- Information about abuse by officers who represent the public is information that should be public [Ava-joye Burnett, WJZ on Baltimore sunlight-on-settlements ordinance] General Assembly considers greater police transparency [Samantha Hawkins, Maryland Matters]
- Oh! Takoma! “The proposal… would ban all gas appliances, close fossil fuel pipelines, and move gas stations outside city limits by 2045. The cost to the average homeowner could reach $25,000, officials wrote.” [Rebecca Tan, Washington Post on Takoma Park anti-fossil fuels scheme]
- Montgomery County ordinance requires bicycle registration, authorizes impoundment and misdemeanor charges if cyclists lack the requisite sticker [Jacob Sullum, Reason]
- Critical profile of Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, which is influential locally as well as on children’s issues nationally [Martin Morse Wooster, Capital Research]
- Reform of Maryland’s harsh teen “sexting” laws welcome [Amy Alkon]
- Neat trick: Montgomery County manages to run its monopoly liquor stores in the red, recalling the days of Off-Track Betting when New York ran monopoly gambling parlors and contrived to lose money on them [Bruce Leshan, WUSA]
Tag Archives: police
- Federal judge rejects four states’ suit challenging Congress’s changes to the SALT (state and local tax) exemption. Maryland AG Brian Frosh wasted the state’s resources and credibility on a suit that should never have been filed [Ilya Somin]
- While on the subject, it’s worth noting how the state’s drug pricing law went down in flames, although the blame for its indefensibility would in this case be the legislature’s [Josh Kurtz, Maryland Matters]
- Campaign to raise legal age of marriage to as high as 18 belatedly runs into some serious opposition as ACLU, other liberal groups concerned with youth rights and autonomy join conservatives skeptical of forcing out-of-wedlock births and libertarians who support, well, liberty [Dartunorro Clark, MSNBC] Due credit to the Women’s Law Center of Maryland, which helped block a bad bill of this sort in the 2018 Assembly, pointing out that there are other ways to detect and intervene against involuntary marriages [Scott Dance, Baltimore Sun; an opposing view (i.e., favoring ban) from UMD sociologist Philip Cohen]
- Yuripzy Morgan took time on her WBAL radio show to discuss my article on the Supreme Court’s consideration of job bias law and you can listen here;
- Stephen J.K. Walters makes a case for aerial surveillance as a Baltimore policing tool [Law and Liberty] In 2016 my colleague Matthew Feeney expressed libertarian misgivings about the “secret and indiscriminate surveillance” such systems enable;
- “Maryland’s State Pension May Be Only 35 Percent Funded” [Carol Park, Maryland Public Policy Institute]
Baltimore continues to pay a high price for the sorts of police corruption and misconduct on display in the Gun Trace Task Force scandal. Part of that price is that convictions need to be thrown out, even in cases where a real crime may have been committed and not all the evidence was tainted. From the Sun:
“When you have sworn police officers involved in egregious and long-standing criminal activity such as planting guns and drugs, stealing drugs and money, selling drugs, making illegal arrests, and bringing false charges, our legal and ethical obligation in the pursuit of justice leaves us no other recourse but to ‘right the wrongs’ of unjust convictions associated with corrupt police officers,” Mosby wrote in an email.
And if you think maybe we could get fuller disclosure of police disciplinary proceedings so that problems might be headed off before they reach the stage of massive scandal, well, good luck with that.
More from the Abell Foundation: “Baltimore Police Department: Understanding its status as a state agency”:
The Baltimore Police Department became a State Agency 158 years ago in response to the rise of the Know-Nothing Party in Baltimore City. By 1860, the Know-Nothing Party had taken complete political control of Baltimore City, relying on violence and coercion. The Maryland General Assembly reached the conclusion that the City and Mayor had proven themselves incapable of maintaining order in the City of Baltimore and accordingly enacted Public Local Laws making the Baltimore Police Department a State Agency.
Sentences worth pondering, from coverage of the U.S. Department of Justice’s employment-practices suit against Baltimore County: “The exams tested reading, grammar, logic and other skills that the suit alleges are not related to the job of being a police officer or police cadet.” Critics take heart, however: “County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr. issued a statement saying the police department has discontinued the test.” [Pamela Wood and Wilborn P. Nobles III, Baltimore Sun] (cross-posted from Overlawyered)
- “Officials, Lawyers Lament Inability to Root Out Police Corruption” [Danielle Gaines, Maryland Matters]
- And the problems go way, way back, as a new memoir relates (stealing from Sears at Christmastime!) [Fern Shen, Baltimore Brew]
- This might help: “Md. Lawmakers should make police discipline records public” [David Plymyer, Baltimore Sun]
- “If policymakers want their states to be people magnets, they should get their household tax burdens down to 8.5 percent of personal income or lower.” [Chris Edwards]
- In the name of combating human trafficking, a term susceptible of many definitions, Frederick County council gets ready to impose new licensing burdens on hotels, motels, “bodywork” studios [Allan Etzler, Frederick News Post]
- How to densify MoCo [Seth Grimes, Greater Greater Washington]
- MoCo vs. NoVa: “’Our corporate tax rate in Maryland is 8.25%. In Virginia, it’s 6%,’ said Basu. ‘That’s a major factor in these site-location decisions.'” [quoted in Bruce DePuyt, Maryland Matters] Maryland got off lucky in Amazon decision [Eric Stokan and Roy T. Meyers, Len Lazarick, Maryland Reporter, Michael Horney, Free State Foundation and related] “Attract Businesses like Amazon with Lean Government, Not Pork” [Vanessa Brown Calder and Chris Edwards, Crain’s New York/Cato and Chris Edwards on interstate tax migration]
- Poor Baltimore, over-policed and under-policed at once [Scott Beyer, Governing]
- Cash exactions levied on land development should meet constitutional standards whether grounded in official discretion or legislation [Ilya Shapiro and Reilly Stephens on Cato Institute brief in Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County]
- “Manufacturers denounce Baltimore climate lawsuit” [National Association of Manufacturers, background]
- Anne Arundel County man killed by cops showing up to confiscate his guns under Maryland “red flag” law [Baltimore Sun, WBFF]
- “Maryland’s New #MeToo Law May Do Little to Expose Workplace Harassment” [Christopher Humber, National Law Review]
- Should landlords be legally obliged to provide voter registration materials to their tenants? [HB5, Del. J. Lewis; companion bill HB55, which would impose similar requirements on real estate agents and brokers, was reported unfavorably by Economic Matters]
- Noteworthy Twitter thread on theft of rental cars has Maryland State Police angle [Noah Lehmann-Haupt]
- An unwarranted curtailment of individual choice: bill sponsored by Del. Vanessa Atterbeary (D-Howard) would ban marriage by persons under 18 even with parent/guardian consent [HB 191]
- “Dollar home” programs show mostly sparse results in urban revitalization, especially when regulatory strings come attached [Jared Alves, Greater Greater Washington on lessons for Baltimore]
- Why Baltimore’s Civilian Review Board hasn’t done much to fix its police crisis [J.F. Meils, Maryland Reporter]
- “Maryland Delegate Proposes Regional Pact To Keep Taxpayer Money from Financing Redskins’ Stadium” [Andrew Metcalf, Bethesda Magazine on Del. David Moon (D-Takoma Park) bill]
- “Another Winner From Tax Reform: State Governments,” including Maryland’s [Eric Boehm, Reason]
- Epic Twitter thread on Maryland’s outlandish gerrymander, marvel at the maps [@EsotericCD]
- “Maryland Is Undergoing Meaningful Regulatory Reform” [Randolph May and Michael Horney, Free State Foundation]
- Neighborhood police checkpoints employed in West Baltimore for several days in November, yet in 2009 DC Circuit, via conservative Judge Sentelle, found them unconstitutional [Colin Campbell and Talia Richman, Baltimore Sun; Elizabeth Janney, Patch; cross-posted from Overlawyered]
- Because $peeding is un$afe: Baltimore to expand red light and speed camera program [Luke Broadwater, Sun]
- Dept. of perfectly terrible ideas: “Should there be rent control near the Purple Line?” [Seventh State]
- Maryland Redistricting Reform Commission held a lively hearing in Rockville Oct. 10 [Douglas Tallman, MCMedia] U.S. Supreme Court declines to speed up review of Maryland gerrymander — Lyle Denniston on what that could mean for wider issue [Constitution Center; more on Gill v. Whitford from Amy Howe, SCOTUSBlog]
- We still need heroes: Lauren Weiner on statues and state songs [Law and Liberty, my earlier on Taney statue]
- Anne Arundel County Executive Steve Schuh — a Republican — signs up with trial lawyers to sue opioid makers. Not a good look [Capital Gazette, my other blog on law firm Motley Rice, which helped orchestrate the tobacco caper]
- Also to Frederick County, Maryland: “Montgomery County Wage Hike Will Drive Business to Virginia” [Emily Top, Economics 21]
- “Hundreds Of Cases Dismissed Thanks To Baltimore Police Department Misconduct” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt]
- Why Columbia has so many peculiar street names: it couldn’t re-use any that had been used in Baltimore City/County or Anne Arundel [Christina Tkacik, Baltimore Sun]
George Liebmann of the Calvert Institute, who has been a critic of the U.S. Department of Justice’s consent decree with the city of Baltimore over policing practices, commented on the decree in a communication to the district court. What follows are excerpts from the submission to the court:
…The showing of current or recent constitutional violations by the named defendants that is a necessary predicate for federal jurisdiction and the decree is absent. The unsworn and unsigned Report attached to the Complaint recites few recent incidents, none chargeable to the current Mayor and Police Chief, and no improper directives by them. …
This is a City in which any number of Mayors, Councilmen and Police Chiefs have been black, as is at least 40% of its police force. Whatever the misconduct of a few individuals, the charge of racism is one that should not be lightly entertained, let alone sanctified, on slender or non-existent evidence, in a decree of a United States District Court. Such a finding is a jurisdictional prerequisite; the disclaimer in paragraph 5 that the City does not agree with the Findings in no way obviates the jurisdictional need for them. Their falsity and exaggeration is welcomed by the original sponsors of the decree because it feeds not only into a decree but into a political narrative supportive of electoral mobilization and identity politics.
The decree is transparently collusive—an alliance of two lame duck administrations to victimize unrepresented interests, those of the police unions and their members and those of the State, which will be pressured to provide money for reforms, the BPD being at least nominally a State agency. Nor is the United States Attorney anywhere to be found…. Article III of the Constitution limits court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies”, an important limitation. Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U. S. 47 (1971); Chicago and G.T.R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339(1892). There is none here; the parties have avowed since before this case filed their intention to enter a consent decree. Given the apparent lack of enthusiasm of the current Justice Department, entry of the decree will deliver public policy into the hands of advocacy groups. It is inconceivable that even the recent and current City administrations would have conceded control of the police to advocacy groups, including some with a declared agenda in favor of federal control of local law enforcement.
The vague and sweeping injunction contained in paragraph 8 can thus be enforced, if at all, only by contempt fines falling on City taxpayers and fustian from the bench. The Court, to be sure, will have the aid of a credulous press. Notwithstanding an express finding in the Report that the facts found on handling of sexual assault complaints did not establish a constitutional violation, the lead story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jess Bidgood in the next day’s New York Times, August 16, 2016, page 1, column six at the top of the page bore the headline in the print edition: ”Baltimore Police Fostered a Bias Against Women.” The Court in its Agenda for Counsel accurately characterized the decree as “aspirational, general, lacking in deadlines” as well as lacking in information about “standards to be applied, resources, costs.”
Neither this Court nor the litigating lawyers framing the decree are authorities in police administration. As the ‘time line’ appropriately directed by the Court indicates, there are an almost comically large number of reporting requirements, the costs of which in time, manpower, morale, and response speed are not assessed. There is every reason to think that these external mandates will be resented and little in the recent history of structural decrees provides reason to think that they will be effective. Non-constructive compliance costs will be enormous, and, given paragraph 450, even the much-vaunted ceiling on monitors’ fees is bendable.
The City was vindicated in this court’s housing case after twenty years of costly litigation, the only relief granted being a cosmetic decree against the federal government affecting a few hundred families; while the case was pending, several hundred thousand minority families moved to the Baltimore suburbs without the court’s assistance. This court’s special education case was of equal length and bore fruit, as Kalman Hettleman and others have shown, in enhanced paper shuffling and no improvements in the quality of the personnel giving classroom instruction. …The effective police reformers have been Commissioners, not judges: William Bratton in 1990s New York and Los Angeles, Donald Pomerleau in 1970s Baltimore.
Paragraphs 251 through 259 of the decree relating to sexual assault are improperly included as a sop to advocacy groups in the face of a Report finding “We do not, at this time, find reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in gender-biased policy in violation of federal law.”
The provisions of paragraphs 43(b) and 61 limiting arrests for loitering, misdemeanor trespass, (important in drug law enforcement), as well as disorderly conduct, gambling, and quality of life offenses will become rapidly known and are gifts to the underworld, lowering the risks and costs of illegal drug distribution and increasing its profitability. In no way do they foster or are they equivalent to the decriminalization of drugs. The benefits of decriminalization, all absent here, include labeling, licensing, quality control, availability of drug testing without fear of self-incrimination, excise taxes, enhanced revenues from sales, payroll, income and business taxes, and the replacement of a distribution system reaching into every workplace and classroom with one operating from fixed locations. Insofar as it curbs “broken windows” and “quality of life” enforcement, the decree completely deprives the City of options the value of which is the subject of political and professional controversy, a disservice to responsible self-government.
The decree cedes power not only to the federal court and its monitor but to the federal Department of Justice itself, see paragraphs 285, 286, 298, 319, 324, 483. The merit of Justice Jackson’s view may not have been apparent in October but should be in March: “I think the potentialities of a federal centralized police system for ultimate subversion of our form of government are very great.” The decree adopts unacceptable “disparate impact” criteria on both employment and enforcement, paragraphs 43, 423 and 511 (cc). It is particularly deplorable that the last of these restrictions is buried in the “Definitions” section of the decree. Its effect, as a representative of an advocacy group has joyfully proclaimed, is to prevent police from “targeting citizens in high crime areas.” Reduced enforcement in such areas is assumed to be a public good, an insight probably not shared by the residents. …The decree is not a harmless sop, but a measure whose effect on police recruitment and behavior threatens a sudden and complete collapse of public order, or at best a long period of slow attrition as police, residents and businesses vote with their feet for jurisdictions that have not thus handcuffed themselves….
The court is being urged to enter both a political thicket and a minefield, to no good purpose….
Respectfully submitted, George W. Liebmann
Note also (via Kevin Rector of the Baltimore Sun on Twitter) this paragraph acknowledging the collusive, or sweetheart, nature of the litigation:
Fact this paragraph is in a filing by Baltimore, in which the city is fighting FOR fed oversight of its police dept, strikes me as profound. pic.twitter.com/w37vSJQrOm
— Kevin Rector (@RectorSun) April 5, 2017