Legal Documents:
NAACP Brief
NAACP Reply Brief
***MEDIA ADVISORY***
Key Appellate Hearing Monday in Lawsuit by NAACP and ACLU Over Maryland State Police Documents in "Driving While Black" Case
MEDIA ADVISORY FOR
Monday, May 11, 2009
CONTACT: Meredith Curtis, ACLU of Maryland, 410-889-8555; media@aclu-md.org
ANNAPOLIS, MD - On Monday, May 11, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals holds a key hearing in an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit in which the Maryland State Police (MSP) has been found to have violated the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) by improperly withholding documents that would show whether it has meaningfully investigated complaints of racial profiling in the wake of a federal court consent decree in the ACLU's "Driving While Black" litigation.
WHAT: Appeals Court hearing in the Maryland Public Information Act lawsuit against Maryland State Police, related to "Driving While Black" case
WHO: Attorneys Robert Wilkins, Seth Rosenthal, and Brian Schwalb from the law firm Venable, LLP, on behalf of the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland and the national ACLU
WHEN: Monday, May 11, 2009, 9:30 AM EDT
WHERE: Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401
CASE BACKGROUND:
In 2003, the Maryland State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Maryland State Police (MSP) entered into a Consent Decree in racial profiling litigation initiated in the early 1990s. There were continuing complaints from African American motorists of racial profiling, and the data gathered since 1995 continued to show large disparities as between whites and non-whites in traffic stops and searches by the MSP. People of color were stopped and searched much more often, even though the MSP did not find drugs on them any more frequently than when searching whites.
A key part of the 2003 Consent Decree was that the MSP agreed to make the process more user-friendly for motorists to file racial profiling complaints and to thoroughly investigate all such complaints. This was important because many motorists had complained that they were harassed, intimidated and "given the run around" when they tried to complain to the MSP about perceived racial profiling. Unfortunately, since 2003, the racial disparities as to who is being searched by the MSP on Interstate 95 have persisted. The 2008 data shows that minorities were about 70% of those searched on I-95 (45% African American, 15% Hispanic and 9% other), with whites comprising 30% of those searched. These percentages are almost exactly the same as for 2002, the year prior to the 2003 Consent Decree.
Since 2003, approximately 100 official complaints alleging racial profiling have been filed by minority motorists. The MSP has confirmed that not a single one of these complaints has been sustained following the requisite internal investigation. Thus, since 2003, no MSP trooper has ever been found to have engaged in racial profiling, and no disciplinary action has ever been taken against a trooper for racial profiling.
In February 2007, the NAACP, represented by Venable LLP and the ACLU, filed a request under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) to obtain the investigative records created in connection with the racial profiling complaints filed since 2003. The NAACP asked for the records with all information identifying the motorists and the troopers redacted. The point was not to target particular troopers, but rather to see whether the MSP was truly investigating the complaints and taking seriously its responsibility to eliminate racial profiling by its troopers.
The MSP refused to turn over the documents, even in redacted form, saying that they were "personnel records" exempt from disclosure under the MPIA. In September 2007, the NAACP filed suit, and in June 2008, Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Martin ruled that the records should be disclosed in redacted form, and that doing so would not violate the personnel records exemption of the MPIA. Rather than turn over the records, the MSP appealed the ruling.
In the appeal, the Attorney General, on behalf of the MSP, is taking the position that the investigative records are "personnel records" exempt from disclosure and that they may never be disclosed - even in redacted form. This position is flatly contrary to both the law and sound public policy. It cannot be squared with the language of the MPIA, binding court precedent or prior AG opinions on the interpretation of the MPIA.Ê Moreover, it would effectively deprive the public of any opportunity to hold the MSP accountable for investigating complaints of racial profiling.
More information on the ACLU Racial Justice Program's work on racial profiling can be found at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/index.html