ACLU of Maryland (ACLU-MD)

The ACLU’s docket features an array of cases touching on a wide range of civil liberties issues. The docket also reflects important themes. First, the ACLU of Maryland has been increasingly called upon to defend important federal civil rights laws, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, from challenges by courts increasingly hostile to enforcing the protections of federal law. Second, the ACLU is resolving legal issues with legislative remedies, bringing advocates, activists, and others together to effect social change. With actions ranging from a single phone call to complex litigation, the ACLU is bringing the force and intent of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights to life for all Marylanders.

Pro bono and cooperating counsel are listed at the end of the case description. The name of the law firm is in parentheses. The ACLU of Maryland staff person(s) responsible for the case are noted in brackets.

PUBLIC EDUCATION REFORM

Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education
Click here for the latest education reform news!
Victory (in part)! In 1994, the ACLU represented Baltimore City parents and school children in a lawsuit challenging the state’s failure to provide an adequate education to Baltimore City students as required by the Maryland Constitution. When the court agreed that the children were not getting an adequate education, the city, state, and ACLU entered a “Partnership Agreement” which required increased funding from the state and management reform by the city school system. Though these reforms catalyzed substantial increases in reading and math scores, in 2000 the ACLU went back to court arguing that the city schools required increased funding to bring further reform to the classroom. The judge agreed with us again and ruled that an additional $2,000- $2,600 in funding per child was needed from the state. This decision helped spark creation of a blue-ribbon panel -- known as the Thornton Commission -- to study statewide funding formulas. The ACLU helped shape the commission's report, which then (after intensive lobbying, grassroots activism, and tremendous political will) passed the General Assembly in 2002, with funding similar to the judge’s order scheduled to be phased in by 2008.

Despite these victories, the ACLU's fight for an adequate education for Baltimore City students is far from over. In June 2002, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan extended the court's oversight of the Bradford case to ensure that the legislature's reforms will be fully funded and implemented. Then, as a summer 2004 fiscal crisis in Baltimore City schools threatened to derail reforms, the ACLU filed a motion with the court to ensure that progress toward adequacy will continue and that children’s education remains paramount. Judge Kaplan agreed with the Bradford plaintiffs’ that the fiscal crisis could not derail the progress of the reforms. The State appealed Judge Kaplan’s August 2004 ruling. In a ruling issued June 9, the Maryland Court of Appeals preserved the long-standing education reform case that holds the state legally responsible for providing an adequate education for students in Baltimore City schools. The state’s highest court rejected the Maryland State Board of Education efforts to end the lawsuit, Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education. The Bradford plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and pro bono firm Howrey, Simon, Arnold and White, are pleased that the rulings of Circuit Court Judge Joseph Kaplan, and the Circuit Court’s oversight of Baltimore City schools, remain intact. Elizabeth McCallum, Helen Michael (Howrey Simon Arnold & White) and Lou Bograd. [Bebe Verdery, Susan Goering, Sue Fothergill, and JaCina Stanton]

Five-year-old suspended for toy squirt gun
Victory! We were contacted by the mother of a five-year-old boy who had been suspended for bringing a toy squirt gun to Templeton Elementary School in Prince George’s County. The principal suspended him for two days for violating the school’s policy against possession of “look alike” guns on school grounds. We believed that the discipline imposed on the boy, who could not understand the alleged seriousness of bringing the toy to school, was wholly inappropriate. We also believed that the squirt gun could not appropriately be categorized as a “look alike” gun. Following a letter setting forth our concerns, the school system agreed to remove all records of the suspension from the boy’s record. [Rocah, Swift]

Protecting students’ First Amendment rights
In response to a disturbing trend in public schools across Maryland of students being harassed for declining to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland called on school officials to take action to ensure teachers and administrators understand the First Amendment rights of students.

Parents from Frederick County, Carroll County, Baltimore County, Prince George’s County, and St. Mary’s County have asked for the ACLU’s help over the past year, after their children have been physically forced to salute the U.S. Flag, harassed for declining to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or denied the right to wear T-shirts critical of the Bush Administration.

With the hope of raising awareness and promoting discussion of patriotic exercises, the ACLU of Maryland sent a letter on the issue to school administrators at both county and state levels. We want to ensure that teachers, students, and parents across the state understand that the recitation of the Pledge is not mandatory.

Recognizing the opportunity for civil education, a St. Mary’s high school Principal recently promised to personally speak to a class about free speech after the students’ teacher erroneously ordered that all students must stand for the Pledge. The State Superintendent of Schools also promised to discuss the issue in her meeting with the local superintendents. [Rick Griffiths]

Defending open meetings and public information
Victory! The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), the economic development arm of the City Government, is a governmental entity subject to the provisions of the both the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the state Public Information Act. The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the intermediate appellate court decision that the agency must comply with open meetings and public information laws after the BDC appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals. The ruling opens the board’s meetings and paperwork to the public, and will influence the growing number and power of quasi-governmental agencies like the BDC in Maryland. Jonathan Guy (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe). [David Rocah, Debbie Jeon]

Opacity in government for prisoners: Massey v. Galley
Victory! In May 2004, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted review of an appeal filed by the ACLU and the Public Justice Center (PJC) on behalf of a Maryland inmate who was barred from seeking documents under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) because of his status as a prisoner. The appeal stems from a document request made under the MPIA by Western Correctional Institution (WCI) inmate Richard L. Massey to WCI Warden Jon P. Galley. When Galley ignored Massey’s request, the inmate filed a pro se enforcement lawsuit in Allegany County Circuit Court. That court dismissed the suit and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that inmates had to satisfy special requirements under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PRLA) before they could seek information under the MPIA. The ACLU and PJC petitioned the Court of Appeals on Massey’s behalf, seeking reversal of the lower court decisions on grounds that the MPIA provides access to information for everyone. In May 2006, the state’s highest court ruled that inmates do not have to endure excessive hurdles set by the Prisoner Litigation Act in order to obtain information under the MPIA, emphasizing the importance of the right of all citizens to have access to public information. [Jeon]

ACLU challenges state subpoena of civil rights lawyer's computer
Victory! In March, Attorney General Douglas Gansler withdrew a subpoena demanding production of a civil rights lawyer’s computer hard drive and personnel records in a long-running voting rights dispute between the Maryland Green Party and the State Board of Elections. In early 2007, the ACLU appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to quash the subpoena – which had been served upon the lawyer’s employer, Montgomery College. Shortly thereafter, Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, took the matter up for review on its own motion.

The controversy arose in a voting rights case in which the Maryland Green Party successfully challenged the constitutionality of state election laws and practices that denied a Green Party candidate a place on the ballot during the 2000 Congressional elections. The courts decided that the State is required to pay the Green Party’s legal fees under civil rights laws. But the litigation has dragged on for years as the State has sought to delay or avoid payment of those fees. On top of that, the State subpoenaed from the non-party employer of one of the lawyers, all of the lawyers' personnel files and his computer hard drive, which contains numerous privileged documents and communications. In its appeal, the ACLU argued that enforcement of the subpoena would have undermined both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine – two of the oldest and most fundamental protections clients and their lawyers have under the law. The ACLU also argued that the subpoena would discourage private parties and lawyers from taking up civil rights causes, for fear that their success in doing so would expose them to unreasonable government intrusions upon their privacy.

Numerous civil rights and legal groups joined the ACLU as “friends of the court” supporting the effort to quash the subpoena, because of its potential to undermine enforcement of civil rights law. Creighton R. Magid and Beth Forsythe, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP; C. Christopher Brown, Brown Goldstein & Levy; Frank Dunbaugh; Mark Miller. [Jeon & Rocah]

Koshko v. Haining
Victory! The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of two parents who are challenging a court order that granted visitation rights with their children to their maternal grandparents. A trial court had granted visitation rights to the grandparents on the basis of their prior relationship with the grandchildren, despite the parents’ strong and personal opposition. The ACLU joined the Public Justice Center in an amicus brief arguing that Maryland’s Grandparent Visitation Statute fails to adequately protect the presumption that fit parents make decisions in the best interests of their children. The Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision, finding that the state had interfered in the fundamental right of the parents to make decisions regarding their children. The State can only intervene if the court finds that the parent is unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist. [Rocah]

Uncovering surveillance of local peace groups
Pending. The ACLU filed numerous public information requests to federal and state law enforcement agencies following reports that Baltimore peace groups have been targets of police spying. The requests, filed under the Maryland Public Information Act and the federal Freedom of Information Act, seek any documents relating to surveillance of the groups. The ACLU has filed many lawsuits nationwide based on troubling evidence of unconstitutional government spying revealed as a result information requests. Kit Pierson and Richard Rinkema (Heller Ehrman). [Rocah]

First Amendment Wins in Challenge to Baltimore County’s Unconstitutional Political Sign Ordinance
Victory! Baltimore County residents enjoyed a big victory in July 2007 when U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake decided in Bell v. Baltimore County to strike down a County regulation that unconstitutionally restricted their right to display political signs in their own front yards. Judge Blake heard arguments on cross motions for summary judgment in the case and then made her ruling from the bench.

In February 2007, ACLU filed the lawsuit after the County ignored the ACLU’s repeated requests to abandon the proposal and passed the regulation. A nearly identical Baltimore County law was enjoined as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1998. As a result of the Fourth Circuit ruling, the County rescinded that law, only to reenact a similar regulation eight years later. Enforcement of the new regulation had been stayed by agreement between the County and the ACLU since the challenge was filed. ACLU’s lawsuit charged that the Baltimore County zoning regulation unconstitutionally restricted the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of county residents by preventing them from displaying political campaign signs on their private property. The regulation restricted the time during which residents could display most political campaign signs to 45 days prior to any primary election, and seven days after the general election. Such provisions would have been tantamount to a ban on political speech for anywhere from seven to ten months each year. Russell Duncan, Kathleen Orr, Zeno Baucus, Jeff Showalter and Bridgette Ahn (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.) [Jeon]

ACLU opposes Frederick County’s anti-lawsuit proposal
Victory! The County abandoned its proposal to amend its personnel rules to authorized discipline of county employees who file any legal claim against the County, no matter how meritorious the claim. ACLU contacted the County Commissioners urging them to reject the proposal on grounds that it was blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as well as numerous statutory safeguards against employer retaliation. [Deborah Jeon]

Protecting the right to register voters on public property 
Pending. Project VOTE and ACORN, two organizations that work together in the Baltimore area to conduct voter registration drives, have been told by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) that they cannot conduct voter registration activities on MTA property. The groups were told by MTA police that voter registration activities were illegal on MTA property, which extends well beyond the entrance to the Train, Light Rail and Bus stations, making it virtually impossible for the organizations to talk effectively with MTA patrons and ask them if they wish to register to vote. These sites are especially important to Project Vote and ACORN because the organizations wish to register low income minority citizens and many of the patrons at these sites meet this demographic.

ACLU was surprised to learn that a regulation does exist which requires that permits be obtained to engage in "free speech" activities at MTA bus stops and rail stations. After learning of this requirement, ACORN applied for permits for its voter registration work in order to determine how burdensome it is and whether the permits are respected by MTA police once issued. After waiting almost a week, they were issued a permit. The permit allowed certain designated people to register voters at one bus stop for no longer than 48 hours. As required by the regulations, these groups must apply for a permit for each 48-hour period that they wish to register voters on MTA properties. Despite this burden, Project VOTE and ACORN applied for additional permits. Instead of receiving permits in response to their second round of applications, they received a letter from MTA’s Customer Service Manager informing them that an ACORN representative had been witnessed registering voters on a MTA property without a permit and therefore all pending applications for permits are denied and no additional permits would be issued to ACORN.

In an attempt to resolve the matter, ACLU sent a letter to the MTA detailing the constitutional flaws in the MTA regulation, on its face, and as it has been applied to ACORN. The MTA’s response was entirely dismissive of all concerns. They claimed that their regulations are necessary to ensure the “safety of its patrons and security of its property.” On January 12, 2007, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the MTA to drop the requirement for a “free speech” permit and rescind the punitive ban issued to ACORN and all of its employees. David Schnorrenberg, Clyde Findley, Todd Cochran, and Shari Lahlou (Crowell & Moring.) [Jeon, Rocah, Amy Cruice]

Challenging photography restrictions on public property
Pending. During an investigation of free speech restrictions on Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) property, an ACLU employee was approached by a MTA officer, who ordered her to stop using her hand-held camera on MTA property. The officer claimed that she was prohibited from taking pictures while on MTA property and that, even if she left the property, she could never photograph MTA buses. This policy is a free speech violation, as photography constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment. Moreover, the ACLU opposes overly restrictive photography policies because, in an era of cell-phone and digital cameras, these policies create a state where every transit passenger is suspect. When everyone is a suspect, the police are more likely to make arbitrary or discriminatory arrests creating tension between police and MTA riders.

The ACLU of Maryland wrote a letter to MTA to explain that overly restrictive policies violate the First Amendment and ask them to clarify their position on photography. The MTA responded, stating that they intend to keep their restrictions on photography of its sites. The ACLU has retained cooperating counsel and is pursuing the matter. Jodi Trulove and Amber Garza (Dickstein, Shapiro). [Rocah, Jeon, Cruice]

Free speech on the job: Andrew v. Clark
Pending. We have agreed to file an amicus brief in the 4th Circuit in Andrew v. Clark, a First Amendment retaliation case recently dismissed by the District Court. Maj. Michael Andrew was the commander of the Eastern District in the BCPD in 2003. In December of that year, BCPD tactical officers shot and killed an elderly man who had barricaded himself inside his apartment within the Eastern District. Nine days later, Andrew prepared a memo for the Police Commissioner which he forwarded up the chain of command, expressing his “serious concerns” about the way in which the incident had been handled. When the commissioner failed to respond to the memo, Andrew gave a copy to the Baltimore Sun, which published an article in Jan. 2004 quoting extensively from the memo. After the article was published, the BCPD charged Andrew with giving confidential information to the media, and eventually fired him in September of 2004. (He was subsequently rehired) Andrew filed suit alleging that his termination violated the First Amendment, because it was done in retaliation for his leak of the memo to the press.

The District Court found that Andrew’s claims were barred by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ceballos v. Garcetti, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006), which held that there is no First Amendment protection for statements made by a government official on a matter of public concern as long as the statements are made as part of the official’s job duties (Garcetti involved a prosecutor who claimed he was disciplined for writing a memo to his superiors recommending that a prosecution be dismissed). Even if the District Court was correct that the memo at issue in this case was written as part of Maj. Andrews’ job duties, we believe that he was wrong in concluding that the separate act of providing that memo to the Sun was part of Andrew’s job duties, and that the court was therefore also wrong in concluding that the whistleblowing activity was unprotected. If a decision like this is allowed to stand, government employees who become aware of wrongdoing in the workplace will have no constitutional remedy. They can be disciplined for concerns that they express internally, as part of their job, and now can be disciplined for expressing the same concerns publicly. Moreover, not only did the Court in Ceballos not address the situation here, where the employee is disciplined for expressing his or her concerns publicly, it explicitly suggested that such activity would still be protected. [Rocah]

Protecting the Rights of Romani Fortune-Tellers
Victory! The ACLU assisted attorney Robin Cockey in challenging the denial of a fortune-teller's permit to a Romani resident of Wicomico County. The County had amended its fortune telling ordinance in 1999, after discovering the property ownership and residency requirements for permit acquisition violated the Equal Protection Clause and constituted an unconstitutional burden on free speech. Despite the change, the County Council used these very same criteria to deny the resident's request. The ACLU quickly recognized this mistake, leaving the County no choice but to issue the permit. Although discrimination against the Romani people goes largely unnoticed, it is a very real problem. Challenging fortune-telling statutes which disproportionately affect Romani citizens is an important step toward ensuring equal protection for an under recognized and poorly understood segment of society. [Jeon]

Political patronage in Caroline County: Runnels v. Newell
Pending. The Court of Special Appeals heard oral argument in June in the ACLU’s appeal from a Circuit Court judge's dismissal of this action by two Eastern Shore clerical workers who were fired because of their open political support for their supervisor, who lost his re-election bid as State's Attorney. The lawsuit, filed in December 2003 in Caroline County Circuit Court, argued that Susan Runnels and Marge Cooper were within their rights in engaging in non-disruptive, off-duty political speech, and should not have been subject to a patronage dismissal. Employment records show that up until the time they were fired, Runnels and Cooper were excellent employees. Only one month before her termination, Ms. Runnels was rated “Outstanding,” the highest rating possible. Likewise, Ms. Cooper was a highly rated employee who had been honored just two years earlier with the Governor’s Victim Assistance Award. In dismissing the case, the trial judge agreed with the ACLU that the plaintiffs' speech was non-disruptive, but ruled that the incoming State's Attorney had absolute discretion to hire and fire whomever he chose. Thomas X. Glancy (Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander).

Challenging restrictions on free speech in the Inner Harbor: Cunningham v. Flowers
Victory! The Women in Black, who stand in silent witness against war, reported being harassed by police in Baltimore City’s Inner Harbor. We sued the City of Baltimore, seeking to overturn unconstitutional provisions in the City’s Department of Recreation and Parks regulations, including a requirement that even a party of one person had to pay for a city permit prior to exercising his or her free speech rights in the Inner Harbor. The city immediately accepted a temporary agreement that dispenses with the permit requirement for any group of 25 or less. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment concerning the legality of the city’s permitting scheme. Legal action is on hold pending settlement discussions. Carmen Shepard (Buc & Beardsley). [Goering, Rajeev Goyle, and Rocah]

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene v. Kelly
Victory! We filed an amicus curiae brief in this case concerning the legal standard for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication on patients involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities on behalf of Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Council for Community Behavioral Health Care, and the National Mental Health Association. The State had argued that it could involuntarily administer psychotropic medications to Mr. Kelly, who had not been judged incompetent to make medical decisions, on the basis that he was a danger to others in the community. We argued that for involuntarily committed persons, danger to self or others in the community could not be the appropriate standard, and that courts should look at whether the patient was a danger to self or others in their current treatment setting (because danger to self or others in the community is one of the criteria for the involuntary commitment in the first place). We believed that if the state’s view were accepted, involuntarily committed persons would have no meaningful protection against forced medication. On March 14, 2007, the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Kelly’s and our position. John T. Rich, Melissa B. Hutchens (Goodwin Proctor). [Rocah]

Securing rights of blind bus riders under the ADA
Pending. The ACLU has taken over representation in this action to enforce a consent decree concerning the accessibility of the bus system in Baltimore to blind riders. In 1999, the original case was filed against the Maryland Transit Authority by a private attorney on behalf of Phillip Guntner and two other plaintiffs (later dismissed from the case for lack of standing.) The suit sought relief pursuant to Title II of the ADA alleging that Baltimore City bus drivers regularly fail to announce bus stops and transfer points so that visually impaired riders will know where to get off. Following the denial of the State's motion to dismiss in 2002, the Mr. Guntner and the State entered into a Consent Decree in July 2003. Although the consent decree gave the MTA a five-year phase-in period to achieve full compliance, state officials already have violated the decree by failing to make the first steps required in a timely way. Mr. Guntner currently relies on alternative modes of transportation, none of which is as convenient and affordable as the public bus system that is available to persons without vision impairments and other disabilities. Following the withdrawal of the plaintiffs' counsel from the case, the ACLU Project took over representation of Mr. Guntner to ensure the MTA's compliance with the ADA and ensure that Baltimore's buses are fully accessible to visually impaired riders. Kathleen Behan, Grant Bagley, and John McInnes (Arnold & Porter). [Jeon and Rocah]

Knussman v. Maryland State Police
Victory! Kevin Knussman, a former Maryland State Trooper and paramedic, was denied family leave to care for his then-newborn daughter and seriously ill wife. The ACLU filed suit in 1995, alleging that the Maryland State Police wrongfully denied Knussman's leave requests solely because of his gender, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We prevailed at trial in 1999, securing complete declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as substantial monetary damages. Appeals pursued by the defendants to dodge responsibility for the discrimination and contesting payment of attorneys' fees kept the case alive years longer. Finally, in late April 2005 -- nearly a decade to the day after filing of the original lawsuit and a few months after the "newborn" daughter at the heart of the case celebrated her 10th birthday -- the Maryland Board of Public Works approved payment of attorneys' fees to Mr. Knussman, as ordered by the Court, thereby putting an end to the case. Robin R. Cockey (Cockey, Brennan & Maloney) and Andrew D. Freeman (Brown, Goldstein & Levy). [Jeon]

A Helping Hand v. Baltimore County
Victory (for now)! Since at least 1997, Baltimore County has, through its zoning regulations, resisted applications of private companies to open methadone treatment clinics for opiate addiction. The county was sued in 1997 by one such applicant in White Marsh and found to be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a result, that applicant was able to establish a methadone clinic. In 2002, in response to community opposition in Pikesville to a new proposed methadone clinic, the county redrafted its zoning regulations with retroactive effect to shut down the clinic that had hours before established itself under the previous permitting process.

The Pikesville clinic filed suit in 2002, making claims under the ADA. In December 2005, the ACLU joined the case, which was heard before the Federal District Court in July. In August, the clinic won a jury verdict. The verdict found that the county intentionally discriminated against the clinic and its patients, and violated the clinic’s due process rights. Baltimore County appealed the ruling in mid-September, and the ACLU is representing the clinic in defending the verdict on appeal. Rick Simpson and Jimmy Rock (Ross, Dixon & Bell), Steven J. Barber and Jeffrey D. Bradford (Steptoe & Johnson), Emanuel M. Levin, and Joel Richmond. [Jeon, Griffiths]

Defending the rights of parents with HIV/AIDS and their children: B.G. v. M.R.
Pending. We joined our national HIV/AIDS project in filing an amicus brief in this custody case on behalf of AIDS Action Baltimore, American Academy of HIV Medicine, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, HIV Medicine Association, and Whitman Walker Clinic. The father in the case has AIDS and was found by the trial court to be an unfit parent due solely to sporadic lapses in taking his medications (citing his several AIDS related illnesses and disabilities.) The court awarded custody of the children to the maternal grandmother, who was 75 years old, and had had two heart attacks. Our brief argued that the evidence of sporadic noncompliance with the complex medication regime faced by AIDS patients was insufficient to establish parental unfitness, and that the constitutional protection for afforded parent-child relationships precluded an award of custody on that basis. We also argued that allowing such a decision to stand would have terrible implications for the many children throughout the country whose parents are living with HIV. The Court of Special Appeals heard oral argument on October 10, 2007. [Rocah]

Wanda Archer, et al. v. Town of Elkton, et al.: Elkton’s homeless camps raided and belongings seized
Victory (in part.) On August 23, 2006, Town employees – acting on orders of the local police – pulled up in early morning, without a warrant and with no notice, to destroy the meager belongings of a small group of homeless people living in the Elkton woods. Those items that were bulldozed and dumped as trash included tents, food, and sleeping bags donated by local churches. In addition, important documents such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, and drivers’ licenses were destroyed. But the most devastating losses were of priceless and irreplaceable personal belongings, such as family heirlooms passed down from deceased relatives, photographs of now-grown children and deceased parents, Bibles, and wedding rings. All of these items were destroyed after the homeless individuals had left the camp in the morning; police threatened those who realized what was happening and tried to salvage their belongings with arrest and $2,000 fines. Many of those victimized by this action had no place else to live except the woods, as there were long waiting lists for shelter beds in Elkton.

In July 2007, ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of nine of the individuals who were living in the woods of Elkton during the illegal “clearing” of their campsite. The lawsuit challenges the Town’s raid of the campsite and trashing of the plaintiffs’ belongings as unconstitutional, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent similar police actions, as well as monetary damages. The plaintiffs also sought to invalidate the Town’s loitering law for vagueness and overbreadth, failure to provide notice to the public – or guidance to police -- about what conduct was prohibited, and exposure of homeless people to selective and inappropriate enforcement by police. The ordinance also violated First Amendment rights by imposing a blanket ban on panhandling in public, which is a protected free speech activity.

Recognizing the unconstitutionality of the loitering ordinance enacted by the Town in June, the Elkton Town Commission voted unanimously on September 5, 2007 to rescind the law—acting just days before the Town was due to answer the ACLU’s lawsuit in federal court. Prior to filing suit, the ACLU had cautioned the Town that the proposed law was unconstitutional, but officials voted to pass it anyway. The Town’s repeal of the law resolves only that portion of the lawsuit. Tim McCormack, Matthew Summers, Jennifer Keyser, and Lisa Welsh (Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP.) [Cruice, Jeon, Persia Swift]

Fighting racial profiling: Maryland NAACP v. Maryland State Police
Victory (in part)! ACLU continues its fight against race-based traffic searches in this long-running successor case to Wilkins v. Maryland State Police. The Wilkins case, one of the first to call national attention to police targeting of motorists for "driving while black," was filed in 1993 on behalf of an African-American public defender and his family who were wrongfully stopped and searched in western Maryland by state troopers using a racial profile. Under a settlement reached in 1995, the Maryland State Police (MSP) agreed not to use racial profiles and to keep detailed records of all motorist searches for review by the court and the ACLU. The MSP data provided strong evidence that race-based searches were continuing; along some stretches of Interstate 95, for example, 73% of the drivers stopped and searched were African-American, even though black motorists accounted for only about 17% of highway traffic in those areas. In 1997, the federal court agreed with the ACLU that the MSP was continuing to engage in a pattern and practice of race discrimination in violation of the 1995 settlement. Armed with MSP data and the court’s ruling, ACLU then filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the Maryland NAACP and 18 individual minority motorists who had been discriminatorily searched as a result of MSP’s highway drug interdiction efforts. In a nationally important 1999 opinion, Federal District Court Judge Catherine Blake rejected the MSP’s request for dismissal of the NAACP case. Following several years of contentious settlement negotiations, the state agreed to make comprehensive changes in police policy to address ACLU concerns. In May 2003, the consent decree was entered by the court, resolving all equitable claims in the case, and providing a national model for resolution of racial profiling litigation. Since entry of the decree, we have been both ensuring that the MSP comply with the consent decree and forging ahead with representing the individual motorists' in their claims for monetary damages. We have now concluded fact discovery and briefed summary judgment. Following completion of discovery, the court permitted a core of the damages claims to proceed to trial. Expert discovery is now under way, with trial expected to take place late in 2007. Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Mark Saudek, Therese Goldsmith, Allison Stanton, Peter Lallas (Hogan & Hartson); Brian Schwalb, Robert Wilkins, LaShon Kell, Mark McDonald (Venable); and Reginald T. Shuford. [Jeon]

Standing up against English-only ordinance in Carroll County 
Victory (in part)! The ACLU recently asked Taneytown to drop a proposal to make the town’s official language English. The original proposal would have required that all city business be conducted in English, directly blocking the first-amendment rights of non-English speakers in Taneytown. The city board passed a resolution suggesting that all city business be conducted in English, but did not pass a similar ordinance, which would have made the resolution enforceable. [Cindy Boersma]

Investigating racial disparities in traffic stops
Closed. Upon learning of racial imbalances in statistics on traffic stops conducted by the Anne Arundel County Police, the ACLU wrote the County Executive to request an investigation into the reported disparities. We also requested more detailed data about traffic stops and searches conducted by the Anne Arundel police. The County promptly contacted us in response to our inquiry, and we met with the Police Chief and a representative from the County Executive's Office to discuss our concerns. The County compiled additional information and offered analysis of the traffic stops, as well as compiling information we requested on motorist searches. We reviewed all information provided, and made detailed recommendations for addressing the concerns it raised. [Jeon]

Ensuring religious tolerance in Howard County schools
[Victory!.for now] Concerned about a potential change in the Howard County School System’s religious observance policy, ACLU found that approximately 15 Muslim students in Howard County schools are excused 20 minutes early on Fridays to attend off-campus congregational prayers, as their religion requires. The proposed Howard County School policy would restrict the weekly excused absence to an on-campus location. This accommodation does not allow Muslims to pray in a congregation at a particular time on Friday, as their religion requires. We wrote the school board to explain that Howard County School System must have a compelling reason to disallow an excused absence for the Muslim students when so many other excuses are accepted for absences – medical needs, funerals, court summonses, poor weather conditions, observance of religious holidays, and lack of transportation. In the letter we recognized the school system’s instructional responsibilities, pointed to other states where Muslim students only miss 1.25% of the school year’s instructional time, and urged Howard County School System to reject any change to the religious observance policy that would infringe upon the rights of their students. In June, the Howard County School Board reviewed policy changes made by a policy review committee, but voted not to accept the changes. Throughout the next school year, the Board will consider how many students will be affected by the policy, the impact on teachers, and the affect of the policy on students of all religions. [Griffiths]

Deane and Polyak v. Conaway
Click here for the latest civil marriage news!
Closed. In September 2007, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a disappointing ruling upholding a state law that bars same-sex couples from marrying and accessing the hundreds of family protections provided to married couples and their children under state law. The ACLU’s lawsuit charged that the state law denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Maryland constitution’s guarantees of equality and due process. The case, originally filed in July of 2004, is on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner passed away. The couples come from all walks of life—a former civil rights worker, a bus driver, a paramedic, a teacher, a dentist and a former police officer—and from across the State. Some of the couples have been together for decades, and others are raising children. All have formed families in every meaningful sense of the word, but Maryland’s statutory law refuses to take that reality into account. Each of the plaintiffs has experienced some of the harms posed by the state’s denial of marriage equality. Some have been barred from visiting their partners in the hospital or left out of decisions about emergency medical care. After facing the tragic death of a partner, one of the plaintiffs suffered the additional tragedy of being treated as a legal stranger to the man he loved, losing the home they shared, and being forced to negotiate with estranged family to comply with his partner’s burial wishes. Other plaintiffs are parents who have had to go through complex and expensive court procedures to establish a legal relationship with their children. In January 2006, Baltimore Circuit Court judge Brooke Murdock issued a decision finding that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry violates the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment, which protects against discrimination based on sex. The court ruled, “When tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest.” Andrew H. Baida and Caroline D. Ciraolo (Rosenberg Martin Funk Greenberg, LLP), Ken Choe (ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project), Art Spitzer (ACLU of the National Capital Area). [Rocah]

Marks v. Kahlor
Victory (in part)! Janice Marks and Margaret Kahlor adopted a girl from India after being together for more than 20 years. Margaret did not participate in the adoption because the Indian agency would not allow a child to be adopted by two women, and never completed a second-parent adoption, which would have granted Margaret a legal relationship with the child. When the couple split up last year, they ended up in court to resolve custody and visitation rights.

The circuit court granted Margaret's request for visitation, holding that she was a de facto parent and therefore, the appropriate standard for visitation was the best interest of the child. However, the court rejected her claim for custody, holding that she was a third party and could only get custody upon a showing of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances, which the court said she failed to demonstrate.

The parties both appealed the ruling. The ACLU filed an amicus brief, arguing that once de facto parenthood is established, such parents have a constitutional right to maintain a relationship with their children equal to that of legal parents. The Court ruled that a de facto parent is guaranteed visitation rights, but must prove parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances to gain custody. [Rocah]

Protecting gay service members from further discrimination
Victory! The ACLU was contacted by a woman who was discharged from the U.S. Army under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (“DADT”) policy for engaging in homosexual conduct. Pursuant to the Army’s prohibition on openly gay service members, she was given an RE-4 reenlistment code, which indicates that she is not allowed to reenlist in the armed forces (this code is given to people who are not allowed to reenlist for a wide variety of reasons, not just their sexual orientation). When Ms. Flynn applied for a job with the Baltimore City Police Department (BCPD), she was told that the RE-4 designation on her discharge papers was a bar to her employment with the Department. The ACLU filed a complaint on her behalf with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations. During the course of mediation on that complaint, the BCPD contended that Ms. Flynn had not been rejected due to the RE-4 code, but to prior drug use when she was a teenager. The BCPD has agreed to clarify its policy regarding persons discharged from the military under DADT, to make clear that such discharges are not a bar or detriment to employment with the BCPD. We are currently working with the BCPD to agree on the language of a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) that will give recruiters written guidance. Christopher Calsyn, Barry Parsons, Jeffrey Poston, and Kris Meade (Crowell & Moring.) [Rocah]

Thompson v. HUD
Click here for the latest fair housing news
Victory (in part)! The ACLU represents over 14,000 Baltimore families in this landmark class action challenge to six decades of discrimination in public housing. The case was propelled by the demolition of high-rise housing projects in downtown Baltimore and by the city’s plan to rebuild all of the demolished units in the same segregated, economically depressed locations. In 1996, a federal court judge approved a partial consent decree that required the city and federal governments to make available certificates for some of the dislocated families to move to areas with low concentrations of poverty and minority residents, primarily in the surrounding suburbs.

In December 2003, the ACLU participated in a month-long trial before U.S. District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis on the core issues of decades of illegal discrimination and segregation. At press time, the court had not yet issued a ruling as a result of the December 2003 trial. If the court finds the government agencies liable, in whole or in part, for creating and maintaining segregated public housing, a second "remedial phase" of the trial will be held to determine appropriate solutions. Meanwhile, progress is now being made in carrying out an earlier "partial settlement" of the case, including a regional plan to demolish and replace 3,000 units of high-rise public housing. Additionally, since June 2003, more than 300 poor families have moved to better housing in low-poverty and integrated neighborhoods throughout the Baltimore metropolitan region. Over 4,000 families have applied for the new desegregative housing programs. Finally, in December 2004 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a lower court decision extending HUD’s participation in the 1996 partial consent decree and the courts enforcement authority over HUD. Wilma Lewis and David Haga (Crowell & Moring), Susan Podolsky, Brian Hauck, and Olivier Sylvain (Jenner & Block), and C. Christopher Brown and Andrew Freeman (Brown, Goldstein & Levy). [Barbara Samuels, Laura Corcoran]

Montgomery County v. Glenmont Hills Privacy World
Pending. The Project filed an amicus brief in support of Montgomery County's fair housing law that prohibits landlords from discriminating against renters or prospective renters based on a renter’s source of income, including specifically her status as a voucher recipient. This case involves a landlord's appeal of an administrative decision of the Montgomery County Human Relations Commission Review Board. Based on undisputed evidence, the Board found that Glenmont Hills had refused to rent to a voucher holder specifically because it had an overt policy against accepting vouchers. It found the landlord in violation of the provisions of the County's fair housing law prohibiting discrimination based on source of income.

The landlord brought the case to court and the Montgomery County Circuit Court held that the landlord had offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to accept vouchers (it claimed "undue burden" due to extra administrative work). The case is now in the Court of Appeals and argument was heard on October 9. ACLU’s Fair Housing Managing Attorney helped to organize the amicus effort in this case, which is supported by Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the AARP, Howard University Law School, Public Justice Center, and Maryland Disability Law Center. [Samuels]

Defending local governments’ rights to prohibit discrimination 
In late 2005, Montgomery County amended its housing discrimination ordinance to target as illegal certain lending practices, when conducted in a discriminatory manner, and to increase substantially the cap on damages for violations of the law. The new law was scheduled to take effect on March 8, 2006, but was challenged by a trade association for lending institutions in February 2006, claiming that the law was preempted by state laws regulating lending practices. The County contends that its law is within its authority because it regulates only discriminatory lending practices, and the state law exempts “civil rights” laws from preemption. The Montgomery law was preliminarily enjoined by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County just before the amendment took effect. In June 2006, the ACLU filed an amicus brief agreeing with the County that the law is a valid anti-discrimination ordinance exempt from preemption. The court struck down the law and, although the ACLU promised to support the County on appeal, the County decided not to appeal the ruling. Barry Buchman, Rich Martindale, and Alyson Foster (Gilbert, Heintz & Randolph). [Rocah]

Challenging Gaithersburg’s unconstitutional law aimed at day laborers
Pending. The ACLU is preparing to challenge an unconstitutional Gaithersburg ordinance that bans solicitation of employment of and by day laborers anywhere within city limits, including on private property visible to the public.

Day laborers in Gaithersburg, who are predominately Hispanic, traditionally have expressed their availability for employment by standing on a public sidewalk or on private parking lots with permission. Despite the fact that the City had acknowledged that day laborers generally assemble peaceably, and the fact that a City task force acknowledged that day laborers did not pose any significant traffic hazards, the task force recommended in 2006 that the day laborers be permitted to gather in only one location -- a so-called "day labor center." The City was unable to settle on a suitable site for such a center within city limits, and subsequently enacted an ordinance prohibiting all employment solicitation anywhere in Gaithersburg, following the opening of a center by Montgomery County outside city limits.

Shortly after the ordinance passed, the Montgomery County State’s Attorney notified the City that his office had concluded that the ordinance would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that he would not prosecute citations under the ordinance absent an opinion from the State Attorney General’s office. After the City asked for such an opinion, the ACLU wrote to the Attorney General offering a comprehensive analysis of the law's constitutional infirmities. In the letter, we point out how the ordinance unconstitutionally targets day laborers and their employers, and does not serve any compelling government interest that might justify its enactment.

We are hopeful that the Attorney General will agree with our analysis, in which case the law will not be enforced. We are prepared to bring suit if he does not.

Successful challenge of Frederick County’s anti-immigrant proposal
Victory. The ACLU wrote to the Frederick County Board of Commissioners to oppose a proposal by Commissioner Charles Jenkins that the county seek state authorization to require county employees to verify individuals’ U.S. citizenship as a condition for receiving county services. The proposal was being considered for inclusion in the county’s 2008 legislative agenda. The ACLU opposed the proposal as an unconstitutional and ill-conceived attempt to turn county employees into an untrained arm of the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Following a public hearing on the proposal on October 2, at which the overwhelming majority of residents spoke out against the measure, the County Council rejected the measure on October 9. [Rocah]

Protecting the rights of disabled inmates
Pending. The ACLU received complaints from inmates at an Eastern Shore prison who require wheelchairs and were confined to cells that are not wheelchair-accessible. The inmates could not access the bathroom facilities in their cell because their wheelchairs could not fit through the doorway. They were consistently forced to relieve themselves on bed pads, in their briefs, bags or trashcans. The disabled inmates also allege that other inmates were instructed to change their briefs and give them a shower. One inmate was without a wheelchair for weeks and was forced to sit in a chair and wait for a guard to move him to the bed or floor. We submitted public information requests on the inmates’ behalf for prison policies regarding the classification, housing and transfer of inmates requiring wheelchairs. We received responses to our requests and requested a meeting with Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services administration to ensure that Maryland’s prisons are fully accessible to disabled inmates. The Department’s response was unsatisfactory, failing to address most of our serious concerns. In August 2007, ACLU staff met with the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to share our concerns about medical care and accessibility in Maryland’s prisons. He has promised to look into the matter and give us a tour of the Eastern Shore prison. [Jeon, Rocah, Cruice]

Inmates repeatedly denied surgical repair for hernias
Pending. Since 2002, inmates throughout the Department of Corrections have written the ACLU for assistance in obtaining medical care for painful hernias. Inmates have been repeatedly denied surgery necessary to repair the problem – despite numerous requests from the inmates and the ACLU. According to prison officials, surgical hernia repair is “elective” treatment that they need not provide. ACLU has had a physician review inmates’ medical records and submit an affidavit advising prison authorities of his opinion that surgery should be offered to prevent potentially serious medical problems. Despite our repeated requests, the prison continued to deny inmates with the appropriate care. In August 2007, we met with the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to share our concerns about medical care and the refusal to operate on hernias. He has promised to look into the matter and schedule each of our clients for surgical repair. Elysia Solomon (O’Melveny & Myers). [Cruice, Rocah]

Ensuring medical assistance for diabetic inmate
Victory! The ACLU received a complaint from a diabetic inmate who requires a high fiber cereal supplement when taking his medication. The prison staff repeatedly denied him the cereal when he was given his daily medications, causing chronic migraines, nausea, and numerous other negative side effects. Although the inmate filed multiple complaints to the prison’s administration, he never received a response. The ACLU sent a letter to the warden of the institution, informing him of the inmate’s need for the supplement when taking his diabetes medication. The warden responded to us to report that an investigation was conducted, and that he directed dietary staff to allow the inmate to sign a receipt of the cereal to ensure its consumption. [Swift]

Preserving inmates’ First Amendment rights
Victory! We received a complaint from an inmate who was prohibited from requesting religious literature about Vodoun (commonly referred to as Voodoo) and Santeria by mail. The inmate was in the process of writing a book on the history of Voodoo and Santeria and requested research materials by mail from a friend as well as books from sources outside the facility. The institution denied him access to the materials on the grounds that Voodoo is not a religion approved by the Division of Corrections. The warden dismissed the complaints that the inmate filed regarding this matter. The ACLU sent a letter to the acting warden of the prison to inform him of the inmate’s First Amendment right to receive information while incarcerated. We noted that, according to the Division of Corrections’ own guidelines, the fact that mail contains information concerning a non-approved religion is not a legitimate reason to deny inmate mail. Shortly after our letter was sent to the warden, the inmate received a memo informing him that his appeal contesting the denial of his request for religious materials was decided in his favor. The inmate is now allowed to order the books and to receive materials that were previously denied by the prison’s administration. [Rocah]

Ensuring proper medical care for disabled inmates
Victories! Responding to an influx of requests from inmates in various institutions across the state suffering from inadequate medical treatment and lack of accessibility, the ACLU has contacted the wardens at several prisons to protect the health and safety of those incarcerated.

Specifically, the ACLU of Maryland has had several recent victories in preserving the rights of inmates with disabilities. The ACLU demanded and obtained a mobility cane for a blind man who was forced to use a cane fifteen inches too short for his height, causing him to walk into doors, steps and other inmates. The ACLU assisted another individual in obtaining functional hearing aides after the prison refused to replace his twelve-year-old aides that had not been working properly for over two years.

In both of these cases, the inmates submitted several formal grievances to the prison administration before contacting the ACLU for assistance. Their grievances were either denied or ignored by prison staff. The ACLU investigated these matters and sent letters to the wardens of the institutions to request that they immediately investigate and provide the inmates with adequate medical care and the medical supplies they need to be safe. [Swift]

Ameliorating conditions in Baltimore City detention centers
Victory (in part)! When substandard living conditions aggravated by the scorching summer of 2002 led to a crisis inside the Women's Detention Center (WDC) in Baltimore -- with indoor surface air temperatures above 117 degrees -- the ACLU re-opened a longstanding case and consent decree against the WDC to demand court intervention on behalf of at-risk female inmates. After securing a temporary restraining order to require immediate measures to cool the facility, we negotiated a comprehensive consent decree requiring emergency heat procedures to be in place during the summer months, revised medical protocols, and required study of the physical plant. The decree empowered lawyers and advocates to closely monitor conditions at the jail.

In the summer of 2003, we found that despite the court’s order, women at WDC were once again subjected to excessive heat with recorded surface air temperatures reaching up to 108 degrees. The ACLU returned to court to enforce the consent decree, and following court hearings, the court assisted the parties in crafting amendments to the decree to provide greater protection for women inmates.

Continued monitoring by the ACLU and Public Justice Center led to a December 2003 filing of a motion to reopen the original consent decree reached in Duvall v. Glendening and require ongoing court monitoring of the detention center. In addition to seeking to ameliorate conditions at WDC, the motion asked for improvements in conditions for all detainees at the Baltimore City Detention Center (which houses all Baltimore City detainees and includes WDC). The motion highlighted multiple cases of serious medical neglect at the jail that have resulted in aggravation of inmates’ chronic medical conditions and in some case caused their untimely death. For example, a doctor ordered a re-evaluation of a detainee with asthma but the re-evaluation never occurred. The detainee eventually died of an acute asthma attack when his inhaler failed to work because of overuse. In another case, a woman committed suicide after a physician’s order regarding suicide precautions was not followed. In addition to medical complaints, the motion highlighted serious physical plant and sanitation risks, including multiple incidents of raw sewage flooding inmate dorms due to broken plumbing systems, a dysfunctional ventilation system, and food preparation in insect and mouse-infested kitchens.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 25, 2004, before U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz. He rejected the detention center’s motion to terminate the consent decree, ruling that the ACLU had provided sufficient evidence to show that constitutional violations are ongoing, so as to overcome the jail’s contrary claims. The state appealed Judge Motz’s decision to the Fourth Circuit, but the ACLU convinced that Court that the appeal was premature, and it was dismissed. Those decisions moved the case into discovery, providing the ACLU access to records to support our contentions and the potential to ameliorate the unconstitutional conditions at the jail. Thereafter, serious settlement negotiations were undertaken, and remain underway. Elizabeth Alexander (ACLU National Prison Project) and Wendy Hess and Sally Dvorak-Fisher (Public Justice Center). [Jeon]

Maryland’s death penalty regulations violate law
Victory! In December 2006, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the ACLU in a lawsuit challenging the regulations that govern the state’s administration of the death penalty. We argued that the regulations are not in compliance with the law, and called for an immediate halt to executions until the State is in compliance. The high court agreed and has suspended executions, unless and until the General Assembly exempts the protocol from the requirement of the APA. The ACLU is now calling on the Maryland General Assembly to take this opportunity to once and for all end capital punishment in Maryland. The ACLU joined with the national NAACP and Maryland Citizens Against State Executions to challenge the validity of the regulations set forth in the Division of Corrections’ (DOC) Execution Operations Manual. The DOC has been solely responsible for adopting regulations that set forth the proper procedures for carrying out death sentences. Several of the regulations conflict with the Death Penalty statute. Most significantly, the DOC uses an additional drug in the lethal injection cocktail that was not approved by the legislature. Additionally, the regulations were promulgated in violation of the State’s Administrative Procedure Act because the DOC did not comply with the notice and comment requirement. The DOC also does not provide adequate training for the personnel charged with carrying out the executions. In February 2006, the Maryland Court of Appeals stayed Vernon Evans’ execution and oral argument were heard last May. A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Todd Zubler, Kalea Seitz Clark, Anne Harden Tindall, and Anne H. Geraghty (Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr) and Jeffery O’Toole and Julie Dietrich (O’Toole, Rothwell, Nassau & Steinbach.) [Jeon and Curtis]

Challenging widespread illegal arrests by the Baltimore City Police Department
Pending. In June 2006, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the Baltimore City Police Department’s pattern and practice of illegally arresting tens of thousands of individuals each year who are not and cannot be prosecuted. The ACLU offered concrete proposals for reform with the legal filing to help ensure effective law enforcement for residents without violating their rights. Plaintiffs in the case include the State NAACP Conference, the City NAACP, and several individuals who have had their rights violated when they were illegally arrested by Baltimore City police officers.

Our plaintiffs, along with the thousands of others swept into the net, were taken to the state-run Central Booking, where they were illegally strip-searched and incarcerated – for as long as 54 hours – in grossly overcrowded, filthy, and inhumane conditions, before prosecutors released them without charges (on grounds that prosecution is not viable, as no actual crime could be proven.) Mitch Karlan, Wayne Schrader, Daniel Cantu, Scott Dodson, Jason Morrow, Jason Mendro, and Jan Geht (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP). [Jeon and Rocah]

ACLU Suing the State Police for Withholding Public Records Related to ‘Driving While Black’ Lawsuit
Pending. In September 2007, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP) under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) for improperly withholding records and imposing excessive costs for those records it would produce. The case, which was filed on behalf of the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, seeks information and documents relating to the MSP’s compliance with a federal court Consent Decree in the our “Driving While Black” litigation. The lawsuit charges violations of the law, stemming from an information request initially made by the NAACP in February 2007. The MPIA requires that “a custodian shall permit a person or governmental unit to inspect any public record at any reasonable time.” However, several portions of the NAACP’s request were completely denied, including requests for records related to the MSP's internal investigations of racial profiling complaints. For those records it has agreed to produce, MSP tabulated the cost of its production at over $55,000 – an exorbitant sum. The MPIA requires that any charge for providing records be a “fee bearing reasonable relationship to the recovery of actual costs incurred by a government unit.” But the fee demanded by MSP for the records it agreed to provide is exponentially more than is required by other state agencies. Robert Wilkins, Hector G. Bladuell, Brian L. Schwalb, Seth A. Rosenthal, and Daniel P. Moylan (Venable LLP), Reginald Shuford (National ACLU’s Racial Justice Program.) [Jeon]

Students in Kent County School Drug Sweep Case Win Landmark Settlement
Victory! Three years after taking a courageous stand against excessive police action at their public high school, two young women from Kent County have won the most significant settlement of a school search case in Maryland history – including $285,000 in monetary damages and written apologies from both the school system and Sheriff’s Department.

In 2004, Heather Gore and Jessica Bedell were among 18 Kent County High School students subjected to an illegal, unconstitutional, and warrantless, investigative drug sweep during which drug-sniffing dogs were deployed, students’ bags were unlawfully seized and searched, and humiliating bodily searches were performed on students without any reasonable or just cause. The ACLU filed suit on the girls’ behalf in November 2005, contending that the actions of the school and law enforcement officials violated students’ rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Maryland Constitution, and state law, as well as state and local educational rules and regulations governing the conduct of school searches. The school system quickly expressed regret at the scope of the sweep, and no similar searches have occurred since in Kent County schools.

The school system has agreed to pay $67,500 to Ms. Gore and $57,500 to Ms. Bedell, and also has issued an official apology that recognizes that neither student had illegal substances, nor had violated any law or regulation, when the wrongful searches took place. The Sheriff’s Department has agreed to pay $160,000, to be shared between the two young women. In addition, the police defendants have agreed to issue a statement of regret. Both young women intend to use funds from the settlement toward their higher education expenses. Joseph D. Tydings, Barry J. Fleishman, Christopher F. Branch, Vivek Chopra, Carolyne A. Sanin, John C. Snodgrass and Christopher L. LaFon (Dickstein, Shapiro LLP.) [Jeon and Cruice]

Woman arrested for photographing abusive police: State v. Farrell
Victory! Ms. Farrell was charged with three counts of obstructing a peace officer when she refused orders from St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s officers to turn over a disposable camera used to take pictures of the damage to her home caused by officers in the course of arresting her son. The ACLU was concerned that the police demanded the phone because of concern that it might contain evidence of police misconduct and believed that her refusal to turn over the phone was not a crime. The ACLU teamed up with an expert criminal defense attorney to defend Ms. Farrell against the criminal charges. The State’s Attorney agreed to drop all charges against Ms. Farrell and returned the film to her. Josh Treem (Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell.) [Rocah]

Princess Anne curfew
Victory! In October 2007, it came to our attention that the Town of Princess Anne is considering enactment of a juvenile curfew law. The ACLU strongly opposes such laws, and has filed litigation in numerous cities and towns around the country challenging these laws. We immediately wrote to the Town Commission to detail why curfew laws are generally unconstitutional and unenforceable in practice, and share the prevailing policy arguments against such laws. We referred the Town to the many studies that show that juvenile curfew laws seldom reduce crime. Rather, they divert police from pursuit of serious offenders and force them to squander valuable resources on those committing trivial infractions. Curfew laws deny both young people and their parents the “inalienable” right of liberty. Liberty includes the right to sit outdoors on a hot summer night, to go jogging early in the morning before school, or to walk home after visiting friends and family. Such activities do no harm to anyone, and thus cannot be made a crime. After receiving our letter of concern and learning that the Chief of the local police department doubted the effectiveness of a curfew, the Town abandoned the proposal. [Jeon, Cruice]

Crisfield loitering
Pending. In September 2007, the ACLU learned that the City of Crisfield is considering a loitering law patterned after the Baltimore City law. Baltimore’s loitering law is currently the subject of a federal class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU (see “Challenging widespread illegal arrests by the Baltimore City Police“ above.) We wrote to the City Solicitor to urge the City Council to abandon its plans to adopt a loitering law. Through the decades, the ACLU has challenged such laws for both legal and policy reasons. In attempting to criminalize innocent conduct, loitering laws are inherently vulnerable to constitutional challenge. In order to write a law that might survive a constitutional challenge, the law must be made so specific as to be unenforceable. In Baltimore City, the State’s Attorney’s Office rejects the vast majority of loitering laws as untenable for prosecution. Upon receipt of our letter, the City Council tabled the loitering proposal to allow time for consideration of the legal issues the ACLU raised. [Jeon]

Court unanimously rules that pregnancy prosecutions are illegal and reverses convictions of women
Victory! In June 2006, the ACLU of Maryland received a letter from a Talbot County woman who was being prosecuted for reckless endangerment, child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and drug possession for giving birth to a baby that had been exposed to cocaine in utero. This issue has come up around the country, and we (or our allies) have prevailed in every state but South Carolina. For a host of policy and legal reasons, the ACLU believes it is a bad idea (and unconstitutional) to criminally prosecute mothers for conduct they engage in that is or could be harmful to their child. We understand that this has been going on for some time on the Eastern Shore below the radar. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by the ACLU on her behalf, the State’s Attorney dropped all of the charges except for the reckless endangerment count and a conviction was entered. The ACLU appealed the conviction to the Maryland Court of Appeals, which unanimously ruled in August 2006 that state law does not support such criminal prosecutions and reversed the woman’s conviction. Beth Brinkman, Doane Kiechel, Seth Galanter, Christopher Cobb, Brian Edge, Rebecca Kruse and Lila Bateman (Morrison & Foerster, LLP) and Joshua Treem (Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell.) [Rocah, Jeon]

Sudlersville voting rights
Victory! ACLU learned of a Sudlersville town charter amendment that had been enacted to require all candidates for Town office to own real property. Following the law’s enactment but prior to its effective date, we sent a letter to the Town letting officials know that this sort of candidate eligibility requirement is unconstitutional. The following week the Town Council unanimously voted to abandon the new law on grounds of its unconstitutionality. The Baltimore Sun lauded the turnabout and credited the ACLU in a prominent editorial, “Landed Gentry” – saying the amendment was “not unlike the poll taxes or literacy tests of generations past: Making property ownership a requirement ensures only that a community's low-income residents can't participate.” [Jeon]

Absentee voting problems during 2006 elections
Defeated. Following suggestions from many candidates and a primary riddled with problems, Maryland’s Board of Elections received a record number of absentee ballot applications leading up to this year’s gubernatorial elections. Due to the large number of requests, the state was unable to deliver every ballot before the deadline. The ACLU sued to extend the deadline on behalf of Melisande Fritszche, a Maryland resident in school in Massachusetts who did not receive her ballot until after post offices closed on the day of the deadline. The Anne Arundel Circuit Court denied the extension and, on November 14, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision to deny the extension. Daniel Joseph, Anthony Pierce, Charles Franklin, Steve Schulman, Steve Wu, Christopher Egleson, Meredith Bentley, Christopher Pudelski, Steve Simpson, Bryce Bittner, and Tom Goldstein (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP). [Jeon, Rocah]

Challenging town’s voter identification requirement
Victory! The town of La Plata, which held its first town elections in 2005, impermissibly required voters to present identification in order to vote in town elections. On Election Day, La Plata voters were forced to present a form of photo identification, usually a driver’s license, in order to vote. There was also a large sign on the door to the polling place that stated that everyone must present identification in order to vote. The ACLU contacted the attorney for the town to make clear that this requirement violates the fundamental right to vote and demand that it be immediately repealed. The town repealed the ID requirement entirely in October 2006. [Rocah]

Blind voters cast true secret ballots: Poole v. Lamone
Victory! Blind and visually impaired Maryland voters were able to cast secret ballots for the first time in this year's presidential primary elections as a result of long-running litigation spearheaded by Baltimore County blind voter William Poole. In part to address the concerns of disabled voters, elections officials installed electronic voting machines in every jurisdiction across Maryland in time for the March 2004 primaries. The machines are equipped with an audio feature that talks visually impaired voters through the ballot, permitting them to vote independently. Negotiations continue to work through remaining glitches, as well as to address claims pertaining to the ability of blind and visually impaired voters to cast secret absentee and provisional ballots as well as enabling voters to write in candidates. Gabrielle Moses and Jason Sayers (Venable) and Paul Grace. [Jeon, Goering]

Friolo v. Frankel
Pending. At the intermediate appellate stage, the Court of Special Appeals significantly restricted the ability of counsel to recover attorneys’ fees under a fee-shifting statute for work spent appealing the adequacy of a fee award. Although the question arose in Friolo in the context of an overtime wage case, and such cases are not central to the work of the ACLU, the holding translates to all fee-shifting statutes, and thus could be critical to ACLU ability to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in all types of civil rights and constitutional cases. We joined a coalition of civil rights groups in filing an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff. The case has been argued to the Court of Appeals, and we are awaiting the Court’s decision. [Jeon]

ACLU of Maryland Legal Docket, 2006 – Present

CONTACT US | SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY

ACLU OF MARYLAND | 3600 CLIPPER MILL RD, SUITE 350
BALTIMORE, MD 21211 | P: 410.889.8555

This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland and the ACLU Foundation of Maryland. Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

ACLU of Maryland Legal Docket, 2006 – Present

CONTACT US | SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY

ACLU OF MARYLAND | 3600 CLIPPER MILL RD, SUITE 350 BALTIMORE, MD 21211 | P: 410.889.8555

This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland and the ACLU Foundation of Maryland. Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

ACLU OF MARYLAND | 3600 CLIPPER MILL RD, SUITE 350
BALTIMORE, MD 21211 | P: 410.889.8555