Community Safety Dashboard

In calendar year 2024, one incident qualified for Use of Force Reporting/Review. This incident also involved two separate uses of force.

The singular use of force incident occurred while officers were responding to a well-being check involving a subject who was acting erratically and suspected of possibly having a high-powered rifle. The suspect was ultimately taken into custody and transported to a nearby hospital for an emergency evaluation.

In the year 2023, there were three (3) incidents qualified for Use of Force Reporting/Review.  One of the incidents involved two separate uses of force.

1. A TUPD Commander observed an officer being assaulted by the suspect in the parking lot after a high school graduation.  Due to numerous people gathering around the officer and suspect, the commander used his OC spray, causing the assault to stop.  The suspect was taken into custody and received medical treatment at Sinai Hospital.

2. The second use of force occurred during the same incident when an officer became engaged in a foot pursuit after another suspect.  The suspect stopped and complied after the officer displayed his electronic control device and warned the suspect that he would activate the device.

3. The third use of force occurred when a TUPD officer attempted to stop a vehicle after observing a traffic violation at Osler and Emerson Drives.  The driver of the vehicle failed to yield to the Officer's emergency equipment and continued driving to elude the officer for several miles.  The driver eventually came to a stop after turning onto a dead-end street. Two (2) TUPD Officers exited their vehicles, drew their firearms, and took both the driver and passenger into custody without further incident.  One TUPD officer pointed his firearm at the driver while the other officer kept his at low ready.

A review of the above incidents concluded that the use of force in the cases is within departmental policy.  An Analysis of the specific facts and circumstances contained in each occurrence does not reveal any pattern or trends related to the race, age, or gender of the subjects involved.

In the year of 2022, there were two (2)  incidents qualified for Use Of Force Reporting/Review.

1.  While a TUPD officer was placing a non-affiliate suspect under arrest, both the subject and officer fell to the ground, and the suspect struck her head on the floor.  Once the suspect was in handcuffs, she was escorted out of the building with the assistance of two officers.  While being escorted out of the building, she spat at the officers, became combative, and refused to walk, causing officers to lose their balance and fall on the floor and into a wall.  Both officers sustained injuries to their knees, and one officer sustained an injury to his left arm.  

2. A TUPD officer transported a resident student to the hospital for an involuntary emergency evaluation.  Once there, three TUPD officers used force to stop and handcuff a patient from leaving the hospital.  The patient was combative and proceeded to push past the officers to escape from their custody and to avoid treatment required by the emergency petition.  Officers struggled to place handcuffs on the patient in an attempt to keep him from leaving, hurting himself, hospital staff, and others in the hospital waiting area.

A review of both incidents concluded that the use of force was within departmental policy. An analysis of the specific facts and circumstances contained in each occurrence does not reveal any pattern or trends related to race, age, or gender of subjects involved.

The only use of force incident for 2021 occurred while two officers were attempting to arrest a subject for assault and disorderly conduct. Upon being placed in handcuffs, the subject discarded a knife and began to spit, kick and bite at the officers. The officers placed the subject on the ground with their hands. One officer suffered lacerations on his arm and injured his shoulder, which required medical treatment. A careful review of the incident concluded that the use of force was within policy. An analysis of the circumstances did not reveal any pattern or trends related to the race, age or gender of the subjects involved.

In calendar year 2020 three incidents qualified for Use of Force Reporting/Review.

1. The first incident occurred off-campus involving an off-duty TUPD officer. While engaged in a verbal altercation with an individual, the officer pointed his assigned weapon at the individual. The officer was placed on suspension without pay pending the completion of both internal and criminal investigations.
2. The second incident occurred while TUPD officers attempted to interview a subject regarding his involvement in a theft. The subject grabbed and elbowed the officer which resulted in the officer deploying his ECD. The use of force was found to be in line with policy.
3. The third incident occurred off-campus while a TUPD officer assisted Baltimore County Police with an arrest. The TUPD officer deployed his assigned ECD to gain compliance from a driver who appeared to the TUPD officer to become combative with Baltimore County Police Officers during a traffic stop. An internal investigation determined that the use of force was unnecessary and outside TUPD policy. The officer was subsequently sustained on the charge of unnecessary use of force.

The officers received updated Use of Force orders and training during the 2020 and 2021 calendar years. An analysis of the specific facts and circumstances contained in each occurrence does not reveal any pattern or trends that require modifications to the Police Department’s Manual of General Directives, Special Orders, or business practices. 

During the reporting period, two complaints were received, both involving sworn police personnel. In one complaint, allegations of misconduct were made against two officers. Both complaints pertained to alleged officer misconduct.

As a result, two formal investigations were initiated, with the following outcomes:

• One complaint was sustained, indicating that sufficient evidence was found to support the allegation.
• One complaint, involving two officers, remains under investigation.

Eight (8) complaints received, all eight (8) involved sworn police personnel.

• Four (4) complaints involved allegations of misconduct by sworn departmental employees while interacting with the public.
• Four (4) complaints involved allegations of internal misconduct by sworn employees involving other sworn personnel.
• Eight (8) formal investigations were opened with the following findings:
  1. Five (5) complaints were found to be "sustained", meaning that it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations.
     1. In one (1) of the sustained complaints, the officer voluntarily separated from employment while under investigation.
  2. One (1) complaint was found to be "unfounded", meaning that it was determined there was a lack of evidence to support the complaint's allegations.
  3. One (1) compliant was investigated at the Command Level.  The employee was separated from the agency after failing to meet the acceptable probationary standards, as outlined by the Towson University Police.
  4. One (1) complaint for neglect of duty is still an active investigation.

Five complaints were received, all involving sworn police personnel.  Five formal investigations were opened in response.  The investigations resulted in the following findings:

• Three complaints were found to be "sustained", meaning that it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations.
• In one of the sustained complaints, the officer voluntarily separated from employment while under investigation.
• Two complaints were found to be "unfounded", meaning that it was determined there was a lack of evidence to support the complainant's allegations.
• All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers and civilian personnel.

Seven complaints received; three involved sworn police officers interacting with the public. Four involved civilian personnel, with three of these involving the same employee.  Seven formal investigations were opened in response. The investigations resulted in the following findings:

• Seven complaints were found to be “sustained,” meaning that it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations.
• All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers and civilian personnel.
• Appropriate personnel actions were taken in accordance with TU and USM policy. 

Four complaints received, all involving sworn police officers:

• Three complaints involved allegations of misconduct by departmental employees while interacting with the public.  
• Two complaints involved allegations of inappropriate/illegal conduct by an employee.
• Four formal investigations were opened, which resulted in the following:
  • Three complaints were found to be “sustained” (i.e., it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations). In two of the sustained complaints, the officers voluntarily separated from employment while under investigation.
  • One complaint was found to be “not sustained” (i.e., there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations).
  • All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers.
  • Appropriate personal actions were taken in accordance with Towson University and University System of Maryland policy.

Fourteen complaints received, eleven involving sworn police officers and three involving civilian employees:

• Six complaints involved allegations of misconduct by departmental employees while interacting with the public.
• Four complaints involved allegations between departmental employees.
• Four complaints involved allegations of employees failing to adhere to administrative policies and procedures.
• Fourteen formal investigations were opened which resulted in the following:
  • Seven complaints were found to be “sustained” (i.e., it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations).
  • Six complaints were found to be “not sustained,” (i.e., there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations).
  • One complaint was handled with mediation with involved parties.
  • All sustained complaints involved both sworn police officers and civilian employees.
  • Appropriate personal actions were taken in accordance with Towson University and University System of Maryland policy.

Six complaints received, all involving sworn police officers:

• Four complaints involved allegations of misconduct by departmental employees while interacting with the public.
• Two complaints involved allegations between departmental employees.
• Six formal investigations were opened which resulted in the following:
  • One complaint was found to be “sustained” (i.e., it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to prove the allegations).
  • Four complaints were found to be “not sustained,” (i.e., there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations).
  • One complaint is pending presentation and review by a trial board in compliance with Maryland Law.
  • All sustained complaints involved sworn police officers.
  • Appropriate personal actions were taken In accordance with Towson University and University System of Maryland policy.