Baltimore officer sues over desk duty, alleges retaliation after being called ‘action junkie’

Listen to this article

A Baltimore Police officer sued the department Wednesday, alleging retaliation by supervisors who placed him on desk duty after calling him an “action junkie.”

The officer, Jordan D. Thomas, alleged that his administrative suspension came in response to his reports that he was being harassed and his defending against what he described as contradictory accusations about his behavior.

Thomas alleged in the federal complaint that he faced criticism from his chain of command for leaving his desk to respond to a shooting by officers this February in the Belair-Edison neighborhood. He also wrote that two sergeants said it was unsafe and “stupid” of him to unholster his gun while driving and point it at a rifle-wielding suspect, despite “exigent circumstances.” His lawsuit also alleges that he was commended but later criticized for sliding across the hood of a car under icy conditions in February to reach an officer.

He wrote that the dispute culminated in a meeting where his supervisors accused him of “missing for two hours” during the Belair-Edison shooting and calling him an “action junkie,” which he described as false and defamatory. He alleged that supervisors dismissed his complaints that rumors were being spread about him and that supervisors had failed to intervene.

The department declined to comment through a spokesperson, who said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation. Thomas, who filed the case without an attorney, could not be reached for comment.

The officer has been administratively suspended since late February, meaning that his police powers are suspended, but he is paid for administrative work such as desk duty. He wrote in his complaint that while on desk duty, it has been “extremely difficult to obtain” overtime pay, making it difficult to keep up with his finances.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Maryland provided a rare glimpse at internal disciplinary actions as more than 700 officers wait for trial board proceedings in a backlog that could snarl the department’s consent decree progress.

In a separate matter, four officers, including a police major, remain suspended after the San Francisco district attorney’s office declined to bring charges in an investigation. Maj. Jai Etwaroo as well as officers Juan Rivas, Angel Villaronga and Jahmoor Acosta have been suspended from the department with pay since last fall. The district attorney’s office said in a statement that there was “insufficient evidence to meet our burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Although the San Francisco Police had probable cause to submit an arrest warrant for review in this case, after careful review of all of the evidence gathered, we do not believe we can meet our higher burden of proof,” the prosecutor’s office said. “If additional evidence is brought forward before the statute of limitations expires, we will re-evaluate the case to see if it is possible to meet the burden of proof.”

A Baltimore Police spokesperson said that the department was aware of the San Francisco case’s closure, saying that its internal affairs investigation was ongoing and that the four members’ police powers “will continue to be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation.”