The path forward for a controversial proposed County Council bill that aims to limit some police searches in an effort to curb racial disparities is murky following disagreement this week over the possible ramifications of the legislation.
The Freedom to Leave Act, sponsored by Councilmember Will Jawando (D-At-large), would prohibit consent searches of a motor vehicle or person by a police officer. A consent search occurs when a law enforcement officer searches a person or their vehicle after obtaining verbal consent from the individual being searched.
According to a 2021 Montgomery County Office of Legislative Oversight report, Black and Latino drivers in the county are stopped at higher rates than white drivers for lower-level traffic violations, such as minor traffic infractions, registration issues or equipment issues including a broken headlight or taillight.
“We want to stop crashes, we want to keep our community safe, but we want to do so in a way that also understands that there’s disparities in who’s interacting with law enforcement and how those interactions go,” Jawando said during a discussion of the proposed bill at Monday’s meeting of the council’s Public Safety Committee.
But Montgomery County police officials argued that consent searches are an important tool in law enforcement.
“I’ve heard some say that this is not an effective use of our time, or that we don’t seize enough guns to make it worthwhile,” police Chief Marc Yamada said. “Guns are extremely prevalent in our communities, and most are being brought to our neighborhoods in vehicles … there’s nothing that causes a greater amount of death and injury in our county than guns and drugs.”
Following the discussion, the committee voted 2-1 to give the legislation an unfavorable report, meaning it’s not being recommended to the full council, and provide the police department with an opportunity to draft an internal policy on consent searches. Committee member Kristin Mink (D-Dist. 5) voted in favor of moving the legislation forward, while chair Sidney Katz (D-Dist. 3) and committee member Dawn Luedtke (D-Dist. 7) voted against.
In a joint press release issued Monday evening, several community groups and organizations that supported the proposed legislation voiced their disappointment in the committee’s decision.
“A policy is certainly better than no action at all—but does not fully protect our community from discriminatory practices. Furthermore, a policy lacks the public input of a formal law and does not allow for public review before being enacted,” said Danielle Blocker, executive director of Young People for Progress, a local organization focused on equity. “We urge the County Executive and Chief of Police to allow community members to review this policy, and to publicly share their plans for training officers and sharing data with all stakeholders. The community deserves this transparency.”
Jawando introduced the bill after Maryland’s attorney general had determined that his previous effort, the STEP Act, which was introduced in February 2023, conflicted with state law. The previous legislation would have limited the reasons that county police could stop motorists and pedestrians. If it had gone forward, a police officer would not have been able to stop a motorist for driving with non-working headlights, taillights or brake lights; out-of-date licenses, registration or insurance; having tinted windows; or other minor offenses. However, officers would have been allowed to pull motorists over if none of a vehicle’s headlights or taillights were working.
Under the STEP ACT, those offenses could have been considered secondary offenses, but not primary offenses—meaning that officers can write a ticket for the offenses, but that they cannot be the main reason that officers stop a driver.
But Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown wrote in a September 2023 opinion that state law designates as primary offenses those violations the bill would consider as secondary—and no local law can override the state’s designation.
However, Brown wrote, some parts of the original STEP Act did not conflict with state law. For example, a provision that would limit the reasons an officer can search a car would not be preempted by the Maryland Vehicle Law. This led to Jawando’s drafting of the Freedom to Leave Act.
Division over proposed bill
At a public hearing on the legislation in February, speakers were sharply divided on its merits. While some speakers said it was an important step forward in police reform, others were worried it could make it more difficult for police to prevent crime.
During Monday’s committee meeting, Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy argued that officers’ use of body-worn cameras should preclude the bill’s requirement for data collection on consent searches and noted that police department data showed no one had filed official complaints regarding these searches.
“Something that seems to be lost in this conversation is that we have video of all this,” McCarthy said. “Individuals who have been involved in the searches have never complained to the police that there’s been an issue.”
McCarthy further argued the issue should be addressed through continued training within the county police academy and by hiring officers who “reflect the community they serve.”
Mink argued that while consent searches are constitutional, the bill’s goal was for the county to do “better than that” and that the constitutional standard “results in the disparities we see.”
“The concerns and complaints we heard at our public hearing were very moving … if we’re missing them through our formal complaint system, we need to find more ways to inform and educate the public on how to register complaints,” Mink said. “We know those concerns and complaints are out there.”
Yamada said the department is looking to reform consent searches by considering policy changes in partnership with members of County Executive Marc Elrich’s staff. These changes would include requiring all consent searches to be approved by a supervisor as well as department leaders, implementation of an app on officers’ phones to inform civilians of their rights in a consent search, and use of tracking/GPS mechanisms.
“I have a lot of concerns about legislating departmental policy,” Luedtke said. “The policy [the department already has] is beyond what is required.”
Luedtke made rhe motion to oppose the proposed bill and require the police department to present its proposed policy reforms to the council at a later date.
However, the legislation is not completely dead. Jawando can submit a revised version of the bill that can be heard before the council if six councilmembers sign on that they want to review it.
