Well good morning everyone and welcome to the Public Safety Committee works as should a Monday September 16th 2024. Today we have one topic on the agenda of bill 224. Police traffic stops consent search of motor vehicle and data collection which is also known as the Freedom to Leave Act. And as we begin I want to thank Ms. Ludin McArntney Green, for once again and always preparing a most informative packet for us. We're also pleased to welcome Council Member Joando, who was the sponsor of the bill, not a member of the committee, but a sponsor of the bill. And Council Member Mink, we just got a text from her, should be here within about five minutes or so. But she gave us the the word that we should start without her. And what I'm going to do is, unless the committee or Councilmember Juando objected this, I'm going to turn to Ms. McArtony-Green to walk us through the packet first and then hear from everyone. I think it green to walk us through the packet first and then hear from everyone. I think it needs to be noted that the many times this happens, some panel members have multiple commitments so that they are going to need to leave, but we are going to make sure that we hear from them if depending on what time and we will take people out of order. Is that okay with everybody? So Ms. Well, first of all, let me ask the panel to introduce themselves and then we'll start from that. Dave, if you couldn't. Acting Assistant Chief of the Field Services Bureau for the Police Department. Dave McBank. Dave McBank. I memorized your name for you. But, I'll start with this as you demonstrate, officer. Mark, you might achieve a police. Jason Cokino, acting commander, third district. Good morning, Captain Nick Pisserno, Director of Special Operations and Division. John McCarthy, State Attorney for Montgomery County. Thank you all for all that you do and thank you for being with us and Ms. McCartney Green if you could please walk us through. Good morning Chair and Council members. Thank you for the clarification on McCartney Green because I know we have a John McCarthy here to attorneys but I'm here for the Council. As you mentioned bill 224 police traffic stock consent search of motor vehicle was introduced on February 6th and had a public hearing with over 43 speakers. Accounts with has received numerous testimony that has been reflected in the packet. Testimony that has both supported the bill and also testimony in opposition of the bill. Specifically, the bill would prohibit consent search of a motor vehicle or person by a police officer during a traffic stop. It would require a collection of certain data and information related to the traffic stop. It would also have annual reporting of the traffic stop and exclude the prohibition of traffic stop from collective bargaining. Do you want to take a step back and just for clarity, Bill 224 was kind of birthed out of the step back and that was Bill 1223. In the step back, laid a foundation of actually prohibiting not only consensus but also other lesser offenses. The Maryland the Maryland Attorney General did issue an opinion that came back and deemed that portions of the step-ac were preempted by state law, meaning that as a local locality we could not implement certain provisions, but did also specify that there were some parts of it, specifically the consent portion during a traffic stop was legally permissible. And so the Freedom to Leave Act takes the legally permissible portions and has adopted that in this bill bill 224. And also just to clarify, this bill has also, well like I mentioned, talk about different data collection that will happen throughout a traffic stop currently under existing law state law. Does already require some type of traffic data collection, but this bill goes even further and extends that portion. The way that the packet is organized, it's more of a discussion questions. At the end, I know that there is a potential amendment that may be proposed by Councilmember Juwando, which may shift the introduced bill on what has already been before you, and so we can go through that and walk that through. That is a concise synopsis. I'm happy to explain or expound anything a little bit more than that. Okay. I'm going to turn to councilmember Juwando if that's okay with the committee. So, Verne's only one on the person has to agree with me, but any have. Go ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you to Chair Katz and to the Public Safety Committee, Councilor Lutke and Manko's on her way. Having me here, thank you to Miss McCartney-Green for all her work on the various iterations of this bill. As you discussed, I'd have spent the year and a half plus a month, I think, you know, since the step-back was introduced in February 2023, which had, as part of it, a kind of the basis of this bill. I want to thank the police department and Chief Administrator, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Stoddard and the County Executive and the police union. We've been in discussions about this since in that year and a half and appreciate everyone trying to come together. I want to thank the community for commenting and being engaged on this issue. Community members that are here, but also those at home. And you know, this has been a long journey. and being engaged on this issue, community members that are here, but also those at home. And, you know, this has been a long journey since we first introduced this bill. And I thought I'd just give a little bit of background, and then also maybe discuss the amendments that we've been socializing with folks, kind of behind the scenes prior to the committee meeting. The year and a half ago I introduced the step-back, which was the Safety and Traffic Equity and Policing Act. It had a couple of goals. It was to focus our community's attention on racial disparities in traffic enforcement, but also to an effort to focus our traffic enforcement on the most urgent needs that we're seeing in the community's feeding reckless driving, things that lead to death in injury. And in a way that you could kind of do both of those things and prioritize safety for all. As was mentioned, the Attorney General said that we were preempted. That bill as a reminder just would have made secondary offenses of certain low level traffic offenses like a tail light out or having something hanging from your dash and the like. We're not talking about that today, but it's important to remember. But a key component of that bill was related to consent searches. And I just think it's important to note that even though we're not talking about that bill today, there are other jurisdictions that have gone in that direction. The State of Virginia and other jurisdictions have already implemented measures similarly to proposed in the step-at. As it relates to more enforcement of high level traffic offenses, I'm for that. And just want to reiterate that, like 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 whose interacting with law enforcement and how those interactions go. And we want to make sure everyone's safe in those interactions. We had public hearings. So since this was kind of two bills, we had two public hearings on these bills. We had a very, which were both very robust. And I know people, it's been a while ago, it's February on this bill over a year and a half ago on the other bill. But I've always maintained and I urge people to go look at those public hearings because you heard from people in the community that were sharing their experience about how they interact with law enforcement. And I think that's really, really important to remember that it's not happening the same way for everybody. And that has consequences on both efficiency and time, but also how people feel about their community and their personal safety. So the bill was discussed by the main kind of thrust. We're discussed by Ms. McCartney Green, but I want to just give a little more context about why the bill was introduced and why those provisions are in there. Consent searches have been used for many years, and just to set the stage of consent search, the reason the bill is called the Freedom to Leave. If you are asked for your person, property, or car to be searched, if a law enforcement officer is asking you that, you have the right and the fourth amendment to the Constitution to say no. No one here is disagreeing about that. You have the right and the fourth amendment to the Constitution to say no. No one here is disagreeing about that. You have the right to say no. The reason this bill is proposed is because of the significant and really weighty power imbalance that is created when that question is asked by a person in authority who has a gun and who's asking you where you're already trying to say act like you don't feel like you don't have anything wrong or haven't done anything wrong. And we know because of that we've had social scientists, others, criminologists testify here that that question is almost rendered null and void because of the power of differential and imbalance and as a result the vast majority of people who are asked say yes, vast majority. Number one, so that's the first reason we introduce this, because it's not really you waving a fourth amendment, right? Because of the power imbalance, two, these are not fruitful searches, right? If you look at national data, if you look at our own data, provided to us over multiple years by the police department and by ACAO Stoddard and in testimony previously to this committee. One out of every 205 traffic stops less than 0.5% lead to the recovery of a firearm. Right? That's traffic substance general. But the data does not get better when you, since this new policy has been in place, you're still talking about 98, 99 percent of the time that these happen. Nothing is found. So what does that mean? Right? That means that people who were asked to consent and consented were either searched, were sat on the side of the road, something happened, and nothing was found. And we heard very test-me-oprydable crying here. Black men in particular, who are, my third point about who this is happening to disproportionately, say that how scared they were, how they didn't feel like it was fair, and we heard people cry about that and talk about it, and the data backs up that this is not a good use of time, and that it has detrimental impacts on the community. And this is again, that reflective of national data, Montgomery County is always very similar. We are a great county, but because we're so large and so diverse, we tend to be in the mean on a lot of things, and it's not just us. So that's the other reason that they're not fruitful. Number three, massive disparities in who this is happening to. African Americans and Latinos are the vast majority of folks who this happens to, in particular Black men. So you talk about hundreds of people every year for whom this is happening to that have negative interactions because of this policy. Again, this is not taking away. Anything, there are many ways that things that you'll hear later, I'm sure, from the police department. There's a lot of ways to search. You get a proper cause, incident to arrest, consent is one subcategory of that. But it's one that is as I've cited not yielding a lot in having detrimental impacts on who is being pulled over. This is on top of already disparities in traffic enforcement. Layar that on top. We're going to discuss in this committee, I think in a week or two, the new use of force. The use of force bill that I had introduced a few years in 2020 and where that's gone. We've seen an increase in use of force and we still see these stubborn disparities in use of force. We're nearly 60% of those who force against the black and county where we're about 18% of the population. And so you have to understand the context of this. Last point about why I introduced it is that there's a better way to do it and it's not just a guess. Like some of the things we introduced in Montgomery County were on the cutting edge, but there are states and jurisdictions that have been doing this for years and have seen good results. The entire state of Connecticut in 2020 eliminated consent searches. And there are some rough cities in Connecticut. We've just talked about one of my colleagues, give her a go to Connecticut. And I've been to many of them. They have seen, since they've done that, they've seen a decrease in racial disparities in traffic stops and they've seen their contraband and recovery rates go up That's happened in the city of Portland who's also done this policy so it's not you're not trading safety for People feeling better about their community and and it's that is proven in other places that have done this Again the state of Virginia Has a policy around traffic stops and they've seen some improvement in racial disparities. I hope that's what we want. I hope we want to have less disparities in whose pulled over and who stopped. And we want to see higher recovery of guns and contraband. I want to see that. And I understand that it could be a knee-jerk reaction to say, well, this is a tool and if we limited it anyway, it's going to have the opposite effect, but that's just not bearing out in places that have done it. And I think we have to take a clear eye view of that at our own data about the recovery rates here, about who this is being done to disproportionately, about the personal and human cost, and the fact that there's a better way to do it. And I actually think the department, I want to thank them. They have done that in a way and that I'm sure hopefully we'll hear about today. Some discussions about a change to this policy since I introduced this bill a year and a half ago or the predecessor, the preceding bill that will reflect some of the things I think that are in my proposed amendment. Which I'll talk about in just one second. But that's why we introduced this. The advisory committee on policing, the entity that this council put together to advise on policing unanimously has you supported this bill. Their letter is in the testimony here. We met with the police accountability board, which I know they haven't sent a letter yet, but that was a very productive meeting. I know others were in that meeting. They had, I think they had intended to send a letter, so I don't know hopefully that'll be coming. But the entity that's set up to advise us on policing has said that we should pass this bill has introduced. Last point I'll make. I want to build some consensus here. And so the amendments, Ludin, do you want to walk through the amendments? Or do you want to, how do you want to do this, Chair? I think you should then have Ludin as begrega green sounds good. It give her thoughts on when what you're suggested. Sounds good. So I'll do that. And that's, then I'm parking the train. And we'll have plenty of time for two few more out of here. You don't park a train, probably, right? You probably pull it. I'm just going to pull the train into the station. I was going to ask you where you came up with that one. Yeah. It's Monday morning. It is. So I want to build some consensus here and make some progress. And I realize that change is hard. That's the way change is. We don't like it as humans. We're wired not to like it. But I think in this instance, it's really overwhelming that there's a better way to do this. That keeps people safe, but also respects the community in a better way too. So what I've proposed, which is in the packet, is, and then I'll turn to Ms. McCartney, Green to correct any errors, is to do a couple things. One, the bill, as introduced, says you can't ask for consent search. You can't ask. And the reason you would ask is because you don't have probable cause of the crimes when committed, which under the Fourth Amendment allows you to search anyway. And so the first big change in the compromise, which is a big change, is saying that you can't ask, but you must have reasonable, articulable suspicion. And all the lawyers up here will tell you that that's a different and lower standard than probable cause. Right? And if you look at the case law on that, I saw a ball, you move quickly. There's a lot of things that can be considered reasonable, articulate suspicion. So you still may ask under the compromise under certain conditions if there's reasonable, articulate suspicion. On the police accountability board meeting that ACAO started was in and Lee Haaland, the head of the police in UMasson, it was stated that this is in practice what many offices are already doing, right? Even if it's not on paper, or it's not an official policy, right? Which is, I think, better than just asking Willie Nilly, right? You wanna have a reasonable, particular suspicion. So that'll be the first thing. You could ask if you have reasonable, particular suspicion to, it has to be, the reason has to be written down on the form and or, if not possible, said into the body camera that our officers are wearing. I'm doing this because of X, Y, and Z in real time, contemporaneously, so that it's known and can be looked at later about why this is happening. The form that is given to residents to whether they're gonna waive therefore with the memo, right? This is the third piece of it. We'd need to have that articulated and they would need to say yes or no and we need to state the reasoning there. And all of these consent searches, and again, there's a couple hundred, two hundred and sixty or so, I think last year, something that you'll get the exact number, but would need to be reviewed internally at the department to be making sure they're consistent with the policy. So that is the gist of of I think the proposed amendment and compromise that I think will move us forward, but also respect that there's there's some issues here. The last part obviously which is doesn't change from the bill is all the data collection. I think we all want data so we know what's going on so that we can improve our practice and performance. Miss McCartney Green, did I get that right? The only other thing that you didn't mention was the rationale why a traffic stop was extended. Sorry, yes, thank you. I know I missed something. So you'd also need to include, because the bill, the Freedom Leav Act as introduced also has reasoning and restriction around extending traffic stops, which we know can be an issue that we're seeing as well. Ms. McCroney, green anything? No, Chair Cass, please. It might not hear, but just to back up to the reasonable suspicion, as you mentioned, Kaiselaw has defined a reasonable suspicion and the bill here, the amendment here being proposed actually has a definition for reasonable suspicion. Now we did into the record from just a clarity, but reasonable suspicion means articible facts that within the totality of the circumstances lead a police officer to reasonably suspect that a vehicle or occupant of a vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. And so that was important to define that. I know officers may know and understand, but just to precarity there, using that as a basis to define what is reasonable suspicion. As mentioned, the extending of the duration of a traffic stop that also requires a rationale as well. Thank you. So, and just the last thing I'll say, I appreciate the conversation, appreciate the committee's indulgence of letting me say why this was introduced and look forward to the discussion with the partners and everyone here. Thank you very much. Before you came in, we said that we were going to because people have to be in various places and various and you understand of that works. I'm going to turn to chief Yamada and then I'm going to turn to the state's attorney and then Dr. Stoddard if he has any remarks. But chief Yamada, if you could please give your thoughts on this. And while you're doing it, please include, if you've seen any department, seen any issues with officers conduct for requesting consent searches. And what you hear from the local community members is as you're asking for terms in policing and crime determinants. Sure, thank you, Chair Cats. You need to turn on your mic. Thank you, Chair. Forgot. Thank you, Chair Cats. So let me start by saying that County Police Department, our mission is to safeguard life and property, preserve the peace, prevent, and detect crime. Consents searches, specifically as they pertain to traffic stops, are a valuable tool for us to use to accomplish our mission. I want to point out that we have traditionally gone as a police department, above and beyond what is legally required in order to do this, we use all of our tools that are at our disposal constitutionally. You'll hear us speak about training, the training that our officers receive, and that's not just a one officer training another officer. We currently have a retired Montgomery County circuit court judge who conducts training for our officers specifically on consent searches. In fact, all types of searches, both at the recruit level in our academy, in service, and to our supervisors. And he stresses the importance of strictly adhering to our policies and the Constitution. I've heard some say, as Councilmember Joanne pointed pointed out that this is not an effective use of our time Or that we don't seize enough guns to make it you know worthwhile We're here to say yet again that I don't I don't think anyone has table believes that either one of those things is true You'll hear us explain the guns are extremely prevalent in in our communities and that most are being brought into our neighborhoods in vehicles. From one part of the county to another part of the county we've seen guns coming from Germantown and being used in Silver Spring. We've seen guns in Silver Spring being used in up north. We've seen guns coming from Prince George's County, from Virginia, from the district to Columbia into our neighborhoods and back and forth. And we've found that based on evidence that we've collected at the scenes of these shootings. And it's not just guns, we seem to focus on guns. It's we're talking about drugs you heard, Councilmember Juwanda point out death and injury as factors involved in what we're trying to do here. Well, there's no two things that cause a greater amount of death or injury in our county Than guns and drugs specifically fentanyl. We're talking about drugs The Montgomery County Police Department has long prided itself on staying ahead of the curve when it comes to our training our policies and our procedures We continue to be more restrictive than what is legally required and you will hear us speak to additional Restrictions as councilmember Joana pointed out in us changing our policies yet again. That comes with added layers of review and improved and increased tracking capabilities. Our goal as a department is to provide everyone with a safe community. It is important that Montgomery County police officers have the tools to legally and constitutionally perform our duty to keep Montgomery County safe. Whether it's removing deadly fentanyl or other drugs or illegally possessed weapons that can be used in shootings, this benefits everyone who lives works in place here in our community. We've heard communities directly, both Commander McBain can speak to this as the third district commander, the current district commander Jason Cooquinos down in 3D. We've heard our communities tell us during advisory board meetings, HOA and civic meetings that are they are overwhelmingly asking for more enforcement, increased visibility and increased traffic stops. My promise to you, as it has to the county executive and our communities, is that our officers are going to do this constitutionally with respect for everyone's rights. And I'll stop there. Thank you very much, Mr. State's attorney. Good morning. May I say, I think the outline that was given by Ms. McCartney, what's required to find consent that it's be voluntary and freely given. One of the things that we seem to be, is lost in this conversation, is the fact that we have video of all this. I mean, I'm looking, I mean, I look at the, with the bill requires the officer must now collect in terms of data. Is it, why did we invest millions of dollars into recording exactly what's happening here? And it not only does it answer all, I think almost every single one of these questions is already memorialized by video already by what we have done here and the investment we have made as a community, which I completely support because I think the video gives the confidence that Councilman Jawanda, I understand the motivation behind this, and I think having public confidence in what we do is important. But again, I think we have that, we've done that with the video that captures that. I would also indicate, I don't think anybody, no agency in the county actually looks at more video than my agency. I think the council just gave me, I think in a totally of 11 new people, just looking at body camera every day we are so overwhelmed with it. And I will tell you consistently I get the feedback about the professionalism of the men and women that work as police officers in this county. I would also say that I was particularly struck on, I think this is on page 9 of the report that I got here, you know, in terms of an analyzing the consent searches, I was looking, is there a problem with asking for consent? And I see that in terms of the complaints that were filed with the police related to traffic stops, not a single complaint was registered, this is on top of page 9, that received no complaints regarding consent searches. So the individuals who have been involved in the searches have never complained to the police that has been an issue. It's not something that we have been seeing in our review, quite kindly. What we have seen is quite the opposite, is a lot of professionalism based on well-trained police officers here. I think that the duration of the stops, like the fact that the motor vehicle stops are limited by Ferris V State, again it's almost like that exists already. The irony for me is that the author of Ferris V State was Judge Irma Raker who began her career in the state's turns off from Montgomery County and she wrote Ferris V. That's the law. That's what the judge teaches at the police academy. That's what I teach. That's the law, that's what the judge teaches at the police academy, that's what I teach, that's the law. You're only allowed to detain someone on a traffic stop long enough to process routinely the ticket or the citation you're about to give. That already exists. So the videos got the data, we already have the limitation exist based on it. I think the opinion, I think Judge Rucker probably wrote it close to 20 years ago. I might be off a year or two, but it's pretty close to that. I also would just make an observation about that. Look, we just did a critical study and I'm proud of what we've done, but I will tell you, it began a larger conversation about how you look at your statistics and data. I know that when I was with, I wish he was commander McBain at the time, we were dealing with an issue of drug distribution in downtown Silver Spring, you know, the Civic Center. I went down one day and I met with him, and he had a book of the 16 people that had been identified as the major drug dealers in an open-air market that had every single of those individuals didn't live in Montgomery County. There were 16, we're zero for 16. I know that in certain categories of crimes where we have some statistical data, whether it's car thefts and carjacking, less than 50% of those individuals committing those crimes are Montgomery County residents. I say that's that when you look at statistics, we have to look regionally because my opically you can see what the numbers are and look, I think the numbers are not, I'm not trying to defend the numbers. But I do think it's a broader conversation and a more realistic conversation if you look at us as a region. That's why we have gang task forces at a regional. Car theft things at a regional. Autothecical. These are regional problems and there is movement and we see it in statistical categories of crime in Montgomery County all the time where the offenders are not Montgomery County residents. Now that may be more true in the area of traffic. We also don't consider age. Whatever the overall number of people live, 230,000 of the people living in this county, and I'm one of them, or over the age of 65. That's not a wildly involved group that's involved in crime. So when you're looking at the numbers, you know, 15 to 25 is sort of the most active, what are those demographics? And and what are they regionally? Those are really meaningful numbers that sometimes we don't spend enough time looking at. I would also tell you I do think people feel less safe. I think this may be what Chief your model was going to. You know, I went, we do collect numbers and we have a gun unit in my office. Since the law changed, this is not this law. We have taken some other steps in other forms that have made it harder for us to remove guns off the street in Maryland. We did that with the marijuana law that doesn't allow us to even, even with consent, with the odor, it's marijuana, you can't seize the guns. What has that made any impact? The state police number the year before that law went into effect, they seized 43 guns. The state police, just 43 guns in Montgomery County. Since that law passed, they've seized one gun. The odor of marijuana got us into those cars. We did an analysis the last year before we forbid consent searches with marijuana. And why did we get into cars in 80% of the gun cases where we seized guns? It was the other marijuana and legislative effort made it such we could not get those guns. Guns and drugs together. I do think I will also say this and I think it's a morale issue for the police. It's a huge morale issue. You know, there's a section here, where this is on page six, where it talks about, identified collection that provides information or trends or patterns on per officer basis. We're gonna check up money. You know, I thought to myself when I read that, I thought, if no Leata was alive, walking the streets of Montgomery County, he'd probably have five times more DWI arrests than anybody else in the office, and the thing, those numbers mean you get a hard-working police officer. The numbers don't necessarily mean you've got somebody who is acting in a racially disparate way, who is targeting people. It might mean there's somebody that really cares about what they're doing and feels a passion for what they're doing like the Noiliata. So, again, you can do whatever the heck you want to do with numbers, but you'll have to look behind it and know that there are other explanations sometimes for what's actually happening here. I also had an occasion recently to meet with the newest recruit class and then the most recent graduate class. It is by far the most diverse class of individuals I've ever seen coming out of the academy. It's not even close. And if you want to deal with this issue and get public trust and public confidence, I absolutely believe this. That's exactly what the police departments should be doing. They should be training us. The chief said they are doing with a retired judge who was doing the training superbly for us at the police academy. recruiting such that our department looks like the community we serve and and that's the way to address this I do not I do oppose this bill. Thank you very much Dr. Stoddard please. Can I just say one thing? Sure please. Sorry. I know it's okay to interrupt him. It's okay. He evolved the people though. Yeah yeah. We talk about disparities I do want to point out that throughout the county, the number of victims that we have in relationship to crime is disparate. We've seen a large proportion of our victims are people of color. Thank you, Dr. Stark, please. Thank you, members of the Public Safety Committee and Council Member Joando. I also want to thank the members of the public who provided public testimony on both the staff back and the freedom to lay back to found, frankly, their perspective is very passionate and moving. I also want to recognize this Council Member Joando did the conversation. The police accountability board had on this issue where Council Member Joando and myself and FOP Lodge 35 President Lee Holland were asked to give perspectives, asked questions, but please come to the bill to board. I found the conversation be pretty productive as obviously did Councilmember Joanne, who produced a number of amendments based on that conversation. So the county executive supports a number of things, first off, he thinks the consent searches should remain part of the general toolbox, but with some very specific and clear directives on this. First off, he does support the reasonable articulable suspicion provision of addition to the consent search policy. He also supports the notion of increased oversight, much like we do with use of force where every consent search is reviewed by a supervisor. Obviously, everyone supports data collections. This is an issue that I've heard from Chief Yamada. They need some additional support as they endeavor to have better data throughout the police department. This is something that is not just unique to consent searches. It's in a lot of areas. We ask the police consistently for more information and more data and we need to have a better catalogue, a records management system, for example, that we're working on implementing. And then finally, he also, the kind of executive supports, making sure we have plain language ability for residents to understand their rights that they can provide or not provide consent, that they can limit consent, they can withdraw consent at any time during the conduct of a search. And obviously all of those things together. The kind of executive believes that the most effective way for us to do this, and this is why you're here more about the policy change that the police department's working on is to work with the department to do this through policy implementation. He wants to send us a clear message that we can work with the police officers themselves as well as the department to effectuate these changes without necessarily having to do it through a Do legislation that that provides confidence that the that the voices and the opinions of the officers are respected as are those of the public Public who are providing testimony and and feedback on this so That's it for us. Thank you very much councilmember Ming please Thank you very much. Councilmember Ming, please. Thank you to Councillor Margaritwanda for introducing it to the members of the public who testified about it to MCPD who have done a lot of work to see how policy might be updated to reflect the concerns raised. All the points that I've heard by a large raise today reflect I'm going to say that we have a lot of things to do with the health of the streets. All the points that I've heard by large raise today reflect the importance which I think we all agree with of using effective efficient techniques so that we can get more guns and drugs and other dangerous things off the streets. I don't think anybody here is arguing for anything that would make our streets less safe. We want all of those things off the streets. Given that we're in agreement with that, it's important for us to really dig deep and think about what is most effective and what is most efficient. We all agree that it's a problem to have the things out there. We all agree we want to see them off the streets. The question is what is our best use of resources, what protects the public the most. I also hear a lot about our searches being legal and constitutional. That is important but of course the entire premise of this bill and of this conversation is that we are looking to do better than that. That we know that the constitutional standard so far results in the disparities that we've seen, results in the inefficiencies that have been reflected in the data. So I don't think that there's any agreement that restricting consent search is required for constitutionality. Of course, the constitution has written that exception in. What we're looking to do as we so often do here in Montgomery County is to do better than what's required of us. So the concerns and complaints that we heard at the public hearing, we're very moving. So I want to make sure that it's clear that there are concerns and complaints out there. So if we're missing them through our formal complaint system, I think that's reflective of maybe more, you know, we need to find more ways to inform and educate the public about how to register complaints formally or, you know, to make people comfortable to do so or let them know what, you know, what their rights and risks are all those sorts of things. But I think it's important that we, you know, that we acknowledge that we know that those concerns and complaints are out there. And, you know, that's part of what is calling on us to do better at this moment. I think the big question before us is how do we want to make some of these upgrades? And it sounds like there is some agreement that there are ways in which this can be made better. And again, I appreciate MCP looking into potential policy changes. I think just like with the bill, whether it's with the bill or with the policy, the nuances of that are the most important part and I appreciate the collaboration. I had the opportunity to have some meetings about this and I'm interested in the direction that it's gonna go and again, I think that it's the level of detail here is really important so I'm interested to hear the greatest level of detail that you all are prepared to give on where that stands today. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Mournallouki. Thank you. So I just want to make sure we're clear on process. Are we are we going to go over through? Are we going to do it? Go through the piece of the village. You would like. I ask you general questions. My goal today is that there would be a recommendation from this committee for whatever is decided. I don't know that we need other, unless other information comes out that we need. I think we've gotten a lot of information. Then my goal is that we go forward with the committee recommendation. Sure. Okay. Bearing that in mind, I'm going to ask some questions and I'm not necessarily going to ask them to any specific person. So, whomever is best qualified to answer, please pipe in, okay? Do you want me to yield back? Do you want to go through things? Yeah, it's been suggested that we go through your proposed policy changes. Okay. So we are in discussion, we're close with the FOP. We've met with the state attorney, the rich in his team, the county executive, their team on what is most desired. And we are looking to make changes reflective of the reasonable, articulable suspicion. We're looking to make all body-worn camera, all consent searches reviewed by a supervisor much like we do with the use of force policies. So anytime there's a consent search that results in an actual search, it'll be reviewed by the supervisor, lieutenant, commander, or a director, and then on up to the assistant chief level. The app on our phone, we're going to implement a app on our phone that will replace the form. The form will then only be used in the event that the app on the phone doesn't work, but that'll allow for quicker, more fluid advice to the subject in question that they can refuse. They have to acknowledge via the app, and then that also allows us to track better. They'll be, I think Captain Persona can maybe talk to this a little bit more specifically But this app will allow for GPS tracking so we'll figure out where our searches are being conducted And speak up Nick if you have anything to add. If you're in a great job with that But yeah, the tracking So we'll be able to identify areas in the county where the searches are being conducted things like that. And like I say, we're just really on the, Lee was out of town for the last week up in Alaska, so now that he's back, I hope to sit down with him and maybe iron out some of the last minute details, but I think that covers most of the changes that we have in place. Thank you, I appreciate that covers most of the changes that we have in place. Thank you. I appreciate that. I would ask them that we hold until we can have all of the details and really have a substantive discussion about the policy that's being proposed. I know that you have the outlines and that you are working to have that be in line with the spirit of the amendments and the bill and so on. I appreciate all of that. But we heard the strength of the testimony, which was overwhelmingly positive from the public. This is something that there is a lot of investment in. And whether we come out of this with a piece of legislation or with an internal policy, I think that the details of it, what is this going to look like on the ground are incredibly important also because we are, again, looking at kind of the psychology behind behind this. It's not an easy question to answer obviously we've already we know that we already check the boxes in terms of constitutionality of policy, legality of policy and so on. We're looking to go beyond that to improve some of the effects that we're seeing in the research and data and so on. So I would ask I mean it's hard for me to think about how it would make a decision about whether this needs to be a bill or provide feedback on the policy without kind of seeing what is this going to look like on the ground for our officers and for the public. I would appreciate the opportunity to come back and be able to have a more in depth conversation about that and I think that the public deserves to see that as well. So two things, you mentioned, and I think Councilmember Jwanda mentioned, the disparity in the power, or the power that we have, one more asking for this, the psychology piece of this. Right, put that testimony from the researchers. I mean, I would argue with you that our officers see on a daily basis a tremendous amount of disrespect threats people have no issue with telling us to stick it in our hat you know for lack of a better term. To say that they don't believe that they can say no. I would argue that that's probably not what we're seeing out there. You know, I would just throw that out there. I mean, I don't understand that I'm not claiming to be a psychologist at any level, but I mean mean what we are seeing out there, there is no shortage of people's ability to tell us now. I absolutely understand that officers are having me, those experiences on the street, and I hear you on that. I think what we have to go on though is the data. And so what we see is that the overwhelming number of people say yes, and what we have to go on though is the data. And so what we see is that the overwhelming number of people say yes. And what we see is that a nationwide where we see that this is the policy is similar to this. And our policy, of course, is already stronger than in other places. But with comparable policies that we see the overwhelming number of people say yes. And so the question is, why is that? And so when we brought those experts before us, they broke it down for us. And so all of that said, again, regardless of where you fall on that, I think that it warrants whatever we're going to say, yes or no to or supportive. And if we're going to be really working in collaboration on this, I think we've got to have the details of the policy in front of us to be able to at least have that substantive discussion. Yeah, no worries there. We can do that for you. I would offer command and make band to speak. I know upon review of a lot of our body warm cameras as they exist now, we have seen multiple cases where officers are asking for consent and are told no. And there, you would suggest that there is something wrong. There's something in that car. There's something on that person. When they say no, our officers are walking away. It's not a situation where we push the envelope and persist and beat you down. If the answer is no, we walk away. Please. I appreciate it. So yeah, as a commander, the third district, I reviewed a lot of video from a whole series, things from use of force to just the officers actions in general. And there are examples out there where I've witnessed all, specifically, and I know I focus a lot on my D-CAT teams, my district community action teams, but these are guys and gals that are specifically out working some of these neighborhoods where I specifically sent them to knock down crime. And sometimes they do not get into cars and probably most impressive is is when they are told no and they move on and they send somebody up the road. So there are examples about that. Something else I think we should, Mr. McCarthy had said that yes, these are all embodied warrant cameras, so we see it for actually what it is. But the way the courts are set up and the way that we look at these things as an agency and we train it, we don't coerce either. So there's no trickery or deceit utilized to get into these cars. It's a question that's asked. There's no threat that if you don't give us consent will arrest you. That would be a violation of our policy and of the law, quite frankly, I believe that state's attorney would consider anything found from that traffic stop based on that coerced obtaining consent would be fruit as a poisonous tree. So there's a lot of good examples out there where we based on the training and based the way we do a complete traffic stop that we do it very well. I appreciate that and you know I think what my understanding, my takeaway from some of the research and data that we heard was that even in those kind of best case scenarios where we have the officers doing everything that they're asked to do is that because of the just inherent power imbalance that even when there is not threats or coercion or anything like that, that because of that power imbalance we have people who are saying yes, who would in fact rather not say yes, and that there are disparities in that. All that is to say, there's also the issues around effectiveness and efficiency. And even putting all those aside, I would still just come back to that, given that we're trying to make overall improvements here, it would be great to have the opportunity for us and for the public to be able to see that policy before we are going to sign off on that being inadequate. The best we can do, that inadequate replacement for legislation and all those questions. So the one thing I would just say about effectiveness of inefficiency, clearly we have staffing issues, yes, but the reality is that at least from a perspective of being the commander of the third district, where we ran thousands and thousands of calls for service, the fact is that we multitask, right? So you can do crime suppression or you can work a neighborhood and do traffic safety at the same time. So, you know, we're not in an age where we send officers out specifically to do one thing. And I'm not talking about our specialized units. I'm talking about patrol. But the reason that four of the six districts have decentralized community action teams is because we need it units to be able to supplement patrol in order to knock down some of the crime that we're seeing in our neighborhoods. And so, you know, when we send these teams of officers into neighborhoods, and even to some extent are patrol officers, they're constantly shifting from a traffic, you know, traffic stops, you know, traffic safety to criminal suppression. So, you know, I think we're very effective and efficient with the numbers that we're working with now. I just want to point that out. Thank you. I appreciate that. And my last request, would I guess be for the chair on this that if my colleagues are accountable to coming back to looking on discussing the policy that especially if there's a possibility that this is going to supplant the legislation that we give a little bit of extra time for the public to be able to look at it. Like make sure that we have the packet up for a few extra days, a week, something like that just to make sure that there is that adequate opportunity before. So they can provide us with any feedback that they might want to prioritize coming together to discuss it as a committee. And actually one more question. How long did you all think it would take to get the turnaround on the policy? I know you were close. Well, I was hoping to have it today. Okay. So real soon. We've been working on it for a while. I just like I say, I just need to sit down with Lee and the FOP and figure it out. But I can't imagine it being too long. By bargaining technically the launch 35 does have 45 days through you policy. They have expressed the willingness in this to potentially wave that 45 day period, but obviously they have that right and until they wave it, we have to abide by that. So when he meets with launch 35 president this week, we'll hope that he'll have a better idea. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you remember Lodke? Thank you. And just to let Mr. McCarthy know, Ferris Fisate is now 25 years old. I just got five years older. Yeah. Because Judge Irma Raker was the only female member of the then named Court of Appeals when I became a law clerk for the second female member on the Court of Appeals. It was the first time there were two female judges at the same time on the high court. I thank you for raising the points regarding what community members are asking for in feedback. And I think it's important that we remember that I mean, I know the first time I ever met assistant acting assistant chief McBain was at a public safety listening session in White Oak with all of us were present for that. And repeatedly, repeatedly, the residents there were asking for more community policing model, more proactive policing in their neighborhoods, period. And I've also been present with you when I watched a young person, over 18, but young, getting your face, scream at you, utter a whole lot of expletives about the police, and subsequently that night at a community event that you had organized to help have basketball games and provide pizza and hang out and do that community outreach. A large fight broke out that racked the game for those kids who were really sad. Who said, we just wanted to come here and play basketball and we really love that they do this. And I was on a ride along in June in downtown Silver Spring, where I watched the biracial officer that I was with in a female African-American officer who also showed up to handle that call, both have projectiles thrown at them along with the screaming, all because they just asked, could you please not stay on the staircase of this building because you're obstructing entrance and exit from the building. So, that is a very real thing. There seem to be no concern with that. And I also have concerns with the notion that when people are advised of their rights that they aren't able to make informed choices, I think that's a really slippery slope, whether it's here in the context of a consent search or you're talking about waving your right to self-incrimination. Are we going to get away with the Fifth Amendment? Are we are we gutting the Fourth Amendment? Because there's balance in all of the constitutional provisions and the Fourth Amendment to be fair has generated you have like specialized treatises and stuff on certain areas even of the Fourth Amendment like the Law of Confessions, which is a whole separate thing. And I note that I know Andy Juzek, who was a prosecutor for years and has been a criminal defense attorney for much longer. And I helped edit that book before he first published it way back when. So you have to look up my old last name, but I got thanked in the front of it. So I have a lot of concerns about legisl know that the policy already have, which requires the articulable rationale, is beyond what is required for a consensus under the Fourth Amendment, but that's what you've been doing. And I appreciate that the new policy that you're in the process of finalizing right now with the FOP uses the reasonable suspicion phrase, which is in fact a longstanding legal doctrine under the fourth amendment. And so I know you mentioned the constitutional law that gets taught to everyone in the academy, and I know Judge Algeo teaches a lot of law all the time. And I would like you to comment on what this would mean using the reasonable suspicion standard if you could. Whichever of you wants to answer that? Sure. And so I can kind of talk a little bit about that and what we teach and train. So as a department, as the chief said, we're always forward thinking, and particularly with the Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment is our biggest, obviously, First Amendment, right? But Fourth Amendment is an everyday thing in the totality of police work in all of our engagements. We spend a lot of time dealing with that. We are forward thinking with our training, looking nationally and locally, but we need to remember policing as a local issue just because something happens in another state. It doesn't necessarily mean that it translates well here. So we do look at best practices, we do look at policies from other places and then we decide what is in the best interest of our community and how that fits with our stuff. So I say that because we're forward thinking with our training and our policies and I agree with what you said with do we need to be legislating things like this when we can work together to improve the training and policies. On one hand we hear that we have a great department, we have great training, we have everything like that and then we're going down a different road. And the officers feel a certain way about that, and so I appreciate those comments. But with the training, we have a retired judge now, which is excellent. He's an amazing instructor. Also teaches, I believe, at law schools, as well. So it's not just a police academy. In the past, we've for a long time, as long as I can remember, and we're thankful for this as well. Before him, we've had a state's attorney teaching in our academy, these very things. We teach free and voluntary consent is something that there's a whole host of things that need to be put into play when we're viewing what is free and voluntary, what's not, to rest, the positioning of officers, whether the lights are activated, the tone of their voice, all these things are examined, judicial review, and we teach that mindset. Not only do we teach Supreme Court, but we teach Maryland State case law, and that's very unique as Ferris was brought up. A lot of these things in Maryland were ahead of other states. Obviously, there was a Supreme Court ruling that came out about extending the duration of a traffic stop. And I kind of chuckled because I said, well, we've had that at the state case level here for a long time, obviously. So we're ahead of many other states. We teach in the classroom, the law, but then we do scenarios to see how they apply those lessons from the classroom. We teach particularly in our district community action team, our specialized units that do a lot of traffic stops, they get enhanced training, they get 40 additional hours of training, which includes a deep deep deep dive and refresh in constitutional Fourth amendment things of that nature. We're teaching search less find more. We don't want to be searching everybody we pull over. We don't want to spend any time longer than we need to on a traffic stop. We want to find people that are trying to harm the community bringing contraband into the community And so we are we are focused on that the reasonable suspicion standard It's not foreign to us quite frankly Amongst our decad teams and things like that we are already operating at this at this level Especially when it comes to requesting drug detection canines. We know we teach that a second stop right a second stop is a stop that would be, you know, the point of a traffic stop is to go from point A to point B to issue a warning, the normal business, as the state's attorney said. To go to a second stop to extend that, it's already case law, you need to have at a minimum reasonable or tickable sufficient. So when we talk about bringing a drug dog to a traffic stop or an explosive dog, or we're teaching, you have to have reasonable suspicion to do that. Obviously, that's a best practice. You can do it during that first stop if it doesn't extend the stop. When we talk about consent searches and things of that nature, we say the same thing. We don't want you to search in cars. We want to be, you need to have a reason. You need to be explaining why you're doing that. So the reasonable suspicion standard applied to consent searches is not a foreign concept and it's not something that we've been teaching that type of stuff already. So we also don't teach and I know this is not a rabbit hole we want to go down, but it was mentioned. There's no difference between a major traffic stop and a minor traffic stop and the transportation article. There's violations. Okay, so when we talk about we teach traffic law, we teach constitutional law and Fourth Amendment. There's minor violations and I'm not going to go into a whole rant about it, but Tim McVay blew up the Oklahoma City Building. Tim McVay was caught because he was pulled over on a routine traffic stop for registration plate violation. He exited the vehicle with a gun in his waistband. He was arrested by a state trooper who did not know that he did the Oklahoma City bombing. So when we talk about minor and major traffic violations, we teach just the transportation article. There's no separation in that, but we teach it in line with the Fourth Amendment. Right, and thank you for pointing that out because the Maryland vehicle code does not make such a distinction correct. All right, and a reasonable suspicion standard requires that your search is limited to that which you articulated the basis for correct somebody I'm sorry, so if you if someone then says I the officer says I have reasonable suspicion to believe that X and that's the basis that would be put in the app for doing the the search That is what it is limited to, correct? So we, we articulate now in our body camera and stuff like that is the reasonable sufficient which is the total of circumstances. We're going to note what the reasonable suspicion is now depending how long that is, I don't know how long the free text box is in the app, but it will encompass a summary of that. But in court, there could be a longer discussion and longer analysis and a jish or view of individual factors. And I do note that you did explain that at any time during a consent search, the person can withdraw their consent, correct? That is correct. And they also can limit. You know, consent is free and voluntary and what we teach is not only can they revoke the consent but an individual has the right to limit a consent search. Yeah, you can search my car, you just can't search the trunk, you just can't search the glove box. And our officers have to abide by that. That is part of the consent. And then based on that objective statement, and that is the standard, it is an objective standard as to whether the consent was freely and voluntarily given. So long as it was freely and voluntarily given, should the search yield something, then there may be probable cause for an arrest, right? Yes. And then after that, once there's probable cause for an arrestable offense, an officer does have the ability to search the trunk, for example, if the trunk was excluded from the scope of the consent as a search incident to arrest, which is a separate standard, correct? Yes, they could, whether it's a Carol search or an incident to arrest search, there could be other searches post consent. Okay. And also, in many times, there could be a follow-up search warrant, even that's drafted. Correct. To do searches. Right. And in the event that something doesn't go well, right, there's a mistake somewhere in the process. Within the judicial prosecution scenario, there's motions to suppress evidence, is that right? Yes. Okay. And that makes your job harder. As a prosecutor, if something wasn't buttoned up appropriately with all the T's cross and the I's dotted in the actual arrest, is that correct? And in the words of Warner Wolf, we go to the videotape. Go to the videotape. At the motions hearing pre-trial before anything's admitted. Right. And the judge will, the judge who's the final arbiter of whether something is missable or usable as evidence will see precisely what we said and was done at the scene. And that includes all the audio and the video. So it captures tone of voice. It captures all of that correct. Yes. Okay. And how long has the department had body worn cameras in use? I think 2014, I believe. Because I was using the tree. Yeah. And that in fact predates the Maryland Police Standards Training Commission's guidance on and recommendations on using body-worn cameras, which was 2016. And then the state law, which has a tiered phase in for mandating use of body-worn cameras, some of which were required by July 1, 2023, the remainder law which has a tiered phase in for mandating use of body-worn cameras, some of which were required by July 1, 2023, the remainder of which are not required until July 1, 2025, is that right? Correct. Correct. And when we first piloted the body cameras because that was part of the pilot team, I was supervising the district community action team in Germantown and we volunteered for those cameras because we were doing proactive enforcement traffic stops and we wanted to show that we were doing them right so we wanted the camera so the officers liked the camera for these things. Okay and then just a couple of data points. In calendar year 2023 there were 37,103 traffic stops by MCP. And of that, only 0.04% yielded a complaint file. That was 15 out of 37,103 during calendar year 2023. Is that comparable to what you've seen in past calendar years as well? Yeah, I think that's pretty much remained consistent. Like I said, we've even increased the ways people can make a complaint. They make them through your offices. They can do it in person online anonymously. They have the PAB now. There's an infinite number, I guess I shouldn't say infinite, but there are a number of ways making a complaint against an officer or the department has never been easier. All right, I appreciate the need to help do all of us when I say we, I mean, all of us elected officials, the department, other county officials in helping to educate residents too. And educate them about the law. And I've taken that to heart myself in my own work. And I believe we need to continue doing more of that. I know you do do a lot of that. I know my colleagues do some of that too, but that is important in sort of making sure everyone understands how things work. But I also have problems, like I said, with legislating departmental policy and legislation that would apply to only one department operating within the county. Because we have multiple police departments that operate within Montgomery County. And this should this move forward would only apply to one. I appreciate that your departmental policy, of course, governs what you all do, but that's exactly where that should rest because I think by having a law, if you will, that gives the public a misperception about what is or isn't appropriate because they believe it is the law and it wouldn't apply to the Maryland State police, right? Tacoma Park, Chevy Chase, Gatersburg, Rockville, etc., and the Capitol Park and Planning Police, right? Okay. So based on that, based on knowing that you all have this policy change, modifying existing policy and continuing to evolve in that way to make it easier to understand. And I appreciate all the plain language used in this. And I know you all have been working hard on that. Under another legal doctrine, the doctrine of mootness, I would not support either continuing this to another hearing or voting this out of this committee today. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Juwanda. One thing if I could say about the complaint piece, if you all could help us, if we want to better educate, I ask you as the council members to go back to your constituency and say if you've been mistreated, if you are the victim of a violation of your rights, you all need to tell your constituency to make the complaint. That's how we get better. I would appreciate that. Can you, can't you remember, you won't do it? Yeah, thank you Chief, you might. I'm glad you started there because I was going to talk about the complaint issue. When I started on this council six years ago, you couldn't file a complaint online. You had to go to the station, you had to do it in paper format. So that changed since I've been here, that's a good change. the issue of how to file a complaint, I just pulled it up while I was here. We can still be better, is the short answer. The idea that communities that have over centuries for a tons of reasons that none of us are responsible for directly Have less confidence that a complaint is going to be investigated and then the citing of that number back here is just it's not It's not productive. It's not fair. It's not relative. There were complaints. We have 45 people testify All of them are Montgomery County residents many of them complained about Specific incidents of being stopped so the idea that this isn't happening, I think it's actually incorrect and just not fair to the history of, since I've sat on this council and I'm in the middle of my second term, you couldn't file a complaint online in 2018. So the idea that that hasn't built up over a long time for people just saying, well, forget it. I'm just not going to, you know, it's not worth it. I don't trust it. It's going to be investigated. I don't know how to do it. Go down the list. And even the form now, it doesn't really tell you anything. It says anonymous are there officers involved? Do you have the ID? What happened? Click date of the incident type. What happened? click submit, doesn't give you anything else. Doesn't say this is your, you know, it doesn't advise you. So I think we can still improve it. With the PAB and the ACC are a new thing, that is another way that complaints come in. Again, public's still getting used to that. I think that can be. And yes, to your point, we should encourage anyone. Complain, I tell people you have a complaint about right on. I think that can be. And yes, to your point, we should encourage anyone. I tell people you have a complaint about right on. Like call about that. Like we want to know our job is to do better for you. And so I just, but I will say that we have heard complaints. We heard them right at this day, as in February, and we heard them a year before that. And we need to get better on ways to do that. And I don't think that's a substitute for what we're currently doing is yielding disparity. And I've had this conversation with multiple chiefs going back to chief manager, actually going back chief moose, you know, when I was a AmeriCorps member in the third district. We have to investigate and interrogate why these disparities exist and we should care about it just as much as anything else we do. Because I would wager, you know, I don't tend to bet and gamble, that I am the only one on this day is and the only one on here that has been asked to have a consent search of their vehicle. Okay? So, when you tell me that there's no power imbalance, that's not correct. It is there is a power imbalance. and you feel compelled to do it. There's a reason 80% of the people in our own data say yes, your data 80% of the time last year they said yes. I guarantee all those people didn't want to say yes. Okay. Also the vast majority of those people who are asked look like me. They're black men. The vast majority, okay? Now 0.5% of the time something's found. So that means the vast majority of people ask who look like me who said yes, nothing is found. And they don't feel good about it. So you can't sit here and tell me it's just, there's no complaints or it's not happening. It's happening. Those people, if we went, if we did a deep search and found all those people, I guarantee you you'd find a complaint. That doesn't mean everything went wrong in every case, but it's just, let's do better. And that's what you're, I'm hearing from you. Let's do more than what's the baseline. And I don't think there's any disagreement. I'm very happy to hear that. That we want to do more than what's constitutionally required. And recognizing the voices that were heard here, that this is happening. And it's a hard job being police officer. I say that every day to anyone who will hear it, I was just spoke to the Black State's Attorney, McCarthy mentioned, I just spoke to our new recruits too. I was very impressed with them. As part of the Community and Form Police Training Act with Montgomery College, I spoke, I was their closing speaker, gave them all a certificate. It's the most diverse class I've seen. And most of them are from Montgomery County. I was very heartened about and they all said that this was value add and they really appreciated the course and there in many of them are going out into traffic. They're now they're now they're doing their their FTO right now right. They're field training. So we've made progress. So I just have a question. I know that was a statement but I have a question. The the form for example and I appreciate councilmember make bringing this up. The policy that's in place sounds like the amendments, very similar to the amendments that I proposed. That's great. I want to see it, obviously. The thing about policy versus law, if you remember when we did the drone process, you were very involved in that. There was community input, there was dialogue again related to another constitutional right to privacy and how this would be used. There was back and forth and then it was codified. I think this is a similar process. I don't know why this would be any different. It's an internal policy that was then codified. If I hadn't introduced these bills, there would be no public input into this. I don't know if it even would have happened, right? That's why you do things. You bring up a problem, you engage the public, you hear the testimony, you all over the last year and a half have been working on various iterations and we're gonna see a proposal. That's great. But if I didn't introduce them, there would be no public input. So the idea, that's why a bill process is required. That's why the public needs to know their rights. And to the point about policy, if it's a policy change for just MCPD, that would be we couldn't do any policy for MCPD or anything, anyone ever. I mean, that's gonna be the, so I don't know if that should be the standard. But, so I would love to see it. I agree with, I'm not on the committee, but I am a council member. I would love to see the policy when you have it. If we can, I also agree it's good to have the FOP's input. That's another thing I was thinking as I sit here, you know, if we needed to remove the language around that it can't be bargained I'm actually not against that you know that's you know But getting their input but let's get the public input to I think we should have a process to get the public's input Okay, thank you. Thank you very much And I do know you're under a time constraint So I'll try to be as quickly as quick as I can first of let me thank councilmember Jawando for raising the issue and for the discussion. I think candidly, when we went to, and I guess it's been 2014, I remember when it happened, when we went to body-worn cameras in Montgomery County, it was a game changer. There were people that somebody got stopped or whatever reason people are excited they think something was said or wasn't said and in both sides disagree and you go back to the video or to the audio and and you know for sure you know what happened and I think that has been a huge game changer in general and I'm a strong believer that we should try to do things in a clear and in a less confusing way as possible. No one. And let's underline the word no one wants anyone to feel intimidated or cursed. And that's one of the reasons that we have body-worn cameras. And candidly, in many cases, the body-worn cameras from what I have understood when we go back and look, it's to the police officer that said, no, I didn't say it exactly that way, right? And the public, and there's been times that the public has said, yes, you did, and then it proves one way or the other. To the point that was raised before, I've had concerns with this legislation from the very beginning of various iterations, but this is only a piece of legislation that would affect Montgomery County police. It gets confusing. People say that's the law in Montgomery County. It would affect only Montgomery County police. It gets confusing. People say that's the law in the Montgomery County. It would affect only Montgomery County police. It would not affect any other agency that's here or any other agency that would drive through here. And so people would and and multiple agencies show up to a concern if one of the person from another agency asks for the consent search, somebody's going to say, well, they broke the law. They didn't. This, in my opinion, is legislation that should be policy. What's in the suggestion as the chief and others have pointed out, what is in the piece of legislation over time, and I want to publicly commend Councilmember Juando for working through all of these issues. I mean, I had a problem that somebody couldn't pull somebody over if they had dead tags. Although, that made no sense. But this, we work through it with the attorney general and everyone else. I believe at the end of the day we need the data. And I appreciate the state's attorney's point that we're looking at data from people that live here. We have to look at data for people that are driving here and are looking here to see if there are disparate, and I'm saying I'm not saying that there's if, when there are disparate, and I'm saying, I'm not saying that there's if, when there are disparities, why? And why aren't we working towards it, we get rid of those disparities if that person wouldn't put themselves in that type of concern? that the searches have been less than fruitful. If I'm hiding something, mine, the world would I tell you, you can check my car. You can check my car anytime you want. You can vacuum it out if you'd like while you're there. But I can understand if somebody is concerned about what's in their car that they'd say, no, you can't check my car. and they have every right to do it. I believe this should be bottom line, this should be policy and not legislation. We absolutely need the data and I believe the policy should reflect that. And this council needs to make certain that they have the tools to receive the data. You need the software, you need the information to make it easier to do that. I believe candidly and I respect your request. As far as I'm concerned, this should go to the full council as a suggestion that it sounds like Councilmember Luki has already said that she's opposed to this. I too am opposed to this legislation. I am not opposed to the information. I believe that we need to do it and we need to do it through policy and it would be strictly for the Montgomery County Police. I did want to point out that we are saying about the, in the various other places, Connecticut and other places. I don't know what kind of training they had. And that's another thing that we are very proud of the fact that Montgomery County does have Joe, Joe, Joe, and others give us the background and information that is so necessary. And so we do have the training. I don't know whether an end that was statewide. If this were state legislation, every piece of every department would be under it. This is not the case. So as far as I'm concerned, we can say that this could go to the full council with suggesting that it be policy rather than legislation. That's where I am. I can't make a motion, please. I'm not prepared to vote on whether this should be legislation or not be legislation until we see the substance of what's actually in the policy. So I think that piece is really important. Really laid out in detail what's the implementation going to look like. And I've seen some of the screenshots as from the app as proposed. And so I really appreciate seeing that. But until we're able to kind of show those pieces to the public after it's gone through the FOP and so on, then I would like to hold at least my vote on whether this legislation should move forward or not. And I appreciate that regardless of whether we move forward with it as legislation from there, I appreciate that we've been able to use it as a vehicle for having this conversation similar to how we were able to use a budget process to have that really good conversation with the public and with each other around the drone program, which I think was very helpful for everyone. Whether we have the conversation where we're looking at the policy, with that level of detail within committee or in front of everyone at the council, you know, with the committee level to start, I'm ambivalent on, but, you know, if we want to bring the bill and that conversation to full council, I'm not going to, I wouldn't vote against it being a bill. Again, that would be premature for me, I think. But regardless of where we want to have the conversation, I just want to make sure that we have it. So I think in order to clarify some stuff procedurally, based on the full discussion that's happened here, I would move to oppose the bill out of committee and respectfully request that full council receive a briefing on the new policy once it has been put in place. Can you look at it? So I'm not going to vote against the bill because I, again, I don't know how that, I defend that without having seen the policy that's going to supplant it. Can we, is it possible for us to move the bill forward with this conversation to, to full council without voting on the legislation? Is that even possible? I'm seeing it really now. We need, yeah, you've been needed a lot here today, please. Just from a parliamentary perspective, you do need a motion out of committee for it to move forward to full council. Whether it's favorable or unfavorable, that's still needed. So I would either move to, here's my two options that I would compare with and I told the understand if we're not on the same heat as, but I would still recommend it as move it as favorable for this point and withhold, you know, with, consider taking into consideration the fact that once we get to council, you know, we can have a vote from there, but I'm not ready to vote against the bill certainly until we've been able to have that substantive discussion about the policy. Or I also think that this committee is an appropriate place to have that initial at least policy discussion about that the detail And so I would also be supportive of holding on a vote for the bill until we can really dive into the policy with MCPD at a later date This McCartney agree and you might be able to help with this because from from a parliamentary process again I made a motion, it hasn't been seconded. Councilmember Mink made two alternative motions, neither of which have been seconded. And so at this point in order to wrap this up, we have to either have a second on one of the motions that's been proposed or the other, take a vote and then can go to next step, correct? Correct. Okay. So the two things are doing either picking, seconding one of the motions that Council Member Mink made or seconding my motion to oppose and then request a full Council briefing on the policy once enacted. So Mr. Chair, that is up to you. Councilmember, do you want to very quickly please? Yes, well, it's just the core of the issue. When my discussions with you and what I thought I heard you say, Mr. Chair, since you were in the position of deciding this right now, was not Councilmember Luky's suggestion, was that which is saying briefing on the policy, she's trying to dispose of the bill and not discuss the bill at full council. My conversations and understanding of what you just said were that you wanted the opportunity to discuss the bill at council, but with reflecting that you were in opposition to the bill. So that's a very different thing than what she said. So I just wanna make sure that that's clear. I believe what I, I know, I've met me. I've met you. I've met you. Yeah. When I am in favor, when I am saying is that I believe that she could go to a full council with the two members of this committee suggesting that it not be legislation, then it be policy. However, that clearly is said is where I am. So I don't know. So five, you have four different motions before you then. Yeah, that clearly is said is where I am. So I don't have five, you have four different motions before you then. Yeah, those are all the right, which is what I'm trying to get clarity on so that we can take a vote. Just so we are clear here, whether the bill, whether the vote is favorable and unfavorable, it will still move on to full counts. Absolutely. Right. So that so this is not the state. there's an option whether the committee wants to keep it here and Discuss policy again and we can take really that or there's the option by the chair to still move it forward and Reserve for discussion Depending policy that's being reviewed right now Council member Luky your proposal which didn't receive a second. I'm putting them all out there We'll figure out where nine seconds should go. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. Councillor Mellon. full council. Correct. Because and again as a rule of the procedure of council, if a bill has is moved as opposed by the committee in order for the bill to have a hearing at full council, it requires a majority of the council request of full hearing. And so that's why I'm separating the two pieces because it would not be a full hearing at council by the full body on the bill It would be a full a briefing before the full council on the new policy because those are two different things Yeah, and I want to be clear. Let's let's talk about the bill the policy part is getting Very muddled and so let's talk about the bill as is. There have been no amendments that have been adopted either as well. If the bill is, let's just use your scenario of being opposed today in committee, it would move on to full council. If a majority would want to override the motion on the floor, they do have that option speaking on the bill itself. In addition to that, the recommendation from the committee could also go into that the full council can discuss the policy. That's separate and that can always be discussed. Now whether at full council there's amendments or something else that may come forward that that door is still open. Is that clear? I used to discuss the policy, discussed the bill and so right I discussed the bill and using council members Luki's scenario if this is unfavorable report out of the committee It would still go to full council a majority of the council could override the committees. Yes the bill Separately if the full council would like to have a briefing or a discussion on policy, the committee here could still recommend that for the full council. Would that be two motions? Yes, we would have two. I mean, it's more of an informal request right now. That's not what I heard, but I hear you saying, you're saying something different than what councilman Luke is saying, which is fine. I appreciate what you're saying something different than what councilman Luke is saying, which is fine. I appreciate what you're saying. And I'm trying to bring clarity. So yeah, my understanding is that if a bill does not have a favorable vote out of committee in order to be heard on the bill, not about the policy, but then on the bucket, in order to be heard on the bill and then subsequently amend the bill, tweak the bill, whatever you want to do it. In order for that bill to be heard by full council, six members of the council have to request that it be heard by full council. Is that correct? That's correct, council. Okay, thank you. Okay, and so that is what Mr. Chair Katz, I think my understanding of your position, you certainly clarified was that that is not what you wanted to happen. And that we would have it go to full council for discussion, but recognizing in the packet that you and council member, Luke, you voted against it in committee, but that you voted for moving it forward to full council. There's not that's not unprecedented. I don't think that could that could happen, but it would be different than the Having to go get six people to even discuss it at full council Then I think if if what council member Joana is saying is how that is captured We have three different votes happening here or multiple different votes happening here Yes, that's correct is three different votes and I'm Leaving to the chair to whether or not that proposal. Could you take a vote on the bill? Could you take a vote on to move it forward? You know what I mean? Like that could be two. So it would be two one one way against the bill, for example. I don't know how you can vote, but you know, theoretically, then you could take emotion. You could say what we want to have the discussion to push the bill forward for full council consideration could be a separate. But that would require the count. So what you're in embedded in what you're asking for requires a suspension of the council rules. And there we don't have the authority how many. Right. We need to move forward here somewhere. So if someone will please make, please, I can't make a motion. If someone will please make a motion. If someone will, will either second in or not by courtesy, and then we can move forward. Is that required though? Just, just, yes. Such which is not. No, no, no, I'm sorry not the motion. The rules of procedure that you're citing saying that if it if the bill is not favorably reported that it can't go to full council, you're saying that's no, it will still go to full council just just for clarity, whether it's when they go to full council, I mean, it will be discussed at full. Correct. The chair would present the bill and that this was reported out of committee unfavorable. But that's not what you that's not what we said a minute ago. We said if unless six people want to do it. No, no, no. So just just for clarity, let's back up here just step by one. If the public safety committee members vote today and it's an unfavorable vote, however it is one, two, I guess would make it unfavorable, right? It would go to full council presented by the chair that this was reported bill 224 was reported out of committee unfavorable, right? And from that perspective, if the full council wanted to rediscus the contents of the bill, a majority would have to overrule that unfavorable vote. To have a discussion. Yes. Okay. Yes. So then that's voting. Okay. But if we discuss the policy, we can obviously be bringing up the bill and discussing it and talking about it in the context of going over the policy because it's relevant. My only concern with the policy is that right now I have an indefinite time of when that policy is available. And so that's more coordination and making sure that's ready. They were open and would be today. I mean, so it sounds like very soon. It should be fairly, fairly soon. Somebody please make a motion. You want to be by the bill? I like to make a motion to that we oppose the bill as currently before the public safety committee. We use it. You won't second. I mean, you want to chair to I mean, I'm going to vote against it. Okay. Okay. I'm going to make an alternative proposal then. I mean, I just don't know that I be, you know, given again that that's not my position, I don't know that I feel comfortable being part of moving forward, you know what I mean? I've moving forward something that I don't fundamentally agree with. Okay, so then I would make a motion that we hold on a vote on the bill and return to discuss the policy when it's ready. I don't know that this has to go to the council for a full discussion immediately. This is public safety matter. I'm on faith. Just a point of clarity. I used to, when I had to advise public bodies, I never thought I was going to have to say to them, I need a motion to adjourn and have to wait for somebody to adjourn the meeting when it was over. Okay, so procedurally not with respect to your position on the bill but procedurally we have got to get a committee vote and so you can second the motion and then vote in opposition to what I moved. That's okay but at some point we are at an impasse all the kind people in the room need to go other places today and we have to take a vote of some kind regardless of whether your vote is the same as mine or not. It does not matter. But procedurally a vote must be taken. I mean procedurally we don't have to vote on the bill today and in my feeling like I'm not ready to vote on this bill. And so I hear you and I also would like for people to go. But given that my position is that in order to have a responsible vote here, and I'm not saying where I would vote in the end, necessarily either, or against it. But in order to do that, I need to have the policy before me. So I don't know how I can second the motion for a vote that I don't feel should be happening right now. And I understand your position as well. But this is a public safety matter. I think it's entirely appropriate to have the conversation about the details of the policy in front of us. Everybody can come to sit in with that if they would like to. And I'm looking forward to a sensitive discussion about the policy but you know if the way to get around being able to yeah that's all. And can we can we say that this would be a negative committee vote but in that same motion that we would prefer or whatever the right term is, that it be taken before the full council for discussion. Is that legitimate on how we could do this? So typically what happens is that there is a motion from the committee. Yeah, there is circumstances where there's not a motion for the committee and the full council would have to vote on the bill. In that sense, it would be a real call vote. I'm just going over any concerns that I might be missing here. There are other options of giving the acting chair and switching action. I was thinking that, but I don't know if you want to do that. I don't think that changes the position for Councilmember Mink or. And so if the recommendation or from, I guess not a recommendation, but the solution here is that I guess all three members or I wouldn't say abstaining, but have not voted. And so we need a motion, right? I guess we're moving forward out of the motion to full council. Well, there are two separate things, right? I proposed a vote on the bill. And there's nobody has seconded it. Correct. I've also proposed that you allow a discussion at full council about the policy. Not the bill, because I'm voting to oppose that. Right? And so I also definitely don't want it reflected that I was abstaining, because I'm not confused. And I've articulated my position multiple times. And so to the extent that we need to have consensus about having a discussion about the new policy that the department is about to enact for the benefit of a briefing before the full council, we can do that. That doesn't require a majority of the council. That just means we as a committee are going to ask the council president to get that on the full council's agenda to have that discussion about the new policy once it is adopted. Right? But the other piece in terms of saying we have to articulate and if we are not making a motion as a body and we just need to capture each of our votes then perhaps that's what we need to do. Individually. Correct. Without emotion on the floor. Correct. Can we do it that way? We can do it that way. I would request a suspension of the rules. Right now, I think where we are doing ad hoc procedure. We can't suspend the rights because we don't know. And you're not able to obviously table the bill, or obviously another option is still moving forward with discussion just on the policy piece but still leaving this in committee. I don't know if they want to reschedule that that's another option but I'm happy to record opposition or support but it's still there's still no motion before the full body to go ahead please. I think I might have heard something I agree with from Councilmember Lutki that we could move forward. If there's a motion to move forward with a policy discussion to hold hold on the vote here not saying that we abstained or whatever, but we're just we're not pulling the vote. But regardless, I mean, I think we all agree that the next step here is to have the discussion on the policy. So can we just move to have that full discussion on the policy at full council if that's a desire? And that's subject to the council president scheduling that and... Correct. So of course, or that we make that recommendation. I mean, or we could, if I understood correctly, if it's possible to, can I make a motion or did council member Leukee make a motion to move this forward to council without a formal committee recommendation? No? No. All right. We did that. OK. I would be fine with that if we did that. I'm also fine on, again, just taking the piece, which I think that Councilor Lukki broke it down into two motions. And so just taking the motion to move the policy discussion forward to full council, I would be fine with that as well. And that would just be a briefing on the policy generally from MCPD folks. Right, which the council can do at any time anyway about any topic that the body wants, but we have not effectively resolved the other issue, which in fact does implicate other council procedures. And that is why I'm asking for some semblance of clarity to come out of this committee today so that the full council understands where we all stood. Just basically, council make has just put on the floor the briefing can happen but the vote would still stay here on committee because that has not been successfully voted out of committee. Yeah. I mean, I understand the position and the desire here. Again, my position is that like so many other conversations we have about legislation that we are missing key information that at least I as a member of the committee feel I need in order to vote on the bill. And so I don't feel prepared to vote on the bill. I would like to move the conversation forward again. I think the place is that I think we're in agreement about what that looks like, which is having a discussion about the policy, what a full council, that piece I would be fine with we can come back to have a two-one vote on it or a three-o vote or whatever the case may be following the policy discussion in committee afterwards. But again, that's the key piece of information that I think is necessary for a vote on the bill. My issue is then there is a lack of clarity when it goes before council as to whether or not I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. It was my preference and this is why I made the motions that we we dispose of the bill today. And so we are only talking about the policy, what the department's doing, how that's working, moving forward. Just make a brief comment. Go ahead. The issue of whether there's a bill or a just a policy is a policy decision that the full council should consider. And my understanding of conversations with the chairs, that's a conversation you wanted to allow to happen. And so by disposing of the bill, that would be closing the door on that and would require majority of the council to revive the bill, so to speak. I think if council member make made a suggestion that there be no vote out of committee and that it be moved forward It could be noted in the packet where you all stood policy wise, but it would allow Procedurally the bill to move forward and I don't know that that's correct. Well, it is that we I thought we needed a Emotion in order for the bill to move forward. We do we do, because I know in PHP committee, which you're on, there have been one, one, one votes on that committee, right? Four against, abstained, and then, you know, so on and so forth. But there has to be a vote of each of us on the committee captured that then dictates what does or does not happen moving forward, procedurally under the council's rules. that then dictates what does or does not happen moving forward procedurally under the council's rules. I see Mrs. McCrann again. Okay, so I just went from the beginning with Councilmember Lukis motion. I know we did several things after that. You made a motion on the floor. The chair is able to second that motion. I can. And so I just wanted to clarify that. In addition to that, and I'm looking at rule 10 in case those who are following have been lost in a lot of the discussion here. And looking at that, my recommendation is needed from the committee for us to move forward. Obviously a majority of the members would need to vote for that motion. And if I'm reading here, a recommendation that received the affirmative votes of majority of the members of any committee, well, I take this back, this is not a joint committee. So I'll leave it at a motion been made. It may be second and regardless of whether favorable, unfavorable, it would still move on to full council. I still stand by the fact that if it is unfavorable and there's like for discussion on that bill, it would need a majority of the council members to revive that to be able to discuss that. Right. Great. So you can make your motion. Okay, so I'm going to move my previous question, which is motion to oppose the bill out of committee. Sure. I second. I was very busy listening to both sides, and really didn't listen to either side. Was that a second? I second your motion, please. Great. And I'm just going to note that my default position is going to be in favor of the bill because I think it's important that we get this done. That said, I look forward to seeing a policy and that could move where I land on actually doing this legislation. Right. Thanks. So all those in favor of the motion, please signify by raising their hands. So that's two and those opposed is one. So it goes forward to- Thank you, right. And you also have a- What he called an honorary member here today too. So it will move forward to the full council with a two to one vote. Yes. Thank you very much. I think everyone is glad that we are adjourned. Thank you. You know, it's paid enough.