Maryland Lawmakers Limit Covert Police Surveillance
by Suraj Sazawal, 4/15/2009
Responding to the outcry over covert police surveillance of peaceful activists' meetings, Maryland lawmakers voted on March 24, 2009 in favor of a bill to protect residents from having authorities violate their First Amendment rights. The House of Delegates and Senate approved similar bills and Governor Martin O'Malley has expressed his commitment to signing the legislation into law.
The Freedom of Association and Assembly Protection Act of 2009 was a response to Maryland State Police surveillance in 2005 and 2006 that resulted in dozens of people wrongly being described as terrorists in police databases. In 2008, after suing state police for access to official documents, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed the 14-month long surveillance campaign. The records showed that undercover officers infiltrated meetings of groups opposed to capital punishment and the war in Iraq for more than a year and conducted nearly 300 hours of surveillance. Other organizations targeted by covert surveillance included anti-war protesters, a group that advocated for domestic partner laws and an environmental nonprofit. Eventually, the Washington Post revealed that some of the names had been entered into federal databases.
The bill requires the state police to delete data on targets wrongly monitored in its operations. The bill prohibits covert surveillance unless "the chief…makes a written finding in advance…that the covert investigation is justified because it is based on a reasonable, articulate suspicion that the person, group, or organization is planning or engaged in criminal activity."
The bill also requires the Maryland State Police to report to the both Judiciary Committees in the state's legislative body before 2010 about a provision that provides a chance for persons entered into the system under the suspicion of terrorism "an opportunity to review and obtain copies of the relevant database entries; and subsequently purge those entries" when there is no credible evidence.
Immediately after the ACLU cast light on the undercover police surveillance in July of 2008, O'Malley called for an independent review of the Maryland State Police surveillance activities from March 2005 to May 2006. Headed by the former Maryland Attorney General Stephen H. Sachs, the review was conducted with assistance from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office and Maryland State Police. “Protecting the individual liberties of our Citizens is critical to preserving our Democracy and the public trust in our law enforcement agencies,” said O’Malley.
The conclusions of the report found that the activists' names were entered into databases, including one that collects information on narcotic related offenses and is shared among several law enforcement groups in the greater Baltimore/ Washington, D.C. area. The review said that federal regulations require sharing intelligence through the system "only if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity." There was no such evidence relating to any of the activists, Sachs found.
The conclusions of the report found that the activists' names were entered into databases, including one that collects information on narcotic related offenses and is shared among several law enforcement groups in the greater Baltimore/ Washington, D.C. area. The review said that federal regulations require sharing intelligence through the system "only if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity." There was no such evidence relating to any of the activists, Sachs found.
