The Department of Justice's massive report on the failings of the Baltimore police is breathtaking in its scope and specificity — something that was only possible because federal investigators had unfettered access to information that would otherwise never have been seen by anyone outside the department. The Sun, other media, legal advocates, activists and ordinary citizens have long worked to hold the department accountable for the same things the DOJ identified — excessive use of force, unconstitutional arrests, lax internal discipline and so on — only to be stymied by laws, policies and procedures that shield the department's workings from public view. The consent decree being negotiated by the city and the DOJ will almost certainly include extensive federal monitoring, at least for a period of time, to ensure that the problems the investigation found are addressed. But ultimately, there is no substitute for oversight from the public the BPD is sworn to serve. As local and state officials contemplate responses to the report, here are a few reforms needed to ensure transparency and public accountability:
•The DOJ report notes that the Baltimore police disciplinary system "is shielded almost entirely from public view, and the civilian oversight mechanisms that are currently in place are inadequate and ineffective." That's putting it mildly. The Maryland Public Information Act shields personnel records from disclosure, and that exemption has in most instances prevented the public from learning whether an officer faced any consequences for bad acts except in the extremely rare cases when they result in criminal charges. Reforms enacted this year will at least allow complainants to find out if discipline occurs, but bad behavior by police officers is a matter of broad public concern. Lawmakers need to eliminate the personnel exemption for records related to formal complaints of job misconduct so police departments (and not just Baltimore's) can be held accountable. The ACLU pushed legislation in the General Assembly this year to do that, but it never made it out of committee.
•Trial boards — an internal police disciplinary process — are open to the public state-wide as of this year, but they aren't necessarily publicized, and their results aren't made public. They need to be treated like any other public meeting — advertised in advance, with action taken in public view. Another reform enacted this year allows trained civilians to be appointed to trial boards, but it's up to each jurisdiction to decide whether to do so. In Baltimore, they aren't, and the matter is subject to the city's collective bargaining agreement with police. The legislature needs to make civilian participation mandatory. As the DOJ report notes, the current practice of having fellow police judge an officer tends to lead to overly lenient results. Police need to be accountable to the community and not just each other.
•Baltimore has never made good use of its Civilian Review Board. Established in 2000, it is poorly staffed, and officials have frequently failed to appoint members to serve on it. The board is meant to be an alternative venue for investigating complaints of excessive force, harassment, abusive language and false arrest, but it is reliant on the department voluntarily sharing such complaints, which doesn't always occur. The board has gotten some additional funding in recent years but needs more to hire investigators and to conduct community outreach. It needs the authority to compel officers to participate in its investigations, to audit complaints received by the department to ensure they are forwarded to the board, and to track the outcomes of the disciplinary process. This summer, the Fraternal Order of Police sued to block the department from sharing disciplinary records with the board. We don't believe the suit has merit, but should it succeed, the law should be changed to ensure the board has access to such records.
•Police departments across the state, including Baltimore's, are beginning to deploy body cameras on officers, but state law lacks clear rules about when and how the recordings should be made public. Legislation seeking to strike an appropriate balance between access and the need to shield certain sensitive information failed in this year's General Assembly session. The matter needs to be revived to ensure broad public access. In an era of smartphones when video is ubiquitous, anything less will only breed mistrust.
•Although the city has made some progress in publicizing its settlements of police brutality cases since The Sun's 2014 "Undue Force" investigation, it maintains a practice of requiring victims to agree not to discuss their cases. Such non-disclosure clauses fail to serve the public interest and must be abolished.
•In response to a 2010 Sun investigation on the handling of rape cases , the city beefed up it Sexual Assault Response Team — an oversight panel of advocates, medical personnel and others. Initially, the group was allowed to review open cases as well as those that were closed, but not anymore. Meanwhile, the DOJ report found an explosion in the number of cases the department classified as "open," sometimes for years. Given the DOJ's documentation of scandalously lax investigations into sexual assault cases, the group needs unfettered access to open and closed case files.
We understand the need for police to safeguard the integrity of investigations and protect witnesses. Some degree of confidentiality will always be necessary for police work. But the DOJ report shows how badly astray a department can go when a lack of transparency prevents real accountability. Baltimore is now going to incur tens of millions of dollars in costs to try to change the culture and practices of its police department. The only way taxpayers will know that those reforms are working in the long run is if the public is able to keep watch.