Republican attorney general nominee endorses a Fraternal Order of Police proposal for notice, disclosure and a fair hearing
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
BEL AIR, Md. — Jim Rutledge, the Republican nominee for Maryland attorney general, said Thursday that he fully supports legislation that would give police officers notice and a chance to be heard before a prosecutor’s office places them on a Brady/Giglio “Do Not Call” list.
The idea comes from the Fraternal Order of Police, according to Rutledge’s campaign. As the campaign describes it, the legislation would require notice to the officer, disclosure of the basis for placement, and a fair opportunity to challenge inclusion before it becomes final. The release does not give a bill number or a sponsor, and MDBayNews has not seen bill text. The General Assembly convenes in January.
Rutledge is the same candidate MDBayNews covered last week over the state-funded defense of Gov. Wes Moore in the David Smith defamation suit. His opponent in the Nov. 3 general election is incumbent Attorney General Anthony Brown, a Democrat. The release does not say where Brown stands on the proposal.
“The release does not give a bill number or a sponsor, and MDBayNews has not seen bill text.”
What these lists are
The lists trace back to Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that requires prosecutors to disclose favorable, material evidence to a defendant. A later case, Giglio v. United States in 1972, extended that duty to evidence that undermines a witness’s credibility. Some prosecutors keep running lists of officers whose credibility problems make them risky witnesses.
Baltimore City’s list is published online by the State’s Attorney’s Office, which Fox45 has described as one of the only Maryland jurisdictions to do so. The office says its assistant state’s attorneys will not call anyone on the list to testify.
What Rutledge is arguing
In the release, Rutledge says the prosecutor’s disclosure duty is real but does not authorize what he calls secret blacklists that brand an officer untrustworthy without notice, evidence, or a chance to respond. He argues that being shut out as a witness makes an officer’s street work close to meaningless, and that it can damage a career built over years of service.
“Due process is not a partisan slogan. It is the baseline of American law,” Rutledge said.
He also warns against mechanical reliance on a list in charging, plea and dismissal decisions. Prosecutors, he says, should weigh each case on its evidence and merits. If elected, he says he would work with the FOP, State’s Attorneys and the General Assembly on legislation that would:
- Require timely written notice before a placement becomes final.
- Disclose the factual basis for proposed inclusion.
- Give the officer a meaningful chance to be heard and to challenge the designation.
- Preserve prosecutors’ independent duty to evaluate each case on its merits instead of treating list status as an automatic bar.
“Due process is not a partisan slogan. It is the baseline of American law.”
The record behind the complaint
Rutledge’s argument lands on a list system that has swung widely in size. A 2022 Minnesota Law Review study of Brady lists reported that Baltimore’s office started in 2008 by barring 15 current or former officers from testifying. By 2019, under then-State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, the list had grown to more than 530 officers.
State’s Attorney Ivan Bates took the previous list down in the spring of 2023. In September 2023, he republished a version with 60 names, which WMAR reported was nearly 250 fewer than the version Mosby’s office had released. The station reported that on the earlier list, some names had appeared over allegations that turned out to be unfounded or unsubstantiated. Only 11 of the 60 were still working for the Baltimore Police Department.
The office’s published protocol today puts an officer on the list for a sustained Internal Affairs finding tied to truthfulness, a pending criminal charge or conviction that bears on credibility, or at the State’s Attorney’s discretion. For discretionary placements, the protocol describes advance notice to the police commissioner. It does not describe a hearing for the officer beforehand. Removal is something the State’s Attorney “may” do, and the office’s own example is an officer who goes through the available process and wins a finding of not guilty or the equivalent.
“The timing is what gives the pre-placement argument its force.”
The timing is what gives the pre-placement argument its force. In April, the Baltimore Sun reported that three officers still employed by the department were added to the list. The list described their sustained Internal Affairs charges as pending formal judgment, so the entries came before those charges had reached a final outcome.
Maryland once had a narrower protection. A 2014 law said prosecutors “may” keep Brady lists solely to meet their disclosure duty, and it barred law enforcement agencies from taking adverse action against officers solely because they were on one. The Minnesota Law Review study reports that the legislature repealed it in 2021 as part of the larger repeal of the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights, effective July 1, 2022.
Arizona’s law goes further. In 2021, it passed a law requiring prosecutors to notify an officer at least 10 days before placement and to offer a chance to object or appeal. The law also requires offices to spell out their criteria. Police unions backed it. Several prosecutor offices objected that the waiting period could delay timely disclosure to defendants, and the ACLU of Arizona criticized the bill, according to the same study.
The other side of the argument
The case against adding a hearing step is worth stating. Credibility information has to reach defendants in time to use at trial, and the Arizona prosecutors’ objection was about exactly that. The study also notes that defense attorneys have pressed for more access to these lists. In March, District Public Defender Marguerite Lanaux described to Fox45 a pattern of extremely late disclosure, sometimes on the day of trial. Bates disputed that and pointed to emails showing advance notice of additions. Fox45 reported that the Public Defender’s Office did not provide specific examples when asked.
“Credibility information has to reach defendants in time to use at trial.”
“How the notice and hearing steps would fit around that duty is the open question.”
The release does not say how the proposal would handle disclosure timing. It says only that prosecutors keep their constitutional duty to disclose credibility material. How the notice and hearing steps would fit around that duty is the open question, because no bill text has been released.
What to Watch
- Whether a bill is filed before or during the 2027 session, and who sponsors it.
- Whether Brown or the FOP weighs in on the language. The release does not say which FOP body drafted the proposal.
- How the proposal handles the disclosure clock, since that is where prosecutors in Arizona pushed back.
Sources: This report draws on the Rutledge for Attorney General campaign press release dated Oct. 1, 2026; MDBayNews’s Sept. 27, 2026, report on Rutledge’s statement about the Moore defense; the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City’s Transparency page and Do Not Call List protocols, reviewed Oct. 1, 2026; WMAR 2 News Baltimore, “State’s Attorney releases new version of Baltimore Police ‘Do Not Call List,'” Sept. 18, 2023; Rachel Moran, “Brady Lists,” 107 Minnesota Law Review 657 (2022); Baltimore Sun reporting on Do Not Call list additions, published April 22, 2026, as distributed by Tribune Content Agency; and Rebecca Pryor of Fox45 News, “Dispute grows over Baltimore Police ‘Do Not Call’ list and disclosure practices,” March 30, 2026. The release is campaign material, and its description of the FOP proposal has not been independently confirmed.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.