ANNAPOLIS – Maryland’s racial profiling lawsuit is on hold until Gov. Robert Ehrlich can meet with his new State Police Superintendent Col. Edward T. Norris.
“Ehrlich wanted a chance to have his Cabinet members in place before deciding,” DeLeaver said. “He has no position (on the issue) until he meets with the involved parties.”
The Board of Public Works, which approves state spending, originally declined to vote on the $325,000 settlement of a lawsuit brought by the NAACP against the Maryland State Police during its first meeting of the year on Jan. 8. Ehrlich requested the delay before he took office on Jan. 15, of fellow board members Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp and Comptroller William Donald Schaefer.
The sooner the settlement gets on the agenda the better, said Kopp, who continues to support the State Police and said “most are not guilty of racial profiling.”
“I believe that the State Police are a good force, but have been found by the court to behave in practices that we don’t support . . . (The settlement) provisions should make people feel comfortable that things are done in a fair and judicial way.”
In 1992, a police document listed as “confidential” warned the Allegany County Narcotics Task Force that the county was “experiencing serious problems with the incoming flow of crack cocaine.”
“The dealers and couriers (traffickers) are predominately black males and black females . . . The traffickers will usually travel with two or more people in the car,” it continued.
Schaefer said he couldn’t believe the State Police instructed troopers to profile, and that he’ll wait for Norris’ comments before deciding which way to vote.
“I never saw the memo,” Schaefer said. “Money is not the problem. Is retraining necessary? Or is a letter OK?”
Meanwhile, key terms of the settlement require police training, audio- visual taping of stops and searches, establishment of a complaint process, data collection, management oversight, citizen and police involvement to promote mutual understanding, as well as legal fees and expenses, court documents show.
Schaefer said he doesn’t know if people understand the impact the settlement could have.
“One of the things I am worried about is when someone brings a suit we’ll say OK,” Schaefer said. “African-Americans are my friends. But they are trying to say I am against blacks when I don’t automatically say yes.”
Ehrlich should already be familiar with the document, said Edythe Flemings Hall, president of the Maryland State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
“We were taken aback when (Ehrlich) expressed having no knowledge and we’re trying to be considerate that he has a full plate,” Flemings Hall said. “(Ehrlich) went out of his way to demonstrate a need for inclusion . . . And when the first major issue comes out he can’t sit down and decide.”
She also questions Schaefer’s loyalties.
“His position on this has been the most uncooperative and I am concerned with who he is representing,” she said.
The Board of Public Works again deferred voting on the issue at its Feb. 5 meeting, despite lobbying by members of the Legislative Black Caucus.
The settlement evolved from a 1992 incident in which State Police pulled over defense lawyer Robert L. Wilkins in Cumberland while driving with his family. Wilkins, who refused a police search, said each day the settlement is not signed is another day of racial discrimination being condoned in Maryland.
-30- CNS-2-6-03