Attorney General Declines Criminal Charges in Maryland Police Shooting

In early March, Howard County police officers responded to a 911 call from Alexander LaMorie, a 25‑year‑old man with autism who reported harassment and blackmail. LaMorie, who was also experiencing severe emotional distress, arrived at the scene holding a knife. Officers repeatedly ordered him to drop the weapon, but he continued to walk toward them. After estimating his distance at twelve to sixteen feet, the three officers discharged their service weapons, striking LaMorie multiple times and ending his life.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown released a statement on July 7, confirming that the Office of the Attorney General has completed its investigation and determined that the officers did not commit a crime under state law. The Independent Investigations Division, which oversees police‑involved incidents, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers’ actions constituted a criminal act. The investigation noted that officers collected twelve cartridge casings, heard LaMorie’s suicidal statements, and observed that he did not raise the knife toward them.

The decision has sparked strong reaction from LaMorie’s family and mental‑health advocates. Jill Harrington, LaMorie’s mother, condemned the ruling, calling it a “step backward” that undermines progress toward humane crisis response. She highlighted the officers’ lack of less‑lethal tools, noting that body‑camera footage showed an attempt to locate a Taser, which was unavailable. Harrington argued that the officers should have faced involuntary manslaughter charges for using lethal force in a situation that could have been de‑escalated with appropriate equipment and training.

Legal experts explain that the AG’s office must meet the high burden of proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when self‑defense or lawful use of force is plausible. In this case, the report indicated that officers believed LaMorie posed an imminent threat, given his weapon and continued approach despite commands. The Attorney General’s office therefore determined that criminal prosecution was not justified under current statutes.

The outcome raises broader concerns about law‑enforcement policies for mental‑health emergencies. Critics argue that the response was “completely unprepared,” lacking specialized crisis‑intervention teams or sufficient non‑lethal equipment. The incident underscores a national conversation on how police interact with individuals experiencing mental‑health crises, and the need for reforms that prioritize de‑escalation and protect vulnerable populations.

While the decision closes the criminal avenue, the case may still influence policy changes. Community leaders and advocates are calling for increased training, deployment of crisis‑response teams, and the provision of less‑lethal options such as Tasers or pepper spray. The public’s response reflects a growing demand for accountability and improved practices that align with mental‑health and social‑justice principles.

In summary, the Maryland Attorney General’s determination not to file charges reflects the legal standard applied to the shooting, yet it leaves unanswered questions about the adequacy of police preparedness for mental‑health incidents. The LaMorie case continues to serve as a catalyst for discussions on law‑enforcement reform, the protection of individuals with disabilities, and the balance between public safety and compassionate response.