PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Md. — On October 3, 2025, a federal jury awarded $2.35 million to former Prince George’s County police officer Mohamed Magassouba, concluding that he was unlawfully terminated for refusing to falsify a report that would have protected another officer accused of excessive force, according to court documents.
The verdict, issued in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, followed an eight-day trial in Magassouba v. Prince George’s County, et al. Jurors found the county and several police supervisors liable for discrimination and retaliation.
Magassouba, an 11-year department veteran who immigrated from Africa, said his troubles began in January 2019 when he refused to alter his witness statement about an arrest in Capitol Heights. Court filings state that a white officer allegedly shoved a Black woman to the ground and pointed a Taser at her son without justification. Video of the arrest circulated online, prompting public criticism of the department.
After he declined to change his account, Magassouba was reassigned from patrol to a desk job and later terminated in August 2021. His lawsuit named supervisors Angela Lane, Jeffrey Walden, Sunny Mrotek, Robbie Loveday and Shawne Waddy, accusing them of targeting him for maintaining his original statement.
Jurors awarded $2.35 million for lost wages and emotional distress. Magassouba’s attorney, Jordan D. Howlette, said the verdict “sends a powerful message that honesty and integrity still matter in law enforcement.” It was not immediately clear whether the county plans to appeal.
Magassouba now serves as the Chief of Police for the Town of Capitol Heights.
The case adds to ongoing scrutiny of the Prince George’s County Police Department, which has faced multiple lawsuits and federal oversight over alleged racial discrimination and retaliation within its ranks.
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
Good for him for doing the right thing.
we might need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to jury selection and jurors. A presumption of innocence means you are guaranteed innocence, at the start of the trial, but you are not guaranteed to be guilty at the end of the trial. Presumption means you are leaning towards innocence. Presumption is a mentality. Whether the courts do a good job of explaining this or not. I admit that is somebody said they were using a payphone + that was their alibi, I would be skeptical. I admit if someone said they were getting their stick shift repaired, I would be skeptical
are the police the part of the criminal justice system that has job security?
isn’t this conduct learned in church/ what church does this officer go to who refused to lie\ what church do the officers go to that asked him to do that?
ok, part of it — how much did the lawyer charge?