When Circuit Court Judge Joseph McCurdy Jr. asked grand jurors last year to recommend ways to build trust between the Baltimore City Police and the community, those selected took their responsibilities seriously.
The 22 members spent four months from September 2005 to January 2006 visiting neighborhoods, talking with police, reviewing arrest statistics and police programs to fulfill their mission.
City Mayor Martin O?Malley and Police Commissioner Leonard Hamm likely are savvy enough not to dismiss their recommendations as politically motivated. Their findings and recommendations are anything but.
As jury foreman Kevin Sanders wrote in the March report: “We learned right from the start that we were not going to agree on everything because of our different backgrounds. ?” But through research and discussion, they reached a consensus that “there are issues of confidence in city law enforcement that simply must be addressed.”
If anyone is a fan of consensus, it would appear to be O? Malley, who can?t seem to remind us enough, as he seeks our votes for governor, of his commitment to the “common good.”
The mayor and the police department must publicly address how they are making progress to meet the grand jury recommendations ? or persuade us that they needn?t act on them. This is way too serious an issue for a pocket veto.
Jurors found that police often interpreted and enforced “possession with intent to distribute drugs” and “possession for personal use” differently; offered conflicting definitions for procedures including “stop and frisk” and “pat down and search”; arrested many people who are never charged; and thatmany police officers did not know the people in whose neighborhoods they patrolled, among other issues.
To address those problems, they recommended:
» The police should make more public service announcements emphasizing BCPD progress on cases and ethical problems within the department.
» Reducing arrests that do not lead to charges by 50 percent by the end of 2006.
» Expunging arrest records automatically for those not charged within 30 days at no cost.
» Police officers should become more familiar with the communities they patrol.
» Increasing hours allocated to training and study of laws so that police better understand how to define and practice procedures.
Only the state Legislature can change the law regarding expunging arrest records. Legislators must pass a law shortening the time frame in which it happens so that those who were not charged for crimes do not lose jobs or homes because of an arrest.
But the police department can and must address the other issues.
We know that the percentage of people arrested, but not charged, has dropped 6 percent in the three months ending in September compared to the same time last year. But is 50 percent the goal?
And we know that Commissioner Leonard Hamm has chosen silence instead of addressing the ethical lapses in the department. How come, commissioner?
Police will not release information about where specific officers live, of course. But we do not understand why the department will not say how many officers live in the city. That could explain why community members may not know officers.
And we do not know if officers are receiving more training.
The jurors ? and city residents they represented on the jury ? deserve a formal response to their findings and recommendations by the end of 2006.
Otherwiseit means they spent four months in vain and the idea of government by the people and for the people in 21st-century Baltimore in this case feels like fiction.
