In this case, the use of General Order 11-90 did not permit the jury to evaluate, 94 A.2d 121 (1991 XProviding guidance to the trial court pertaining to a breach of duty by a police officer in a negligence action; the Court explained “[vjery often when a breach of the police officer’s duty is found in high speed chase cases like the present, there are particular aggravating circumstances, such as a violation of police department policies or guidelines”...); Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 136, 751 A.2d 24 (2000)(In a prosecution for drug possession, the defendant introduced the police department’s failure to follow a General Order requiring officers to submit narcotics evidence for fingerprinting.); Beca v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 279 Md. 177, 182-84, 367 A.2d 478 (1977)(<HOLDING>). In State v. Pagotto, 361 Md. 528, 762 A.2d 97
holding that a police department general order created an employment contract entitling appellant to reimbursement for expenses paid to an employee for injuries caused by a third party holding that under the eaja a prevailing party with an unconditional right to be indemnified for his legal expenses by a solvent third party had not incurred attorneys fees holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution holding that denial of a request for reimbursement for travel expenses did not constitute an adverse employment action holding that an employee suspended because of the employees participation in an interview concerning her employment problems with a state police department did not impermissibly affect the states interest in the efficiency and performance of the police department and that the employee therefore was entitled to damages arising from the suspension