State lawmakers considered a slate of police reform measures Tuesday aimed at improving the relationship between police and the communities they serve. The legislation would change disciplinary proceedings and create transparency for civilians.
The proposed reforms inspired emotional accounts from residents who felt they had been victimized by law enforcement.
Prince George's County resident Marion Gray-Hopkins recounted the story of her son, Gary Hopkins Jr., who was killed by a Prince George's County police officer in 1999.
Another mother, Baltimore City resident Greta Willis, told the House Judiciary Committee of the death of her son, Kevin Cooper. He was shot by a Baltimore police officer in 2006 when he was 14.
Willis used her story to criticize one of the legislation’s proposals. Under the change, a police officer would have five days in which to obtain a lawyer before having to testify in connection with disciplinary action. That’s a decrease from the 10 days officers have now, but it wasn’t enough for Willis.
“After I witnessed my son’s death, I was required to give a statement the same day," she said. "I feel that law enforcement officers should be held to the same standard.”
The change is one of 21 recommendations by a bipartisan state commission last month, and one of several dealing specifically with what’s known as the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, or LEOBR.
Other proposed changes include opening disciplinary hearings to the public, creating a statewide commission to oversee police training, requiring psychological evaluations for officers involved in traumatic experiences, and making it easier for civilians to file complaints against police officers.
Dayvon Love, an activist with the group Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, told lawmakers that in addition to those reforms, civilians should sit on police disciplinary boards.
“Public safety’s a public good," he said. "It is our right to be able to say that that service is being rendered in a way that is not satisfactory, and it is our responsibility to be in a position to change the nature of how that service is being rendered.”
But Herb Weiner, general counsel for the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police, listed several reasons why disciplinary hearings should not be open to the public.
Among those reasons, he said, "some of our people that have to testify as witnesses in hearings are undercovers. Their identities would be compromised if members of the public were to sit in there."
Other police representatives were concerned about the cost of psychological evaluations and the efficacy of the training requirements.
Frank Boston III, the state FOP lobbyist, said the proposed changes, specifically those that would alter the LEOBR, fundamentally don’t fix any problems.
“We believe the LEOBR works. It protects good police officers, and it weeds out the bad ones,” he said. “A lot of the problems, with all due respect, that were articulated by the proponents to this bill can’t be fixed by this bill. They can’t be fixed through the LEOBR.”
The LEOBR doesn’t have any bearing on criminal acts by police officers, Boston said. It only governs administrative disciplinary actions.
Vince Canales, state FOP president, said the real solutions can’t be legislated.
"How do you legislate trust?” he asked.
Much like the community members who testified, the lawmakers on the committee seemed sharply divided on the proposals. But House Speaker Michael Busch, who testified, was optimistic.
“I think this is an excellent way for us to start this year — to improve our relationship here and be a role model for the rest of the country in dealing with the relationship between law enforcement and our community,” he said.