WPCmh HlvQF%T֠t)0Rg^#u,4+ =xtt"Q&4w<ʢ^>kXuo͋ }ӵ!b[]߸KHpr\QnNGCƕi) N #Ic&|n=N .$S2 ]:.n$0{xKٙ`jkץl3&}q̀6O:>flSMMԁ$`vaEr}iϥ /"Qj('q6@^cw:z_<WjJvh1٫ q<\$?J o rN 1r=?J|+Wun-fZ% J1ց)!C$/X0 i~9`U,Sr<)[{ A̽I`7O]Z[9,1I8S9p~=Dr#<UN %K 0:Q ^ w 4   m 1 72^ 1u 72 0c7 1 72! 0wS 0 0T 0 1 72/a 0 ~T 0 D 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0b! 0>" 0 # 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0]' 0-( 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0^, 06- 0 . 0. 0/ 0x0 00A1 0<q1 01 0>k2 0v2 0`3 0`3 0`3 0`?4 0`4 084 075 02 6 0;6 0:77 0Yq7 0_7 0 )8 0j39 0: B*!< D/K< D+z< 0< D/)> 0X> 06&? 0\? 0:d@ 0^@ 0<@U68AU>nAU*AA BA 0NAIBU.85ImIPNVV 4[4[4[IJ[J[J[_cXfXfXfXfXfXfXfXfmfHP LaserJet 5/5M PostScript0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS., q?, %L7,:i+003|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  0EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.  ($USUS.,    1    _ XX\1 TheadviceLt.WetzelprovidedisbasedonDivisionofCorrections  Regulation(DCR)502,entitledStandardsofConductandPerformance ` Standard,II.B.1.andII.K.4.Accordingtoappellant,appelleeviolated ` II.B.1.and#\X$ZX\1e#\1X\X$ZII.K.4.whenherefusedtoanswerquestionsregardingMs.  Rhyanescomplaint.#\X$ZX\1# p \1X\X$Z  SectionII.B.1.establishesthat Eachemployeeshallconduct  p him/herselfatalltimes,bothonandoffduty,insuchamannerastoreflect   mostfavorablyontheDepartment.Anybreachofthepeace,neglectofduty,   #\X$ZX\1#\1X\X$Zmisconductoranyconductonthepartofanyemployeeofthedepartment, 0  eitherwithinoroutsidehis/herplaceofemployment,whichtendstoundermine  0  thegoodorder,efficiencyordisciplineoftheDepartment,orwhichreflects    discredituponthedepartmentoranyemployeethereof,orwhichisprejudicial @   totheefficiencyanddisciplineoftheDepartment,eventhoughtheseoffenses  @  maynotbespecificallyenumeratedorstated,shallbeconsideredconduct    unbecominganemployeeoftheAgency,andsubjecttheemployeetodisciplinary P  actionbytheagency.Id.atPartII.B.1. P    SectionII.K.4.establishesthat Anemployeeshallcooperatewitha   superiororotherpersondesignatedtoconductaninvestigativeprocedure.An h  employeeshallanswerallquestionstruthfullyandtothefullextentofhis h  orherknowledgeduetosecuritypurposes.Id.atPartII.K.4.#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Z#(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSV\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSV\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7K(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  XXXSV\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7&  d dJ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7N(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  XXXSV\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7J)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  d(O$  ($USUS.,    3    _\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZWheninterpretingagencyregulations,we generallyemploythesame  rulesapplicabletotheinterpretationofstatutes.Chesapeakev. ` Comptroller,331Md.428,440,628A.2d234(1993).Theaimofstatutory h constructionistodetermineandbringabouttheLegislaturesintention.   E.g.,Oaksv.Connors,339Md.24,660A.2d423(1995);Baltimorev.Cassidy,  338Md.88,93,656A.2d757(1995).Legislativeintentisdiscerned 8 primarilybythelanguageoftheprovision.Tidewaterv.MayorofHavreDe 8 Grace,337Md.338,345,653A.2d468(1995).Ultimately, weseektoavoid   constructionsthatareillogical,unreasonable,orinconsistentwithcommon X  sense.Frostv.State,336Md.125,137,647A.2d106(1994).#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Ze#Ԁ\X$ZXXX,\1X\X$ZԀThecircuit  X  courtcorrectlyinterpretedthelanguageinDCD5020II.,K.4.tolimit  D  departmentalinquiriesofoffdutyconducttoquestionsinvolvingthesecurity    ofthefacility.Thecircuitcourterred,however,infindingthat T   accusationsofdruguseandassaultivebehaviordonothaveapotentialeffect T  onthesecurityofthefacility.#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Z#<4 9Z+ Courier New   ($USUS.,    6    _ XX\1 TheLawEnforcementOfficersBillofRights(_LEBOR_)providesin  pertinentpart: ` ` ` Thissubtitledoesnotpreventanylawenforcement  agencyfromrequiringalawenforcementofficerunder p #\X$ZX\1e#\1X\X$Zinvestigationtosubmitto...interrogationswhich  p specificallyrelatetothesubjectmatterofthe   investigation.Thissubtitledoesnotpreventalaw   e enforcementagencyfromcommencinganyactionwhich  mayleadtoapunitivemeasureasaresultofalaw f enforcementofficersrefusaltosubmitto... l interrogation,afterhavingbeenorderedtodosoby " thelawenforcementagency.Theresultsofany...  interrogation,asmayberequiredbythelaw > enforcementagencyunderthissubparagrapharenot D admissible...inanycriminalproceedingsagainstthe   lawenforcementofficerwhenthelawenforcement `  officerhasbeenorderedtosubmitthereto.(Emphasis  f  added).    ` ` Md.Ann.Codeart.27,728(b)(7)(ii)(1996).# \1##X,X #  ($USUS.,    7    _\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZԀOntheissueofwhetherastatementisvoluntary,  ` ` [t]heultimatetestremainsthatwhichhasbeenthe ` onlyclearlyestablishedtestintheAngloAmerican  courtsfortwohundredyears:thetestof p voluntariness.Istheconfessiontheproductofan  p essentiallyfreeand#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Ze#\X$ZXXX,Ԁ\1X\X$Zunconstrainedchoicebyits   maker?Ifitis,ifhehaswilledtoconfess,itmay   beusedagainsthim.Ifitisnot,ishiswillhas V  beenoverborneandhiscapacityforselfdetermination  V  criticallyimpaired,theuseofhisconfessionoffends    dueprocess. f   e #\X$ZX\1#\1X\X$Z# \1w#\1 Ԁ  ` #\X$ZX\1V#\1X\X$Z` Martin,113Md.App.at210(citingArizonav.Fulminante,499U.S.279,303, ` 111S.Ct.1246,113L.Ed.2d302,327(1991);quotingCulombev.  Connecticut,367U.S.568,602,81S.Ct.1860,6L.Ed.2d1037(1961))#\X$ZX\1#.#X,XX\X$Z#  ($USUS.,    2    _Ԁ\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZPursuanttoMd.CodeAnn.,StatePers.&Pen.11110(1997),  AppelleeappealedtheactiontotheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofBudgetand  ManagementonMarch22,1999. L   UnderMd.CodeAnn.,StateGovt10205,theheadofanagencyhasthe L optionofeitherallowingtheagencytoconductthehearinginacontested  caseordelegatingsuchauthoritytotheOfficeofAdministrativeHearings, \ whichdesignatesanAdministrativeLawJudgetohearthecase.#\X$ZX\1#\1X\X$ZBecausethe  \ agencyauthorizedtheAdministrativeLawJudgetomakethefinal   administrativedecisioninthiscase,theagencywasentitledtojudicial l  reviewinthecircuitcourt.  l    # \1f##X,X  #3200-593 ? ($USUS.,    8    _\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZAppellantarguesthatappelleedidnotasserthisprivilegeagainst  selfincrimination.WhenapersonwishestoasserthisorherFifthAmendment ` privilegeagainstselfincrimination,thereisnoneedtofollowany ` ritualisticformulaorspecificterminologytoinvoketheright.Quinnv.  UnitedStates,349U.S.155,160,75S.Ct.668,99L.Ed.964(1955). x Becauseapublicemployeecanbedisciplinedforrefusingtoobeyalawful 0 orderthatheorsheansweraproperquestion,itisofnoconsequencewhether 0 appelleeactuallyinvokedhisFifthAmendmentprivilegewhenherefusedto   answerLt.Wetzelsquestions.#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Ze#\X$ZXXX,\1X\X$Z  ($USUS.,    4    _\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZSeealso,_Buckner_Ԁ_v._ԀHighlandPark,901F.2d491,496(6thCir.Mich.),  cert.denied,498U.S.848,112L.Ed.2d104,111S.Ct.137(1990);Blunierv. h BoardofFire&PoliceCommrs,190Ill.App.3d92,10405(Ill.App.Ct.3d  p Dist.1989),appealdenied,131Ill.2d557,553N.E.2d393,142Ill.Dec.879 ( (1990);InreJenkins,437Mich.15,26,465N.W.2d317,rehearingdenied,  437Mich.1249(1991);Jonesv.FranklinCountySheriff,52OhioSt.3d40, H 44,555N.E.2d940,rehearingdenied,53OhioSt.3d706,558N.E.2d61  P (1990).#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Zh#  ($USUS.,    5    _\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZSeeGarrityv.NewJersey,385U.S.493,17L.Ed.2d562,87S.CT.616  (1967);Gardnerv.Broderick,392U.S.273,20L.Ed.2d1082,88S.Ct.1913 h (1968);UniformedSanitationMenAssnv.CommissionerofSanitation,392U.S.  p 280,20L.Ed.2d1089,88S.Ct.1917(1968);Wileyv.Doory,14F.3d993, ( 996(4thCir.1994).#\X$ZX\1##X,XX\X$Zh#     ($USUS.,    9    _\X$ZXXX\1X\X$ZAdirectordertoansweraparticularquestionisdistinguishablefrom  arequestthatthequestionbeanswered,eveniftherequestisprecededor ` accompaniedbynotificationthattheagencysregulationsincludea ` requirementthattheemployeeanswerjobrelatedquestions. !USUS.,  _ \X$ZXXX8,Xdd8@  &REPORTED     `  @ INTHECOURTOFSPECIALAPPEALS \ @XX%OFMARYLAND X @  &No.2081   @<< SeptemberTerm,2000 6   ̀___________________________________  2  Ѐ   @ DEPARTMENTOFPUBLICSAFETY `  @ANDCORRECTIONALSERVICES 6 @tt)v. h ̀ : @ CLIFTONEARL_SHOCKLEY_Ԉ  ̀___________________________________  Ѐ   ` Murphy,C.J., p     ` Hollander, F !    ` _Eyler_,JamesR., !l"    `     h JJ. "$ ____________________________________ t$& ̀OpinionbyMurphy,C.J.  &p!( ____________________________________ &F") Filed:January31,2002  (#+   ThisappealfromtheCircuitCourtforSomersetCounty  involvestheconflictbetweenapublicemployersrighttoinsist \ thatitsemployeesanswerquestionsrelatingtotheirfitnessfor X publicserviceandtheemployeesrighttoasserttheprivilege   againstselfincrimination.TheDepartmentofPublicSafetyand `  CorrectionalServices( Department),appellant,asksustohold  \  thatitwasentitledtodisciplineacorrectionalofficerwho   refusedtocooperateinaninvestigationofhisoffduty d  activities.Appellantpresentstwoquestionsforourreview: `   (Eh83 ` "3"  ` 3h 2Eh  I  .3  0   DidtheAdministrativeLawJudgeerr,as h amatteroflaw,byholdingthatthe d Departmentcouldnotsuspendits  employeeforrefusingtoanswerjob l relatedquestionsbecausetheemployees h answersmaybeevidenceinacriminal  proceedingwherethelawclearly p  providesthatapublicemployeemaybe !l" disciplinedforrefusingtoanswerif "$ theemployeeisnotcompelledtowaive t$& hisconstitutionalprivilegeagainst  &p!( selfincriminationandthestatements '#* arenotusedagainsthiminacriminal x)$, proceeding?3h ݌$+t&. x x Ќ  "3"  3< 2Eh  II  .3  0   DidtheAdministrativeLawJudgeerr,as \ amatteroflaw,byinterpretingthe X Departmentsstandardsofconductto   limitanemployeesobligationtoanswer `  jobrelatedquestionstocaseswherethe  \  Departmenthasdemonstratedthatthe   allegedconductaffectsthesecurityof d  acorrectionalfacility?3< i ݌`  x x Ќ  ` ` __  Forthereasonsthatfollow,weshallanswer yestothe h secondquestion,addresstheissuespresentedinthefirst d question,vacatethejudgmentofthecircuitcourtandremandfor  furtheradministrativeproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththis l opinion. h ( @% Background   u  CliftonEarlShockley,appellee,isacorrectionalofficer ~  (CSOII)assignedtotheEasternPreReleaseUnit(EPRU).On *!z" January28,1999,oneVernaRhyanescomplainedtoofficersofthe "&$ EPRUandoftheCentervillePoliceDepartmentthatappellee $& threatenedto whipher...Shealsoaccusedappelleeofusing .&~!( narcotics.TheDepartmentassignedLt.FrederickWetzelto '*#* investigatethoseaccusations.Heinterviewedappelleeon )$, February23,1999. 2+&.   Duringhisinterview,appelleerefusedtorespondto  _Rhyanes_accusationsonthegroundsthattheyaroseoutofa \  personalmatterthatwasnotworkrelatedanddidnotinvolve X anythingthatoccurredwhilehewasonduty.Atthispoint,Lt.   WetzeladvisedappelleethattheDepartmentholdsitsemployees `  responsibleforconductonandoffthejob,andthatthe  \  Departmentsregulationsrequireanemployeetocooperatewithan   investigationandtoanswerquestions. #  1      ׀WhenCaptainWilliam d  BlackistonenteredtheinterviewingroomattherequestofLt. `  Wetzel,appelleeagainassertedthathewouldnotdiscussany   detailsofthis personalmatter.OnFebruary24,1999,Lt. h Wetzelfiledanincidentreportinwhichhedocumentedappellees d refusaltocooperatewiththeinvestigation.    OnFebruary26,1999,appelleewasadvisedthathisrefusal l tocooperatewiththeinvestigationconstitutedaviolationof h theDepartmentsstandardsofconduct,andthathewouldbe  suspendedwithoutpayfromMarch1,1999toMarch5,1999. \ Appelleeappealedthesuspensionthroughthedisciplinaryappeal X processandthecasewasreferredtotheOfficeofAdministrative   Hearings.` #  2      ׀AnAdministrativeLawJudge(ALJ)reversedthe `  suspensioninanorderthatincludedthefollowingfindingsand  \  conclusions:   ` ` ThereisnodisputethattheEmployeedidnot d  provideinformationordetailsaboutbehavior :  ofJanuary27,1999toLt.WetzelonFebruary `  23,1999.Managementarguesthatbyfailing 6 todosoheviolatedtheregulationsandis   subjecttodiscipline;andthatafiveday  suspensionisappropriate.Theemployee h countersthathedidnotcooperatewiththe > investigationbutchosenottoprovideany d detailsduetothepotentialcriminalcharges : andcivillitigation.Basedonareviewof  theevidenceandrelevantlaw,Iconclude  thattheEmployeedidnotviolatetheDCDby l failingtoanswerspecificquestions B regardinghisallegedmisconductforthe h reasonssetforthbelow. >  AnemployeeoftheDOC shallconduct  him/herselfatalltimes,bothonandoff p  duty,insuchamannerastoreflectmost F ! favorablyontheDepartment.DCD502II.B. !l" Therefore,anEmployeesoffdutyconductcan !B# bethebasisfordisciplineifitwould  affecttheperformanceofhisdutiesorwould  bringdisfavortotheDOC.TheDOCrulesnot \ onlyrequireacorrectionalemployeeto 2  cooperatewithaninvestigation,butalso X requireanemployeetoanswerallquestions . truthfullyandtothefullextentofhis/her   knowledge.Duetothenatureoftheworkin   acorrectionalfacilityfulldisclosureis `  oftencriticaltopreventingabreachin 6   security.Therefore,theDOChasa  \  legitimatepurposeinrequiringitsemployees  2  answerquestionsfullyduringan   investigation.    However,managementslegitimate :  concernsmustbeweighedagainstthe `  Employeesinterestinnotmakingastatement 6 thatcouldbeusedagainsthiminacriminal   matter.Iknowofnoprovisionthatwould  barthepolice,statesattorneyora h litigantinacivilmatterfromdiscovering > theEmployeesstatementsmadeduringa d personalinvestigation.Thisplacesthe : Employeeinaquandary.Ifheanswersthe  investigatorsquestionstothefullextent  ofhisknowledge,hecouldbeproviding l evidenceagainsthimselfinacriminal B proceeding.Ifhefailstoanswerthe h questionshesubjectshimselftopossible > disciplineforinsubordination.   Althoughtherearesomesituationsin p  whichfulldisclosureofthedetailsofoff F ! dutyconductisnecessarytoprotectthe !l" securityofthefacility,itsstaffand !B# inmates,thisisnotonesuchsituation.The "$ partiesagreethattheJanuary23,1999 #% incidentdidnotinvolvetheEmployees t$& dutiesasaCorrectionalSupplyOfficer, J% ' occurredwhiletheEmployeewasoffthe  &p!( premisesofEPRU,andwhiletheEmployeewas &F") offduty.Thereisnoevidencethatthe '#* Employeesbehavioraffectedthesecurityof (#+ theEPRU.DCD502II.K.4requiresan x)$, employeetoanswerinvestigativequestions N*%- dueto securitypurposes.Management $+t&. providednoevidenceorexplanationwhythe +J'/ Employeesprivatebehavior...affectsthe  securityoftheEPRU.Withoutsome  indicationofhowtheDOCwasharmedor \ potentiallyharmedbytheallegedconductI 2 cannotconcludethattheEmployeeisrequired X todiscloseinformationthatmaybeused . againsthiminacriminalproceeding.   Therefore,theEmployeehasnotviolatedDCD   502II.K.4andthefivedaysuspensionis `  inappropriate. 6    BasedontheforgoingFindingsofFact  2  andDiscussion,Iconcludeasamatteroflaw   thatManagementhasfailedtoshowbya   preponderanceoftheevidencethatthe d  EmployeesconductonFebruary23,1999 :  violatedDCD502II.K.4.Insubordination. `  COMAR17.04.05.01DandMd.CodeAnn.,Pers& < Pen.11103and11104(1997).  *    h      p     ` `   AftertheDepartmentfiledapetitionforjudicialreview, D theCircuitCourtforSomersetCountyaffirmedtheALJs @ decision.Thecircuitcourtsorderwasaccompaniedbya  memorandumthatprovidedthefollowinganalysis:   x  H ` ` TheissuebeforeboththeAdministrativeLaw D JudgeandthisCourtislimitedtowhetheror  notRespondentwasrequiredtorespondto  questionsregardinganoffdutyincident v  duringaninvestigationconductedbythe L ! DepartmentofCorrectionsforwhichthe "!r" Respondentworked. !H#  Petitionerattemptstoarguethatthe #% fivedaysuspensionofRespondentwas z$& warrantedandappropriateunderGarrityv. P% ' StateofNewJersey,385U.S.493(1967); ,&|!( Gardnerv.Broderick,392U.S.273(1968)and 'X") theFourthCircuitcaseofWileyv.Doory,14 '4#* F.3d993(4thCir.1994).WhilethisCourt ($+ deferstotheholdingsinthesecase[sic], )$, theyareinapplicabletothecasepresently l*%- beforetheCourt.Itisnotnecessaryfor B+&. thisCourttoreachthequestionofwhat ,h'/ typesofsanctionswereappropriate,since  theallegedviolationofregulationsby  Respondentneverreachedthethreshold \ requirementofposingasecuritythreatto 2 thedepartment.Thus,nosanctioninhis X casewasappropriateforhisrefusalto . answerquestionsinthisspecificinstance.    BothPetitionerandRespondentcitethe `  DPSCS StandardsofConductandPerformance, 6   SectionII.K.4asauthorityforRespondents  \  obligationtothedepartmenttoanswer  2  questionsandastheauthorityforthe   subsequentsuspension.Petitionerstates,    Atnotimeduringtheinvestigative d  interviewdidMr.Shockleyassertany :  privilege.Insteadherefusedtoanswer `  questionsonthegroundsthatitwasa 6 personalmatter.ThisCourtdoesnot   controverttheprinciplethatapublic  employeemaybesanctionedforrefusingto h answerquestionswhenheorsheisin > violationofthe StandardsofConductand d Performance. :  ThechoicethatRespondentwasrequired  tomakeplacedhimonthehornsofadilemma. l Hecouldanswerquestionsconcerningamatter B thathefeltwasunrelatedtoworkandbe h subjecttodisciplinaryactionforhisoff > dutyactionsandpotentiallywaiveanyrights  hewouldhavetonotincriminatehimselfon  thesemattersorhecouldrefusetoanswer p  thequestionsandsubjecthimselfto F ! disciplinaryactionfromtheAgency. !l" Essentially,Respondentwasinasituationin !B# whichhewasrequiredtomakeaHobsons "$ choice. #%  TheCourtof[Special]Appealsstated J% ' that, areviewingcourtmaysubstituteits  &p!( judgmentonlawforthatoftheagencyifthe &F") factualfindingssupportedbysubstantial '#* evidencearesusceptibleofbutonelegal (#+ conclusion,andtheagencydoesnotso x)$, conclude.Traversv.BaltimorePoliceDept., N*%- 115Md.App.395,420(1997)citing *+z&. WestinghouseElec.Corp.v.Callahan,105Md. ,P'/ App.25,34,658A.2d1112(1995).The  standardofreviewinthiscaseislimitedto   whetherareasoningmindreasonablycould \ havereachedthefactualconclusionthatthe 2 agencyreached...Id.at421.Uponreview X ofthefindingsoffactoftheAdministrative 4 LawJudgeandtheargumentsoftheparties,   thisCourtfindsthatthefactualconclusion   andensuingdecisionreachedbythe f  AdministrativeLawJudgeinthiscasewas <   proper.  b   ThisCourthasnotbeenpersuadedthat   thedecisionoftheAdministrativeLawJudge   toreversethefivedaysuspensionofthe j  Respondentwasunreasonableandaconclusion @  whichtheagencycouldnothavereasonably f  reached.Forthesereasons,thePetitioners < 7207PetitionisDeniedthis12thdayof  September,2000andthedecisionofthe  AdministrativeLawJudgeisupheld.2 n ` 2` Ҁ  Thisappealfollowed. j ! !`   @) ) AppellantsRighttoQuestionAppellee r @ AbouttheAccusationsMadeAgainstHim V  G Judicialreviewofadministrativeaction n differsfromappellatereviewofatrial D courtjudgment.Inthelattercontextthe   appellatecourtwillsearchtherecordfor  ! evidencetosupportthejudgmentandwill v!" sustainthejudgmentforareasonplainly L"# appearingontherecordwhetherornotthe "#r$ reasonwasexpresslyrelieduponbythetrial #H% court.However,injudicialreviewofagency $ & actionthecourtmaynotupholdtheagency % ' orderunlessitissustainableonthe z&!( agenciesfindingsandforthereasonstated V'") bytheagency. 2(#* `  HBainesv.BoardofLiquorLicense,100Md.App.136,143,640 )4%, A.2d232(1994)(quotingUnitedSteelworkersv.BethlehemSteel, +&. 298Md.665,679,472A.2d62(1984))(emphasisadded).      WeholdthattheALJsorderisnotsustainableonthe x groundthatappellantfailedtoestablish why[appellees] $t privatebehavior...affectsthesecurityoftheEPRU.       TheDepartmentofPublicSafetyandCorrectionalServices |   StandardsofConductandPerformance,II.,K.4.provides: ( x  ` ` Anemployeeshallcooperatewithasuperior $  orotherpersondesignatedtoconductan   investigativeprocedure.Anemployeeshall   answerallquestionstruthfullyandtothe V  fullextentofhisorherknowledgedueto ,|  securitypurposes. R O` ` TheAdministrativeLawJudgerecognizedthattherearesituations  inwhichthestandardarticulatedinDCD502II.,K.4.wouldbe Z applicabletoanemployeesoffdutyconduct,butconcludedthat V theDepartmenthadfailedtoestablishthattheoffdutyconduct  aboutwhichappelleewasquestionedisthekindofconductthat ^ wouldposeasecuritythreattotheEPRU.% a %aRThatconclusionoflaw  Z waswrong.ThelanguageofDCD502II.,K.4.isunambiguous.[ #  3      ׀  Thewordsclearlyestablishthattheagencyretainstheauthority  torequireemployeesrespondtoquestionsthatfallwithinthe \ scopeof securitypurposes.WeconcludethattheDepartment X hasadutytoinvestigatewhetheritscorrectionalofficers   whileoffdutyaswellaswhileondutyabusecontrolled `  dangeroussubstancesand/ordemonstrateapropensityfor  \  assaultivebehavior.Correctionalemployeeshaveauniqueand   demandingjob.Allegationsthatacorrectionalofficerhas d  engagedinunstableorviolentbehavior,orthattheofficeruses `  narcotics,shouldbeinvestigatedthoroughly.Aninterviewof   theaccusedisanimportantcomponentofanysuchinvestigation. h   @  TheConflictBetweenaPublicEmployers h @ RighttoQuestionItsEmployeeand L @theEmployeesPrivilegeAgainstSelfIncrimination  0 /W` ` [T]he[publicemployer]hasachoicebetween   eitherdemandingastatementfromanemployee p ! onjobrelatedmatters,inwhichcaseitcan F!" notusethestatementsinacriminal "l# prosecution,orprosecutingtheemployee,in "B$ whichcaseitcannotterminatetheemployee #% forrefusingtogiveastatement.The $& [publicemployer]maydemandthatanemployee t% ' giveastatementonpainofdismissalevenif J&!( thestatementmaytendtoincriminate.An  'p") employeemaythenbefiredeitherfor 'F#* refusingtogiveanswersoronthebasisof ($+ theanswerswhicharegiven.However,the )$, statemaynotusecoercedanswersina x*%- criminalproceeding. N+&.  $,t'/ X` ` UnitedStatesv.Camacho,739F.Supp.1504,151415(S.D.Fla.  1990)(citingDAcquistov.Washington,640F.Supp.594,62223 h (N.D.Ill.1986)).g #  4      ׀Itistruethat [t]he[Fifth]Amendmentnot  p onlyprotectstheindividualagainstbeinginvoluntarilycalled   asawitnessagainsthimselfinacriminalprosecutionbutalso x  privilegeshimnottoanswerofficialquestionsputtohiminany $ t  otherproceeding,civilorcriminal,formalorinformal,where   theanswersmightincriminatehiminfuturecriminal |  proceedings.Lefkowitzv.Turley,414U.S.70,77,94S.Ct. (x  316,322,38L.Ed.2d274(1973).Itisalsotrue,however, 0 that giventheimportantpublicinterestinsecuringfrompublic  employeesanaccountingoftheirpublictrust[,]publicemployees 8 mayconstitutionallybedischargedforrefusingtoanswer 4 potentiallyincriminatingquestionsconcerningtheirofficial  dutiesiftheyhavenotbeenrequiredtosurrendertheir < constitutionalimmunity.Lefkowitzv.Cunningham,431U.S.801, 8 806,53L.Ed.2d1,97S.Ct.2132(1977).Aviolationofthe   FifthAmendmentoccursonlywhenthereexiststhecombinedrisks L!" ofbothcompellinganemployeetoanswerincriminatingquestions "H$ andcompellingtheemployeetowaiveimmunityfromtheuseof $& thoseanswers.Harrisonv.Wille,132F.3d679,682(11thCir.  1998);Hillv.Johnson,160F.3d469,471(8thCir.1998). h   Appellantarguesthatthisisnotacaseinwhichthe  p employeewasthesubjectofanycriminalproceedings;thusthe   suspensionwasjustified.Accordingtoappellant, theGarrity x  lineofdecisionsgovernstheFifthAmendmentissuepresentedin 0   thisappeal.h #  5      ׀InGarrityv.NewJersey,385U.S.493(1967),the ,  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheFifthAmendmentis   violatedwhenpublicemployeesaregiventhechoiceofeither @  forfeitingtheirjobsorincriminatingthemselves.Suchachoice < is likelytoexertsuchpressureuponanindividualasto  disablehimfrommakingafreeandrationalchoice.Id.at497. D InGarrity,policeofficerswerecompelledunderthreatof L terminationtoanswerquestionsduringatrafficticket fixing  investigation.TheGarrityCourtconcludedthattheofficershad ` beenforcedtochoosebetweenlosingtheirjobsandincriminating h themselves,thereforethestatementswerecoerced,andthatthose   coercedstatements, obtainedunderthreatofremovalfrom p!" office,couldnotbeusedagainsttheminasubsequentcriminal #l$ proceeding.Id.at500. $$ &   TheSupremeCourthas,however,recognizedtherightofa &!( publicemployertoinsistthatitsemployeesanswerjobrelated  questions.InGardnerv.Broderick,392U.S.273(1968),while \ holdingthatapoliceofficercouldnotbefiredforrefusingto d waivehisFifthAmendmentprivilege,theSupremeCourtnoted   that: l  `  [i]fappellant,apoliceman,hadrefusedto  h  answerquestionsspecifically,directly,and  >  narrowlyrelatingtotheperformanceofhis   officialduties,withoutbeingrequiredto   waivehisimmunitywithrespecttotheuseof p  hisanswersorthefruitsthereofina F  criminalprosecutionofhimself,the l  privilegeagainstselfincriminationwould B nothavebeenabartohisdismissal.l  `  Id.at278(citationomitted). t   Appellantarguesthatinanypostinterviewcriminal ,| prosecution,theexclusionaryruleannouncedinGarritywould ( attachtowhateverstatementsappelleemadetoanagentofhis  employer.Thatruleisapplicable,however,onlywhenthe < employeeisorderedtoanswerthequestions.Thus,the 8 dispositiveissueiswhetherLt.Wetzel demanded thatappellee   answerthequestions.InVqMartinv.State,113Md.App.190,686 `!" A.2d1130(1996),thisCourtexplainedthat,undertheLaw #h$ EnforcementOfficersBillofRights,] #  6      ׀anofficerfacingcriminal $ & chargesisentitledtosuppressionofonlythosestatementsthat  heorshewasorderedtomake: \ ` ` Theobjectivefactthatmustbeestablished X beforethisprophylacticexclusionaryruleis . triggeredisthattheinterrogatingofficer   orderedtheappellanttorespondtothe   interrogation.Peripheralpsychological `  pressuresdonotsuffice.Thesubjective 6   stateofmindoftheappellantisimmaterial.  \  Asanhistoricalfact,Lieutenant  2  Schlossnagleeitherorderedtheappellantto   respondtotheinterrogationorhedidnot.   bs` ` Martin,113Md.App.at208,686A.2dat1139.InMartin,the :  exclusionaryruleprovidedforbytheLEBORwasnotapplicable B becausethedefendantofficerwasnevergivenadirectorderto  answerquestions.Thereforehisvoluntarystatementwas J admissible.^  #  7      ׀AlthoughtheLEBORisnotapplicableto F correctionalofficers,thereasoningbehindthelegislationand  theMartinCourtsinterpretationoftheexclusionaryruleinthe \ LEBORareentirelyconsistentwithouranalysis. d   Wecannotrequirepublicemployeestospeculatewhether   theirstatementswilllaterbeexcludedunderGarrity.Benjamin l  v.CityofMontgomery,785F.2d959,962(11thCir.),cert. $ t  denied,479U.S.984,93L.Ed.2d575,107S.Ct.571(1986). ,  Thatiswhythedispositivequestioniswhetherappelleewas   givenadirectorderbyasuperiorofficertoanswerthe @  questionsaskedofhim.d6 #  8      ׀Therecordinthiscaseisunclearas < towhetherappelleewasgivenadirectordertoanswerthe  questions.Asthisisaquestionoffactthatmustberesolved D inthefirstinstancebytheAdministrativeLawJudge,wemust @ remandthecasewithspecificinstructionsthattheALJdetermine   whetherappelleewasissuedadirectordertoanswerthe H potentiallyincriminatingquestions.q #  9      ׀     IftheALJispersuadedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence \ thatsuchanorderwasissued,thenappelleesanswerscouldnot X havebeenusedinasubsequentcriminalproceeding,andthe   Departmentwasentitledtoimposedisciplineforhisrefusalto `  answer.Ontheotherhand,iftheALJisnotpersuadedthat  \  appelleewasgivenadirectordertoanswerthequestions,   becauseanystatementhemadewouldhavebeenadmissibleagainst d  himinasubsequentcriminalproceeding,appelleewasessentially `  beingpunishedforassertinghisFifthAmendmentprivilege   againstselfincrimination,andhisfivedaysuspensionmustbe h reversed. d  JUDGMENTVACATED;CASEREMANDEDTOTHE  CIRCUITCOURTWITHDIRECTIONSTOREMAND  TOTHEOFFICEOFADMINISTRATIVEHEARINGS l FORFURTHERPROCEEDINGSNOTINCONSISTENT P WITHTHISOPINION;EACHPARTYTOPAY50%OF 4 THECOSTS. h   8% &    ____iP