Recent public safety, police reforms conflict
Three police reform measures have come through the Annapolis City Council in recentweeks, revealing a great deal about what city leaders view as the priority for change.
Two of them were aimed at a real desire by Annapolis to better combat homicides and other crimes, while the third is motivated by police reformers who want more accountability. Unfortunately, elements of each of the three measures work against each other.
The most regrettable proposal would have established a drug-free no loitering zone on Clay Street, site of a recent homicide and reports of drug dealing. It was notable not because it was a good idea, but because it managed to make it to the council agenda before being withdrawn as an idea discredited almost 20years ago as unconstitutional.
Introduced on behalf of Mayor Gavin Buckley’s administration and Alderwoman Rhonda Pindell Charles, the measure would have given police broad powers to detain and question anyone who looked like they might be dealing drugs within 500 feet of the address at the center of the zone. In the past, Annapolis police have often taken that to mean young Black men.
The resident who applied complained that there has been persistent drug dealing near his home, a historic problem for Clay
Street. Fair enough.
But the right response is never a draconian measure that gives police power to ignore the presumption of innocence based on arbitrary lines on a map. Let’s call it what itwas: stop and frisk.
This misstep comes on the heels of the Annapolis Police Department’s proposal to use a $100,000 state grant to purchase predictive policing software.
Predictive policing uses computer modeling to anticipate likely crime events and allows police to take steps to prevent them.
Supporters argue this approach is a tool that enhances good police practices — community engagement, for example — rather than replace it. Critics point to civil rights and civil liberties concerns, including a lack of accountability, and studies that show these models reinforce racial biases in the criminal justice system.
Theone used by the police department in Salisbury is a location-based algorithm, and was cited as an example of what Annapolis wants to do. It draws links between places, events, and historical crime rates to predict where and when crimes are more likely to happen, according to an article in MIT Technology Review. It breaks locations up into small blocks and offers something like a crime weather forecast.
The proposal ran into headwinds on the council and was referred to the Public Safety Committee for a hearing nextweek.
The third proposal to come out of City Hall was the formation of a committee to develop recommendations for a civilian review commission, a popular goal of police reformers concerned about cases of individual misconduct or systemic racism with a department.
The key issue for this panel will be deciding how far to go in giving the commission power to investigate individual complaints against the police.
That is an authority police chiefs are very reluctant to surrenderandalso is likely to be
touched on next year as the Maryland General Assembly considers revoking the LawEnforcement Officer Bill of Rights.
The conflicting elements of these proposals, centered around fairness and accountability, are a function of a piecemeal approach to change rather than a broader strategy.
Annapolis is right towant a better police department, not because there are widespread problems but because the department is one of themost important functions of local government.
Residents of the city and the men and women who make up the department deserve thoughtful leadership.