Wilkins v. Maryland State Police
PP-MD-002-002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

J

ROBERT L. WILKINS, et al . ,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) Civil Action No. MJG-93-468

I1

. Defendants.

)
))

I

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I

The Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys David A.

Hill, John C. Keeney, Jr., Deborah A. Jeon and Susan Goering, and

i

the Defendants, by and through their attorneys Richard B.

•

Rosenblatt and Steven Wilkinson, in the spirit of compromise

agree to settle the within dispute in accordance with the terms

I

set forth below.

WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 1993, Plaintiffs commenced

1;

this action in the United States District Court for the District

M

of Maryland;

WHEREAS, Defendants have denied many of Plaintiffs'

•I

allegations and specifically deny any violation of state or

«

federal law;

I

•I

WHEREAS, on May 8, 1992, a car in which Plaintiffs Robert L.

fen

Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'man W. El-Amin, and Aquila

Si:

Abdullah were traveling was stopped by Defendant Maryland State

Police Trooper Bryan W. Hughes on U.S. Interstate Route 68 in Cumberland, Maryland;
WHEREAS, after being stopped, Plaintiffs were detained by Defendant Hughes in the presence of Defendant Edward V. Syracuse, who then called Defendant Allegany County Deputy Sheriff Ronald Brown to the scene with a drug-sniffing dog to perform an exterior search of Plaintiffs' car;
WHEREAS, in order to bring to rest the controversy between all parties, to secure total and final settlement of all claims against Defendants by Plaintiffs arising out of the purported acts set out in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and to avoid further expense, inconvenience and litigation, the parties desire to settle, compromise, and terminate this action and all claims asserted herein, regardless of the legal theory on which such claims may be based. THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. This Settlement Agreement shall be enforceable in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by any of the parties acting alone or in concert, or by the American Civil Liberties Union, as representative of the Plaintiffs. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the case for the purpose of enforcing this Agreement and shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Agreement until June 30, 1997, unless cause for extending jurisdiction as provided in Paragraph 10. In the event that such cause be shown, this Court shall retain jurisdiction until June 30, 1998.

2. The equitable provisions of this Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon the Maryland State Police and the Plaintiffs.
3. The undersigned representatives of the Plaintiffs and Defendants certify that they are fully authorized, subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter into and execute the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to legally bind the parties; except that on behalf of the Defendants, the Agreement is contingent upon the approval of the Maryland Board of Public Works.
4. In the event that this Agreement, or any part hereof, is not approved by the Maryland Board of Public Works, this Agreement shall be null and void and Plaintiffs shall not be barred from further prosecution of this . litigation.
5. All provisions of this Agreement shall take effect immediately upon ratification, unless otherwise provided herein.
6. It shall be the policy _and__prji_ct,jLc;e of the Maryland State Police to prohibit the use of a race-based drug courier profile as a law enforcement tool. The Maryland State Police will adopt, implement, and publicize within 60 days of ratification of this Agreement a written policy statement articulating this policy and practice. In addition, this written policy shall direct all Maryland State Police sworn personnel not to participate in the use of any race-based drug profile as a cause for stopping, detaining, or searching motorists traveling on Maryland roadways. The policy shall specifically prohibit

consideration of race as a factor for the development of policies

I

for stopping, detaining, or searching motorists. The written

•

policy statement shall be distributed to all Maryland State

Police sworn personnel as a Special Order from the Superintendent

I

of the Maryland State Police, and MSP will enforce the policy

through appropriate investigation and disciplinary action. Prior
I to publication, all materials generated pursuant to this £fx( "

|

paragraph shall be given to Plaintiffs' counsel.

7. Beginning January 1, 1995, the Maryland State Police

I

shall conduct a training program that incorporates the written

policy statement, and specific reference to the Maryland Court of

I

Appeals holding in Derricott v. State of Maryland, 611 A.2d 592

•

(Md. 1992) ("Derricott") in relation to highway drug

interdiction. This training program s-hall be mandatory for all

I

Maryland State Police sworn personnel. All materials related to

this training seminar shall be given to Plaintiffs' counsel prior

1

to the commencement of the seminars.

•

8. Beginning immediately upon the ratification of this

Agreement the Maryland State Police Academy training shall be

I

revised to specifically include the contents of the policy

statement and the Maryland Court of Appeals holding in Derricott.

9. Beginning January 1, 1995, and continuing at least

1

until June 30, 1997, Defendant Maryland State Police will

II

maintain computer records of all stops in which a consent to

I

search is given by a motorist stopped on any Maryland roadway by

Maryland State Police and all stops on any Maryland roadway by

I

Maryland State Police in which a search by a drug-detecting dog

1;

is made, minimally including in such records: date, time, and

m

location of consent or search, name of officer(s) requesting

consent to search or directing search by drug dog; race of

I

person(s) stopped, detained or searched; year, make and model of

vehicle; and grounds for requesting that consent to search be

M

given or search by drug dog made, if any. All Maryland State

m

Police officers shall receive instruction related to the

completion and maintenance of these records by January 1, 1995.

•

These computer records shall be made available to the Court with

copies to counsel for Plaintiffs on a quarterly basis.

1

10. If after July 1, 1995, Plaintiffs, on the basis of the

•r

computer records provided by Defendant Maryland State Police or

through other means, make a reasonable showing that there is a

•

pattern and practice of making stops on the basis of race,

,

Plaintiffs may then seek to require Defendant Maryland State

SI;

Police to provide additional identifying information as part of

«; j

the computer records kept pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this

Agreement and the Court's jurisdiction shall be extended as

•

provided in paragraph 1. Defendants shall be provided with an

opportunity to challenge Plaintiffs' showing through reference either to statistics or other evidence. The decision as to

whether there exists a reasonable probability of non-adherence

necessitating additional identifying data rests with the

Hi

monitoring Judge. If such data is ordered by the Court, the

Court shall direct that the data be collected under seal as part

&•*•"•

I of an investigation for the benefit of the Court and not subject f

f

to public release. The Court may release such identifying data

=

to counsel for Plaintiffs or the ACLU as required. In

determining what information will be released the Court shall

I

take into account the privacy rights of the individuals stopped

and any provisions of Maryland law concerning disclosure of

I

investigative records of a police agency.

~

11. The parties agree that promulgation of the policy

described above, the training with respect to this policy, and

I

the compilation of statistics are intended to make clear that it

is the policy of the Maryland State Police that racial

I

characteristics not be considered in requesting consent to search

j

or in utilizing a canine for drug detection purposes. The

parties recognize that despite the training, individuals may

I

disregard or disobey the Maryland State Police policy, and this

Settlement Agreement is not a guarantee against violation of the

I

policy by individual troopers. Plaintiffs may show a violation

|

of this Agreement either: (a) by establishing that defendants

have failed to promulgate the policy described in paragraph 6,

1

failed to provide the training described in paragraphs 7 and 8,

or failed to collect the statistics as described in paragraphs 9

I

and 10; or (b) by showing that there is a pattern and practice of

I

MSP stops conducted on the basis of race, for which the Maryland

:

State Police could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

I

relief under this Agreement is limited to relief available for .

violating an injunction, and specifically does not include money

I

I

damages for individuals who are stopped. However nothing in this

I

Agreement shall prohibit an individual from bringing an action

—

alleging violation of constitutional rights growing out of an

••'

unlawful stop.

i~!

12. The parties agree that United States Magistrate Judge

Catherine C. Blake will act as the monitoring Judge for purposes

I

of this Settlement Agreement. If, for any reason, Judge Blake

-

becomes unavailable for such purposes, the parties agree to

accept, as monitor, whomever is assigned by the Court.

I

13. Upon approval by the Maryland Board of Public Works,

each Plaintiff shall be awarded $12,500 for a total award of

I

$50,000. Said award shall constitute a full and final

satisfaction of the incident of May 8, 1992. Upon approval by

the Board, Plaintiffs do hereby release the Defendants, their

I

successors and assigns, the State of Maryland and any employee or

official of the State from any further proceedings or liability

I

for the incident herein described.

14. Upon approval of the Maryland Board of Public Works,

attorneys' fees in the amount of $45,600 shall be paid to counsel

1

for Plaintiffs. Said award shall constitute a full and final

satisfaction of all attorneys' fees due through the date of

§

execution of this agreement and Plaintiffs may recover no further

_

attorneys' fees from Defendants so long as Defendants remain in

compliance with the terms of this Agreement. However, should

I

Plaintiffs prevail at any hearing convened in accordance with

_^

paragraph 10 of this Agreement, or in conjunction with any action

i

to enforce this agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel shall be entitled to recover attorneys' fees in conjunction with said proceeding, consistent with 42 U.S.C. §1988.

IT IS HEREBY AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THIS

DAY

OF DECEMBER, 1994.

Robert L. Wilkins
r Nu'Man W. El-Amin
A/--5-
Norman Scott El-Amin

Col. Lawrence\W. Tolliver Superintendent, MSP

.. Hill Counsel for Plaintiffs

Richard B. Rosenblatt Counsel inr. State^Defendants

Deborah A. Jeon Counsel for Plaintiffs

Steven^C. Wilkinson Counsel for Defendant Allegan? County

Approved: Catherine C. Blake U.S. Magistrate Judge

Approved: ^Marvin J. (Zarbis U.S. District Judge

5

 
 ACLU in the Courts:

Wilkins v. Maryland State Police PP-MD-002-004

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html American Civil Liberties Union

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ROBERT L. WILKINS, et aL, Plaintiffs,
v. MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et aL, Defendants.
Civil Action No. CCB-93-468

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF
I. Introduction
After months of negotiations mediated by the Court, the parties to this case reached a settlement which was approved by this Court on January 5, 1995. See Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Agreement concerned plaintiffs' 1993 claim that Maryland State Police routinely used race in drug interdiction activities conducted on Maryland roadways, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Maryland common law. See Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Defendants denied using race in motorist stops, but agreed that MSP would explicitly prohibit such discrimination in the future, would conduct officer training, and would maintain computer records tracking motorist detentions and searches to enable the agency, the Court and the plaintiffs to monitor compliance. Data covering the first 21 months of the monitoring period, from January 1995 through September 1996, now has been filed with the Court and supplied to the plaintiffs.
As set forth below, this data shows a disturbing pattern of continuing racial discrepancies, in violation of the non-discrimination policy and the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, plaintiffs ask the Court to find defendants to be in contempt of court, and to impose a conditional civil contempt monetary penalty in the amount of $250,000, payable to the Court. Plaintiffs further request that, pursuant to the contempt citation, the Court order: 1) that jurisdiction over the case for monitoring purposes be extended for one year, from January 1998 through December 1998; 2) that MSP provide plaintiffs with names, addresses, and telephone numbers for all motorists searched along the 1-95 corridor since January 1995; 3) that MSP's record-keeping obligations be extended by one year, until December 1998, and be expanded to include motorist stops in addition to motorist searches and detentions; and 4) that MSP produce to the Court and the plaintiffs all investigative and disciplinary records reflecting any actions taken by the agency to enforce the policy of non-discrimination established under the Wilkins settlement.
II. Enforcement Standards

lof8

12/7/98 5:17 PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

The Settlement Agreement authorizes enforcement "in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by any of the parties acting alone or in concert, or by the American Civil Liberties Union, as representative of the Plaintiffs." Agreement at ¶l. Further, the Agreement specifies: "If after July 1,1995, Plaintiffs, on the basis of the computer records provided by Defendant Maryland State Police or through other means, make a reasonable showing that there is a pattern and practice of making stops on the basis of race," the Court's jurisdiction shall be extended and plaintiffs shall be entitled to additional injunctive relief. Id. at ¶IO (emphasis added). In addition, plaintiffs may show a violation, and therefore seek relief under the Settlement Agreement "by showing that there is a pattern and practice of MSP stops conducted on the basis of race, for which Maryland State Police could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983." Agreement at ¶l 1. Relief available upon plaintiffs' showing of a violation includes any and all "relief available for violating an injunction[.]" Id. The plaintiffs clearly satisfy the enforcement standards set forth in the Agreement. The evidence presented in this Memorandum demonstrates, in an unequivocal fashion, that notwithstanding the Agreement, MSP continues to engage in a pattern and practice of making stops on the basis of race.
III. Plaintiffs' Monitoring Efforts
Plaintiff Robert L. Wilkins and the American Civil Liberties Union have collected, organized and analyzed data submitted by the Maryland State Police to the Court and the ACLU for the period from January 1995 through September 1996. The data shows that more than one- third of all MSP drug interdiction activities involving motorists occur along Interstate 95, north of Baltimore, in Harford, Cecil, and Baltimore Counties.(l) MSP's drug interdiction team, the "Special Traffic Interdiction Force (STIF)"(2) works exclusively on this 1-95 "corridor."(3) Because the Interstate 95 corridor is a focus of MSP interdiction efforts and because racial disparities in MSP data for this area are glaring, plaintiffs have focused their monitoring there.
In focusing on this corridor, plaintiffs have monitored:
1. overall MSP activity along the Interstate 95 corridor;(4) 2. STIF activity in this area through March of l996;(5) and 3. detentions and searches conducted by individual troopers who were active in drug
interdiction efforts along 1-95.
The following troopers have conducted motorist searches in sufficient numbers to prompt individual monitoring as part of plaintiffs' 1-95 monitoring:
John E. Appleby Bernard Donovan(6) Melvin Fialkewicz John R. Greene Steven L. Hohner David Hopp David B. Hughes Michael T. Hughes Steven O. Jones James E. Nolan Paul J. Quill Christopher Tideberg Ernest S. Tullis John Wilhelm
To assess the significance of racial disparities in the MSP data, plaintiffs have measured the data by two methods: First, plaintiffs have contrasted defendants' search data with the benchmark percentages of African-American and other minority motorists traveling and

2 of 8

12/7/98 5:17PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

violating traffic laws along the relevant segment of Interstate 95. Second, racial breakdowns for MSP searches conducted on I-95 have been compared with those for searches conducted by MSP on other Maryland roadways. By both measures, the racial disparities are extraordinary and surely make out a "reasonable showing" of a racially-based pattern and practice.
A. Determination of Population Benchmarks
Early last spring, plaintiffs' counsel asked MSP to cooperate with a "stationary survey" of the racial composition of motorists traveling Interstate 95 in northeastern Maryland. See March 11, 1996 letter from Deborah A. Jeon to Betty S. Sconion, attached hereto as Exhibit 8. MSP counsel would not consent to this survey, and even threatened to arrest ACLU surveyors. See March 22, 1996 letter from Betty S. Sconion to Deborah A. Jeon, attached hereto as Exhibit 9. Working under the supervision of Dr. John Lamberth, plaintiffs instead conducted a "rolling" traffic survey of motorists and traffic law violators traveling the relevant portion of I-95.(7) The methodology and detailed results of the rolling survey are fully set forth in the report of Sarah E. Cushman and Christopher Kosmides, attached hereto as Exhibit 11. Survey results for I-95 motorists and traffic law violators are as follows:

All Motorists Traffic Law Violators

White Black Hispanic

75.6% 16.9% 0.6%

74.7% ;
17.5% >
0.6%

Other

¦ 3.6%

3.7%

All Minority 21.1%

; 21.8%

UnKnown 3.2%

3.4%

B. Search Data Outside the I-95 Corridor
Racial breakdowns in search data reported by MSP for the Interstate 95 corridor differ dramatically from those for motorist searches reported by state police on other Maryland roadways.(8) Non-Interstate 95 corridor data reported by MSP over the 21-month period breaks down as follows:

Whites searched:

63.7% ¦

Blacks searched:

32.0%

Hispanics searched:

3.5%

Others searched:

¦ 0.6%

Total Non-Whites searched: 36.2% \

IV. MSP Records Reveal a Striking Pattern and Practice of Racial Discrimination in Drug Interdiction Activities Conducted Along the Interstate 95 Corridor.
As set forth in Tables 1 through 16, attached hereto as Exhibit 12, MSP data reveals a striking and consistent pattern of racially disparate searches conducted by troopers patrolling Interstate 95.(9) When the I-95 search data is contrasted with data on racial

3 of 8

12/7/98 5:17 PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

identity of motorists violating traffic laws on I-95, the racial disparities in MSP searches are undeniable.

I-95 Motorists Searched : Traffic Law Violators on I-95

Whites

19.7%

74.4%

Blacks

72.9%

17.5%

Hispanic

5.6%

o.6%

:

Other

1.8%

3.7%

Total Minority 80.3%

21.8%

;

The racial discrepancies between MSP search data and population benchmarks are yawning. Indeed, the percentages for blacks and whites in these two groups are nearly inverted. Statistical analysis only confirms the obvious problem. See Report of John Lamberth, Ph.D., attached as Exhibit 13. The comparative disparity between black motorists stopped and searched by MSP and blacks subject to stop for violating traffic laws is 316.6%, and encompasses 34.6 standard deviations. See Lamberth Report at p. 8. Only about one in every six I-95 motorists is African American, yet three out of every four motorists searched by state police were black.
MSP officials have contended to the media that this pattern of discrimination is mere "coincidence." See "State police I-95 drug unit found to search black motorists 4 times more often than white," The Sun, May 23,1996, attached hereto as Exhibit 14. Such an explanation begs reason. As calculated by Dr. Lamberth, the odds that three-quarters of MSP detainees would be black by happenstance are about one in a quintillion.{\QÌ) Lamberth Report at p. 8.
MSP's own data demonstrates that this racial distortion is unnecessary to successful drug interdiction. Comparison of I-95 search data with that for other Maryland roadways reveals that troopers patrolling I-95 search black motorists at more than double the rate that troopers do elsewhere in the state. Yet the rates at which troopers uncover contraband on motorists are nearly the same on and off I-95. Lamberth Report at p.8. Even more significant, MSP data shows that statewide, police find contraband on black and white motorists at equal rates. Blacks were found in possession of contraband in 28.4% of searches, whereas whites were found with contraband 28.8% of the time.(l 1) Id.
V. Immediate Relief is Necessary.
A. Citation and Penalty for Civil Contempt
Defendants have continued to rely upon race in drug interdiction efforts in blatant disregard of the Settlement Agreement, despite their awareness that the Court and the plaintiffs are monitoring their actions. Maryland State Police have had notice, trainings, and ample warning about the illegality of their conduct. Plaintiffs and ACLU counsel have attempted to work with defendants and their counsel to facilitate enforcement of the Agreement and the non- discrimination policy in this case, yet have been met with resistance at every stage. First, MSP officials withheld computer records from plaintiffs for nearly a year in an attempt to hamper plaintiffs' enforcement efforts, finally producing the records only after the Court imposed a penalty for their not having done so earlier. Next, defendants rebuffed plaintiffs' effort to cooperate in conducting a traffic survey, suggesting that ACLU volunteers would be arrested if they attempted to conduct the survey without the State's consent. At the same time, MSP officials unreasonably refused to stipulate to use of traffic

4 of 8

12/7/98 5:17 PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

survey results from southernmost New Jersey (less than 20 miles north of the relevant segment of Interstate 95 in Maryland,) thus forcing plaintiffs to undertake the enormous effort of duplicating this survey in Maryland. And according to sources within the agency, drug interdiction trainings conducted by MSP officials pursuant to the Settlement have included gratuitous insults toward the ACLU and plaintiffs' counsel, while stressing that MSP officials admit no wrongdoing in connection with their law enforcement practices and that the agency is going along with monitoring efforts not because there is any problem but only because it is being forced to do so by the Court and the ACLU.
The seriousness of MSP's violation cannot be gainsaid. Racial discrimination in law enforcement results in denial of liberty on the basis of race. It encourages and reinforces the stereotype that African Americans and other minorities are more likely to be criminals than are whites. It fundamentally undermines and subverts the Constitutional principle that all citizens are due equal protection of the law.
It is imperative, therefore, that the Court send a message condemning MSP's unabated pattern of discrimination. Plaintiffs ask that defendants be held in contempt of court as a result of their continuing violation of the Settlement Agreement. (12) To give teeth to this citation, plaintiffs suggest that the Court impose a conditional civil contempt monetary penalty in the amount of $250,000, payable to the Court. Defendants could purge the violation and obtain return of the funds by showing by a date certain (e.g., December 31, 1997) that the racial disparities in their drug interdiction activities have been substantially eliminated. See International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2558-59 (1994); Hicks on Behalf of Feiockv. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 633 (1985).
B. Extension of Jurisdiction and Record Keeping
The Agreement prescribes that upon plaintiffs' "reasonable showing" of a pattern and practice of race discrimination in MSP searches and detentions, the Court's jurisdiction and defendants' record-keeping obligations automatically will be extended for one year.(l3) Plaintiffs submit that they have met the "reasonable showing" standard, and thus that this Court's jurisdiction and defendants' record-keeping obligations should be extended through December 1998.
C. Further Identifying Information on 1-95 Motorists
Also upon plaintiffs' showing of a pattern and practice of racially disproportionate searches, MSP must supply (under seal) "further identifying information" on individual motorists affected by the practice. Accordingly, plaintiffs now ask the Court to order defendants promptly to provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all motorists detained and/or searched along Interstate 95 from January 1995 to date. This information is sought for each entry listed in Exhibit 15 hereto, as well as for 1-95 searches conducted since September 1996. Plaintiffs additionally request that all future quarterly reports include "further identifying information" for those motorists searched along the 1-95 corridor.
D. Expansion of Required Reporting to Cover 1-95 Stops
The foregoing amply demonstrates that there exists within the MSP a pattern and practice of conducting stops and searches on the basis of race. It also strongly suggests that MSP engages in a discriminatory pattern and practice in initiating stops, which stops may or may not result in a search. The Wilkins Agreement, and the non-discrimination policy implemented by MSP pursuant to the Agreement, prohibit racial discrimination in motorist stops. To date the MSP has not provided the information that would allow an incontrovertible determination of this issue: the racial identity of every motorist stopped by the MSP. Accordingly, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order MSP to provide stop information, with the same frequency and with the same level of detail, as the stop and search data. Further, plaintiffs request that the Court order MSP to produce historical stop

5 of 8

12/7/98 5:17PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

data ~ for the period from January 1995 to date ~ and take measures to protect such data from destruction. (14)
E. Production of MSP Investigative and Disciplinary Files
As an aspect of the Wilkins settlement, defendants agreed that "MSP will enforce the [non-discrimination] policy through appropriate investigation and disciplinary action." Agreement at ¶6. In order for the plaintiffs to determine if defendants have complied with this provision of the Agreement, plaintiffs must review MSP investigative and disciplinary files for those troopers shown by MSP records to have engaged in interdiction activities in a racially discriminatory manner during the monitoring period.(l5) Accordingly, plaintiffs ask that the Court order MSP to produce to the plaintiffs any and all files and documents reflecting any general investigative and/or disciplinary actions taken by MSP to enforce the non-discrimination policy, any actions involving the Special Traffic Interdiction Force (including all documents pertaining to the 1996 alteration of the STIF,) and any actions specifically involving the following troopers: John E. Appleby, Bernard Donovan, Melvin Fialkewicz, John R. Greene, Steven L. Hohner, David B. Hughes, Michael T. Hughes, Steven O. Jones, James Nolan, Paul J. Quill, Christopher Tideberg, Ernest S. Tullis, and John Wilhelm.
VI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request that the Maryland State Police agency be cited for civil contempt, and that additional relief be granted as described above.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. Mertens Jonathan P. Guy Swidler & Berlin 3000KStreet, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007
Deborah A. Jeon American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland 100 North Liberty Street
Centreville, Maryland 21617
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Notes 1. For the period from January 1995 through September 1996, MSP troopers reported a total of 2,372 motorist detentions and searches state-wide. Of these, 823 searches (34.7%) occurred north of Baltimore along Interstate 95, in Harford, Cecil, and Baltimore Counties, according to MSP records.
2. As publicized by the Maryland State Police, the Special Traffic Interdiction Force is or was a specialized team of troopers trained and solely focused upon drug interdiction activity along Interstate 95. See "In Drug Fight, Police Now Take to the Highway," New York Times, March 5,1995, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that until late spring of 1996, the STIF was composed of six white troopers: John E. Appleby, Bernard Donovan, Steven L. Hohner, James E. Nolan, Paul J. Quill, and John Wilhelm. During June of 1996, however, the STIF reportedly was cut from six to three members. See "Md. State Police Reduce 1-95 Drug-Search Team "Washington Post, June 29, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Approximately one month prior to this change, a

6 of 8

12/7/98 5:17 PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

nationally-circulated Associated Press investigative analysis using the data generated under the Wilkins Agreement (covering the period from January 1995 through September 1995), reported that STIF members searched African-American motorists four times as often as they did whites. See, e.g., "Md. drug squad searches more blacks than whites," USA Today, May 24, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. It was widely reported that the Wilkins data, the Associated Press expose, and attendant publicity were factors in MSP's decision to alter the STIF. See, e.g., "State police cuts 1-95 drug search team in half," Sunday Star, June 30, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
Plaintiffs are not certain which of the six members were removed from the STIF, except that Cpl. John Appleby was one of the three removed. Reportedly, Appleby has since been charged with felony theft in connection with his drug interdiction activities, and has been suspended from his employment with the Maryland State Police pending prosecution. See "Maryland Trooper Charged With Taking Planted Cash," Washington Post, September 20, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
3. As used by plaintiffs in connection with their settlement enforcement efforts, the terms "Interstate 95 corridor" and "1-95 corridor" refer to the section of Interstate 95 running north of Baltimore City, through Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil Counties, to the Delaware state line.
4. In monitoring 1-95 corridor activity, plaintiffs simply separated out data recording searches and detentions conducted on Interstate 95, north of Baltimore, from other MSP data. In compiling Interstate 95 corridor data, plaintiffs counted every entry reported by state police in which the location was identified as Interstate 95 (north of Baltimore City) and the County was listed as Harford, Cecil, or Baltimore County. All but a handful of these were coded by MSP with the number "62"; The remaining few bore the code "55". As set forth in the Certification of Sarah E. Cushman, attached to the Lamberth Report as Exhibit B, all of this sorting was performed by computer, using a Microsoft Excel program.
5. STIF activity was monitored only through March of 1996 due to the reported changes made to the team in late spring and plaintiffs' uncertainty as to the team's membership following this action.
6. Although Trooper Donovan did not report substantial activity along 1-95, he was nevertheless included in plaintiffs' individual monitoring due to his membership on the STIF.
7. Because the rolling survey provided information about traffic law violators (i.e., persons fairly subject to being stopped by police) as well as general motorist numbers, it actually supplied more apt data for plaintiffs' purposes than the stationary survey would. The ACLU rolling survey was patterned after a 1993 study conducted 19 miles north of the Maryland study area, on the New Jersey Turnpike. Like the Maryland survey, the New Jersey survey was conducted under the direction of Dr. Lamberth, by the Gloucester County Public Defender's Office. The methodology and results of the New Jersey study were approved by the Superior Court of New Jersey in State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et ah, March 4, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Indeed, the Soto Court relied upon results of the traffic violator survey to suppress evidence seized by New Jersey State Police in 19 criminal cases in which searches were challenged as tainted by racial discrimination.
As one might expect given the close proximity of the study areas for the New Jersey and Maryland surveys, the results of the two surveys are nearly the same. In anticipation of this outcome, prior to undertaking a separate survey of the Maryland highway (and to address MSP's stated concerns about the unsafely of a stationary survey) plaintiffs' counsel asked MSP counsel to stipulate to use of the New Jersey survey results to approximate racial breakdowns of Maryland 1-95 motorists. But MSP counsel refused to so stipulate.

7 of 8

12/7/98 5:17 PM

ACLU in the Courts:

http://www.aclu.org/court/mspset.html

8. For purposes of this analysis, "non-Interstate 95 search data" includes all motorist searches reported by MSP from January 1995 through September 1996, except those conducted along the Interstate 95 corridor, north of Baltimore, in Harford, Cecil, or Baltimore Counties.
9. Of all troopers individually monitored by plaintiffs, only Trooper David Hopp reported searches in numbers not grossly disproportionate by race. See Exhibit 12, at Table 8.
10. A quintillion is defined as a cardinal number represented (in the United States) by a one followed by 18 zeros. This substantially exceeds a billion, which is a thousand million (a one with nine zeros), a trillion, which is a million million (a one with 12 zeros), and a quadrillion, which is a one followed by 15 zeros.
11. That is, 311 of 1,096 black motorists searched, statewide, by Maryland State Police were found to be in possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) while 331 of 1,148 white motorists searched, statewide, were found with CDS. Lamberth Report at p.8.
12. The only express restriction upon relief available upon proof of violation of the Agreement is the statement that "[t]he relief under this Agreement is limited to relief available for violating an injunction, and specifically does not include money damages for individuals who are stopped." Id. at ¶l 1. A contempt citation such as that sought by plaintiffs certainly is a remedy available upon proof that an injunction has been violated.
13. The Agreement anticipated that the year's extension would run from July 1997 through June 1998. However, due to defendants' prior violation of the Settlement by their failure to produce required computer records, jurisdiction previously was extended through December 1997. See March 6, 1996 Order. Thus, the year's extension now sought will run from January 1998 through December 1998.
14. Even if MSP does not maintain a database of stop data comparable to that maintained for search data under the Wilkins Agreement, plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants record certain stop data (with racial identifiers) in the form of traffic ticket records. Thus, production of the ticket records will provide plaintiffs with stop information, at least for those motorists who are issued traffic citations.
15. Although plaintiffs are only now seeking enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the information underlying plaintiffs' case has been in defendants' hands throughout the monitoring period. Indeed, for much of the period MSP had far more meaningful access to the data for purposes of analyses, as the agency maintained the data in computer record form, while withholding the computer records from the plaintiffs. Furthermore, in related litigation, ACLU counsel previously submitted data compilations and raised concerns about patterns of racial discrimination emerging in drug interdiction activities conducted along Interstate 95. See Exhibit 16, Affidavit of Deborah A. Jeon, filed March 6, 1996 in Carter, etal. v. Maryland State Police, et al, Case No. 03-C-96-000156 (Balt.Co.Cir.Ct.). Given these circumstances (to say nothing of publicity generated by the Associated Press investigation), defendants can scarcely claim lack of notice about potential problems warranting investigation.

HOME

SEARCH FEEDBACK

yriglttl996. The American Civil Liberties Union

8 of 8

12/7/98 5:17PM

 
 ACLU in the Courts:

W' kins v. Mary andState Police ^

Page 1 of 7

TTTTT

I I • I IB • • • • • • • • • • • • • • H H I I H viva •••iBBa« • • • • • ••
PP-MD-002-006

lìì

American Civil Liberties Union

REPORT OF JOHN LAMBERTH, PH.D.

I, John Lamberth, am the immediate past Chairman of the Department of Psychology and the past Director of the Division of Social Psychology at Temple University, in Philadelphia. I have been on the Temple faculty in the Department of Psychology since 1973.

I have had extensive professional and academic experience with the design and use of statistically valid surveys, random sampling techniques, and the analysis of statisticallybased measures of significance derived from survey, census, and sample data,(l) I have been qualified as an expert witness in statistics , surveying, and social psychology in the United States District Courts for New Jersey and Virginia, and in state courts in New Jersey,(2) Pennsylvania, and Virginia. I make this report in connection with the caseWilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil Action No. CCB-93-483. Counsel for Mr. Wilkins have retained me to design and conduct a study and analysis of the incidence and significance of police searches along the 1-95 corridor in Cecil, Harford, and Baltimore Counties. The overall goal of the study was to determine if Maryland State Police stop and search black(3) motorists at a rate disproportionate to their numbers on the highway.

Toward this end, I have assisted in the design and conduct of a study to test the proposition that the Maryland State Police patrolling Interstate 95 search black motorists in significantly higher numbers, as measured statistically, than one would expect given:

(a) the racial composition of the population of motorists on 1-95;

(b) the racial composition of the population of motorists on 1-95 who violate traffic laws; and

(c) the racial composition of motorists detained and searched by Maryland State Police on roadways outside the 1-95 corridor.

I. DATA SOURCES UPON WHICH THIS STUDY IS BASED A. Data Supplied By The Maryland State Police

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement approved by the Court in January 1995, the Maryland State Police (MSP) has supplied the ACLU with data concerning searches of motorists they have conducted from January 1995 through September 1996. These data have been organized and summarized by the ACLU, then provided to me in summary form. See Exhibit B, attached hereto. The data summaries list the total number and location of searches, the name of the trooper who conducted each search, and racial breakdowns for the searches reported by MSP.

B. Data Gathered By The ACLU http://www.aclu.org/court/lamberth.html

10/04/2000

ACLU in the Courts:

Page 2 of 7

I designed and assisted in implementation of a plan to gather statistically appropriate data on the population of motorists on 1-95 in Cecil, Harford, and Baltimore Counties, north of Baltimore City. The "rolling survey", carried out by the ACLU, was to determine the racial composition of motorists on the highway and the racial composition of those motorists on the highway who were violating traffic laws.(4)
Observers rode in cars at a constant 55 or 65 miles per hour (depending upon the posted speed limit) northbound from the White Marsh exit of 1-95 (exit 67) to the last exit in Maryland (Elkton - exit 109) before the toll. They then stopped to rest or gas up for approximately 10 minutes and then proceeded southbound to the White Marsh exit.(5) They were instructed to count the cars that passed them and classify them as traffic violators (i.e., speeders) and to count the cars they passed (i.e., non-speeders) and classify them as non-violators, unless they were violating some other traffic law. They were also to classify each car as to the race of its driver.
There were a total of 21 traffic observation sessions conducted on days and at times randomly selected by me, in accordance with professionally established and accepted procedures and methods. Sessions were conducted only during the 12-hour period from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., as during these times the days were light enough to allow accurate counting.(6)
From the beginning of this study I have assumed that the racial composition of the population of travellers on 1-95 would be materially the same as the population of traffic violators. I have made that assumption based upon the proposition that blacks and persons of other races (1) are supposed to enjoy equality before the law; (2) are not materially different in motor, neural, and perceptual skills as they bear on the capacity to drive; and (3) the testimony of New Jersey State Police officers who in the case of State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et al., all testified that blacks drive indistinguishably from whites. As demonstrated in the traffic survey, this assumption has proven to be valid.
I have carefully reviewed both the design of the traffic survey and the reports from that survey. I consulted in the course of the survey with the supervisors in charge. On these bases, I am confident that the results of the survey accurately describe the racial population of the highway surveyed.
II. SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF EACH DATA SOURCE
A. Traffic Survey Results
Five thousand seven hundred and forty one cars were surveyed in the 21 sessions comprising approximately 42 hours. In the vast majority of cases, 96.8%, it was possible to identify the race of the driver of the vehicle. Nine hundred and seventy three, or 16.9% of the cars, had black drivers. Four thousand three hundred and forty one, or 75.6% of the cars, had white drivers. The great majority of drivers — 5,354 of 5,741, or 93.3% — were violating traffic laws and thus were eligible to be stopped by State Police. Of the violators, 17.5% were black, and 74.7% were white. Overall results of the traffic survey and the count of violators are shown in Table 1.

http://www.aclu.org/court/lamberth.html

10/04/2000

ACLU in the Courts:

Page 3 of 7

Table 1: Drivers and Traffic Law Violators by Race from I-95 Corridor Survey

White Black Other

Number of

4,341 973 241

Drivers Observed

Number of

4,000 938 232

Violators Observed

Percent of Drivers 75.6% 16.9% 4.3% (by race)

Percent of Violators 74.7% 17.5% 4.4% (by race)

Unknown All Minority

186

1,214

184

1,170

3.2% 21.1%

3.4% 21.8%

These results are consistent with the work I did in the case of State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et al., in which we conducted both a rolling survey and a stationary survey to determine motorist and violator populations on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike (which ends 19 miles from the northern terminus of I-95 in Maryland.) There, 98% of the drivers were violating traffic laws and 15% of the violators were black. While I would not expect I-95 in northern Maryland and the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike to have identical numbers of minority motorists and violators, the similar percentages discerned in the surveys support and confirm their reliability.
B. The Record Of Searches By The Maryland State Police
1. Interstate 95 Corridor Data
Between January 1995 and September 1996, the Maryland State Police reported searching 823 motorists on I-95, north of Baltimore. See Exhibit B. Of these, 600, or 72.9%, were black. Id. Six hundred and sixty-one, or 80.3%, were black, hispanic, or other racial minorities. Id. Only 19.7% of those searched in this corridor were white. Id. Most of the I-95 searches — 646, or 85.4% ~ were conducted by 13 troopers.(7) Search breakdowns for those troopers are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Individual Troopers Who Made 10 or More Searches Along the I-95 Corridor and the Numbers and Percent of Blacks and Minorities Searched

Trooper Name

Total Number Searched

John E. Appleby 68

Melvin

12

Fialkewicz

Blacks Total Searched Minorities
Searched

51

58

12

12

Percent Blacks Searched
75.0%
100%

Percent Minorities Searched
85.3%
100%

yw.aclu.ors/court/'lamberth.html

10/04/2000

ACLU in the Courts:

Page 4 of 7

John R. Greene 30

Steven L.

65

Hohner

David Hopp

37

David B.

150

Hughes

Michael T.

70

Hughes

Steven O. Jones 32 James Nolan 54

Paul J. Quill

70

Christopher

26

Tideberg

Ernest S. Tullis 40

John Wilhelm 46

23

27

53

55

8

11

125

131

57

59

19

26

45

47

41

52

23

23

39

39

15

26

76.7% 81.5%
21.6% 83.3%
81.4%
59.4% 83.3% 58.6% 88.5%
97.5% 32.6%

90.0% 84.6%
39.7% 87.3%
84.3%
81.3% 87.0% 74.3% 88.5%
97.5% 56.5%

With the exception of David Hopp, all of these troopers are searching blacks and other minority motorists at much higher rates than these motorists travel on the highway. The trooper (other than Hopp) with the lowest percentage of black searches still searched blacks at nearly twice the rate they were found to travel the highway. The trooper with the highest percentage of black searches searched only blacks. Ten of the 13 troopers searched minority motorists at least 80 percent of the time.
2. MSP Data From Outside the I-95 Corridor
Data reported by MSP for motorist searches conducted outside the I-95 corridor is markedly different from that reported by troopers patrolling I-95. As shown in Table 3, 63.7 percent of motorists searched by MSP troopers working outside the I-95 corridor are white, as compared with only 19.7% of motorists searched by troopers along I-95. Black motorists travelling I-95 are searched by state police more than twice as often as are black motorists travelling other Maryland roadways.
Table 3: MSP Search Data for Roadways Outside the Interstate 95 Corridor

Number of Searches Reported Outside the I-95 Corridor

All Searches
1,549

Black White Hispanic Other Total Minority

496 986 54

10 560

http://www.aclu.org/court/lamberth.html

10/04/2000

ACLU in the Courts:

Page 5 of 7

Percentage of Total

100%

32.0% 63.7% 3.5% 0.6% 36.2%

3. Statewide Data on Drug "Finds" Through Motorist Searches

The total number of motorist searches reported statewide by MSP during the time period is 2,372. In only 666, or 28.1%, of these searches was contraband found. Overall "find" rates were about the same for searches conducted on I-95 and those conducted elsewhere in the state. That is, of 823 searches conducted along the I-95 corridor, a controlled dangerous substance was recovered in 246, or 29.9% of the time, while on roadways outside the I-95 corridor, CDS was recovered in 420 of 1,549 searches, or 27.1% of the time. Even more importantly, "find" rates were the same statewide for searches of black and white motorists: According to MSP data, contraband was recovered in 311 of 1,096 searches (28.4%) of black motorists, and in 331 of 1,148 searches (28.8%) of white motorists.

III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data concerning the searches carried out by Maryland State Police along the I-95 corridor is extremely revealing. The State Police conducted a total of 823 searches in this area, finding some reason to arrest the driver of the car in only 246 (29.9%) of the searches. In 70 percent of the cases the search was fruitless. Of the 823 searches, in 600 (72.9%) of them, the person searched was black, and in 661 of them (80.3%), the person searched was a racial minority.

For purposes of this analysis, the proper statistical comparison contrasts the 72.9% of blacks searched to the 17.5% of traffic law violators who were black.(8) This assumes that blacks, once stopped by police, behave in a similar manner to any other motorist stopped by the police.

The accepted convention for statisticians to conclude that a difference is real and not chance is the finding that if the same study was done many times, the present results would occur only five times out of a hundred. This .05 level is determined by computing the number of standard deviations that the observed result differs from the expected. The .05 level of statistical significance is reached at about two standard deviations. The probability drops to one in 100 when 2.58 standard deviations is reached.

Here, the difference between 17.5% of blacks who are eligible to be stopped and the 72.9% of blacks searched by state police encompasses 34.6 standard deviations. The absolute disparity is 55.4% and the comparative disparity is 316.6%. An important alternative comparison contrasts the 72.9% rate of black searches on I-95 to the 32% of black searches on other Maryland roadways. The absolute disparity in these figures is 40.9%, and the comparative disparity is 128%. This difference encompasses 20.45 stardard deviations.

Such statistical significance is literally off the charts. It means, in layman's terms, the probability that black Interstate 95 drivers are subjected to searches at so high a rate by chance is less than one in one quintillion. It is wildly significant by statistical measures.

IV. CONCLUSION http://www.aclu.org/court/lamberth.html

10/04/2000

ACLU in the Courts:

Page 6 of 7

The evidence examined in this study reveals dramatic and highly statistically significant disparities between the percentage of black Interstate 95 motorists legitimately subject to stop by Maryland State Police and the percentage of black motorists detained and searched by MSP troopers on this roadway. While no one can know the motivations of each individual trooper in conducting a traffic stop, the statistics presented herein, representing a broad and detailed sample of highly appropriate data, show without question a racially discriminatory impact on blacks and other minority motorists from state police behavior along 1-95. The disparities are sufficiently great that, taken as a whole, they are consistent with and strongly support the assertion that the Maryland State Police are targeting the community of black motorists for stop, detention, and investigation within the Interstate 95 corridor.
John Lamberth, Ph.D.

1. For a full recitation of my credentials, employment and experience, please refer to my curriculum vitae attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. Of particular significance to the Wilkins case, I served as an expert for the Gloucester County Public Defender's Office in State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et al., a case referred to below. There, the Superior Court of New Jersey relied upon expert survey and analytical work I performed to suppress evidence seized by New Jersey State Police in 19 consolidated criminal prosecutions. The Court there concurred in my opinion that state police unlawfully relied upon race in stopping and searching motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike, thus tainting the evidence.

3. The generic term "black" is used in this report to identify people who may be AfricanAmerican.

4.1 initially requested that a stationary traffic survey also be carried out, primarily to confirm general population numbers ascertained through the rolling traffic survey which was conducted. However, plaintiffs counsel informed me that their request to carry out such a survey was denied by the Maryland State Police.

5. On eight occasions, either the weather and traffic conditions were sufficiently favorable or the surveyors did not stop at the northern terminus of the survey, and there was still some time in the two hour period designated for the survey. On these occasions, a "half pass" was executed. That is, the surveyors drove northward for half of the time remaining in the two-hour survey period and then drove southward for the other half of the time remaining. While this technically oversamples the southern part of the roadway, as a practical matter it had almost no effect. On the eight sessions when the half pass was executed, 16.7% of the highway population was counted as black, and during the sessions when no half pass was executed, 17% of the population on the highway was counted as black.

6. A complete description of the survey is found in "American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland 1-95 Corridor Traffic and Violator Survey" by Sarah E. Cushman and Christopher E. Kosmides, appended to plaintiffs' Memorandum as Exhibit 11.

http://www.aclu.org/court/lamberth.html

10/04/2000

ACLU in the Courts:

Page 7 of7

7. Here, I include only troopers who have reported conducting 10 or more searches in the 21-month period.
8. An ideal comparison would be the percentage of black traffic law violators to the percentage of blacks stopped by the Maryland State Police. Stop data has not been made available by MSP however. In the absence of that, the percentage of blacks searched provides a rough approximation of the percentage of blacks stopped, given the fact that in 70% of the cases the search turned up no contraband. As set forth below, the difference between the percentage of blacks travelling I-95 and the percentage of blacks searched is highly statistically significant.

HOME

SEARCH FEEDBACK

11996, The American Civil Liberties Union

http://www.aclu.org/court/lamberth.html

10/04/2000

 
 Wilkins v. Maryland State Police

" ^ irHH

•••HBW

H m !••••• «•

• • IIP •

•• ••

PP-MD-002-007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERT L. WILKINS,

)

individually and on behalf of )

all other persons similarly

)

situated,

)

1620 Fuller Street, N.W.

)

Apartment #505

)

Washington, D.C., 20009,

)

)

NORMAN SCOTT EL-AMIN,

)

individually and on behalf of )

all other persons similarly

)

situated,

)

15271 Waterwheel Terrace

)

Woodbridge, Virginia 22191,

)

)

NU'MAN W. EL-AMIN,

)

individually and on behalf of )

all other persons similarly

)

situated,

)

5761 Harwich Court

)

Apartment #222

)

Alexandria, Virginia 22311,

)

)

and

>

)

AQUILA ABDULLAH,

)

individually and on behalf of

)

all other persons similarly

)

situated,

.

)

5761 Harwich Court

)

Apartment #222

)

Alexandria, Virginia 22311,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) CÌVÌI NO. fÅiSQ ¿?3

)

)

MARYLAND STATE POLICE,

)

SERVE:

)

Colonel Larry W. Tolliver

)

Superintendent,

)

Maryland State Police

)

1201 Reisterstown Road

)

Pikesville, Maryland 21208,

)

)

TFC. BRYAN W. HUGHES,

¯ )

Badge #1817,

)

individually and in his official )

capacity,

)

Barrack "C" Cumberland

)

1125 National Highway

)

Cumberland, Maryland, 21502,

)

)

TFC. EDWARD V. SYRACUSE,

)

Badge #3152,

)

. · individually and in his official )

capacity,

)

Aviation Division

)

Cumberland Section

)

Rt. 1, Box 100

)

Wiley Ford, West Virginia 26767, )

)

DEPUTY SHERIFF RONALD BROWN,

)

individually and in his official )

capacity,

)

708 Furnace Street

)

Cumberland, Maryland 21502,

)

)

JOHN W. STOTLER,

)

in his official capacity as

)

President of the Allegany

)

County Commissioners,

)

County Office Building

)

701 Kelly Road

)

Cumberland, Maryland 21502,

)

)

BERNARD L. LOAR,

)

in his official capacity as an )

Allegany County Commissioner,

)

County Office Building .

)

701 Kelly Road

)

Cumberland, Maryland 21502,

)

)

ADRIENNE L. OTTAVIANI,

)

in her official capacity as an )

Allegany County Commissioner,

)

County Office Building

)

701 Kelly Road

)

Cumberland, Maryland 21502

)

)

and

)

¾

)

¾

ALLEGANY COUNTY,

)

¾,

County Office Building

)

701 Kelly Road Cumberland, Maryland 21502,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) - 2-

COMPLAINT

I.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiffs, four African-American citizens of the

United States, bring this lawsuit seeking declaratory, injunctive

and monetary relief to redress the injuries they suffered as a

result of the defendants' racially-based detention, seizure and

search of them on May 8, 1992. In the manner detailed herein, the

defendants under color of state law, detained, seized and searched

the car in which plaintiffs, a lawyer employed by the District of

Columbia Public Defender Service and three of his relatives, were

traveling, falsely imprisoned plaintiffs on the basis of their race,

and intentionally treated them differently on account of their race

in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, Maryland common law, Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Apparently, the

African-American named plaintiffs were detained, seized and searched

pursuant to a "drug courier profile" employed by defendants, which

targets persons of Africans-American race. In addition to seeking

individual compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiffs seek to

represent all those African-Americans who have been or will be

stopped on highways in Maryland pursuant to the Maryland State

Police's drug courier profile in a class action for declaratory and

injunctive relief requiring defendants to desist from and remedy

their illegal race-based conduct.

- 3-

9. Defendant Bernard L. Loar, sued here in his official capacity/ is a Commissioner and member of the Allegany County Commissioners which, upon information and belief, is the governing body for Allegany County.
10. Defendant Adrienne L. Ottaviani, sued here in her official capacity, is a Commissioner and member of the Allegany County Commissioners which, upon information and belief is the governing body for Allegany County.
11. Defendant Allegany County is a municipal corporate body politic which provides a number of services to those residing within its borders, including provision of police protection, and is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12. Defendant Maryland State Police, headquartered in Pikesville, Maryland, is in charge of patrolling Maryland state highways. Upon information and belief, Maryland State Police receive federal funds through federal grants from the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance via sub-grants from the Maryland Governor's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission.
13. Upon information and belief, defendant Trooper Bryan W. Hughes, sued here in both his individual and official capacity, is a white male and a resident of Maryland who is employed by the Maryland State Police. All actions taken by Trooper Hughes while working as a Maryland State Trooper were taken under color of state law.
14. Upon information and belief defendant Trooper Edward V. Syracuse, sued here in both his individual and official capacity, is a white male and a resident of either Maryland or West
- 5-

Virginia who is employed by the Maryland State Police. All actions taken by Trooper Syracuse while working as a Maryland State Trooper were taken under color of state law.
15. Upon information and belief defendant Deputy Sheriff Ronald Brown, sued here in both his individual and official capacity, is a white male and a resident of Maryland who is employed by Allegany County. All actions taken by Deputy Sheriff Brown while working as an Allegany County Deputy Sheriff were taken under color of state law.

IV.

FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION

16. On May 8, 1992, while returning from the funeral of a

relative in Chicago, plaintiffs were stopped in the rental car in

which they were traveling and detained on U.S. Interstate 68 in

Cumberland, Maryland by defendant Hughes. At the time of the stop,

plaintiff Norman Scott El-Arnin was driving, plaintiff Robert Wilkins

was in the front passenger seat and plaintiffs Nu'Man El-Amin and

Aquila Abdullah occupied the rear seats.

17. Initially, plaintiffs were told by defendant Hughes

that the car had been "paced" doing sixty miles per hour in a forty

miles per hour zone.

18. Defendant Hughes asked plaintiff Norman Scott El-Amin

for his license and returned to his police vehicle.

19. Soon thereafter defendant Hughes asked Norman Scott

El-Amin to step out of his car and to sign a release form consenting

to a search of the car.

- 6-

20. One of the passengers in the car was plaintiff Robert L. Wilkins, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a lawyer in the District of Columbia office of the.Public Defender Service. Mr. Wilkins identified himself to defendant Hughes and explained that he had a court appearance in the District of Columbia Superior Court early that morning and that plaintiffs were returning from the funeral of a relative in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins also informed defendant Hughes that he had no right to search the car unless he was arresting Norman Scott El-Amin and searching the car incident to that arrest. Defendant Hughes replied that such searches were "routine" and stated that if plaintiffs had "nothing to hide, then what [was] the problem?"
21. Upon information and belief, defendant Hughes detained plaintiffs for a search of their car because he believed they fit a "drug courier profile" that targets persons of African-American race. Upon information and belief, a drug courier profile routinely is utilized in lieu of probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion by Maryland State Police engaged in patrolling state highways. Individuals fitting this profile are stopped, detained and subjected to searches of their persons and vehicles. Upon information and belief the drug courier profile includes the following characteristics: 1) young, black males wearing expensive jewelry; 2) driving expensive cars, usually sports cars; 3) carrying beepers; and 4) possessing lists of telephone numbers.
- 7-

22. Defendant Hughes was joined at the scene by defendant Syracuse. Defendants Hughes and Syracuse detained plaintiffs for a period of one-half hour while a narcotics dog was brought to the scene. The detention was without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion and for no reason other than plaintiffs' race.
23. During this period of racially-motivated detention, plaintiff Nu'Man El-Amin asked defendant Hughes whether he intended to write a ticket. Defendant Hughes responded that he was only going to give plaintiff Norman Scott El-Amin a warning. Nu'Man El-Amin requested that defendant Hughes write the warning so that plaintiffs could be on their way. Hughes refused, ignoring plaintiff Robert Wilkins1 citation to legal authority that detention for a dog search was illegal absent reasonable, articulable suspicion that plaintiffs were carrying drugs.
24. Defendant Brown arrived with the dog and plaintiffs were ordered out of the car by defendants Hughes and Syracuse."
25. Plaintiffs initially refused to exit the car, noting that it was raining outside and that they feared the German Shepherd dog brought by defendant Brown.
26. After being told by defendants Brown and Hughes that the detention would continue until they exited the car, plaintiffs got out of the car and stood in the rain as the German Shepherd sniffed around the car without visible reaction.
27. Plaintiffs were then allowed to get back inside their car while defendant Hughes wrote out and issued a $105.00 ticket to plaintiff Norman Scott El-Amin. In all, plaintiffs were detained
- 8-

for approximately forty-five minutes, which caused them to hit the

peak of rush hour traffic on 1-270 and the Washington, D.C. Beltway

and caused plaintiff Robert Wilkins to miss his 9:30 a.m. court

appearance.

V.

CLASS ACTION PREREQUISITES

28. For the purpose of all declaratory and injunctive

relief, plaintiffs Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man

W. El-Amin, and Aquila Abdullah bring this action pursuant to Rule

23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf

of themselves and all other persons similarly situated.

29. The class which plaintiffs seek to represent consists

of all African-Americans who have been in the past, or who will be

in the future, unconstitutionally stopped, detained and searched on

Maryland highways by Maryland State Troopers pursuant to a

race-based drug courier profile.

30. The number of African-Americans who have in the past

or will in the future be discriminated against by the Maryland State

Troopers' arbitrary and race-based policy is too numerous for

practicable joinder.

31. There are questions of law and fact common to all

members of the class and all class members are and/or will be

directly affected by the challenged actions of the defendants. Each

putative class member has been or will be subjected to arbitrary,

race-based stops, detention and searches on Maryland highways.

These common questions predominate over any minor potential

variances in the circumstances of the individual detentions.

- 9-

32. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole. Each named plaintiff has in the past and will in the future travel on Maryland state highways. Each named plaintiff has experienced in the past and may likely again experience in the future defendants' pattern and practice of race-based detention, seizures and searches of African-Americans. The experiences of plaintiffs at the hands of Maryland State Troopers and their risk of future harm from defendants' policy render their claims typical of those faced by the class of African-Americans they seek to represent.
33. Plaintiffs will be adequate representatives of the class in that all of the relevant questions of fact and law applicable to the class also apply to each of them. They are adequately represented by counsel who have tried numerous civil rights cases in this Court and who are familiar with the applicable law.
34. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of adjudications which would be inconsistent or varying with respect to the individual class members, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, or which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members of the class who are not parties to the adjudication.
35. Separate actions would create a risk of adjudications disposing of interests of unnamed parties or impairing their ability to protect their interests. Unnamed African-Americans who have
- 10 -

previously been stopped, detained and searched, and whose identities are as yet unknown and those who will in the future be stopped, detained and searched under defendants' arbitrary and discriminatory policy, should be protected from the unconstitutional implementation of a race-based drug courier profile.
36. This action is properly maintained as a class action inasmuch as the questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by enforcing a race-based policy that improperly restricts plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be secure in their persons and free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, defendants threaten to repeat these unconstitutional practices and policies in the future, toward both named plaintiffs and the class of unnamed and as yet unidentified African-Americans.

i

¦

COUNT I

Violation of Civil Rights — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) (All Defendants)

I

37. Plaintiffs hereby reallege Paragraphs 1 through 36,

and incorporate them herein by reference.

J

38. Defendants, under color of statute, ordinance,

I

regulation, custom and usage have subjected and caused plaintiffs

a n d the class they represent, on account of their race as

I

I

- 11 -

African-American citizens of the United States, to be subjected to
the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, in the following particulars:
(a) their right to liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment;
(b) their right to be secure as persons against unreasonable seizures, secured to them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(c) their right to be secure in their property against unreasonable searches and seizures, secured to them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(d) their right to be free from unlawful detention and imprisonment as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; and
(e) their right to equal protection of the laws as enjoyed by similarly situated Caucasian citizens of the United States secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.
39. At no time did defendants Hughes, Syracuse or Brown
have probable cause, reasonable, articulable suspicion or any
ground, to believe that a crime had been committed or that
plaintiffs were carrying drugs of any kind.
40. Defendants Hughes, Syracuse and Brown, acting under
color of law, in concert with one another, intentionally
discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis of race and failed to
afford them equal protection of the law.
41. Defendants Stotler, Loar, Ottaviani and Allegany
County are aware of the Maryland State Police policy of utilizing a
race-based drug courier profile and these
- 12 -

defendants provide manpower and other resources in support of the state police's race-based policy.
42. Defendants Maryland State Police, Stotler, Loar, Ottaviani and Allegany County acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures which involve intentional discrimination in the provision of law enforcement services based on race.
43. The defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, as to which defendants were accurately advised by plaintiff Robert Wilkins, and have directly and proxirnately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain and suffering.
44. To the extent that defendants' policy of employing a race-based drug courier profile authorizes and causes state law enforcement officials, without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe any crime has been committed, to detain and search African-Americans, it violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, on its face and as applied, and gives rise to plaintiffs' claims for redress under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
COUNT II (Disparate Racial Impact In Violation of Title VI)
(Defendant Maryland State Police) 45. Plaintiffs hereby reallege Paragraphs 1 through 44 and incorporate them herein by reference.
- 13 -

46. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2OOOd, provides:

[N]o person in the United States shall,

|

on the ground of race, color, or

í

national origin, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the

1

benefits of, or be subjected to

discrimination under any program or

activity receiving federal financial

assistance.

47. Federal regulations provide that no Department of

Justice program receiving federal financial assistance shall:

[U]tilize criteria or methods of

(

administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to

discrimination because of their race,

color, or national origin, or have the

(

effect of defeating or substantially

impairing accomplishment of the program

as respect [to] individuals of a

(

particular race, color, or national origin.

-

28 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2).

48. Defendant Maryland State Police'receives federal

I

financial assistance through federal grants from the United States

Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance via sub-grants

I

from the Maryland Governor's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission.

1

49. The race-based drug courier profile has a

discriminatory and disproportionate impact on African-Americans.

I

Federal financial assistance, earmarked for drug abuse enforcement

by defendant Maryland State Police, is being misused in the unlawful

I'

detention, search and seizure of African-Americans based on this

•;

race-based policy.

!
- 14 -
1

50. Defendant Maryland State Police's violation of 42

U.S.C. § 2OOOd has caused and will cause African-American members of

the plaintiff class to suffer tremendous harm and public humiliation

í

1

in that they have been and will continue to be subjected to this

j

race-based policy.

.

COUNT III

False Imprisonment

(Defendants Hughes, Syracuse, Brown, Stotler, Loar, Ottaviani

|

and Allegany County)

51. Plaintiffs hereby reallege Paragraphs 1 through 50 and

|j

incorporate them herein by reference.

52. This Count is brought by the named plaintiffs only.

;

53. At this time, this Count is brought against defendants

I¦
I

Hughes and Syracuse in their individual capacities only, against

defendant Brown in both his individual and official capacities,

|!

against defendants Stotler, Loar and Ottaviani in their official

capacities and against defendant Allegany County.

J

54. On November 3, 1992, plaintiffs provided notice of

|j

their claims to the State of Maryland pursuant to the Maryland Tort

li

Claims Act which prohibits the institution of a state tort action

|!

against the state or state officials acting in their official

capacities until either the State Treasurer denies the claim or a

J

period of 180 days elapses. As of May 2, 1993, plaintiffs plan to

I

amend this Complaint to include defendant Maryland State Police in

!J

this Count.

- 15 -

55. By their acts, defendants Hughes, Syracuse, and Brown
3
willfully, knowingly, and with malice, restricted plaintiffs' 4
freedom of movement, despite plaintiff Robert W i l k m s ' accurate

statements to defendants that they had no probable cause or

£

reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain plaintiffs for a drug

search by a drug-sniffing dog, thereby falsely imprisoning
7

plaintiffs.

56. By providing the drug-sniffing dog as well as manpower

resources in support of the detention, seizure and search of

plaintiffs, defendants Stotler, Loar, Ottaviani and Allegany County

¯|

willfully, knowingly, and with malice restricted plaintiffs' freedom

r

of movement, despite the complete lack of probable cause or

reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain plaintiffs for a search

I

by a drug-sniffing dog, thereby falsely imprisoning plaintiffs.

57. The defendants' acts were done with malice and

deliberate indifference for plaintiffs' legal rights and have

directly and proximately caused plaintiffs loss of liberty,

humiliation and mental pain and suffering.

V.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court;

(a) Certify, for the purpose of declaratory and injunctive

relief, a class of all African-Americans who have been

in the past, or who will be in the future, stopped,

detained and searched on Maryland highways by Maryland

State Troopers pursuant to a race-based drug courier

- 16 -

profile, with named plaintiffs Robert L. Wilkins,

Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin and Aquila

3

Abdullah as representatives for the plaintiff class;

4

(b) Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202,

f

that defendant Maryland State Police's policy of

stopping African-Americans pursuant to a race-based

drug courier profile is unconstitutional, on its face

'

and as applied, because it denies the guarantee of the

right to be free from unreasonable searches and

seizures of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

the guarantee of equal protection of the laws in the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(c) Enjoin defendants immediately to discontinue utilizing

a race-based drug courier profile and to desist from

ever employing such'discriminatory means in the future;

(d) Award the named plaintiffs compensatory and

consequential damages in an amount to be determined at

trial, against defendants Stotler, Loar, Ottaviani and

Allegany County and defendants Hughes, Syracuse and

Brown, jointly and severally, against defendants

Hughes and Syracuse in their individual capacities

only and against defendant Brown in both his

individual and official capacities;

- 17 -

(e) Award plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to be q

determined at trial against defendants Stotler, Loar,

Ottaviani and Allegany County and defendants Hughes,

4

Syracuse and Brown, jointly and severally, against

c

defendants Hughes and Syracuse in their individual
i
capacities only and against defendant Brown in both
his individual and official capacities;

(f) Award plaintiffs their attorneys' fees and costs

incurred in bringing this action, as provided in

42 U.S.C. Section 1988;

(g) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may

deem just and proper.

- 18 -

VI.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted, HOGAN & HARTSON

l8O8h

n C. Keeney, Jr. Robert B. Duncan David A. Hill
555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1109 202/637-5600
and
111 South Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410^59-2700
Susan Goering Deborah A. Jeon
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND
2219 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 410/889-8555
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

- 19 -

 
 ...
11r'0':' 102 THCUas00e: 12:893F-.Ucv-00468-CCB DocumeGnStC1O22-3 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 1 of 1

Maryland State Police Consent to Search and Seize

hereby authorize

(Name of person consenting to search)

(Name of State Police Member)

of the Maryland State Police and any other law enforcement officer designated to assist. to

conduct a complete search of

(Thorough desc:iption of residence, property. vehicle, etc.)

raJOO2

located at

(Thorough description of location and/or ccmpiete address)

I further authorize the above member(s) of the Maryland State Police to remove any letters, documents, papers, mat~rials, or other property which is considered important to the investigation, provided that I am subsequently given a receipt for anything that is removed.

I have knowingly and voluntarily given my consent to search the above described location Jithout fear, threat, or promise either expressed or implied. Further, J understand that I have a ~onstitutional right to refuse to consent to this search and that any items seized may be used 19ainst me in a court of law.

Witnesses:

(Signature of Person Consenting to Search)

Date:

Time:

Item Number

Itemized List of Articles Taken as Evidence Include thorough description, quantity, where and by whom located

Rank -Signature -I.D. No.
MSP 78 (9.96)

Cas~ No.

Date
Attachment B

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERTL. WILKINS, etal.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al., )

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. CCB-468

ORDER On consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and for Further Relief; the Opposition thereto by Defendants; and argument held April 11, 1997, the Court hereby FINDS: 1. Plaintiffs clearly have made a reasonable showing that there was a pattern and practice of stops by the Maryland State Police ("MSP") on the basis of race, within the meaning of Paragraph 10 of the Settlement Agreement, on Interstate Highway 95 in Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil Counties between the City of Baltimore and the Delaware state line (the "1-95 corridor"), in the period of January 1, 1995 through September 30,1996. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 1. The Court hereby extends its jurisdiction pursuant to Paragraphs 1 and 10 of the Settlement Agreement through and including June 30,1998. 2. Within thirty (30) days of April 11,1997, the MSP shall file with the Court and serve on counsel for Plaintiffs the following additional information:
Wilkins v. Maryland State Police
IllllIHil PP-MD-002-009

a. An analysis, by quarter, of the race of individuals stopped and searched by the MSP in the 1-95 corridor from January 1,1995 through and including the first quarter of 1997.
b. One or more affidavits describing in detail the investigations and disciplinary actions, if any, taken by the MSP in response to racial disparities in data concerning stops and searches in the 1-95 corridor. The MSP should submit internal documents concerning such investigations and disciplinary actions. If the MSP believes that in order to protect legitimate privacy interests, such documents should be confidential, in whole or in part, it may submit them to the Court with that request. It should serve counsel for Plaintiffs with redacted versions of those documents, or, if the MSP believes they should be confidential in whole, the MSP should notify counsel for Plaintiffs of the general nature of the documents submitted. The Court subsequently will determine whether such documents should be provided to counsel for Plaintiffs under a protective, order or otherwise.
c. One or more affidavits describing identifying information that the MSP collected and/or maintained concerning the persons the MSP stopped in the 1-95 corridor from January 1,1995 to the present, when the stops resulted in either consent to search or a search by a drug-detecting dog.
3. The MSP immediately shall take all reasonable steps to preserve and not destroy, whether in the ordinary course of business or otherwise, any identifying information that the MSP collected and/or maintained concerning persons the MSP has stopped in the 1-95 corridor from January 1,1995 to the present, when the stops resulted in either consent to search or a search by a drug-detecting dog.
-2-

4. As soon as practicable, the MSP shall collect and maintain data as described in Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement for all persons the MSP stops in the 1-95 corridor, whether or not the stop results in consent to search or a search by a drug-detecting dog. The MSP shall provide that data to the Court and counsel for Plaintiffs in the same manner as it previously was required to produce data under Paragraph 9.
5. As soon as practicable, the MSP shall collect and preserve information identifying the persons it stops in the 1-95 corridor, whether or not the stop results in consent to search or a search by a drug-detecting dog. This information should include, at a minimum, the name, home address, and vehicle license plate numbers of such persons. The MSP need not provide such information to counsel for Plaintiffs unless subsequently ordered to do so by this Court.
6. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs' request to sanction the MSP for contempt of court.
SO ORDERED.

Date

Catherine C. Blake

U. S. District Judge

607SJ10.ll

-3-

 
 Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-4 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERT L. WILKINS, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE

)

OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. CCB-93-468 Civil Action No. CCB-98-1098

* * * * * * * * * NOTICE OF FILING OF LENGTHY EXHIBIT

Defendants, by and through their attorneys, file this Notice of Filing of Lengthy Exhibits and state as follows:
Defendants’ Exhibit C which is an attachment to Defendants’ Consent Decree, exist only in paper format and if scanned will be larger than 1.5 MB. It will be filed with the Clerk’s Office in paper format.

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-4 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 2 of 2

I certify that within 24 hours of the filing of this Notice, I will file and serve paper

copies of the documents identified above.

4/22/03

/s/ MAUREEN M. DOVE Federal Bar No. 01169 STEVEN M. SULLIVAN Federal Bar No. 24930 Assistant Attorneys General 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 576-6427 BETTY S. SCONION Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. 01544 Maryland State Police 1201 Reisterstown Road - Building A Pikesville, Maryland 21208 (410) 653-4228

Attorneys for Defendants

2

 
 Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 123 Filed 05/23/2003 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IJ! OtSFT1RLt~C'fT)(
SF~tCT nr: u ~~ fURr
'1 "II II

ROBERT L. Wll..K1NS, ET AL.

v.

CML NO. CCB-93-468

-"'1'\1\ :i OFFiCE
T SALT/HORE

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, ET AL

---IIiI(lT

.000...

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCEOF NAACP BRANCHES,ET AL.

v.

CML NO. CCB-98-1098

MARYLAND STATE POLICE, ET AL.

.000...

ORDER

Having consideredtheConsentDecreein the above-captionedcasest,ogetherwith

AttachmentsA, B, andC, it is herebyORDERED thatthe ConsentDecreeis Approved

this 1:1m. dayof May, 2003.

/8/&

A

CatherineC. Blake

UnitedStatesDistrictJudge

r
Is! Paul W. Grimm United StatesMagistrateJudge

 
 Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERT L. WILKINS, et al.,

)
)
) Plaintiffs, )
) v. )

MARYLAND STATEPOLICE, etal.,

)

) Defendants.

Civil Action No. CCB-93-468

)

MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE

OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)
v. )

) MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al.,

) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. CCB-98-1098

CONSENT DECREE

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 2 of 19

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Recitals

3

1. GeneralProvisions.

3

2. GeneralPolicyProhibitingRacialProfiling

3. Implementation of Policy Against Racial Profiling. ..

..4

4. Data CollectionandTechnology

8

5. ManagemenOt versightRelatingto Policy AgainstRacialProfiling.

9

6. Citizen and Police Involvement to Promote Mutual Understanding

12

7. Useof Caninesin AutomobileSearches.

12

8. Procedures for Consent Searches. .

13

9. Mechanicsof theDecree

3

10. CounselFeesandExpenses

17

ATTACHMENTS

Wilkinssettlementagreement

21

B,

MSP 78 (9-96) (MSP consent searchfonD)

c. Clarifying Addendum to ConsentDecree.

-2A.

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 3 of 19
WHEREAS, the parties to this ConsentDecree agreethat:
a. Trust is vital to the successof policing in a democratic society and that community outreach is an essentialpart of trust-building;
b. Both incidentsandperceptionsof raciallybiasedpolicing leadto mistrustof police;
c. Thepolice cannotfunctioneffectivelyin communitieswhereanatmosphereof mistrustis prevalent;and
d. To build trust and reachmutual understanding with regard to the issue of racial profiling,
police and community members must be willing to hear each other out.
WHEREAS:
a. The Maryland StatePolice (MSP) recognizesthat community outreachto people of color is
an important component of a departmental strategy to prevent biased policing and perceptions of biased policing; and
b. The plaintiffs, the NAACP, andthe ACLU recognize thatrelationships are"two way streets" and, for police/resident relationships to work, people of color also must engage with the police, doing more than verbalizing concernsand complaints.
AND WHEREAS: a. The parties acknowledgethe jurisdiction of the Court and its authority to enterthis Consent
Decree. THEREFORE, the plaintiffs and defendants MSP and Colonel Edward T. Norris, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, enter into the following commitments and consentto their enforcementasexpresslyprovided below in the form of a Consent Decree of the Court:
1 GeneralProvisions 1.1 These tenus apply state-wide to MSP activities. 1.2 Subjectto Section10, below, this ConsentDecreeconstitutesa final andcomplete resolution
of plaintiffs' demands for declaratory and injunctive relief in Case No. CCB-98-1098 (NAACP), asdemandedin paragraphs(c), (d), (e), (t), and (g) of the Prayer for Relief in the SecondAmended Complaint in this case. This ConsentDecree does not resolve plaintiffs' demandsfor relief in paragraphs(a), (b), (h), (i), G), (k), or (1)in the Prayer for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint. Also subject to Section 10, below, this Consent Decree, furthermore, constitutes a final and complete resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for
-3 -
AND

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 4 of 19

Enforcement of SettlementAgreementand for Further Relief, dated November 14, 1996, in Case No. CCB-93-468 (Wilkins). Unless otherwise specified herein, the terms of this ConsentDecree supersedeand replace those of the prior Wilkins SettlementAgreement.

1.3 While the parties carefully have drafted this Consent Decree, and intend that it fully
memorialize the termsof their agreementasdrafted, they recognize that eventsor experience after it takes effect may make it desirableto modify or amendthe decree,provided that such a modification or amendmentis consistentwith its original spirit and purpose. The parties therefore agree that they retain the authority to request amendment or modification to the decreeand thatthe Court shall retain authority to order suchchanges,provided that theyare: (a) reasonablynecessaryfully to implement the original intent of the parties and (b) do not materially alter the obligations imposed and benefits conferred herein. Any such amendments or modifications sought pursuant to this Section shall be governed by the following procedures: The party seeking amendmentor modification shall notify the other party in writing, explaining in reasonabledetail the changethat is soughtandthe reasonsfor it. The parties then will have 30 daysto confer and discussthe requestedchange. After the 30 dayperiod, if the parties agreeon the requestfor change,they may presentit to the Court by joint or consentmotion. If the parties do not agree,the party seeking the change may request it to the Court by motion.

2

General PolicX Prohibitin{! Racial Profilin{!

2.1 MSP reaffintls its policy, as stated in General Order 01-9503 (1/1/95) and reaffintled in Special Order 01-9716 (6/30/97), that troopers may not rely on an individual's race or ethnicity asa factor in detentlining whether to stop, question, searchor arrestan individual, unlessrace or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspector suspects
for a specific crime or crimes.

2.2 MSP recognizes thatthe obligations setout herein are not in lieu of its obligations underthe Constitution and laws of the United Statesand Maryland. However, alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and Maryland are not violations of this agreement,andMSP' sconstitutional and statutoryobligations arenot enforceableunderthis
agreement.

3

Implementation ofPolicv A{!ainst Racial Profilin{!

3.1 Training
3.1. The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) hasdevelopedanationwide training program for the proper conductof traffic stops,in part to heighten officer awareness of potential civil rights implications of actions at the traffic stop. MSP training in regard to its anti-discrimination policy will include the useof updatedstatistics generatedthrough the data collection program described herein and from other sources, to examine numbers of searchesand searchfind rates by troopers, including the race of motorists searched. The

4-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 5 of 19
NHTSA training andthis training will beprovided to all MSP trooperswho patrol highways, with input from the community consultation program discussedbelow in Section6.
MSP will hire a consultant to review related MSP training programs who, with input from the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee as well as review of stop tapes, will recommend improvements. This consultant's review will include review of training that MSP troopers receive on drug interdiction, including such training provided within MSP, and, where practicable to do so, also by agenciesotherthan MSP. MSP acknowledges its obligation to utilize its best efforts to assurethat its troopers do not follow drug interdiction training or practices that conflict with the General Policy Prohibiting Racial Profiling, stated above.
MSP will provide in-service training to ensure that officers understand that motorist complaints are an important and valuable part of the public service MSP provides, that complaining citizens are to be treated with respect and understanding, and that each complaint must be promptly brought to the attention of the commanding officer of the trooper involved in the incident.
The Superintendentshall designatean officer to coordinate all training received by troopers concerningdrug interdiction andtraffic stops,including Academytraining, generalin-service training, and training received from outside sources. MSP will use its best efforts to assure that MSP troopers do not receive training in drug interdiction and traffic stops that conflicts with MSP's policy against racial profiling or the requirements of this consent decree. Toward this end,before approving payment,reimbursement,or anaward of in-service credit for outsidetraining in drug interdiction andtraffic stops,the approving authority will review any available coursematerials to ensurethat the training is consistentwith the principles of non-discrimination embodied in this agreement.To assistin this review in the future, MSP's EducationCommandwill make bestefforts to obtain andretain on file coursematerials from all outside trainings in drug interdiction or traffic stops henceforth received by MSP personnel, and will develop a list of recommended courses in this subject area. Where a particular drug interdiction or traffic stopcoursehasbeenidentified by MSP as inconsistent with principles of non-discrimination, MSP will make that information available to its personnel,andMSP will not approve further requestsfor payment,reimbursement, or award of in-service training credit for that course, unless the course has been revised to be consistent with principles of non-discrimination. MSP will also instruct personnel that recipients of training from outside sources may not implement any principles of law enforcement that are inconsistent with those in applicable federal and state law and MSP policies.
Tapingof StopsandSearches
MSP has voluntarily installed equipment for the automatic video and audio recording of traffic stopsontroopers' patrol cars; currently all carsoperating out of all barracks thatpatrol 1-95 are so equipped. It is MSP's desire eventually to have all MSP patrol cars so equipped throughout the Stateof Maryland. When andto the extent that financing becomesavailable to equip other vehicles, MSP will so equip all vehicles.
-5 -
Audio-Visual

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 6 of 19
The equipment automatically begins taping upon activation of the car's siren and/or emergencylights and continues until the car leavesthe sceneof the stop. The microphone is manually activated. Review of tapes available to date demonstrates that technical difficulties occur. Over the next year, MSP will work with the contractor from which the equipmentwas purchasedto attemptto assurethat thesedifficulties areresolved. MSP also will work with the contractor so that, if practicable, the trooper's microphone is automatically activated whenever videotaping is occurring. In the meantime, MSP will continue to have a policy that requires that the trooper activate the microphone when the event is called in.
ComplaintProcessRelatingto RacialProfiling
No later than sixty (60) days afterthe effective dateof the agreement,MSP will take, or will continue to take, the following actions.
3.3.1.1 The Settlement Coordinator to be designatedpursuantto Section 9.2 will be responsible for tracking the progress of eachcomplaint aboutracial profiling through its resolution and for maintaining comprehensive statistics regarding complaints to MSP about racial profiling.
3.3.1.2MSP will continueits presentpolicy of receivingcomplaintsof misconductorally, by telephone,in person,or in writing, at anyMSPinstallation.
3.3, ,3 MSP will continue to operatea 24-hour toll free telephonehotline to receive complaints.
3.3.1.4 MSP will provide Standard Operating Procedures to all officers staffmg the hotline, describing how to receive complaints. The procedure will include directions that each complaint is to be promptly forwarded to the commanderof the trooper involved.
3.3.1.5 MSP will produce a brochure explaining the process, and will make complaint forms, brochures, andthe hotline number easilyavailable at State-ownedreststops,MSP barracks, and MY A (assuming the agreementof MY A management). Troopers also will keepcopies of the brochure in their cars and will orally offer a copy to every motorist ticketed or searchedby MSP, at the conclusion of the stop, unless in a particular instancedoing so is impracticable. As part of the long termprovisions that MSPwill developpursuantto Section 5.3, MSP will develop standardsfor determining when a trooper may decline to offer a copy of the brochure to a motorist on grounds of impracticability, as is stated in Section 5.3.3.7.
3.3.1.6The brochurewill include infonnation helpful to the motorist during the processof complainingaboutor commendingthe conductof a trooper, suchasa reminderto write down the trooper'snameand identificationnumber,the car number,the date,time and locationof the event.
3.3.1.7 MSP will provide in-service training to ensure that officers understand that motorist complaints are an important and valuable part of the public service provided by MSP, that
-6-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 7 of 19

troopers areto treatmotorists with complaints with respectandunderstanding,and that each complaint is to be promptly folWarded to the supervisor of the trooper involved.

3.3.1.8 A consultant will review the current complaint process. This review will include relevant documents, such as complaint forms and informational brochures, and descriptions or explanations of the process in the MSP Manual or elsewhere. The consultant will recommendrevisions in the processandthe relevantdocuments,to the extentthe consultant deemsit necessary, to improve the processandassurethat it is user-friendly, and so that the processis specifically and clearly described. The consultantalsowill review the Manual and recommend revisions, if necessary,to provide explicitly that motorist complaints are an important and valuable part of the public serviceprovided by MSP, that troopers areto treat motorists with complaints with respectand understanding, and that eachcomplaint is to be promptly forwarded to the supervisorof the trooper involved. Any changesto the complaint processwill be consistent with LEOBR, Art. 27, §§ 727 -734D.

3.3 MSP will continue its practice and formally adopta policy that authorizes a complainant to be accompanied by another person of his or her choice when interviewed regarding the complaint, unless the other personis a witness. Sucha person may be excluded ifhe or she
becomesdisruptive or otherwise interferes with the interview of the complainant.

3.3.1.10

Although these complaint proceduresare being adopted in the context of implementing policies against racial profiling, they will pertain to all complaints, unless MSP managementfinds that they are inappropriate to other circumstances.

3.3 11

In consultation with MSP, a consultant will develop and begin implementation of proceduresfor producing quarterly ormore frequentreports onthe incidence,nature, location, and disposition of complaints alleging racial profiling. Copies of such reports will be provided to plaintiffs. MSP will continue providing suchreports to plaintiffs after the departure of the consultant. Counsel for plaintiffs may request additional information about any suchcomplaint. Subjectto confidentiality statutes binding upon MSP, MSP will provide such information upon request.

3.3.2 With the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee describedin Section6, the partieswill explore the possibility of designing aninfonnal processto resolve complaints of racial profiling that avoids the delay and procedural demands of the fonnal complaint investigation and disciplinary process and still protects the officers' rights under the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights ("LEOBR"), Art. 27B §§727-734D. If it appears useful, other citizens and organizations, including the Maryland Troopers Association and the Coalition of Black Troopers, may also join in this effort.
3.3.2.1 If it is deemedfeasible by the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee and MSP, MSP will put in place an alternative dispute resolution processthat may allow a complaining motorist to opt for a simpler and quicker way to register a grievance and communicate concernsto the involved trooper, and to allow the trooper involved to respond,perhapsbefore athird party.
-7-

,9

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 8 of 19
All reasonableefforts will be madeto reacha decision aboutthe feasibility of suchaprocess within 12 months of the effective date of this agreement.
3.3.2.2 The processwill be voluntary on both sides,asan attemptto come to an amicable solution. Becausethis processwill not contain the procedural protections ofLEOBR, it will not lead to discipline againstthe officer andall statementsandevidencewill be confidential and may not be used as evidence in a LEOBR proceeding.
4 Data CollectionandTechnology
4.1 The parties agree that MSP will continue to collect the infonnation currently collected
pursuant to the Wilkins agreement(attached hereto) with the changesdescribedbelow.
4.2 The parties also agreethatimproved accessto computertechnology, including personaldata assistants("PDAs") and othertechnical support,would lighten the burdenof collecting and maintaining statistics on stops and searchesand make the statistics more easily accessible and usable. The parties will work towards additional funding for this purpose. To this date, MSP has sought and has been granted additional funds in FY 2002 to be used to purchase PDAs for MSP sworn personnel. Thereafter, MSP will continue to seekfunding for this purpose and to keep sworn personnel equipped with PDAs and maintain equipment in good working condition.
4.3 The parties acknowledge thatthe General Assembly of Maryland in its 2001 sessionpassed TransportationArt. § 25-113(b)(2), which was signedby the Governor andbecameeffective on July 1,2001. Also known as the "Race Based Traffic Stops Act," Transportation Art. § 25-113(b)(2) mandatesthe collection of similar information for all police departments above a certain minimum size in Maryland, and provides for the Police Training Commission (PTC), in conjunction with the Maryland Justice Analysis Center (MJAC), to developstandardizedreporting formats andmethodologies. The partieswill discusshow the data collection and reporting procedures currently in place and required by this Decree should be adjusted to conform with state-wide practice under the Act, and plaintiffs specifically agree that they will not object to MSP conforming its forms and procedures under this Decree to those required by this statute, provided that the form includes all information required under the Wilkins agreement.
4.4 MSP agreesto continue to enforce troopers' datareporting duties, as set out in this Decree, through appropriate oversight, supervision, and discipline, including in appropriate cases referral to the Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. Review of MSP documents and information, suchas dispatcherlogs, videotapes,and complaint control logs, to verify that troopers are reporting the required data, will take place as determined in Section 5.
4.5 MSP will continue to provide the data to the Court and the plaintiffs on a quarterly basis.
4.6 MSP will assurethat the datacollected arereported backto the reporting Barracks in a fonn
and within a time period that will make the data useful for managementreview.
-8

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 9 of 19

5

Management Oversight Relating to Policy Against Racial Profiling

5.1 Generalprovisions

Under existing MSP policy, it is the ongoing responsibility of managersand supervisors at all levels to review the work and activities of their subordinatesto ensurecompliance with the law and MSP policies andprocedures.To implementthis ConsentDecreeandto monitor compliance with the policies andproceduresestablishedby MSP to prohibit racial profiling, MSP managersand supervisors of law enforcementpersonnelwill undertake further review and inquiry responsibilities.

Infomlation available to monitor the establishmentof appropriate policies and procedures againstracial profiling andthe implementationof thosepolicies andproceduresby individual officers includes:

5.1.2.1 the Forms 130generatedby troopers for eachsearchconducted,or simi1ardatacollected and formatted pursuant to the implementation of TransportationArt. § 25-113(b)(2);

5.1.2.2 the datacollected and collated pursuantto the Wilkins settlementagreement,basedon these fonIls, or similar data collected and fonIlatted pursuant to the implementation of Transportation Art. § 25-1 13(b)(2);

5.1.2.3motorists'complaintsof racialprofiling;

5.1.2.4videotapesofMSP stopson1-95;and

5

information concerning newly released,published decisions by Maryland appellate courts,

the Supreme Court of the United States,the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland regarding the

constitutionality of stop and searchprocedures.

5.2 ShortTennProvisions
Within 30 daysof the effective dateof the agreement,MSP managersand supervisorsof law enforcement personnel who patrol 1-95 will bolster their efforts to review all relevant information, as set out above, to determine if further inquiry is necessary, such as examination of the sufficiency of current policies and procedures and/or the conduct of individual troopers. Specifically, these procedures will include at least the following features:
5.2.1.1 At the barracklevel, the barrack commanderorhis or herdelegatedagentwill review at least once each month the items listed in Section 5.1.2, at a minimum, except videotapes of individual stops.

-9-

,2.5

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 10 of 19
5.2.1.2 At the state-wide level, the Superintendent's delegated agent will review relevant infomlation at leastonce eachquarter,including at leastdatacollected andcollated pursuant to the 1995 Wilkins settlementagreement,or similar data pursuantto TransportationArt. § 25-113(b )(2).
5.2.1.3 If the reviewerdetennines that suchfurther inquiry is necessary,he or shewill conduct such inquiry as he or she deems appropriate, or refer the matter for further inquiry to the appropriate person or unit.
5.2.1.4 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the reviewerwill detenIlinewhether any actionis necessary, and if so, the action to be taken. Necessary actions may include, but are not limited to, changes in fonIls, policies, procedures or training, further review of the conduct of an individual trooper, consultation with a trooper, additional training of a trooper, or referral of the matter to the Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The decision of the reviewer is subject to further review by his or her commanding officer.
5.3 Long Ternl Provisions
MSP will continue to survey and work with other law enforcement agencies that have addressedissues of racial profiling, to learn from their experience in order to develop the most effective methods of managementoversight, including but not limited to practical and time-efficient methods to monitor effectively by reviewing stop tapes.
MSP will developa managementandmonitoring systemappropriate for MSP, that attempts to satisfy the concernsof motorists and officers. This systemwill be in place and operating within twelve (12) months of the effective dateof this agreement. This systemwill be based on input from the Police-Citizen Advisory Committee below in Section6 and from exchange of information with otherpolice departments,aswell asinformation andguidancedeveloped by the MJAC and the FTC pursuant to Transportation Art. § 25-113(b)(2), and a managementinformation consultant, ifMSP determinesthat sucha consultantis necessary.
This systemwill considersuchitemsas
5.3.3.1 the data to be monitored:
5.3.3.2 the frequency of monitoring;
5.3.3.3 by whom the data, including the stoptapes,are to be monitored;
5.3.3.4 the identification of valid and reliable indicators or benchmarks that may be considered when determining an appropriatecourseof managementaction in responseto information; however, the use of such indicators or benchmarks will not be deemed by the plaintiffs or the Court as an admission that deviation from the indicator or benchmark constitutes racial profiling, violation of this Decree, or other illegal action;
-10

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 11 of 19

5.3.3.5 asan alternative to 5.3.3.4above,the guidelines developed by the PTC, in consultation with the MJAC, pursuant to Transportation Art. § 25-ll3(b )(2) for use by a law enforcement agency as a management tool to evaluate the data collected by its officers for use in counseling and improved training;

5.3.3.6the actionsthatmanagemensthouldconsiderwhenindicatorsarepresent;and

5.3.3.7 standards for detennining when a trooper may decline to offer a motorist a copy of the brochure described in Section 3.3.1.5 on grounds of impracticability.

The determination of appropriate action lies within the discretion of the manager, and the management information systemwill not result in a mandate to any managerto take any particular action. However, the managerwill document the decision made and the reason for the decision, andaninterestedparty, including plaintiffs in the NAACPcase,may, during the term of this decree,requestthat the manager's supervisor review the decision.

No later than 10 months after the effective date of this agreement, MSP will provide to plaintiffs and the Court for review and comment a draft plan for a long-term management and monitoring system, consisting, at a minimum, of the featuresdescribed above.

Plaintiffs andthe Court may commentandmakerecommendationsconcerningthe long-term managementandmonitoring system,andMSP will take full considerationof anycomments and recommendations when it produces a final plan. MSP will respond in writing to all recommendations from the Plaintiffs or the Court.

MSP will provide its final plan to the Court and plaintiffs promptly after it is completed. Plaintiffs may challenge this plan by the proceduresdescribed in Section 1.3.

6

Citizen and Police Involvement to Promote Mutual Understanding

6,

With the goal of fostering mutual trust and respectbetweenpolice officers and their fellow

citizens, the parties will develop a Police-Citizen Advisory Committee consisting of fifteen

members, five to be selected by MSP, five to be selected by the NAACP, and five to be

selected by a neutral third party. The neutral third party will be selected by the parties, or,

if they are unable to agree,by the parties with the assistanceof the Court. The Committee

will addresspolice and citizen concernspertaining to MSP policy againstrace-basedlaw

enforcement in traffic stops and drug interdiction, and may recommend improvements in

pertinent MSP policies or practices. This should be a collaborative process that facilitates

trust betweenpolice andcitizens, enhancesthe credibility of andreceptivity to theresponses,

andbrings freshperspectiveto the tasks,with citizens andpolice personnelworking together

to agree upon useful areas for discussion and any specific recommendations within those

areas. Recommendationsadoptedby the Committee shall be advisoryto the Superintendent

and may be consideredby him in his discretion. The Committee may meet at suchtimes and

adopt such procedures as the Committee shall agree by majority vote of its members,

-11-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 12 of 19
provided thatthe work of the committee shall be concluded within oneyear after entry of this Decree.
In order to encouragea candid and fruitful exchangeof views, Committee discussionsand recommendationsareintendedto benegotiationsanddiscussionsundertakenfor thepurpose of resolving disputed claims andaretherefore entitled to the protections afforded by Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and Maryland Rule 5-408.
MSP will be responsible for the routine administrative costs of the meetings of the Committee including travel costs of its membersto attend. It will be the responsibility of the Committee to find funding for other projects,events,studies,or undertakings. MSP will pay mileage at rates set periodically by the Maryland Department of Budget and Management up to 400 miles round trip per vehicle.
7 Useof Caninesin AutomobileSearches
MSP affimls that it will continue to obey the laws of the United States and Maryland regarding the useof caninesin automobile searches,and specifically that MSP policy on the use of canines will continue to prohibit detention of an automobile and its passengersto provide time for arrival of a canineunit, unlessthereexists reasonablesuspicion or probable causeto believe a crime has beenor is being committed.
An MSP consultanthired pursuantto this Decreewill review existing MSP policy statements and orders to assure that they accurately, clearly, and fully express this policy. The consultant will make such recommendations for changes as he or she determines are appropriate for remedying any problems that are identified in the consultant's review.
8 Proceduresfor ConsentSearches
MSP reaffirn1sits policy that before a trooper seeksconsentto searcha vehicle, the trooper will present to the person from whom consent is sought a fOrn1that, at a minimum, substantially conforn1sto MSP 78 (9-96) (a copyof which is attachedto this ConsentDecree and made a part hereof). As in accord with existing policy, before conducting a consent search,the trooper will attemptto obtain the person's signature on sucha fOrn1. The forn1 will specifically state, in these or substantially similar words: "I understand that 1 have a Constitutional right to refuseto consentto this searchand that anyitems seizedmay be used againstme in a court of law."
9 Mechanicsof theDecree
~ Theeffectivedateof theDecreeis theeffectivedateof this agreement,Thedecreewill terminatefive yearsaftertheeffectivedate,without exception.
-12

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 13 of 19
SettlementCoordinator. MSP will appoint a SettlementCoordinator, who will be the point of contact and coordination for all implementation of this agreement. The Settlement Coordinator's tasks will include:
a. Assuring that MSP training includestraining createdby the National Highway Safety Administrationasreferencedin Section3.1.1.
b. Coordinating with the consultant to assurethat the consultant has accessto materials, personneland other MSP items so thatthe consultantcanfulfill its responsibilities underthis ConsentDecree (Sections 3.1.2, 3.3.1.8, 3.3.1.11, and 9.3.)
c. Ensuring MSP personnelaretrained to understandthe importance ofmotorist complaints as referenced in Sections 3.1.3.
d. Monitoring the installation of automaticvideo andaudio equipment as setforth in Section
3.2.
e. Tracking the receipt and progress of complaints asreferenced in Section 3.3.1.1
f. Assuringthe creationof StandardOperatingProceduresfor staffing MSPhotline as set forth in Section3.3.1.4.
g. Assuring the creation and use of MSP brochure regarding complaints as set forth in Section 3.3.1.5.
h. Working with the MSP Police-Citizen Advisory Committee described in Section3.3.2 and Section 6 of the ConsentDecree.
i. AssuringMSPcompliancewith datacollectionandreportingrequirementsreferencedin Section4 andmonitoringthe acquisitionanduseof datacollectionequipment.
j. Ensuring that managersand supervisorsare properly trained about their overall responsibilitiesin the ConsentDecreeandspecificallyunderSection5.
k. Ensuringthroughissuanceof notificationsthatMSPpersonnelcomply with procedures for consentsearchesassetforthin Section8.
9.3 Consultant(s)to assistin imDlementation. Within threemonths after entry of this settlement agreement,MSP will retain an independentconsultant, or such additional consultants as MSP may detennine to be necessary,to assistMSP asprovided in Sections3.1 (training), 3.3.1.5 (complaint materials), 3.3.11 (complaint summaries),3.3.1.11 (reporting complaints alleging racial profiling), and 5.1.2 (managementinfonnation).
The purpose of the consultant or consultants is to provide substantive advice and recommendationsto MSP on how further to implement Section 4 of this Decree, in orderto
-13-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 14 of 19
assistMSP in further implementing its policy againstrace-basedlaw enforcementsetout in Section2. MSP will not reject the recommendationsof the consultant without reasonable cause, and will explain such cause to the Court and the plaintiffs. The consultant or consultants are not to act as the agentsof plaintiffs or arms of the Court as monitors or overseers.
The consultants will be chosenby MSP with the agreementof the plaintiffs and the Court. Plaintiffs will not reject a consultant chosenby MSP without reasonablecause,and will explain suchcauseto the Court andMSP.
Each of the consultants will provide the Court and the plaintiffs a progress report at six months and twelve months after entry of the decree,which reports will be preparedwithout MSP interference or oversight. The reports will include information concerning MSP's progress in meeting the implementation steps agreed to in this Decree, and information concerning the recommendations made by the Consultants, whether MSP has accepted, rejected, or acceptedthem with modifications, and MSP's progress towards implementing the recommendations.
The tasks of the consultant or consultants are expected to be time-limited. However, if during the term of this Decree,the parties fmd problems or difficulties in implementationof consultation, they may requestadditional assistancefrom the consultant or consultants.MSP will not unreasonablyrefuseplaintiffs' requestfor additional assistancefrom the consultant, provided that plaintiffs' request is directed towards meeting one or more of the implementation stepsagreedto in this Decree.
9.4 Enforcement
Definition ofNoncomuliance
9.4.1.1 "Noncompliance" meansfailure of anyparty to implement the specific items theparty agrees to.
9.4.1.2 Statistical evidence alone cannot prove noncompliance. This agreementis neutral as to whether statistical evidenceis admissiblein a compliance hearing. Statistical evidencewill be admissible asthe substantive law andthe law of evidencepermit, and the parties arefree to argue that it is or is not admissible for anyparticular purpose or in anyparticular hearing, as well as to argue as to its use, materiality, relevance, or to raise any other objection.
9.4.1.3 As stated in the General Policy ProhibitinQ Racial Profi1inQ, alleged violations of the Constitution and laws are not violations of this agreement;however, this acknowledgment doesnot preclude plaintiffs from seekingto introduce evidencein acompliancehearingthat, they allege, may show violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States or Maryland, on the grounds thattheevidenceis relevantto aclaimed violation of an obligation under this Consent Decree. The admissionof suchproffered evidence will be determined under generally applicable laws, including the Federal Rules of Evidence.
-14-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 15 of 19

9.4.2 Mechanicsof Enforcement

9.4.2.1 Notice of Alleged Non-ComQliance and Ql2QortunitYto Cure.
9.4.2.1.1. If eitherparty believes the other party, or in the caseofMSP, individual MSP sworn personnel, have violated the terms of this Decree, that party will notify the other and its counsel of the alleged violation. The notifying party will take no other action concerning the alleged violation until the conditions of this subsectionhave beenmet.
9.4.2.1.2. Written notice by plaintiffs will be sent to the Superintendent of MSP, MSP's principal counsel, and the Chief of Litigation of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland. Written notice by MSP will be sentto the designatedcounsel of the Maryland StateConferenceof NAACP Branches ("the NAACP"). Unless the NAACP subsequentlynotifies the MSP in writing of a change in counsel, it will be sufficient to provide notice to the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.

9.4.2.1.3. Notice will contain specific information, suchasnames,dates,times andplaces, as available, so that the notified party will have sufficient information to investigate the allegation(s).

9.4.2.1.4

Upon receipt of a notice to the MSP, the Superintendentor his delegatedagentwill,

in consultation with counsel, promptly initiate investigation of the allegation(s). Upon receipt of a

notice to plaintiffs, the plaintiff or plaintiffs will promptly initiate investigation of the allegation(s).

9.4.2.1.5

Within 20 days of receipt of the notice, the party notified or its counselwill sendto

the counsel for the notifying party a written responseto the alleged violation, including the results

of the investigation and, if the allegation has beensubstantiated,the actions the party plans to take

in responseto the violation.

9.4.2.1.6

If20 daysis insufficient time to completethe investigation, the written responsewill

include a description of the actions takento investigate to date,the non-confidential information, as

set out in State Government Article, §§10-611 et seq. (Maryland Public Information Act), State

Personneland PensionsArticle, §5-214, and Article 27, §§727 et seq. (Law Enforcement Officers'

Bill of Rights), gatheredto date, and the expectedtime it will take to complete the investigation.

The notified party may then requestthe agreementof the notifying party to a second20-day period

in which to complete the investigation. The notifying party will not unreasonably withhold its

agreementto this extension. Only in extraordinary circumstances,however, will the notified party

requestfurther extensionof the investigation period. The notifying party is free to decline requests

for further extensionunless it is satisfied that suchadditional extensionis justified by extraordinary

circumstances.

9.4.2.1.7

All parties and their counsel agree not to make public the allegations of violation

during the 20-day period described in Section 9.4.2.1.5, unless the allegations concern a matter

already independently in the public domain or the matteris one of extraordinary public concernand

urgency. Parties and counsel will make the determination that the allegations concern a matter

-15-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 16 of 19

already independently in the public domain or the matteris oneof extraordinary public concernand urgency only upon careful consideration and in good faith. If an extension of the investigation period is granted pursuant to Section 9.4.2.1.6, the parties will not make the allegations public without first consulting with opposing counsel and making a good faith effort to reach agreement on this point.

9.4.2.2. Enforcement by the Court

9.4.2.2.1

If, afternotice of allegednon-compliance and opportunity to cure in accordancewith the foregoing, plaintiffs or defendantscontend thatthe otherparty hasnot madegood faith and objectively reasonable efforts to investigate and respond to the alleged noncompliance, plaintiffs or defendants may ask the Court to issue an Order of Specific Enforcement. Such requestshall set forth the alleged noncompliance and outline the basesfor the allegation. The Court thereafterwill scheduleproceedings as it deemsappropriate in responseto the request.

9.4.2.2.2 9.4.2.2.3

If the Court finds, by a preponderanceof the evidence, that plaintiffs or defendants have shownnoncompliance with this decreeby the otherparty or parties, it will issue an Order of Specific Enforcement. In determining whether a party is or is not in compliance with this decree, the Court may consider the presence or absenceof willful or negligent noncompliance or external eventsbeyond the ability of the party to control.
The failure of aparty to comply with this Orderof Specific Enforcementwill subject the party to contempt sanctions, in accordancewith establishedlaw.

9.4.2.3 Right to AQQeal The parties agree that either party may take an appeal from any decision issued by the Court concerning interpretation or enforcementof this Decreeaspermitted by existing law.
9.5 If this decreecreatescompliance issuesfor MSP by creating a conflict with the LEOBR or any Collective Bargaining Memorandum of Understanding, MSP may, by motion, ask the Court to be relieved of the conflicting obligation underproceduresdescribed in Section 1.3.

10 Counsel Feesand Expenses
The Maryland State Police agree, subject to approval of the Maryland Board of Public Works, to the amountof$325,000.00 to plaintiffs' attorneys for attorneys' feesandexpenses reasonably incurred (and not previously paid) in Wilkins and in negotiating this Consent Decree. Defendants agree that their counsel will recommend the amount of fees and expenses agreed upon herein, together with this Consent Decree, to the Board of Public Works at the earliest possible meeting of that Board.
The Clarifying Addendum to the ConsentDecreeattachedhereto asExhibit C is adoptedby reference in its entirety and is part of this Decree for all purposes.

-16-

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 17 of 19

The parties and their counselapprovethis ConsentDecree,and will seekits entry upon the approval of the Board of Public Works.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

~ rX
DeborahA. Jeon AMERICAN CIVil.. LffiERTIES UNION FOUNDAllON OFMARYLAND 100NorthLiberty Street Centreville,Maryland21617 (410)758-1975

-A
{J[..k~~"",,'\,~<J
RooertL. Wilkins VENABLE, BAETffiR, HOWARD & CIVILETTI LLP 1201NewYork Avenue,N.W., Suite1000 WashingtonD, .C. 20005-3917 (202)962-4058

FOUNDAllON 125Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2613

William J. ~-~--~-"
ASBILL MOt'l'll-l & BOSS,CHill. 1615NewHampshireAve.,N.W., Suite200 WashingtonD, .C. 20009-2520 (202)234-9000

~ L

JdnathanP. Guy SWIDLER BERLIN --~~ ~.FRIEDMAN, LLP 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007-5116 (202)424-7500

BROWNGOLDSTEINLEVY LLP 120E. BaltimoreStreet,Suite1700 Baltimore,MD 21202 (410)962-1030

-17-
t~2u ><

Legal Counsel

Mar 26 '03 16:02 P.20

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 18 of 19

FOR mE DEFE..~DA,."\j"TS,MA.RY1.ANDSTATE POLICE andCOLONEL EDW A.RDT.NORRIS, rNHIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SLTPERINTENDENTOFTHE MARYLAND STATE POLICE:

/J;
M. Dove Assistant .A..ttorneyGeneral OFFICE OF THE ATTOR..'\lEY GEN"ERAL 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, !\lID 21202-2021 (410) 576-6324

/~!!L:il~~~

-

Colonel Edward T. Norris

Superintcndent of the Maryland State Police NfARYl. AND STATE P0 LI CE

1201 Reisterstown Road

Pikesville,1vill 21208-3899

Betty Stemley Scallion Principal Counsel OFFICE OF THE .~TTOR-'\j"EYGE~~RAL M.A.RYLAND STATE POLICE 1201 Reisterstown Road Pikesvi1l7MD 21208 (410)
..-
M. Sullivan AssistantAttorney General OFFICEOFTHE ATTOR..~Y GENERAL 200 St PaulPlace Baltimorc, MD 21202-2021 (410) 576-6324
SO ORDEREDTHIS DAY OF
Cath~rineC. Blake ~ED ST.A..TEDSISTRICT JUDGE

-18--
P2003:

Case 1:93-cv-00468-CCB Document 122-1 Filed 04/22/2003 Page 19 of 19 ATTACHMENTS
A. Wilkinssettlementagreement B. MSP78 (9-96)(MSPconsentsearchfonn) c. Clarifying addendumto consendt ecree
19 -

 
 1 0 / 2 5 / 9 9 SON 2 3 : 5 9 FAX

GS CO

`<¾

srœss OP

S¯2X*J2 S¾LICS

¾OO2

PP-MD-0002-0001 ?*O*.

¾¾/S2

HCOBS 1700

iB»D.¾.D./xll¾q¾ay Qcur.fcy yareot¿Æ T a s k Fcrca (301) 759-4660

3.

x·»x» ¾cmcf

) . to. RsaiAam??_g^g.

¢¾ä£¾ ¿»sci2¯if) curreat liïv¾sti¶atian

saarz««

csro

__B2S3ßiE3CC2L___ I ESXBS»/*CHQR¯
5CJLICE C2Tic¿a

OZTX2LS 0?

XT,

Csvòûty is csirrÉc±ly exp¾ri¾r¿:i^¦g a serious prcfa]-«B vith í±a ircea¿ag flew ac crs=k cccair». .Ä· oaj¢rity of the crack cccaii¾2 is going ¿ir«ciLLy i-¾s'.On±Ä and i s b£çisnir¡g to surfacî in the Frçst±airg and V¾siaï7çart areas as ¾ell. • d a
and ccuri«rs (trarfickara) ¢ü*e p¢¾dçeinaRfcl·/ black nales tad blsck feasales

í? traffidtóT5 ar« utillzirsr l u t s r s t a t a 6a and 3tocfcÄ 5i. Altixii5h a¢«ô

the

Ä5 of CCS are r»¿e àurü¾j tii* daylight hears, the wa¿critv ç£ the dr^g

arriva in Allegâry Ccuncy i n ¯t¿» l&t¾ «v«iir¾· ard early *r-?~*yç hairs.

51 šrp«T5 t o t o the nnre nref arr*d rods c í t r a v e l . ins \£&£L·sästC3 will bs canlug

from* east cf Çjiberland ¾e¾¾lng vest, i n r a Alleçary Com,ty* If a trafficker ifi sts traveling t=NÄrd3 Carhsrlacd', t±Äy w i l l iav¾ a quantity ¤f cradc <~y-»<^ ia thaìr

are travalinç east./ tï¾ey will ncsc îücalyfcavever/ l i t t l e , if

ar¡y> i r x s , but will hi carrying large sura cí ra¾y¯.

traffiCk2T3 will utilize a. varisty cf vshicles, uavslly s¾acarâ size ?l»ass pay particular attar±icr. to rsntal vehicles ard ess¾cially displayirsj Virginia rsgistr¿ticn. ¾ s tra£íi=XÄr3 will usually t^v¾i with two cz p¾sple in tüa car, fcow¾r/ several axe >=X?-Ï: t s travel alcne. •

? trarridtars feel ¾at ?oiica ciíic¾rs ar¢ tsach 1-s« apt to search females

as tícrcwçiily as males, t¿`«ere£acQ, ¾Q awars tüat ¾i;y xemalíia fçund ridis? in tfce .

¯traffic3<strs bra, et=.

Avlesho,icfloeear¾¾h»psracmbaebclys*scccfrtx,a_altihi¾e 5femüvaalesòruh¢avseebnstshietnac, wusnutaallycairrrfy_thhqôrifJr<r.p.nersn

ties £or

,

the ¾í

ThrcuçA lRtelliQe=ea sources, i t I s a `ÆXWI fact that scaa c£ tha ¿ r ^ tra£ficî<srs that are ccwir>s irrco cunbarland ara waritad iri v¾:icus jurisdictiens fcr a vari<sty of CTÌÄLTÃI o£fenšes. They will utiliza various jaêthoás to pr¤viäe falsa üentificacicn. lí` st=çped by t¿as pclìc*. Mao, nar.y of tä¾a crog tra£ficloars bava «ctsrj5ive crtndnal í¾cc=dà* ií»lûdir!g hccdci5i, e¡Xîted rebfcery, alcng with various ¿r:ç ccavicticns aiid other criminal rcldtsid cffená€3.

¾SCCÄï

roiiow-u?

X-18-«0S32

AK.M.ÏSS Ä>Ö3

3Ï: ¾t. .

ow:ciîaîo
COHTCACT2O

N/Ä. wo I

3íS? Fasrz *¯?J ¢l-.-"2¾> 0CT-2S-19S9 1 1 : 5 8 TLE TEL)

.N/A ID)UCF T COLLEGE OF LfiW Pfìœ:002 R=99¾

w^^%

«*.

T-E6-19S9 11:59 TLE TEL)

IDDUOF T COLLEGE OF I_PW PflGE:003 R=98¾

 
 Wilk¡ns v. Maryland State Police

•• •

• * • H ^ l l l MHIIW • •HI 1

PP-MD-002-003

REPORT OF JOÌSN LAMBERTH, PH.D.
Department of Psychology Temple University November 8, 1996

•if

REPORT OF JOHN LAMBERTH, PH.D.

-

I, John Lamberth, am the immediate past Chairman of the Department of Psychology and

the past Director of the Division of Social Psychology at Temple University, in Philadelphia. I

have been on the Temple faculty in theT>epartment of Psychology since 1973.

I have had extensive professional and academic experience with the design and use of

statistically valid surveys, random sampling techniques, and the analysis of statistically-based < measures of significance derived from survey, census, and sample data.1 I have been qualified as

an expert witness in statistics , surveying, and social psychology in the United States District Courts for New Jersey and Virginia, and in state courts in New Jersey,2 Pennsylvania, and

Virginia. I make this report in connection with the case Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil

Action No. CCB-93-483. Counsel for Mr. Wilkins have retained me to design and conduct a

study and analysis of the incidence and significance of police searches along the 1-95 corridor in

Cecil, Harford, and Baltimore Counties. The overall goal of the study was to determine if Maryland State Police stop and search black3 motorists at a rate disproportionate to their numbers

on the highway.

*For a full recitation of my credentials, employment and experience, please refer to my curriculum vitae attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2Of particular significance to the Wilkins case, I served as an expert for the Gloucester County Public Defender's Office in State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et al, a case referred to below. There, the Superior Court of New Jersey relied upon expert survey and analytical work I performed to suppress evidence seized by New Jersey State Police in 19 consolidated criminal prosecutions. The Court there concurred in my opinion that state police unlawfully relied upon race in stopping and searching motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike, thus tainting the evidence.

3The generic term "black" is used in this report to identify people who may be African-

American.

-

1

.

•

Toward this end, I have assisted in the design and conduct of a study to test the

proposition that the Maryland State Police patrolling Interstate 95 search black motorists in

significantly higher numbers, as measured statistically, than one would expect given:

(a) the racial composition of the population- of motorists oh 1-95;

(b) the -racial composition of the population of motorists on¯I-95 who violate traffic

laws; and

-

(c) the racial composition of motorists detained and searched by Maryland State Police on roadways outside the 1-95 corridor.

I. DATA SOURCES UPON WHICH THIS STUDY IS BASED A Data Supplied By The Maryland State Police Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement approved by the Court in January 1995, the Maryland
State Police (MSP) has supplied the ACLU with data concerning searches of motorists they have conducted from January 1995 through September 1996. These data have been organized and summarized by the ACLU, then provided to me in summary form. See Exhibit B, attached hereto. The data summaries list the total number and location of searches, the name of the trooper who conducted each search, and racial breakdowns for the searches reported by MSP.
B. Data Gathered Bv The ACLU I designed and assisted in implementation of a plan to gather statistically appropriate data on the population of motorists on 1-95 in Cecil, Harford, and Baltimore Counties, north of Baltimore City. The "rolling survey", carried out by the ACLU, was to determine the racial composition of motorists on the highway and the racial, composition of those motorists on the

highway who were violating traffic-laws.4
Observers rode in cars at a constant 55 or 65 miles per hour (depending upon the posted
speed limit) northbound from the White Marsh exit of I:95.(exit 67) to the last exit in Maryland
(Elkton - exit 109) before the toll. They then stopped to rest or gas up for approximately 10
minutes and then proceeded southbound to the White Marsh exit.5 They were instructed to count
the cars that passed them and classify them as traffic violators (Le^ speeders) and to count the
cars they passed (i.e.. non-speeders) and classify them as non-violators, unless they were violating
some other traffic law. They were also to classify each car as to the race of its driver.
There were a total of 21 traffic observation sessions conducted on days and at times
randomly selected by me, in accordance with professionally established and accepted procedures
and methods. Sessions were conducted only during the 12-hour period from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m., as during these times the days were light enough to allow accurate counting.6
4I initially requested that a stationary traffic survey also be carried out, primarily to confirm general population numbers ascertained through the rolling traffic survey which was conducted. However, plaintiffs counsel informed me that their request to carry out such a survey was denied by the Maryland State Police.
5On eight occasions, either the weather and traffic conditions were sufficiently favorable or the surveyors did not stop at the northern terminus of the survey, and there was still some time in the two hour period designated for the survey. On these occasions, a "half pa¾s" was executed. That is, the surveyors drove northward for half of the time remaining in the two-hour survey period-and then drove southward for the other half of the time remaining. While this technically oversamples the southern part of the roadway, as a practical matter it had almost no effect. On the eight sessions when the half pass was executed, 16.7% of the highway population was counted as-black, and during the sessions when no half pass was executed, 17% of the population on the highway was counted as black.
6A complete description of the survey is found in "American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland 1-95 Corridor Traffic and Violator Survey" by Sarah E. Cushman and Christopher E. Kosmides, appended to plaintiffs' Memorandum as Exhibit 11.

From the beginning of this study. I have assumed that the racial composition of the population of travellers on I-95¯would be materially the same as the population of traffic violators. I have made that assumption based upon the proposition that blacks and persons of other races (1) are supposed to enjoy equality before the law; (2) are not materially different in motor, neural, and perceptual skills as they bear on the capacity to drive; and (3) the testimony of New Jersey State Police officers who in the case of State of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et ai, all testified that blacks drive indistinguishably from whites. As demonstrated in the traffic survey, this assumption has proven to be valid.
I have carefully reviewed both the design of the traffic survey and the reports from that survey. I consulted in the course of the survey with the supervisors in charge. On these bases, I am confident that the results Cf the survey accurately describe the racial population of the highway surveyed.
H. SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF EACH DATA SOURCE A. Traffic Survey Results Five thousand seven hundred and forty one cars were surveyed in the 21 sessions
comprising approximately 42 hours. In the vast majority of cases, 96.8%, it was possible to identify the race of the driver of the vehicle. Nine hundred and seventy three, or 16.9% of the cars, had black drivers. Four thousand three hundred and forty one, or 75.6% of the cars, had white drivers. The great majority of drivers — 5,354 of 5,741, or 93.3% — were violating traffic laws and thus were eligible to be stopped by State Police. Of the violators, 17.5% were black, and 74.7% were white. Overall results of the traffic survey and the count of violators are shown

.:• • -V`·.

in Table 1. .

¯

.

. -

Table 1: Drivers and Traffic Law Violators by Race from I-95 Corridor Survey

White Black

Number of

Drivers

4,341

Observed

Number of Violators ¯ 4,000 Observed

Percent of

Drivers

75.6%

(by race)

Percent of Violators 74.7% (by race)

973 938 16,9% 17.5%

Other 241 232 4.3% 4.4%

Unknown AH Minority

186

1,214

184

1,170

3.2%

21.1%

3.4%

21.8%

These results are consistent with the work I did in the case ofState of New Jersey v. Pedro Soto, et aL·, in which we conducted both a rolling survey and a stationary survey to determine motorist and violator populations on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike (which ends 19 miles from the northern terminus of I-95 in Maryland.) There, 98% of the drivers were violating traffic laws and 15% of the violators were black. While I would not expect I-95 in northern Maryland and the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike to have
•A
identical numbers of minority motorists and violators, the similar percentages discerned in the surveys support and confirm their reliability.
B. The Record Of Searches Bv The Maryland State Police 1. Interstate 95 Corridor Data
Between January 1995 and September 1996, the Maryland State Police reported searching

823¯motorists on I-95, north of Baltimore. See Exhibit B. Of these, 600, or 72.9%, were black.

I d Six hundred and sixty-one, or 80.3%, were black, hispanic, or other racial minorities. Ici

Only 19.7% of those searched in this corridor were white. Id Most of the I-95 searches — 646, or 85.4% — .were conducted by 13 troopers.7 Search breakdowns for those troopers are listed in

Table 2.

Table 2:

Individual Troopers Who Made 10 or More Searches Along the I-95 Corridor and the Numbers and Percent of Blacks and Minorities Searched

Trooper Name
John E. Appleby • Melvin Fialkewicz John.R. Greene Steven L. Hohner David Hopp David B. Hughes Michael T. Hughes Steven 0. Jones James Nolan Paul J. Quill Christopher Tideberg Ernest S. Tulüs John Wilhelm

Total Number Searched 68 12 30 65 37 150 70 32 54 70 26 40 46

Blacks Searched
51 12 23 53 8 125 5719 45 41 23 39 15

Total Minorities Searched 58 12 27 55 11 131 59 26 47 52 23 . 39 26

Percent Blacks Searched 75.0% 100% 76.7% 81.5% 21.6% 83.3% 81.4% 59.4% 83.3% 58Tó% 88.5% 97.5% 32.6%

Percent Minorities Searched 85.3% 100% 90.0% 84.6% 39.7% 87.3% 84.3% 81.3% 87.0% 74.3% . 88.5% 97.5% 56:5%

With the exception of David Hopp, ail of these troopers are searching blacks and other

7Here, I include only troopers who have reported conducting 10 or more searches in the

21-month period.

¯

.

6

\v·:,¦ >^ØmM

minority motorists at much higher rates than these motorists travel on the highway. The trooper

(other than Hopp) with the lowest percentage of black searches still searched blacks at nearly

.twice the rate they were found to travel the highway. The trooper with the highest percentage of

black searches searched only blacks. Ten of the 13 troopers searched minority motorists at least

80 percent of the time.

-

2. MSP Data From Outside the I-95 Corridor

Data reported by MSP for motorist searches conducted outside the I-95 corridor is

markedly different from that reported by troopers patrolling I-95. As shown in Table 3, 63.7

percent of motorists searched by MSP troopers working outside the I-95 corridor are white, as

* compared with only 19.7% of motorists searched by troopers along I-95. Black motorists

travelling I-95 are searched by state police more than twice as often as are black motorists

travelling other Maryland roadways.

Table 3:

MSP Search Data for Roadways Outside the Interstate 95 Corridor

All Searches
Number of Searches 1,549 Reported Outside the I-95 Corridor
Percentage of Total 100%

Black 496 32.0%

White 986 63.7%

Hispanic 54 3.5%

Other 10 0.6%

Total Minority 560
36.2%

3. Statewide Data on Drug "Finds" Through Motorist Searches The total number'of motorist searches reported statewide by MSP during the time period is 2,372. In only 666, or 28.1%, of these searches was contraband found. Overall "find" rates were about the same for searches conducted on I-95 and those conducted elsewhere in the state.
7 .

That is, of 823 searches conducted along the 1-95 corridor, a controlled dangerous substance was recovered in 246, or 29.9% of the time, while on roadways outside the 1-95 corridor, CDS was recovered in 420 of 1,549 searches, or 27.1% of the time. Even more importantly, "find" rates were the same statewide for searches of blacìc and white motorists: According to MSP data, contraband was recovered in 311 of 1,096 searches (28.4%) of black motorists, and in 331 of 1,148 searches (28.8%) of white motorists.
IE. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The data concerning the searches carried out by Maryland State Police along the 1-95
corridor is extremely revealing. The State Police conducted a total of 823 searches in this, area, finding some reason to arrest the driver of the car in only 246 (29.9%) of the searches. In 70 percent of the cases the search was fruitless. Of the 823 searches, in 600 (72.9%) of them, the person searched was black, and in 661 of them (80.3%), the person searched was a racial minority.
For purposes of this analysis, the proper statistical comparison contrasts the 72.9% of blacks searched to the 17.5% of traffic law violators who were black.8 This assumes that blacks, once stopped by police, behave in a similar manner to any other motorist stopped by the police.
The accepted convention for statisticians to conclude that a difference is real and not
8An ideal comparison would be the percentage of black traffic law violators to the percentage of blacks stopped by the.Maryland State Police. Stop data has not been made available by MSP however. In the absence of that, the percentage of blacks searched provides a rough approximation of the percentage of blacks stopped, given the fact that in 70% of the cases the search turned up no contraband. As set forth below, the difference between the percentage of blacks travelling 1-95 and the percentage of blacks searched is highly statistically significant.
8

)

chance is the finding that if the same study was done many times, the present results would occur

only five times out of a hundred. This .05 level is determined by computing the number of

standard deviations that the observed result differs from the expected. The .05 level of statistical

significance is reached at about two standard deviations. The¯ probability drops to one in 100

when 2.58 standard deviations is reached.

` ,.

Here, the difference between 17.5% of blacks who are eligible to be stopped and the

72.9% of blacks searched by state police encompasses 34.6 standard deviations. The absolute

disparity is 55.4% and the comparative disparity is 316.6%. - An important alternative comparison

contrasts the 72.9% rate of black searches on 1-95 to the 32% of black searches on other

Maryland roadways. The absolute disparity in these figures is 40.9%, and the comparative

disparity is 128%. This difference encompasses 20.45 stardard deviations.

Such statistical significance is literally off the charts. It means, in layman's terms, the /

probability that black Interstate 95 drivers are subjected to searches at so high a rate by chance is

less than one in one quintillion. It is wildly significant by statistical measures.

rv. CONCLUSION The evidence examined in this study reveals dramatic and highly statistically significant
disparities between the percentage of black Interstate 95 motorists legitimately subject to stop by Maryland State Police and the percentage of black motorists detained and searched by MSP troopers on this roadway. While no one can know the motivations of each individual trooper in conducting a traffic stop, the statistics presented herein, representing a broad and detailed sample of highly appropriate data, show without question a racially discriminatory impact on blacks and

m

` other minority motorists from state police behavior along I-95. The disparities are sufficiently

ð

great that, taken as a whole, they are consistent with and strongly support the assertion that the

Maryland State Police are targeting the community of black motorists for stop, detention, and

- investigation within the Interstate 95 corridor.
I

1 Qjj hn Lamberth, Ph.D.

1 1 I

1 1
I

3
10

All Searches in Maryland January 1995 through May 1999

TOTALS:

6393 detentions & searches

2535 African-American =

288 Hispanic

=

101 Other

3469 White

2924 Total Non-White =

39.7% 4.5% 1.6%
54.3% 45.7%

Corrected All Searches on 1-95 in Maryland
January 1995 through June 1999 (Searches conducted on Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Cecil, Harford, Howard,
and Prince George's Counties)

TOTALS:

1983 detentions & searches

1231 African-American =

126 Hispanic

=

____23J Other 6Õ31 White

1380 Total Non-White =

62.1% 6.4% 1.2%
30.4% 69.6%

 
 ACLU Press Release - 11/14/96 - A...LAND STATE POLICE HELD IN CONTEMPT

http://www.aclu.org/news/nl 11496a.html

American Civil Liberties Union
ACLU MOVES TO HAVE MARYLAND STATE POLICE HELD IN CONTEMPT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE [related documentsl Thursday, November 14,1996
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is asking a federal district court in Baltimore to hold the Maryland State Police agency in contempt of court and to impose a $250,000 "conditional civil contempt monetary penalty," based upon a showing that state police are violating a 1995 court decree by continuing a pattern of race discrimination in drug interdiction activities carried out along the Interstate 95 corridor. The ACLU motion also seeks identification by name, address and telephone number of all motorists detained on 1-95 since the start of 1995; extension by one year of court monitoring in the case; production of MSP investigative and disciplinary files; a year's extension on MSP record-keeping requirements and expansion of record keeping to include all motorist stops, in addition to detentions and searches.
"This is not an action we relish, and not one we take lightly," said ACLU Executive Director Susan Goering. "But the evidence is disturbing, and undeniable. A situation this serious demands serious action."
The court decree alleged to be violated was entered in settlement of a 1993 class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of Robert L. Wilkins and his family. Wilkins, an African-American attorney who was stopped, detained, and searched by state police for no apparent reason, claimed he and his family had been targeted on the basis of a "racial profile" used by police in drug interdiction efforts. MSP steadfastly denied the allegation, but ultimately agreed to settle the case and to maintain computer records of motorist searches so as to permit monitoring for any patterns of discrimination. Now, relying on computer records generated under the Wilkins settlement, the ACLU asserts that state police stop and search African-American and other minority motorists travelling 1-95 in numbers grossly disproportionate to their numbers among motorists.
Evidence compiled and included in the ACLU papers, covering the period from January 1995 through September 1996, shows:
• Three of every four 1-95 motorists detained and searched by state police are black, even though blacks make up only 17.5% of motorists committing traffic violations on 1-95;
• Only one in every five 1-95 motorists detained and searched by state police is white, even though three-quarters of 1-95 motorists committing traffic violations are white;
• Troopers patrolling Interstate 95 detain and search black motorists at more than twice the rate as troopers patrolling other Maryland roadways;
• More than 70 percent of motorist searches conducted by MSP are fruitless; • Statewide, black and white motorists are found with drugs at equal rates: 28.4% of
blacks searched were found with drugs, as compared to 28.8% of whites searched.
Temple University Professor John Lamberth, who provided the ACLU with expert analysis in support of the motion, said in his written report that by statistical measures the data compiled by the ACLU is so "wildly significant" that its statistical significance "is literally off the charts." Although MSP officials previously have claimed the racial skewing in the search numbers is mere "coincidence," Lamberth and the ACLU strongly dispute that.
Wilkins v. Maryland State Police
PP-MD-002-005

ACLU Press Release - 11/14/96 - A...LAND STATE POLICE HELD IN CONTEMPT

http://www.aclu.org/news/nl 11496a.html

According to Lamberth's report, the "probability that black drivers are subjected to searches at so high a rate by chance is less than one in one quintillion."
"The contention that this egregious pattern of race discrimination is all just a big coincidence insults the intelligence of African Americans and of all Americans," said plaintiff Robert Wilkins, a Harvard Law School graduate who works as a public defender with the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia. "It is time for Maryland State Police to take a long, hard look at the way they treat black citizens."
Lawyers representing Mr. Wilkins and the ACLU in the case are William J. Mertens and Jonathan P. Guy, of the Washington, D.C. law firm Swidler & Berlin, and ACLU staff counsel Deborah A. Jeon.

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff s Motion in Wilkins v. Maryland State Police Statistical Report of Dr. John Lamberth

HOME

SEARCH FEEDBACK

Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union

2 of 2

12/7/98 5:17 PM

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:93-cv-00468-CCB

CLOSED, MAG

Wilkins, et al v. Maryland St. Police, et al Assigned to: Judge Catherine C. Blake Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Robert L. Wilkins Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated

Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Date Terminated: 09/03/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by David Anthony Hill Verizon Maryland Inc 1 E Pratt St 8EMS6 Baltimore, MD 21202 14103937725 Fax: 14103934078 Email: david.a.hill@verizon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew David Freeman Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP 120 E Baltimore St Ste 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202-6701 14109621030 Fax: 14103850869 Email: adf@browngold.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Jeon American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland Foundation 3600 Clipper Mill Rd Ste 350 Baltimore, MD 21211 14108898555 Fax: 14103667838 Email: jeon@aclu-md.org
Jonathan Philip Guy Swidler Berlin LLP 3000 K St NW Ste 300 Washington, DC 20007 12024247500 Fax: 12024247647 Email: jpguy@swidlaw.com

1 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report
Plaintiff Norman Scott El-Amin Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Nu'Man W. El-Amin Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
Plaintiff Aquila Abdullah Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
2 of 18

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens Law Office of William J Mertens 4905 Hampden Ln Ste 16 Bethesda, MD 20814-2921 13019130012 Fax: 12404650463 Email: wjmertens@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Anthony Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Jeon (See above for address)
Jonathan Philip Guy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Anthony Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Jeon (See above for address)
Jonathan Philip Guy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Anthony Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report 3 of 18

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Dukkyu Kim Hogan and Hartson LLP 111 S Calvert St Ste 1600 Baltimore, MD 21202 4106592700 TERMINATED: 02/22/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Keeney, Jr Hogan and Hartson LLP 555 13th St NW Washington, DC 20004 12026375600 Fax: 12026375910 Email: jckeeney@hhlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/04/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah A Jeon (See above for address)
Jonathan Philip Guy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keefe B Clemons Verizon Communications 140 West St 27th Fl New York, NY 10007-2109 12123218136 Fax: 12129621687 TERMINATED: 02/22/1996
Thomas F O Neil, III DLA Piper US LLP 1200 19th St NW Washington, DC 20036-2430 12028616685 Fax: 12022232085 Email: thomas.oneil@dlapiper.com TERMINATED: 02/22/1996
William J Mertens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report
V. Defendant Maryland State Police
Defendant TFC. Bryan W. Hughes Badge #1817, Individually and in his official capacity
Defendant

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...
represented by J Joseph Curran, Jr Office of the Attorney General of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766300 Fax: 14105766880 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Bruce Rosenblatt Department of Public Safety 300 E Joppa Rd Ste 1000 Towson, MD 21286 14103395031 Fax: 14103394228 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766300 Fax: 14105766955 Email: ssullivan@oag.state.md.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J Joseph Curran, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Bruce Rosenblatt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

4 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report
TFC. Edward V. Syracuse Badge #3152, Individually and in his official
Defendant Deputy Sheriff Ronald Brown individually and in his official capacity
Defendant John W. Stotler in his official capacity as President of the Allegany County Commissioners
Defendant Bernard L. Mr. Loar
5 of 18

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...
represented by J Joseph Curran, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Bruce Rosenblatt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Bruce Rosenblatt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Joseph Curran, Jr (See above for address)
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen C Wilkinson Stephen C Wilkinson LLC 220 Washington St PO Box 1379 Cumberland, MD 21502 13017222515 Fax: 13017222527 Email: scwpa@hereintown.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen C Wilkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan
1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report
Defendant Commissioner Adrienne L. Mrs. Ottaviani in her official capacity as an Allegany County Commissioner Defendant Allegany County
Movant Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches
6 of 18

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen C Wilkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen C Wilkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J Mertens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbara Musfeldt Tapscott Pingel and Templer PC 3737 Woodland Ave Ste 437 West Des Moines, IA 50266 5152253737 Fax: 15152259510
Dwight H Sullivan 905 Mallard Circle Arnold, MD 21012 14107574987 Fax: 14107471441 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Philip Guy
1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

(See above for address)
Reginald T Shuford American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 12125492613 Fax: 12125492651 Email: rshuford@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/12/1993 02/12/1993 02/12/1993 03/09/1993 03/09/1993 03/12/1993
03/24/1993 04/05/1993 04/07/1993 04/12/1993

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $ 120.00 RECEIPT # 010946 (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
2 SUMMONSES issued for Bryan W. Hughes, Ronald Brown, John W. Stotler, Bernard L. Loar, Adrienne L. Ottaviani, Allegany County. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
3 SUMMONS (60 days) issued for Edward V. Syracuse. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
4 MOTION by Maryland St. Police, Bryan W. Hughes, Edward V. Syracuse to Extend Time to answer complaint (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
4 ORDER granting Defendants' [4-1] motion to Extend Time to answer complaint on or before 4/6/93. ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 3/8/93 c/m 3/9/93-mm) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
5 NOTICE of Consent by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah to Motion of Defendants for Extension of Time within which to Answer complaint and Order "APPROVING" same. (signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis) dated Mar. 11, 1993 (c/m by chambers 3/11/93) (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/22/1993)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by John W. Stotler, Bernard L. Loar, Adrienne L. Ottaviani, Allegany County (Attorney Stephen C. Wilkinson), (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER issued in accordance with proceeding shled on April 1, 1993 ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis ) dated April 2, 1993 (c/m by chambers 4/2/93) (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
8 ANSWER to Complaint by Maryland St. Police, Bryan W. Hughes, Edward V. Syracuse (Attorney J. Joseph Curran Jr., Richard B. Rosenblatt), (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
9 LETTER MEMORANDUM "DIRECTING" counsel to continue settlement negotiations as therine more particularly set forth ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis ) dated April 6, 1993 (c/m by chambers 4/9/93) (rank, Deputy Clerk)

7 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

05/13/1993 05/13/1993 06/01/1993 06/09/1993 07/26/1993 07/27/1993
07/29/1993 07/29/1993
07/30/1993 07/30/1993 08/02/1993
08/05/1993 08/06/1993

Modified on 04/13/1993 (Entered: 04/13/1993)
10 Request for re-issuance of summons as to Defendant Deputy Sheriff Ronald Brown. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/24/1993)
11 SECOND SUMMONS issued for Ronald Brown. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/24/1993)
12 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Ronald Brown 5/17/93 Answer due on 6/6/93 for Ronald Brown (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/09/1993)
13 MOTION with memorandum in support by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah for Leave to Amend Complaint , and Exhibit A. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/1993)
14 MOTION by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah for Entry of Default as to Ronald Brown filed with Exhibit A. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
15 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Ronald Brown granting [14-1] motion for Entry of Default as to Ronald Brown (signed Deputy Clerk H. Bea Merez 7/27/93 c/m 7/27/93-hm micro 8/3/93-lew) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
16 ORDER granting [13-1] motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 7/27/93 c/m 7/27/93-pj) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah , (Answer due 8/8/93 for Allegany County, for Adrienne L. Ottaviani, for Bernard L. Loar, for John W. Stotler, for Ronald Brown, for Edward V. Syracuse, for Bryan W. Hughes, for Maryland St. Police ) amending [1-1] complaint (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
18 MOTION by Ronald Brown to Set Aside Default . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 08/03/1993 (Entered: 08/03/1993)
19 ANSWER to Complaint by Ronald Brown (Attorney J. Joseph Curran Jr. and Richard B. Rosenblatt). (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 08/03/1993 (Entered: 08/03/1993)
20 MOTION by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah to Compel response to interrogatories and production of documents filed pursuant to FRCP 37. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
21 MOTION by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah to defer consideration of motion to compel (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/10/1993)
22 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake for discovery disputes. (signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 8/3/93 c/m 8/6/93-hgs) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/11/1993)

8 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

08/11/1993 09/13/1993 09/22/1993 09/22/1993
09/24/1993 10/04/1993 10/19/1993 11/24/1993 12/21/1993 02/07/1994 05/24/1994
06/03/1994 07/27/1994 07/28/1994

23 ORDER granting Plaintiffs'` [21-1] motion to defer consideration of motion to compel ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/10/93 c/m 8/11/93-bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/1993)
24 ORDER granting Defendant Brown's [18-1] motion to Set Aside Default. ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 9/13/93 c/m 9/13/93-jw) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
25 MOTION with memorandum in support by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah to Extend Time for discovery deadline c/s MJG/Blake (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/23/1993)
26 MOTION by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah for Special Hearing on their August 2, 1993, motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents c/s Blake (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/23/1993)
27 ORDER granting plaintiffs' [25-1] motion to Extend Time for discovery deadline for a date to be set by further order. ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 9/23/93 c/m 9/23/93-pj) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/1993)
28 MEMORANDUM "INFORMING" all parties that a discovery/status conference is scheduled for 10/19/93 at 10a.m. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/4/93) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/07/1993)
29 INFORMAL LETTER ORDER issued concerning discovery, settlement procedures, and status reports. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/4/93 c/m 10/19/93-bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/1993)
30 STATUS REPORT to Counsel of Record Thanking you for your Status Report of 11/19/93. Please provide a further report by 12/17/93 (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/1993)
31 CORRESPONDENCE from the COURT to all counsel "INFORMING" them that status preorts are due 1/28/94 either jointly or individually from each side. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/29/1993)
32 MEMORANDUM "THANKING" counsel for for correspondences and "DIRECTING" counsel to file further reports by 3/1/94. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 2/7/94) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
33 MEMORANDUM "DIRECTING" Plaintiff's counsel to inform the court if they would like a court-orderd settlement conference or continue discovery on or before 6/3/94. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 5/24/94 c/m 5/24/94-bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/30/1994)
34 MEMORANDUM "SCHEDULING" a settlement conference in chambers 7/15/94 at 2p.m. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/3/94) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
Tele-conference held before Magistrate Judge Blake. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
35 MEMORANDUM "INFORMING" all parties that a conference has been scheduled for 8/5/94 at 5p.m. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake

9 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

08/30/1994 09/16/1994 10/03/1994 10/05/1994
10/19/1994 11/01/1994 11/08/1994 12/15/1994 01/06/1995 01/06/1995
01/06/1995 01/13/1995
06/19/1995

7/28/94 7/28/94-chambers) ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
Tele-conference held before Blake, USMJ. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
Tele-conference held before Blake, USMJ. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/1994)
Tele-conference held before Blake, USMJ. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
36 MEMORANDUM "SETTING" settlement conference in for 10/19/94 at 2p.m. in chambers; "D IRECTING" that updated status reports are due 10/14/94 (signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/4/94 c/m 10/4/94-bc ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
Settlement conference held before Blake, USMJ. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
Tele-conference held before Blake, USMJ. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
37 MEMORANDUM "DIRECTING" parties to file a further JOINT status report by 11/22/94. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 11/8/94) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
38 MEMORANDUM "REQUESTING" a joint status report by 12/22/94. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 12/15/94) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/1994)
39 MEMORANDUM ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 1/5/95) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/1995)
40 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT for Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah against Maryland St. Police, Bryan W. Hughes, Edward V. Syracuse, Ronald Brown, John W. Stotler, Bernard L. Loar, Adrienne L. Ottaviani, Allegany County for damages of $12,500 for each plaintiff and $45,600 in attorneys fees; "ENJOINING" defendants from the use of race-based drug profile as a means for stopping, detaining, or searching motorists traveling on Maryland roadways as therein more particularly set forth. ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis and Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 1/5/95 c/m 1/5/95-bc micro 1/10/95-lew) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/1995)
Case closed (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/1995)
41 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake to conduct any and all futher proceedings including trial and the entry of a final order. ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 1/5/95) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/1995)
42 NOTICE of attorney appearance for plaintiff's and all other persons similarly situated by David Dukkyu Kim, Thomas F. O'Neil III, Keefe B. Clemons (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/1995)

10 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

08/25/1995 02/12/1996 02/14/1996 02/22/1996 02/22/1996
02/22/1996 03/06/1996
03/29/1996 04/08/1996 04/12/1996 11/14/1996 12/02/1996 12/02/1996

CASE reassigned from Judge Marvin J. Garbis to Judge Catherine C. Blake (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/20/1995)
43 MOTION with memorandum in support by plainditts to Extend Time of monitoring and reporting period and attachments 1 and 2. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/20/1996 (Entered: 02/20/1996)
44 MOTION by defendants to Extend Time to file a response to the motion for extension of monitoring (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/20/1996 (Entered: 02/20/1996)
45 MOTION by Aquila Abdullah for Keefe B. Clemons, David Kim and Thomas F. O'Neil to Withdraw as Attorney . (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
45 ORDER granting [45-1] motion of plaintiffs for Keefe B. Clemons, David Kim and Thomas F. O'Neil to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Keefe B. Clemons, Thomas F. O'Neil and David Dukkyu Kim for Aquila Abdullah ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake February 20, 1996) (c/m 2/22/96-kam) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
46 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to [44-1] motion of defendants to Extend Time to file a response to the motion for extension of monitoring. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/23/1996)
47 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [44-1] motion of defendant to Extend Time to file a response to the motion for extension of monitoring; granting in part, denying in part [43-1] motion of plaintiff to Extend Time of monitoring and reporting period; and "DIRECTING" that the monitoring and reporting period shall be extended until December 31, 1997 ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake March 6, 1996) (c/m 3/6/96-vl) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/1996)
48 RESPONSE by Aquila Abdullah to [43-1] motion of plaintiff to Extend Time of monitoring and reporting period. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/01/1996)
49 REPLY by plaintiffs to response of defendants to [43-1] motion of plaintiffs to Extend Time of monitoring and reporting period. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/08/1996)
50 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah by Jonathan Philip Guy. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
51 MOTION with memorandum in support by Robert L. Wilkins and Norman Scott El-Amin for enforcement of settlement agreement and for further relief and exhibits 1 thru 16. (c/s) (filed seperately) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
52 MOTION by Maryland St. Police to Extend Time to respond to plaintiff's motion for enforcement of settlement agreement and for further relief . (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
53 ORDER granting [52-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to plaintiff's motion for enforcement of settlement agreement and for further relief to and including January 10, 1997 ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake December 2, 1996) (c/m)

11 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

01/10/1997 01/10/1997 01/16/1997 01/24/1997 04/11/1997
04/14/1997 04/14/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/23/1997 04/30/1997 04/30/1997 05/06/1997

(mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
54 MEMORANDUM by Maryland St. Police in opposition to [51-1] motion for enforcement of settlement agreement by Norman Scott El-Amin, Robert L. Wilkins, [51-2] motion for further relief by Norman Scott El-Amin, Robert L. Wilkins (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
55 MEMORANDUM with affidavits of Captain S. Rutzebeck and LtCol. E. Leatherbury by Maryland St. Police in support of [54-1] opposition memorandum by Maryland St. Police to plaintiffs' motions for enforcement of settlement agreement and for further relief. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
56 AFFIDAVIT of LT. Colonel Ernest Leatherbury Re: Alleged race-based profiling during traffic stops on I-95. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/16/1997)
57 REPLY IN SUPPORT by plaintiffs to response in opposition to their [51-1] motion for enforcement of settlement agreement and, [51-2] motion for further relief and Exhibits A thru D. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
Motion hearing re: [51-1] motion for enforcement of settlement agreement by Norman Scott El-Amin, Robert L. Wilkins - ARGUED - "GRANTED" as to extension of jurisdiction until 6/98, the other issues will be decided upon counsel submitting final order to the court. (CR: MACKARO) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
58 MOTION by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah for William J. Mertens to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (FEE PAID $50.00/RECEIPT #B139938) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
58 ORDER "GRANTING" [58-1] motion for William J. Mertens to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 4/11/97; c/m chambers ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
59 MOTION by Maryland St. Police, Bryan W. Hughes, Edward V. Syracuse, Ronald Brown, John W. Stotler, Bernard L. Loar, Adrienne L. Ottaviani, Allegany County for Steven M. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (FEE-WAIVED) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
59 ORDER "GRANTING" [59-1] motion for Steven M. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 4/17/97; nunc pro tunc 4/11/97; c/m chambers ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
60 ORDER "GRANTING" [51-2] motion for further relief as therein more particularly set forth. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 4/22/97; c/m bc ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 04/29/1997 (Entered: 04/24/1997)
61 MEMORANDUM by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah in support of request for motorist identifying information. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
62 Transcript of court proceedings on 4/11/97, held before Blake, J. (FILED SEPERATELY) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
63 PETITION/MOTION with memorandum in support by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah for award of

12 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

05/12/1997 05/15/1997 05/19/1997
05/22/1997
05/27/1997 06/16/1997 06/18/1997 06/24/1997 07/09/1997 07/11/1997

Attorney Fees and expenses and exhibits 1 thru 6. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 04/01/1999 (Entered: 05/08/1997)
64 NOTICE OF FILING OF AFFIDAVITS of Colonel David B. Mitchell, Lieutenant Colonel Ernest J. Leatherbury and Lieutenant Keven Gray and attachments Re: [54-1] opposition memorandum by Maryland St. Police. (c/s) (FILED SEPERATELY) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/14/1997)
65 MEMORANDUM by Maryland St. Police in opposition to [61-1] support memorandum to request for motorist identifying information by Aquila Abdullah, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Norman Scott El-Amin, Robert L. Wilkins. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
66 JOINT MOTION by parties to Extend Time up to and including 6/16/97 for plaintiffs to file a response to the affidavits and supporting documents filed by Maryland State Police and for defendants to file a response to plaintiffs' petition for award of attorney's fees and expenses . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/1997)
67 ORDER "GRANTING" [66-1] joint motion to Extend Time up to and including 6/16/97 for plaintiffs to file a response to the affidavits and supporting documents filed by Maryland State Police and for defendants to file a response to plaintiffs' petition for award of attorney's fees and expenses. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 5/21/97; c/m 5/22/97 jp ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/1997)
68 MEMORANDUM IN REPLY by Robert L. Wilkins to [65-1] opposition memorandum by Maryland St. Police to plaintiffs' request for motorist identifying information and Exhibits 1 and 2. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/1997)
69 STIPULATION/JOINT MOTION by all parties to Extend Time to 6/24/97 for defendants to file a response to plaintiffs' petition for award of attorney's fees and expenses . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
70 ORDER "GRANTING" [69-1] joint motion to Extend Time to 6/24/97 for defendants to file a response to plaintiffs' petition for award of attorney's fees and expenses. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/17/97; c/m jp ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/23/1997)
71 RESPONSE by Maryland St. Police to [63-1] motion for award of Attorney Fees and expenses by Aquila Abdullah, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Norman Scott El-Amin, Robert L. Wilkins and Exhibits A1-7 and B. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/1997)
72 JOINT MOTION by all parties to Extend Time until 7/22/97 for plaintiffs to file a reply to the defendants' response to plaintiffs' petition for award of attorneys' fees and expenses . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/10/1997)
73 ORDER "GRANTING" [72-1] joint motion to Extend Time until 7/22/97 for plaintiffs to file a reply to the defendants' response to plaintiffs' petition for award of attorneys' fees and expenses. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 7/10/97; c/m 7/14/97 jp ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/1997)

13 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

07/11/1997 07/11/1997 07/17/1997 07/21/1997 08/04/1997 08/04/1997 08/29/1997
08/29/1997 09/29/1997
10/01/1997
10/08/1997

74 JOINT STIPULATION/MOTION by parties to Extend Time to 7/17/97 for plaintiffs to file their response to defendants 5/12/97 filing, including the Mitchell, Leatherbury and Gray affidavits . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/1997)
75 ORDER "GRANTING" [74-1] joint motion to Extend Time to 7/17/97 for plaintiffs to file their response to defendants 5/12/97 filing, including the Mitchell, Leatherbury and Gray affidavits. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 7/11/97; c/m ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
76 RESPONSE by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah to [64-1] affidavits RE: Maryland State Police' compliance with the settlement agreement. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
77 REPLY by Robert L. Wilkins, et al. to defendants' response in opposition to their [63-1] motion for award of Attorney Fees and expenses and exhibits. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
78 MOTION for John C. Keeney, Jr. to Withdraw as Attorney for plaintiffs . (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
78 ORDER "GRANTING" [78-1] motion for John C. Keeney, Jr. to Withdraw as Attorney for plaintiffs. (Terminated attorney John C. Keeney for Aquila Abdullah ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/1/97; c/m 8/5/97 jp ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
79 ORDER "DIRECTING" that attachments 7 and 9 to the Affidavit of Col. David Mitchell and the affidavit of Lt. Keven Gray shall be disclosed by defendants to plaintiffs' counsel and to Mr. Wilkins only as therein more particularly set forth. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/28/97; c/m 8/29/97 bc ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
80 INFORMAL LETTER ORDER "CONFIRMING" results of telephone conference call on 8/27/97; and "DIRECTING" scheduling of filings as therein more particularly set forth. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 8/28/97; c/m 8/29/97 bc ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
81 JOINT STIPULATION/MOTION by parties to Extend Time to 10/8/97 for Maryland State Police to file a motion for summary judgment; to 11/7/97 for plaintiffs to file a respose to defendants motion for summary judgment; to 11/20/97 for defendant to file a reply . (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/06/1997)
82 ORDER "GRANTING" [81-1] joint motion to Extend Time to 10/8/97 for Maryland State Police to file a motion for summary judgment; to 11/7/97 for plaintiffs to file a respose to defendants motion for summary judgment; to 11/20/97 for defendant to file a reply. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 9/30/97; c/m bc ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/06/1997)
83 MOTION with memorandum in support by Maryland St. Police for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1 thru 19. (ENTIRE PLEADING FILED SEPERATELY) (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/1997)

14 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

10/08/1997 10/28/1997 11/05/1997
11/06/1997
11/14/1997
12/01/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/17/1997 12/17/1997

84 NOTICE of Exparte Filing Of Exhibit #18 of [83-1] motion and memorandum for summary judgment by Maryland St. Police. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
85 AFFIDAVIT of Captain Kenneth E. Ward Re: [83-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Maryland St. Police. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/02/1997)
86 STIPULATION/JOINT MOTION by parties to Extend Time to 11/14/97 for plaintiffs to file their response to Maryland State Police's motion for summary judgment; to 12/1/97 for Maryland State Police to file a reply to the response; and that the date for oral argument will remain as 12/5/97 . (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
87 ORDER "GRANTING" [86-1] joint motion to Extend Time to 11/14/97 for plaintiffs to file their response to Maryland State Police's motion for summary judgment; to 12/1/97 for Maryland State Police to file a reply to the response; and that the date for oral argument will remain as 12/5/97. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 11/6/97; c/m ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
88 MEMORANDUM by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah in opposition to [83-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Maryland St. Police and Exhibits A1-10 and B1-2. (ENTIRE PLEADING FILED SEPERATELY) (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/19/1997 (Entered: 11/17/1997)
89 REPLY by Maryland St. Police to response to their [83-1] motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibits A thru I, affidavit and attachments. (ENTIRE PLEADING FILED SEPERATELY) (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
90 Transcript of deposition of Steven Craig Hohner taken on 11/26/96. (FILED SEPERATELY) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
91 Transcript of deposition of Paul J. Quill taken on 7/26/96. (FILED SEPERATELY) (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
92 Transcript (CONTINUATION) of deposition of Paul J. Quill taken on 1/16/97. (FILED SEPERATELY) (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
Motion hearing re: [83-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Maryland St. Police held before Blake, J. (Reporter: P. Mackaro) (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
Argument of Counsel. (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
Ruling by the Court held Sub-Curia. (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
93 ORDER "PERMITTING" further discovery; "SCHEDULING" trial for 3/30/98; and "DIRECTING" that status report is due 1/12/98. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 12/17/98; c/m chambers ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
94 Anaylsis of JFK Highway "stop data"; analysis of all traffic violations on JFK Highway, 5/1/97 - 12/10/97; report of CDS search data base for JFK Barrack, 5/1/97 - 11/30/97; analysis of speed stops on JFK Highway by race 5/1/97 12/10/97 and affidavit in support of Major Hall. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk)

15 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

12/17/1997 01/13/1998 02/13/1998 02/23/1998 02/24/1998
03/05/1998
03/10/1998 03/12/1998 04/03/1998 04/16/1998 06/02/1998
06/09/1998 06/10/1998 06/11/1998

(Entered: 12/18/1997)
95 CORRESPONDENCE from plaintiffs' counsel to Blake, J. RE: MSP deposition transcripts. (ORIGINAL DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO CHAMBERS) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
96 CORRESPONDENCE from MD State Police to Blake, J. RE: 12/97 chambers conference requests. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
97 INFORMAL LETTER ORDER "DIRECTING" counsel to provide an updated status report by 2/23/98. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 2/12/98; c/m chambers (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/18/1998)
98 Report on Data Collection of the Maryland St. Police and attachments. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
99 CORRESPONDENCE from defendant to Legg, J. RE: request of defendants to produce identifying information on all motorists detaned and searched by Maryland State Police along I95 North since 1/95. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
100 INFORMAL LETTER ORDER "ADVISING" counsel of settlement conference scheduled for 3/10/98 at 9:00 a.m. as therein more particularly set forth. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 3/5/98; c/m jnf ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
Settlement conference held in the chambers of Grimm, M.J. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
101 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for settlement or other ADR conference. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 3/6/98; referred 3/11/98; cc hsg ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
Scheduling conference by telephone held in the chambers of Grimm, USMJ. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/1998)
102 INFORMAL MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 4/15/98; c/m jnf ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/20/1998)
103 MEMORANDUM "ADVISING" Counsel that a Conference will be held with Judge Grimm and Judge Blake to discuss discovery, scheduling, and consolidation of all or part of cases CCB-98-468 AND CCB-98-1098. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/1/98 ) (c/m 6/1/98-Chambers) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
104 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for all discovery disputes. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/1/98; referred 6/5/98; cc 6/8/98 hsg ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
105 MOTION with memorandum in support by Maryland St. Police to Dismiss , to Stay , or in the alternative to Consolidate Cases 93-468 and 98-1098 , and Exhibit A. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
106 MEMORANDUM by MD State Conference in opposition to [105-3] motion to Consolidate Cases 93-468 and 98-1098 by Maryland St. Police. (c/s) (mdd,

16 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

06/17/1998 06/18/1998 06/22/1998 08/21/1998
04/01/1999 04/01/1999
04/26/1999
05/07/1999 05/07/1999 05/07/1999 05/07/1999 07/12/2000

Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
Consolidated Lead Case (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/1998)
107 INFORMAL LETTER ORDER "DENYING" [105-1] motion to Dismiss; "DENYING" [105-2] motion to Stay; "GRANTING" [105-3] motion to Consolidate 93-468 and 98-1098 for the purpose of discovery. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/17/98 ) (c/m bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/1998)
108 ORDER "CONFIRMING" that the Maryland State Police will continue to be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 6/22/98 ) (c/m bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
109 ORDER "MEMORIALIZING" matters discussed regarding discovery - and "DIRECTING" counsel to notify when they will submit proposed discovery schedule (Judge enclosing sample forms for resolving discovery disputes) and advising of Judge Blake's intention to rule on MSP's Motion to preclude contact with potential plaintiffs class prior to decision regarding certification (signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 8/19/98) (c/m 8/19/98-chambers) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
110 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 3/31/99) (c/m 4/2/99 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/1999)
111 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [63-1] motion of Plaintiffs for award of Attorney Fees and expenses and Plaintiffs may submit a revised calculation within 30 days of the date of this Order and Defendants may respond within 20 days thereafter. (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 3/31/99) (c/m 4/2/99 ms) (c/m) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/1999)
112 CORRESPONDENCE by Allegany County, Adrienne L. Ottaviani, Bernard L. Loar, John W. Stotler, Ronald Brown, Edward V. Syracuse, Bryan W. Hughes, Maryland St. Police advising they have reviewed plaintiffs' revised calculation of fees and expenses and agree that they are accurate and reflect this Court's rulings. (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
113 SUPPLEMENTAL to [63-1] motion for award of Attorney Fees and expenses by Robert L. Wilkins, Norman Scott El-Amin, Nu'Man W. El-Amin, Aquila Abdullah by Robert L. Wilkins, et al. (Received in Chambers 3/5/99) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
114 RESPONSE by MD State Conference to [111-1] order. (Received in Chambers 4/6/99) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
115 RESPONSE by Defendants to [111-1] order. (Received in Chambers 4/22/99) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
116 ORDER AWARDING Plaintiffs the sum of $59,013.07 for attorneys' fees and expenses. ( signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 5/7/99 ) (c/m 5/7/99-bc) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
117 ORDER SETTING date for Status/Scheduling Conference ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 7/11/00) (c/m 7/11/00 jnf) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2000)

17 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728770623395256-L_3...

09/05/2000 10/24/2000
11/13/2000
07/23/2001 01/16/2003
04/22/2003 05/23/2003 10/07/2003

Case reopened (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
118 ORDER DENYING (With the Exception of Request to Depose LTC Leatherbury) the Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Depositions and DIRECTING Counsel to PROMPTLY confer and submit a Joint Proposed Modified Schedule to Govern the Pretrial Proceedings. (signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/24/00) (c/m 10/24/00 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
119 ORDER SUSPENDING 11/8 Deadline for one week to allow Plaintiffs to review chart prepared by the defendants; Plainitffs will supplement the Affidavit of Ms. Francis to provide more specific data underlying assertions therein and if counsel is not satisfied they may file additional discovery requests and Discovery Deadline to be extended one week. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 11/9/00) (c/m 11/13/00 jnf) (c/m) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2000)
120 MEMORANDUM to Professor Saltzburg RE: conference call. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 7/17/01) (c/m 7/17/01-chambers) (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
121 ORDER REQUESTING Counsel to CONSIDER a conference call and additionally to schedule a meeting with the new Superintendent and Representatives of the Troopers Association to discuss the consent decree's terms and negotiation history. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm 1/14/03) (c/i 1/17/03 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
122 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by Maryland State Police. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Attachment B# 3 Notice of Lengthy Exhibit)(Dove, Maureen) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
123 ORDER APPROVING the Consent Decree with Attachments A, B, and C. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake and Magistrate Judge Grimm on 5/23/03. (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
124 Correspondence re: Asking counsel if any further action is needed in this case.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

01/11/2007 12:42:39

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 12

Cost:

1:93-cv-00468-CCB 0.96

18 of 18

1/11/2007 11:43 AM