More News

In July, the ACLU of Maryland revealed that the Maryland State Police and other law enforcement agencies in the state had spied for more than 14 months on peaceful political organizers. The police collected and disseminated criminal intelligence dossiers on the groups' lawful, peaceful political expression.

The surveillance included undercover detectives posing as interested members and activists to infiltrate organizational meetings, events and listservs. Police dossiers labeled the groups' First Amendment activities as "anti-government and terrorist crimes" and "security threats." Police entered their names with terrorist and security threat designations in federal, inter-jurisdictional criminal intelligence databases.

Last week, former Attorney General Steve Sachs, commissioned by Gov. Martin O'Malley to investigate and issue a report, concluded that "[t]he subjects of [the] … investigation are … the opposite of terrorists: they are individuals committed to changing the policies or conduct of the government through strictly non-violent means." He concluded unequivocally that "the surveillance undertaken here is inconsistent with an overarching value in our democratic society — the free and unfettered debate of important public questions. Such police conduct ought to be prohibited as a matter of public policy."

This week, the General Assembly's Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee held hearings and heard from the State Police.

Current State Police Superintendent Terrance Sheridan agreed with the Sachs report's conclusion that 53 people should never have been labeled as terrorists in the criminal database. He called the kind of "fishing" for terrorists that went on "an absolute waste of time," saying it made the state less, not more, secure. All 53 individuals will be allowed to view their records after which the State Police will purge them.

In sharp contrast, former State Police Superintendent Tim Hutchins, on whose watch the spying took place, struck a fundamentally different tone and posture.

Maligning the victims of the spying as "fringe," he defended the police surveillance as being necessary even while confirming that the spying program began with no basis for suspecting criminal or disruptive behavior and continued for months without any evidence of criminal behavior. In the end he authorized its termination, noting that the agency was "over mission capacity, understaffed and technology challenged."

What must the legislators do now? The dramatically different responses from the two police superintendents highlight the need for legislation — and not mere regulations — so that future rules of intelligence gathering do not hinge on the predilection of whoever happens to be superintendent at any given time. Here's why:

ïRegulations have already proved ineffective in deterring illegal spying in this very situation. State Police violated federal regulations that explicitly forbade their conduct.

ïLegislation has uniform, statewide application; State Police regulations do not. The Sachs report confirms that other Maryland law enforcement agencies are involved in similar surveillance, and federal funding encourages all local law enforcement agencies to participate in increased criminal intelligence and counter-terrorism work, using interlinked databases. Only legislation will ensure statewide, uniform rules for all these government agencies.

ïRegulations can be too easily abandoned or weakened by amendment if the executive branch is left to its own devices.

ïInternal regulations will not protect dutiful State Police investigators from the overly zealous supervisors identified in the Sachs report. State Police employees fare better when they can rely on clear, binding legislative standards.

ïRegulations cannot create meaningful, independent oversight structures or establish remedies for violations.

ïLegislation represents the consensus of the citizenry; regulations represent the consensus of the State Police. In promulgating regulations, the State Police might beneficially internalize the constitutional values that undergird their intelligence work; but the same constitutional dimensions oblige Marylanders to speak through their elected representatives on the issue as well.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis once warned "[t]he greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

The Sachs report recommended that "police infiltration of advocacy groups should be prohibited unless it is based on a reasonable suspicion of present or planned violation of the law and no less intrusive investigation is likely to yield equivalent results." It is a standard that deserves to be safely codified into law. In the wake of the State Police's actions and in these volatile times, Marylanders should demand no less.

Cindy Boersma is legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland.