,” delivering turkey’s, and decorating a Christmas tree with angels to commemorate crime victims when actual police work with cops on patrol might prevent more citizens from becoming victims.

In particular, O’Connor includes in his Complaint that an excuse for failing to provide the requested public documents in an unaltered state complied with an Attorney General’s opinion. The Complaint asserts that the reason is false.

O’Connor reports that Public Information Officer ALisa Casas provided the false information about the Attorney General’s opinion. Casas is the former public information officer for St. Mary’s County, who left that post in 2022, briefly worked for the Town of Leonardtown, abruptly quit, and took a job doing public relations for St. Mary’s States Attorney Jaymi Sterling for a few months and then quit that job and began working for Sheriff Steve Hall to shore up his image and the Sheriff’s Department as the PIO at a salary of over $100,000 annually.

“Defendant has asserted that the Attorney General of the State of Maryland has officially opined that it may alter booking photos under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) for public release. However, the Defendant has failed to provide any formal opinion or legal documentation from the Attorney General’s Office. Additionally, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office publishes its formal opinions on its official website, making them accessible to the public. These opinions are organized chronologically, with individual files available for opinions issued from 1993 onward. For opinions prior to 1993, scanned copies of the full opinion volumes are provided as single, searchable PDF files. This comprehensive collection allows users to search for specific opinions or browse by year, facilitating public access to the Attorney General’s legal interpretations and guidance. The Plaintiff asserts that no such formal legal opinion exists; if one did exist, the Attorney General’s Office would publish it.”

O’Connor, representing himself in the litigation, includes case law to support his Complaint against Sheriff Hall.

14. Plaintiff does not contest that Defendant may alter booking photos for internal use in the ordinary course of its business, and if altered booking photos are requested, they may be provided.

However, altering booking photos for public dissemination does not absolve Defendant of its legal duty to provide the unaltered, original record under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).

15. Under Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74 (1998), public agencies must provide public records as they are maintained unless a specific statutory exemption applies. In this case, the Defendant’s failure to produce unaltered booking photos violates the MPIA, as no applicable exemption allows the withholding of the original record.

16. Furthermore, the Maryland Court of Appeals has held that public bodies bear the burden of proving that any denial of access is justified under the MPIA. In Office of the Governor v. Washington Post Co., 360 Md. 520 (2000), the Court emphasized that the MPIA should be interpreted in favor of disclosure to ensure transparency and public accountability.

17. The Defendant’s assertion that it may withhold original booking photos in favor of altered versions is unsupported by any legal authority or official opinion from the Maryland Attorney General. Without such authority, the Defendant’s actions are inconsistent with the MPIA’s mandate for transparency.

Chilling Effect of the Trademark Policy

20. The Defendant has a trademark policy prohibiting the use of its badges, patches, logos, and agency name without prior authorization. This policy applies even to public records and restricts their use for non-official purposes. A true and correct copy of this policy is attached hereto as Exhibit S.

21. Defendant’s trademark policy, as outlined on its official website, threatens legal action for unauthorized use, including reproduction or display, and requires explicit permission for such use.

22. By enforcing this trademark policy, Defendant imposes a chilling effect on journalists and citizens seeking to use public records for reporting or other lawful purposes, creating fear of criminal prosecution or civil liability.

Count I: Violation of the Maryland Public Information Act

25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein.

26. Under the MPIA, public records must be provided in the format in which they are maintained, without unnecessary alterations or restrictions.

27. Defendant’s refusal to provide unaltered booking photos violates Plaintiff’s rights under the MPIA and denies him the transparency mandated by the Act.

Count II: Violation of the First Amendment – Freedom of the Press

28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set forth herein.

29. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, including the right to gather and disseminate information about government activities without fear of legal repercussions.

30. Defendant’s trademark policy imposes unconstitutional restrictions on the use of public records containing badges, logos, and other trademarks, effectively silencing the press and discouraging public scrutiny.

31. Defendant’s actions infringe upon Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, restricting his ability to report on matters of public concern and undermining government transparency.

THE CONDUCT OF SAINT MARY’S SHERIFF VOORHAAR COST TAXPAYERS DEARLY

In the case of ST. MARY’S TODAY against St. Mary’s County Commissioners, Richard Voorhaar, six deputies, and Fritz, the Federal Complaint was ordered back to the Federal District Court in Maryland after the ruling in Rossignol V. Voorhaar for disposition in concert with the Appeals Court decision. Summary judgment was granted, and a trial was set to have a jury decide damages. St. Mary’s County taxpayers paid annual fees to the Local Government Insurance Trust to provide legal defense for the county and the Sheriff’s Department, likely running into as much as several million dollars. LEGIT settled with the Plaintiff for nearly a half million dollars to prevent further loss to the county. Fritz paid $10,000 from his private funds, as he was a candidate during the newspaper raid.

Fritz lost his bid for another term as St. Mary’s State’s Attorney in 2022 to Jaymi Sterling.