show cause hearing in Maryland

2011We made clear in Jones, 380 Md. 164 , 844 A.2d 388 , and more recently in Aiken, 418 Md. 11 , 12 A.3d 656 , that the only issues cognizable at the show cause hearing are those listed in (f)(7)(i) and the only findings of the ALJ that precipitate *228 license suspension are listed in (f)(8)(i).

2011We made clear in Jones, 380 Md. 164 , 844 A.2d 388 , and more recently in Aiken, 418 Md. 11 , 12 A.3d 656 , that the only issues cognizable at the show cause hearing are those listed in (f)(7)(i) and the only findings of the ALJ that precipitate *228 license suspension are listed in (f)(8)(i).

1992See Gardner, 64 Md.App. at 307 , 494 A.2d 988 ; Ocean Plaza, 62 Md.App. at 447 , 490 A.2d 252 ; Tyson, 44 Md.App. at 303 , 408 A.2d 1051 .

1992See Gardner, 64 Md.App. at 307 , 494 A.2d 988 ; Ocean Plaza, 62 Md.App. at 447 , 490 A.2d 252 ; Tyson, 44 Md.App. at 303 , 408 A.2d 1051 .

2023We decline the invitation to adopt as a rule for assessing test accommodation requests the DOJ’s guidance that “[p]roof of past testing accommodations in similar test settings is generally sufficient to support a request for the same testing accommodations for a current standardized exam or other high-stakes test.” ADA Requirements: Testing Accommodations, supra. As SBLE’s counsel pointed out at the show cause hearing, this guidance is exactly that—guidance, not a regulation or other type of law that binds us.

2023Mr. Chavis states that SBLE has referred test accommodation requests to Dr. Lewandowski for decades, as shown by In re Application of Kimmer, 392 Md. 251, 257-58 , 896 A.2d 1006, 1010-11 (2006), and Matter of K.E., 471 Md. 89, 90 , 238 A.3d 277 -78 (2020).8 At the show cause hearing, Mr. Chavis’s counsel advised that the referrals have generally resulted in Dr. Lewandowski recommending that the requests be denied.

2023The ADA Test Accommodations Although the ADA does not have an express provision stating that public entities must provide reasonable test accommodations for people who request such accommodations based on disability, various parts of the ADA, read together, establish the principle. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 , contained in part A of Subchapter II of the ADA (also known 8 Although our two-page order in K.E., 471 Md. at 90 , 238 A.3d at 277-78 , indicates only that SBLE referred K.E.’s request “to an independent qualified expert[,]” in his exceptions, Mr. Chavis’s counsel advises that he was also K.E.’s

2023Mr. Chavis states that SBLE has referred test accommodation requests to Dr. Lewandowski for decades, as shown by In re Application of Kimmer, 392 Md. 251, 257-58 , 896 A.2d 1006, 1010-11 (2006), and Matter of K.E., 471 Md. 89, 90 , 238 A.3d 277 -78 (2020).8 At the show cause hearing, Mr. Chavis’s counsel advised that the referrals have generally resulted in Dr. Lewandowski recommending that the requests be denied.

2023The ADA Test Accommodations Although the ADA does not have an express provision stating that public entities must provide reasonable test accommodations for people who request such accommodations based on disability, various parts of the ADA, read together, establish the principle. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 , contained in part A of Subchapter II of the ADA (also known 8 Although our two-page order in K.E., 471 Md. at 90 , 238 A.3d at 277-78 , indicates only that SBLE referred K.E.’s request “to an independent qualified expert[,]” in his exceptions, Mr. Chavis’s counsel advises that he was also K.E.’s

2019Id.

2018DISCUSSION As we explained in our earlier opinion, while we do not have " appellate jurisdiction for review of Judge White's claims, this Court is able to review her allegation that the Commission proceeding denied her procedural due process as a petition for a common law writ of mandamus." White I , 451 Md. at 649 , 155 A.3d 463 (emphasis in original).

2018DISCUSSION As we explained in our earlier opinion, while we do not have " appellate jurisdiction for review of Judge White's claims, this Court is able to review her allegation that the Commission proceeding denied her procedural due process as a petition for a common law writ of mandamus." White I , 451 Md. at 649 , 155 A.3d 463 (emphasis in original).

2011We made clear in Jones, 380 Md. 164 , 844 A.2d 388 , and more recently in Aiken, 418 Md. 11 , 12 A.3d 656 , that the only issues cognizable at the show cause hearing are those listed in (f)(7)(i) and the only findings of the ALJ that precipitate *228 license suspension are listed in (f)(8)(i).

2011We made clear in Jones, 380 Md. 164 , 844 A.2d 388 , and more recently in Aiken, 418 Md. 11 , 12 A.3d 656 , that the only issues cognizable at the show cause hearing are those listed in (f)(7)(i) and the only findings of the ALJ that precipitate *228 license suspension are listed in (f)(8)(i).

2011Id.

2011Id.

2011Id.

2010At a show cause hearing held two months later, to consider the return of the firearms, the court ruled that “the seized firearms and related items could not be returned to Serio or given to Stanski [his designee] for disposal because doing so would allow ‘the defendant or claimant to profit by what he cannot possess legally.’ ” Id.

2010As to the court’s authority to grant relief, however, Cave contends that the court was limited to providing Elliott “the rights guaranteed by the LEOBR—namely, the right to be formally charged and those charges heard by an administrative hearing board.” Cave asserts that, by ordering the payment of back pay and benefits, “the circuit court effectively read into the language a remedy that the legislature never intended.” In two prior cases, we have been called upon to construe the language of Maryland Code Article 27, section 734, the predecessor to P.S. § 3-105. 6 See Hayden, 141 Md.App. at 11

2010As to the court’s authority to grant relief, however, Cave contends that the court was limited to providing Elliott “the rights guaranteed by the LEOBR—namely, the right to be formally charged and those charges heard by an administrative hearing board.” Cave asserts that, by ordering the payment of back pay and benefits, “the circuit court effectively read into the language a remedy that the legislature never intended.” In two prior cases, we have been called upon to construe the language of Maryland Code Article 27, section 734, the predecessor to P.S. § 3-105. 6 See Hayden, 141 Md.App. at 11

2010As to the court’s authority to grant relief, however, Cave contends that the court was limited to providing Elliott “the rights guaranteed by the LEOBR—namely, the right to be formally charged and those charges heard by an administrative hearing board.” Cave asserts that, by ordering the payment of back pay and benefits, “the circuit court effectively read into the language a remedy that the legislature never intended.” In two prior cases, we have been called upon to construe the language of Maryland Code Article 27, section 734, the predecessor to P.S. § 3-105. 6 See Hayden, 141 Md.App. at 11

2010As to the court’s authority to grant relief, however, Cave contends that the court was limited to providing Elliott “the rights guaranteed by the LEOBR—namely, the right to be formally charged and those charges heard by an administrative hearing board.” Cave asserts that, by ordering the payment of back pay and benefits, “the circuit court effectively read into the language a remedy that the legislature never intended.” In two prior cases, we have been called upon to construe the language of Maryland Code Article 27, section 734, the predecessor to P.S. § 3-105. 6 See Hayden, 141 Md.App. at 11

2009At the show cause hearing, the court may terminate the civil contempt proceeding and institute new criminal contempt proceedings if facts exist indicating “that the alleged contemnor cannot comply with the order of the court” due to *120 the contemnor’s “deliberate effort or a wilful act of commission or omission ... committed with the knowledge that it would frustrate the order of the court.... ” Roll and Scholl, 267 Md. at 780 , 298 A.2d 867 .

2009At the show cause hearing, the court may terminate the civil contempt proceeding and institute new criminal contempt proceedings if facts exist indicating “that the alleged contemnor cannot comply with the order of the court” due to *120 the contemnor’s “deliberate effort or a wilful act of commission or omission ... committed with the knowledge that it would frustrate the order of the court.... ” Roll and Scholl, 267 Md. at 780 , 298 A.2d 867 .

2009Id. at 195 , 422 A.2d 55 .

2009Id. at 195 , 422 A.2d 55 .

2007Although addressing the Arthur Heiss Estate, the hearing court made the point: “Respondent apologizes for not appearing at the Show Cause hearing on June 12, 2003, however, Respondent provides no explanation for the delay in filing the required documents.” The basis for the Rule 1.15(a) violation was twofold: “[o]n at least three occasions, Respondent disbursed funds to clients before their settlement checks were deposited,” citing Zuckerman, 386 Md. at 372 , 872 A.2d at 711 , and the respondent “failed to preserve complete and accurate records for his account funds,” a proposition with which

2007Although addressing the Arthur Heiss Estate, the hearing court made the point: “Respondent apologizes for not appearing at the Show Cause hearing on June 12, 2003, however, Respondent provides no explanation for the delay in filing the required documents.” The basis for the Rule 1.15(a) violation was twofold: “[o]n at least three occasions, Respondent disbursed funds to clients before their settlement checks were deposited,” citing Zuckerman, 386 Md. at 372 , 872 A.2d at 711 , and the respondent “failed to preserve complete and accurate records for his account funds,” a proposition with which

2005If a party fails to object, “he will not later be heard to complain that the evidence should not have been admitted.” Ginn v. Farley, 43 Md.App. 229, 236-37 , 403 A.2d 858 (1979) (quoting Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Black, 107 Md. 642, 658 , 69 A. 439 (1908)).

2005If a party fails to object, “he will not later be heard to complain that the evidence should not have been admitted.” Ginn v. Farley, 43 Md.App. 229, 236-37 , 403 A.2d 858 (1979) (quoting Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Black, 107 Md. 642, 658 , 69 A. 439 (1908)).

2005If a party fails to object, “he will not later be heard to complain that the evidence should not have been admitted.” Ginn v. Farley, 43 Md.App. 229, 236-37 , 403 A.2d 858 (1979) (quoting Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Black, 107 Md. 642, 658 , 69 A. 439 (1908)).

2005If a party fails to object, “he will not later be heard to complain that the evidence should not have been admitted.” Ginn v. Farley, 43 Md.App. 229, 236-37 , 403 A.2d 858 (1979) (quoting Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Black, 107 Md. 642, 658 , 69 A. 439 (1908)).

1994The subpoena, on its face, is not unduly burdensome or oppressive, and, as appellant failed to appear at the show cause hearing, he has presented no evidence showing that compliance with it would place an undue burden upon him. 4 See Equitable Trust Co. v. State Commission on Human Relations, 287 Md. 80, 93-100 , 411 A.2d 86 (1980).

1994The subpoena, on its face, is not unduly burdensome or oppressive, and, as appellant failed to appear at the show cause hearing, he has presented no evidence showing that compliance with it would place an undue burden upon him. 4 See Equitable Trust Co. v. State Commission on Human Relations, 287 Md. 80, 93-100 , 411 A.2d 86 (1980).

1994Finding enforcement of the Commissioner’s subpoena duces tecum to be “appropriate and in the interest of protecting actual or prospective investors,” the circuit court ordered appellant to produce the subpoenaed documents within two weeks of the date of the order. 2 Appellant then noted this appeal, raising numerous questions which, because of appellant’s failure to appear at the show cause hearing, have not been preserved for our review. 3 See Tretick v. Layman, 95 Md.App. 62, 73-76 , 619 A.2d 201 (1993).

1994Finding enforcement of the Commissioner’s subpoena duces tecum to be “appropriate and in the interest of protecting actual or prospective investors,” the circuit court ordered appellant to produce the subpoenaed documents within two weeks of the date of the order. 2 Appellant then noted this appeal, raising numerous questions which, because of appellant’s failure to appear at the show cause hearing, have not been preserved for our review. 3 See Tretick v. Layman, 95 Md.App. 62, 73-76 , 619 A.2d 201 (1993).

1993Because the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights does not preclude a chief from dismissing an officer notwithstanding a recommendation by the hearing board for a lesser punishment, Police Comm’r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412 , *78 379 A.2d 1007 (1977), we find no error in the circuit court’s affirmance of Sheriff Chiuchiolo’s decision to exercise his authority to increase punishment and terminate the Pruitts’ employment with the Sheriffs department.

1993Because the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights does not preclude a chief from dismissing an officer notwithstanding a recommendation by the hearing board for a lesser punishment, Police Comm’r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412 , *78 379 A.2d 1007 (1977), we find no error in the circuit court’s affirmance of Sheriff Chiuchiolo’s decision to exercise his authority to increase punishment and terminate the Pruitts’ employment with the Sheriffs department.

1992See Gardner, 64 Md.App. at 307 , 494 A.2d 988 ; Ocean Plaza, 62 Md.App. at 447 , 490 A.2d 252 ; Tyson, 44 Md.App. at 303 , 408 A.2d 1051 .

1992See Gardner, 64 Md.App. at 307 , 494 A.2d 988 ; Ocean Plaza, 62 Md.App. at 447 , 490 A.2d 252 ; Tyson, 44 Md.App. at 303 , 408 A.2d 1051 .