February, 02 2010, 04:06pm EDT
Maryland Court Orders State Police To Turn Over Racial Profiling Records
ANNAPOLIS, MD
The
Maryland Court of Special Appeals today ordered the Maryland State
Police (MSP) to release records of investigations into racial profiling
complaints against police personnel. The decision by the full court
overrules part of a decision by the Circuit Court of Baltimore County
concluding that these records are "personnel records" under the
Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) and exempt from disclosure.
"Despite ongoing efforts to combat
it, there can be no denying that racial profiling by police continues
to persist in communities across the nation," said Reginald T. Shuford,
senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial
Justice Program. "Hopefully today's decision will set a powerful
precedent for transparency that will enable any police department that
illegally and unconstitutionally targets people of color to be held
accountable."
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed
on behalf of the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches (NAACP) by
the ACLU charging the MSP with violating the MPIA by improperly
withholding documents showing whether it has meaningfully investigated
complaints of racial profiling in the wake of a federal consent decree
in the ACLU's "Driving While Black" litigation.
"The Court of Special Appeals has
reinforced the fundamental right of the public to information that
allows them to hold government agencies accountable and ensure that bad
public policies, such as racial profiling, are addressed and not
perpetuated," said Deborah Jeon, Legal Director for the ACLU of
Maryland.
In 2003, the NAACP and the MSP
entered into a consent decree stemming from racial profiling litigation
initiated in the early 1990s. Despite the consent decree, however,
there continued to be complaints from African-American motorists
alleging racial profiling, and the data gathered continued to show
large disparities between whites and non-whites in traffic stops and
searches by the MSP. People of color were stopped and searched much
more often, even though the MSP did not find drugs or other contraband
on them any more frequently than when searching whites.
A key provision of the 2003 consent
decree was an agreement by MSP to make the process of filing racial
profiling complaints more user-friendly for motorists. MSP also agreed
to thoroughly investigate all complaints.
"The ruling handed down by the Court
of Special Appeals today is a true victory for the Maryland State
Conference NAACP, the ACLU and for the citizens of Maryland," said
Gerald Stansbury, president of the Maryland State Conference of NAACP
Branches. "There have been reports of racial profiling all over the
country, and this ruling will give us the ability to determine if and
when reports and complaints of racial profiling are thoroughly
investigated and handled appropriately."
Data collected in Maryland since
2003 shows that racial disparities regarding who is being searched by
the MSP on Interstate 95 persist. Data from 2008 shows that minorities
were about 70 percent of those searched on I-95, while whites comprised
30 percent of those searched. These percentages are almost exactly the
same as for 2002, the year prior to the 2003 Consent Decree.
Since 2003, approximately 100
official complaints alleging racial profiling have been filed by
minority motorists. The MSP has confirmed that not a single one of
these complaints has been sustained following the requisite internal
investigation. Thus, since 2003, no MSP trooper has ever been found to
have engaged in racial profiling, and no disciplinary action has ever
been taken against a trooper for racial profiling.
In February 2007, the NAACP,
represented by Venable LLP and the ACLU, filed a request under the MPIA
to obtain the investigative records created in connection with the
racial profiling complaints filed since 2003. The NAACP asked for the
records with all information identifying the motorists and the troopers
redacted. The point was not to target particular troopers, but rather
to see whether the MSP was truly investigating the complaints and
taking seriously its responsibility to eliminate racial profiling by
its troopers.
The MSP refused to turn over the
documents, even in redacted form, saying that they were "personnel
records" exempt from disclosure under the MPIA. In September 2007, the
NAACP filed suit, and in June 2008, Baltimore County Circuit Court
Judge Timothy Martin ruled that the records should be disclosed in
redacted form, and that doing so would not violate the personnel
records exemption of the MPIA. Rather than turn over the records, the
MSP appealed the ruling. In the appeal, the Attorney General, on behalf
of the MSP, took the position that the investigative records are
"personnel records" exempt from disclosure and that they may never be
disclosed - even in redacted form.
"This is not simply a victory for
the NAACP, it is a victory for the principle of open government," said
Seth Rosenthal of the law firm Venable LLP. "The court correctly found
that the law requires, rather than prohibits, the state police to
disclose to the public exactly what it does to investigate complaints
of racial profiling by its troopers."
Attorneys on the case include
Shuford of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, Jeon of the ACLU of
Maryland and Rosenthal, Robert Wilkins and Brian Schwalb of the law
firm Venable, LLP.
A copy of today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/racial-justice/maryland-state-police-department-v-maryland-state-conference-naacp-branches-decision
Additional information about the ACLU Racial Justice Program is available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Sanders, Booker, and Welch Unveil Ban on Junk Food Ads Targeting Kids
"We cannot continue to allow large corporations in the food and beverage industry to put their profits over the health and wellbeing of our children," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Apr 19, 2024
A trio of U.S. senators on Friday introduced what's being billed as first-of-its-kind legislation sponsors say will "take on the greed of the food and beverage industry and address the growing diabetes and obesity epidemics" with a federal ban on junk food ads targeting children.
The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act—introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.)—would also require warning labels "on sugar-sweetened foods and beverages; foods and beverages containing non-sugar sweeteners; ultra-processed foods; and foods high in nutrients of concern, such as added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium."
"Let's be clear: The twin crises of type 2 diabetes and obesity in America are being fueled by the food and beverage industry that, for decades, has been making massive profits by enticing children to consume unhealthy products purposely designed to be overeaten," Sanders—who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee—said in a statement. "We cannot continue to allow large corporations in the food and beverage industry to put their profits over the health and wellbeing of our children."
"Nearly 30 years ago, Congress had the courage to take on the tobacco industry, whose products killed more than 400,000 Americans every year," Sanders added. "Now is the time for Congress to act with the same sense of urgency to combat these diabetes and obesity epidemics. That means banning junk food ads targeted to kids and putting strong warning labels on food and beverages with unacceptably high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat."
Booker said that "the future of our nation depends on a continued investment in the health and wellbeing of our children," adding that "more and more of our children are developing diabetes and obesity primarily because a handful of corporate food giants push addictive, ultra-processed foods to drive up their profits."
"By banning junk food advertising to children, implementing front-of-package warning labels, and funding research on the dangers of ultra-processed foods, we can rein in the predatory behavior of big food companies and ensure a healthier future for generations to come," he added.
As the senators noted:
Today, more than 35 million Americans are struggling with type 2 diabetes—90% of whom are overweight or obese. These crises go hand-in-hand and children are severely impacted. Today, 1 out of 5 five kids are living with obesity. A serious illness unto itself, diabetes is also a contributing factor to heart disease, stroke, amputations, blindness, and kidney failure. Unless the U.S. dramatically changes course, these numbers will continue to grow exponentially.
The impact on the economy is enormous: Last year, the total cost of diabetes exceeded $400 billion, approximately 10% of overall U.S. healthcare expenditures.
Meanwhile, the U.S. food and beverage industry spends about $14 billion annually on marketing unhealthy products, with $2 billion of that spent on advertising these products to children.
"Our food environment has become dominated by ultra-processed foods that have more in common with a cigarette than a fruit or vegetable," said Ashley Gearhardt, director of the Food and Addiction Science & Treatment Lab at the University of Michigan. "Many ultra-processed foods are hyperpalatable and trigger the core signs of addiction, like intense cravings and a loss of control over intake."
"The American public is not adequately warned about the risks associated with these products and children are a key marketing demographic for ultra-processed foods with unhealthy nutrient profiles," Gearhardt added. "The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act is a courageous step towards promoting the physical and mental health of American children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Complaints of Pregnant Patients Denied Emergency Care Surged After Dobbs
"MAGA abortion bans deny women lifesaving care," one critic said in response to reporting on patient stories.
Apr 19, 2024
New reporting from The Associated Press that complaints of pregnant patients turned away from emergency departments "spiked" after the reversal of Roe v. Wade sparked fresh condemnation of efforts to restrict abortion rights on Friday.
Since the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court ended nearly half a century of nationwide abortion rights with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, over 20 states have enacted new restrictions on reproductive healthcare, creating a culture of confusion and fear at many medical facilities.
Early last year, the AP submitted a public records request for 2022 complaints filed under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that requires hospitals and emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide screenings to patients who request them and prohibits refusing to treat individuals with an emergency medical condition.
"This is the reality that extreme Republicans call 'pro-life.'"
"One year after submitting the request, the federal government agreed to release only some complaints and investigative documents filed across just 19 states," the AP's Amanda Seitz reported. "The names of patients, doctors, and medical staff were redacted from the documents."
"One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her," the journalist detailed. "Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn't offer an ultrasound. The baby later died."
According to Seitz:
Emergency rooms are subject to hefty fines when they turn away patients, fail to stabilize them, or transfer them to another hospital for treatment. Violations can also put hospitals' Medicare funding at risk.
But it's unclear what fines might be imposed on more than a dozen hospitals that the Biden administration says failed to properly treat pregnant patients in 2022.
It can take years for fines to be levied in these cases. The Health and Human Services agency, which enforces the law, declined to share if the hospitals have been referred to the agency's Office of Inspector General for penalties.
Responding to the reporting on social media, journalist Jane Mayer declared, "This is barbaric."
Texas Poor People's Campaign said that women in the state "are being left to die in ER waiting rooms. We cannot let this policy violence against women continue. Please join us as we mobilize voters for the '24 election."
Going into November, abortion has been a key issue at the state and federal level. Supporters of reproductive freedom are working to advance various ballot measures while Democratic President Joe Biden's campaign has highlighted his support for abortion rights and the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, has bragged about his role in reversing Roe—he appointed three of the six justices behind the majority opinion.
"MAGA abortion bans deny women lifesaving care," stressed Alex Wall, senior vice president for digital advocacy at the Center for American Progress. Citing examples from Texas and Florida in the AP report, he reiterated, "MAGA Republicans did this."
Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said that "this is the reality that extreme Republicans call 'pro-life'—pregnant women being turned away at hospitals and emergency centers. Absolutely disgraceful. No woman should ever be denied emergency care."
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, who covers U.S. legal battles, noted that this "devastating and timely story" from Seitz comes "just days before the Supreme Court considers whether emergency rooms can legally force patients to the brink of death before terminating a failing pregnancy."
The high court is set to hear arguments in that case Wednesday. The Biden administration is challenging Idaho's near-total ban on abortion, which "would make it a criminal offense for doctors to comply with EMTALA's requirement to provide stabilizing treatment, even where a doctor determines that abortion is the medical treatment necessary to prevent a patient from suffering severe health risks or even death," as the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit explains.
The Justice Department is seeking a judgment that Idaho's law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and "is preempted by federal law to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Oppose Israel Funding Advanced by US House
"Congress is shamefully choosing a failed approach of fueling genocide rather than saving Palestinian and Israeli lives," said Rep. Cori Bush.
Apr 19, 2024
Progressive lawmakers on Friday dissented as the Republican-controlled U.S. House advanced legislation to provide more military funding to Israel as well as Ukraine and Taiwan, with Rep. Cori Bush condemning a committee's refusal to consider an amendment aimed at securing a permanent cease-fire in Gaza.
The legislation passed a procedural hurdle in a vote of 316-94, placing votes for the separate aid packages and a bill calling for more humanitarian assistance to Gaza on the legislative agenda for Saturday.
Bush (D-Mo.) joined progressives including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in opposing the legislation, with centrist Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina also voting with the left-wing faction.
The Missouri Democrat condemned the House Rules Committee's refusal to consider an amendment she submitted along with Tlaib, which called for a lasting cease-fire, a release of all hostages in Israel and Palestine, and "diplomacy to secure self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis."
"Congress is shamefully choosing a failed approach of fueling genocide rather than saving Palestinian and Israeli lives, releasing the hostages and others arbitrarily detained, and prioritizing peace in the region," said Bush.
The funding package includes $26.4 billion for Israel, purportedly to support "its effort to defend itself against Iran and its proxies" following Iran's retaliatory drone attack on Israel this week—to which Israeli forces responded with a limited attack on Friday.
The new military aid was passed on top of more than 100 weapons transfers the Biden administration has made to Israel since October 7. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, two of the transfers were reviewed by Congress and totaled about $250 million.
"Our country spends billions of tax dollars to maintain this apartheid state and support the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestinians," said Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, in a statement on Thursday.
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said she was "encouraged" that Democrats in Congress were able to secure more humanitarian aid for Gaza, where dozens of people have starved to death as Israel has blocked nearly the vast majority of aid shipments since October, but said the provisions do not "come close to meeting the desperate needs of the people in Gaza," particularly considering the United States' suspension of funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
"Americans will remember this moment," said Balint. "The United States must be firm in demanding a course correction from the Netanyahu government. Without a strong message against more offensive aid, the United States risks signaling support for an expanded offensive in Rafah, for an escalation with Iran, and for continued disregard for Palestinian life."
Omar called the funding package part of the U.S. government's "thinly veiled attempts to escalate an already very dangerous situation."
"What is needed most of all is a sober approach to de-escalation and conflict prevention," said the congresswoman. "Congress should be focused on efforts to de-escalate tensions—not inflame them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular