Source: https://cityoffrederick.granicusideas.com/forums/fpd-use-of-force-community-discussion-2?order=created_at
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 15:25:59
Document Index: 81809812

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

Idea: Fix it!
Kristen Lundy 16 days ago
why is it that the only time these impacted communities (black, brown & immigrants) see some of these officers are when they are being harassed and arrested? When I lived in a predominately white neighborhood here in Frederick you never saw police out and about. However, now moving and living in a more diverse community you are seen daily? Patrolling our streets, having 6 cop cars pulled up (one of which containing a K9...I know you are all aware of the history between the black community and k9 usage) in our neighborhood to remove 1 individual who was unarmed and not resisting? This does not make us feel safer. It makes us feel surveillanced at a much higher rate than our local white communities.
Idea: Tourism as an explanation for racial disparity.
According to our own Frederick county data, the 2 million + tourists to Frederick City and County would be an additional 35,000 individuals a week present in Frederick County, which would mean less than that each day. But even taking the full 35,000, that is about 13% of the population total of the county. So even if all of them were black, there is still an existing racial disparity, unless A/Chief Grossman is claiming we are being invaded by a large contingent of criminal black folks on a regular basis. If my math is somehow incorrect, please demonstrate specifically how.
Idea: Weeding Out Applicants Who Exhibit Biases
Andrea Baker 16 days ago
Does any step in the hiring process actively seek out information on and take into account verbal indications, social ties, examples of extremism, or biases that the applicant has demonstrated or has been said to have demonstrated in the past by others?
Idea: Are you concerned, given the LEOBR quotes posted below, that bureaucracy policing itself has a lot of potential for corruption?
MD Pub Safety Code § 3-104 (2017) Subsection d, paragraph 2 Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation. (subsection L: 1) The law enforcement agency may order the law enforcement officer under investigation to submit to blood alcohol tests, blood, breath, or urine tests for controlled dangerous substances, polygraph examinations, or interrogations that specifically relate to the subject matter of the investigation. (2) If the law enforcement agency orders the law enforcement officer to submit to a test, examination, or interrogation described in paragraph (1) of this subsection and the law enforcement officer refuses to do so, the law enforcement agency may commence an action that may lead to a punitive measure as a result of the refusal. (3) If the law enforcement agency orders the law enforcement officer to submit to a test, examination, or interrogation described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the results of the test, examination, or interrogation are not admissible or discoverable in a criminal proceeding against the law enforcement officer.
subsection m, paragraph 1: If the law enforcement agency orders the law enforcement officer to submit to a polygraph examination, the results of the polygraph examination may not be used as evidence in an administrative hearing unless the law enforcement agency and the law enforcement officer agree to the admission of the results. Subsection N:1 on completion of an investigation and at least 10 days before a hearing, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be: notified of the name of each witness and of each charge and specification against the law enforcement officer
MD Pub Safety Code § 3-107 (2017)
Subsection A Right to hearing. --(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection and § 3-111 of this subtitle, if the investigation or interrogation of a law enforcement officer results in a recommendation of demotion, dismissal, transfer, loss of pay, reassignment, or similar action that is considered punitive, the law enforcement officer is entitled to a hearing on the issues by a hearing board before the law enforcement agency takes that action. Subsection C: Membership of hearing board. -- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection and in § 3-111 of this subtitle, the hearing board authorized under this section shall consist of at least three voting members who: (i) are appointed by the chief and chosen from law enforcement officers within that law enforcement agency, or from law enforcement officers of another law enforcement agency with the approval of the chief of the other agency; and (ii) have had no part in the investigation or interrogation of the law enforcement officer. (2) At least one member of the hearing board shall be of the same rank as the law enforcement officer against whom the complaint is filed. (5) (i) 1. A law enforcement agency or the agency's superior governmental authority that has recognized and certified an exclusive collective bargaining representative may negotiate with the representative an alternative method of forming a hearing board. MD Pub Safety Code § 3-108 (2017) Subsection A (4) If the hearing board makes a finding of guilt, the hearing board shall:(i) reconvene the hearing; (ii) receive evidence; and (iii) consider the law enforcement officer's past job performance and other relevant information as factors before making recommendations to the chief. Subsection B Recommendation of penalty. --(1) After a disciplinary hearing and a finding of guilt, the hearing board may recommend the penalty it considers appropriate under the circumstances, including demotion, dismissal, transfer, loss of pay, reassignment, or other similar action that is considered punitive. Subsection D (3) The recommendation of a penalty by the hearing board is not binding on the chief. MD Pub Safety Code § 3-110 (2017) (a) In general. -- On written request, a law enforcement officer may have expunged from any file the record of a formal complaint made against the law enforcement officer if: (1) (i) the law enforcement agency that investigated the complaint: 1. exonerated the law enforcement officer of all charges in the complaint; or 2. determined that the charges were unsustained or unfounded; or (ii) a hearing board acquitted the law enforcement officer, dismissed the action, or made a finding of not guilty; and (2) at least 3 years have passed since the final disposition by the law enforcement agency or hearing board. (b) Admissibility of formal complaint. -- Evidence of a formal complaint against a law enforcement officer is not admissible in an administrative or judicial proceeding if the complaint resulted in an outcome listed in subsection (a)(1) of this section.
Idea: Why should communities of color trust Sheriff Chuck Jenkins?
Chuck Jenkins has consistently proven himself to be one of the most abhorrently racist Sheriffs in the country. His tenure has included everything from statistically-provable systemic racism, fighting to keep documents from being printed in languages other than English, and just 2 weeks ago saying "All Lives Matter" when confronted by his constituents about police brutality.
What has Sheriff Jenkins done that would make communities of color, or any non-racist community for that matter, trust his leadership?