Police Use Of Force

Right now, Maryland is one of only nine states that has no law on the use of deadly force by the police. This is one of several issues identified in a new Amnesty International study discussed in a Baltimore Sun story on the deliberations of the joint House-Senate task force studying police issues.

Instead of a uniform statewide policy, each jurisdiction has created its own policy.

A review of use-of-force policies provided by the Maryland State Police and county police and sheriff’s departments in the Baltimore region, however, showed general similarities but also substantive variations in language and guidance to officers.

State troopers are permitted to use deadly force “in self-defense, or to defend another person who is being unlawfully attacked, from death or serious injury.” It may also be used “to prevent the escape of a felon” under certain circumstances, including when it is a last resort and the office has a reasonable belief that the individual “poses a significant threat of using deadly force against a trooper or others if not immediately apprehended.”

In Baltimore County, deadly force “may be applied in immediate danger situations, where present peril or jeopardy exists and the officer has a reasonable belief that action must be taken instantly or without considerable delay.”

In Howard County, deadly force “may only be used in self-defense or in the defense of others when an officer is confronted by what he has reason to believe is the imminent threat of death or serious physical injury,” or “as a last resort” to prevent the escape of a suspect who officers believe presents an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others.

The policies in Anne Arundel and Harford counties are similar.

All of the policies elaborate on the circumstances necessary for the use of deadly force in substantially different ways — discussing the use of vehicles by suspects, the use of canines by police and the amount of information an officer has about a suspect at the time of the incident.

This is not the best way to get it done, says Amnesty.

Justin Mazzola, an Amnesty International researcher who helped compile the report, said department-level policies are insufficient to bring about change.

“It’s not accountability,” Mazzola said. “A violation of a policy is an administrative infraction. It’s not what meets international law and standards when you are giving the authority to police to use not only force, but lethal force. That has to be codified within law.”

Predictably, police organizations are resistant to a uniform state law.

Harris, the Pittsburgh law professor, said any attempt by Maryland to restrict police beyond the federal standard will likely meet resistance from police departments and unions, which have generally fought to keep limits on their use of power in line with the standards established at the federal level.

“What police department is going to want to limit its police officers in terms of what they are constitutionally allowed to do?” Harris said.

* * *

[Senator Catherine] Pugh [co-chair of the task force] said the panel will review the Amnesty report, but also plans to talk about existing use-of-force policies with police agencies — which legislators do not wish to further alienate.

“Let’s not make [any new standard] so restrictive that people feel they can’t do their jobs,” she said. “We want police in our communities, but we want them to respect our communities.”

When even the idea of a new law on use of force results in pushback, it becomes clear that this process is not going to end well.

Freddie Gray Panel Begins Work

The General Assembly panel to study the police accountability bills that didn’t pass last session convenes for the first time today.

A bipartisan group of Maryland lawmakers on Monday will begin its work to develop recommendations for improving police training and enhancing police-community relations.

The legislative panel was formed last month by House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) and tasked with providing the General Assembly legislative proposals to improve public safety and policing practices.

I’m interested to see how this goes, but I don’t have high hopes. My bet is it will be more window dressing and self-congratulation than an assessment of the institutional biases of Maryland’s legislative process that smothered any real action earlier this year. But I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong.

Lazy and Ignorant “Analysis”

Since the Freddie Gray matter began, I’ve written a lot about Baltimore. A quick search shows over 20 posts under the category “Freddie Gray” alone, not to mention several others that were about more general issues, such as police accountability, the overwhelming political power of the FOP in Annapolis, and the politics of race and economic inequality, to name but a few.

And let me stipulate further that agreeing with me is not a prerequisite to having an informed opinion. I am as capable – if not more so – of being wrong, so having a different opinion doesn’t necessarily spur me to respond.

What does annoy me – a lot – is lazy, uninformed “analysis” that doesn’t even pretend to seriously consider the issues. That’s what David Lublin has done today. After writing nothing for over a month, he’s decided to “analyze” the Freddie Gray riots and the subsequent fallout from a political perspective. He calls it “Analysis: Democrats Must Address Baltimore Or Drown Politically In The Undertow”. A rather breathless title, but let’s let that pass.

Lublin starts out by stating that “little discussion has taken place about the political impact of these events.” Now, he may not like it, but I’ve discussed extensively the political impact of how Baltimore got where it is, why it’s going to be hard to change it, what ought to be done, etc. And again, I don’t claim to be the only one out there having these discussions. But popping up over a month later and saying “hey, I’m the first one to think deeply about this” is some pretty high level narcissism.

Second, in talking about the spike in violence in Baltimore, Lublin apparently couldn’t find the Baltimore Sun website, because his one external citation is to a Post article about a young woman killed in DC a few days ago as evidence of what’s going on in Baltimore. Seriously? Does Lublin not understand that just because two cities both have a lot of black people in them doesn’t mean that a crime in one has anything to do with the other?

Finally, Lublin turns to an effort to craft a message that will win over voters. But after all his talk of balance, it turns out to be a sharp attack on “criminal behavior” along with some mushy, watered down civil rights oatmeal that shows more concern for law and order than it does for the rights of those oppressed by police brutality and misconduct.

Criminal behavior is unacceptable. Full stop. The recent riots stole jobs from working people and burned down housing being built by local leaders for the elderly. Violence eats at the fabric of already struggling communities.

For exactly these reasons, we need stronger policing policies that protect the rights and dignity of citizens as well as the police. We need to do it not only because it’s right but because our communities will be safer for it. Mutual lack of trust and hostility between the police and the community is a direct threat to public safety.

Wow, that’s a whole lot of – nothing. But OK, Dave, who out there is doing a good job of addressing these issues from a political perspective? Which one of the hundreds if not thousands of articles, blog posts, FB updates, emails and the like that have been written on Baltimore in the past five weeks best addresses the political message you believe Democrats must craft?

Lublin cites two examples and what are the odds – his examples, Facebook posts the DAY OF THE RIOTS from Delegates Brooke Lierman and David Moon, just happen to have ended up in Lublin’s post THAT SAME DAY. Apparently, Lublin hasn’t read anything at all since April 27 that was worthy of note, or more likely, just hasn’t read anything at all.

Let me be clear that I am not in any way criticizing either Lierman or Moon. Both made perfectly appropriate statements the first day of the riots in Baltimore and I agree for the most part with both of them. But neither one of those posts should be seen as the kind of deep political “analysis” that David Lublin claims to be providing today, five weeks later. But David Lublin had ’em, and it saved him having to go read some other stuff, so it sufficed.

In contrast to his effusive praise of Lierman (who is white) and Moon (who is Korean-American), Lublin did manage a criticism of one legislator – he calls Hispanic Delegate Marice Morales’ Facebook comments “insane.” I totally disagree, but I’ll let you go back and read them for yourself.

In conclusion, Lublin, while claiming to conduct an “analysis” that nobody else has done, cites to no one and nothing other than (1) his own April 27 collation of legislators’ Facebook posts during the riots, and (2) while discussing violence in Baltimore, referencing an article about the murder of a journalist in DC. Far from being the analysis it claims to be, the piece is lazy, uninformed, and self-referential, and readers hoping to be educated on the rich and wide and varied debate that has been going on for well over a month will get no help from David Lublin.

From Vapid To Racist

Quite a day for Politico. First there was this bit of high-school drama fluff, and now they have posted a racist screed from Rich Lowry of National Review. Talking Points Memo has the details (no free links to hate speech from me, thank you):

Politico magazine on Thursday published an op-ed by conservative writer Rich Lowry of the National Review bearing the headline: ‘#SomeBlackLivesDontMatter.”

Lowry, a regular contributor to Politico magazine, argued that after the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray (whose name was originally misspelled throughout the piece as “Freddy Gray”), civil rights protestors complained much about police brutality but ignored deadly crime.

“Let’s be honest: Some black lives really don’t matter,” he wrote, calling the #BlackLivesMatter movement, “a lie.”

“If you are a young black man shot in the head by another young black man, almost certainly no one will know your name,” he added.

The piece crescendoed to a section arguing that contrary to protestors, police need to crack down harder on what conservatives and others often call “black-on-black” crime:

“The implication is clear: More people need to be arrested in Baltimore, not fewer. And more need to be jailed. If black lives truly matter, Baltimore needs more and better policing and incarceration to impose order on communities where a lawless few spread mayhem and death.”

Lowry ended the piece by suggesting that “a figure who is anathema to the BlackLivesMatter movement, Rudy Giuliani, saved more black lives than any of his critics ever will.”

Whether it’s at home or abroad, conservatives have a similar paradigm: find and identify an enemy, and then kill them. Goes back to the 1960s. “Law and order.” “Soft on crime.” “Zero tolerance.” “Broken windows.”

Let’s translate – “kill the [you know what word goes here].” The fact that Politico would even print that shit ought to be surprising. But it’s not. Sadly.

Want A Job?

Not gonna be an easy one, though. Four senior members of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s criminal justice team have now departed their jobs, three in the past week. From the Sun:

Shannon Cosgrove, deputy director of the office, will be the fourth member of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s criminal justice team to leave in recent weeks.

Three others have left the office as Baltimore endures a rash of homicides and other violence following last month’s rioting and unrest.

* * *

Angela Johnese, director of the criminal justice office, and Heather Brantner, the mayor’s Sexual Assault Response Team coordinator, left their city posts Friday. Officials declined to say under what terms they departed.

LeVar Michael, who led the city’s anti-violence program Operation Ceasefire, left his position voluntarily a few weeks ago.

Considering the events of the past month, including the unrest and protests, and the subsequent spike in homicides and other crimes, it’s not going to be easy for the mayor to fill any of these jobs.

Freddie Gray Indictments

BREAKING NEWS: A Baltimore City grand jury this afternoon returned indictments against all six officers involved in the Freddie Gray matter. Virtually all of the original charges were part of the indictment, although the charges of false imprisonment were eliminated and new charges of reckless endangerment were added. Three officers saw charges of second degree assault dropped by the grand jury.

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby announced the indictments at a late-afternoon news conference at her downtown office.

The indictments came nearly three weeks after Mosby announced criminal charges against the officers. Some charges were slightly different than what Mosby announced on May 1. The grand jury review is a procedural step to move the case forward to a higher court, from District Court to Baltimore City Circuit Court.

Amazing what can happen when a prosecutor doesn’t torpedo her own case – see Ferguson and Staten Island and any number of other jurisdictions.

#OneBaltimore

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has established an initiative to lead recovery efforts in Baltimore. From the Sun:

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake tapped a longtime Baltimore civil leader and a former state Democratic Party chairman Monday to lead the #OneBaltimore initiative to help the city recover from recent unrest.

The mayor said she selected Michael Cryor to set up the recovery initiative and coordinate the public and private effort to address the underlying issues that led to the rioting last month.

“He is the right choice to ensure the #OneBaltimore initiative moves us forward with a common and sustainable agenda,” Rawlings-Blake said. “We have to get this right. We need a coordinated and overarching effort to leverage all of this energy, financial support and good will.”

Rawlings-Blake calls the effort a “multi-year once-in-a-generation effort to begin to attack these systemic inequalities that affect all aspects of our city.”

Color me hopeful yet skeptical. The problems in Baltimore have been around for a long, long time.  Fixing them is note going to be easy.

Too Beat Up To Lock Up

The Baltimore Sun reported over the weekend that Baltimore jail officials have turned away over 2600 individuals arrested by the police over the past three years – because the arrestees are too injured to withstand the booking process.

From June 2012 through April 2015, correctional officers at the Baltimore City Detention Center have refused to admit nearly 2,600 detainees who were in police custody, according to state records obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act request.

In those records, intake officers in Central Booking noted a wide variety of injuries, including fractured bones, facial trauma and hypertension. Of the detainees denied entry, 123 had visible head injuries, the third most common medical problem cited by jail officials, records show.

Those arrests represent 2% of all bookings in Baltimore. Think about that – 1 in 50 arrestees are so seriously injured the jail won’t even take them. That’s shocking.

So About That Curfew . . .

Turns out Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake most likely didn’t have the legal authority to declare a curfew. Governor Hogan had such authority but not the mayor, reports the Baltimore Sun:

In announcing the curfew, aides to Rawlings-Blake cited a provision of the city charter that deems her a “conservator of the peace.” The powers of that title are not clearly defined in the city charter or state law, but City Solicitor George Nilson said there is “substantial supportive authority” for a conservator of the peace to impose a curfew.

But Baltimore Deputy Public Defender Natalie Finegar, in a motion to dismiss a client’s curfew charge filed Monday, said the mayor overstepped her bounds.

“The Governor has the statutory authority to establish a curfew in times of emergency. The City Council of Baltimore is vested with legislative authority to create criminal ordinances,” Finegar wrote. “The Mayor, however, acting alone, may not do so.”

So all those arrests during the curfew? Invalid. All those held for however long before being released? Illegally held. All the charges? Being dropped. The lawsuits that will undoubtedly be filed in the coming months? Priceless. 

Well That’s Pretty Dumb

The Baltimore Sun reports today that most Maryland jurisdictions in the Baltimore region do not have police vans equipped with seat belts.

The Sun’s survey found that vans used to transport suspects in Anne Arundel, Harford, Howard and Baltimore counties do not have seat belts. The Carroll County sheriff’s office says one of its two police vans has seat belts.

* * *

Under Maryland law, passengers in the rear of a motor vehicle must wear a seat belt unless the vehicle is specifically exempted, as school buses are, said Buel Young, a spokesman for the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. Young said he was not aware of an exemption for police vans. Some local departments say they do not believe vans are required to have the belts.

As I have said many, many times to clients and friends over the years: never, ever take legal advice from the police. In addition to being wrong and unsafe for prisoners being transported and an easy opportunity for police abuse, this is a major tort case just waiting for an enterprising attorney to take it on. And this would be a very good opportunity for legislators in Annapolis to make clear that seat belts or other restraints are required when transporting prisoners. I strongly suspect that other jurisdictions in Maryland are no better than those surveyed by the Sun.