海角精品黑料

This article was republished with permission from 海角精品黑料’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.

Supporters of a bill that would reduce the reasons that police can pull a motorist over say that not only will it help reduce the racial disparity in traffic stops, but it will protect police officers as well.

鈥淎ll I鈥檓 saying is maybe we need to look at some of these technologies and figure out how we can redeploy our shrinking police staffs to deal with crime that really, really matters, rather than bogging them down with these types of offenses,鈥� Sydnor said Tuesday in testimony to his colleagues on the Judicial Proceedings Committee. 鈥淢aking them secondary offenses. No one is getting rid of any laws that are already on the books. It鈥檚 a reclassification.鈥�

But law enforcement officials and police officers said during two hours of sometimes heated debate on聽聽that the measure would make their jobs harder.

Lt. Erin Brandt with the Anne Arundel County Police Department pointed to vague language in the bill 鈥� 鈥淎 police officer shall document all reasons for a traffic stop or other stop on any citation or police report resulting from the stop,鈥� for example 鈥� that she said will cause problems for officers.

鈥淭he ambiguous language of this may suggest to officers that they need to cite every single violation, instead of having a constructive conversation on traffic safety laws,鈥� Brandt said. 鈥淚 urge you to vote against this.鈥�

Sydnor鈥檚 bill, discussed for聽聽Tuesday, would reclassify some primary offenses as secondary, including:

• Driving without a functioning headlight, brake lights or taillights;
• Driving without a mirror or with obstructed or damaged mirrors;
• Window tint;
• Excessive noise; and
• Failure to illuminate a license plate.

A driver could still be cited for any of those violations, but only after being pulled over for another, primary violation.

The bill notes that if a police officer fails to comply with the revised law, the officer could face administrative discipline and any evidence obtained may be inadmissible 鈥渋n any trial or other proceeding.鈥�

Another reason that supporters cite for the proposal is the current racial disparity in traffic stops.

The Governor鈥檚 Office of Crime Prevention and Policy鈥檚聽聽showed that Blacks accounted for 43% of the nearly 428,300 vehicle traffic stops in the state in 2023, when they made up just 32% of the state鈥檚 population. In comparison, whites made up 57% of the state population that year but accounted for 39% of all traffic stops.

鈥淰ictims of these racially motivated traffic stops find themselves in situations called 鈥楧riving while Black.鈥� The racial disparity is evident in traffic enforcement,鈥� said Public Defender Natasha Dartigue, who testified in support of the measure.

But Baltimore County State鈥檚 Attorney Scott Shellenberger (D) said the proposal 鈥渨ould be a danger to the public.鈥�

“Somebody look at me and tell me not having a headlight is not a public safety danger, particularly if it鈥檚 a left headlight and you鈥檙e making a turn into another street,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat is a safety danger, and you鈥檙e taking that away.鈥�

Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) submitted written testimony supporting the bill 鈥渋n concept.鈥� But he also suggested some amendments to address the fact that the bill 鈥渃overs far too many safety-related offenses.鈥�

His letter said the bill should be amended to allow for a traffic stop if an officer observed two or more secondary violations.

Another amendment would be to create a procedure that would let an officer report a secondary violation to the Motor Vehicle Administration, which could issue citations or repair orders through the mail, similar to a speed camera ticket.

鈥淲e applaud Senate Bill 292 for seeking to limit non-safety related traffic stops and reduce racial disparities in Maryland鈥檚 criminal justice system,鈥� Brown wrote. 鈥淗owever, we urge the Committee to carefully consider the concerns outlined above as it deliberates this critical issue.鈥�

础听聽of the bill, sponsored by Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County), is scheduled for a Feb. 12 hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.