A little vignette from the other side of Western Avenue.
My in-laws came home from vacation to their home in D.C. to discover that someone had bashed in a window, entered their home, and stolen various items. While the Wii we gave them for Christmas last year wasn’t taken, the real blow was that the thieves found the car keys and stole the Honda Accord. However, that was just the start as insult heaped upon injury.
A few weeks later, they received a speeding ticket taken by a camera (no, not Chevy Chase Village). I guess there is no cross-matching between stolen car and speeding ticket databases. When they called the Detective investigating their case, they were told they had to appeal the ticket in order to get it voided. Anyone know how this works in Maryland?
Amazingly, the car was found, trashed but drivable, a few weeks later. The police said they had inspected for evidence but found nothing. Except that my mother-in-law found a receipt paid for by credit card in the car. Oops. She called the police for six straight days before someone returned the call and said that they guessed she could bring it in to the station.
To cap it all off, my father-in-law was stopped the other day for driving a stolen vehicle. I guess he should be grateful it wasn't for unpaid speeding tickets and that they sorted it out before carting him off to jail. More Police Academy than Law & Order.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Forest Hills Blues
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Take Action! Tell your Reps to Give ALL of Maryland’s Children a Voice
By Adam C. Rosenberg.
Countless numbers of children are sexually abused every day in Maryland. With children knowing who 90% of their abusers are (it’s not the boogie man, but unfortunately trusted adults) many are understandably too afraid to report what happened to them. When one of these children is brave enough to come forward it can potentially save dozens of other children from being abused. Yet all too often when those kids come forward our system interrogates and questions them over 10 times making prosecution and conviction even more difficult.
But a remedy exists to reduce the trauma, investigative time, and cost to every jurisdiction. Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) have for over 20 years provided children and families with a warm, friendly, single location, to report what happened to the entire investigative team and then get help. These procedures have reduced the time for an investigation from 15 to 30 days to 2 days, and sometimes in as little as 2 hours. This joint approach also saved a municipality significant funds – as much as a 57% savings.
CACs don’t exist in every county in Maryland, and currently have no state requirement to be used by investigative agencies. However, with great thanks to Delegate Norm Conway and Senator Mac Middleton that can all be changed for Maryland’s children. Tell your Delegate or Senator that you want them to support HB 1043 / SB 796 which will establish and sustain CACs throughout the State.
Now, take action.
* Visit these websites and Facebook pages to show your support and learn more as to what you can do:
o http://tinyurl.com/hb1043
o http://tinyurl.com/cac2fan
* Find out who your representative is and who your center’s representative is. http://mdelect.net/electedofficials/
* Write your reps – copy and paste the text below and send it off to your delegates.Dear ,
Children shouldn’t have to be sexually abused – furthermore, Maryland should act to provide all children with safe spaces to tell what happened to them and qualified professionals who will listen and act.
I am writing in support of HB 1043 / SB 796 to require the Department of Human Resources and the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention to establish and sustain Child Advocacy Centers in Maryland. The work done by CACs nationwide has had a proven impact on the effectiveness of reporting and prosecuting incidences of child sexual abuse. This legislation will provide law enforcement, child protection services, social workers, and all who work to protect Maryland's children with the resources to more efficiently serve victims of child sexual abuse and those at risk. SB 796/HB 1043 is an opportunity for Maryland to become invested in the safety and well being of our children, and I thank you for your support in passing this important legislation.
Email Arosenberg@bcaci.org to learn more or to find out what else you can do.
Adam C. Rosenberg is the Executive Director of the Baltimore Child Abuse Center, Maryland’s oldest Children’s Advocacy Center that helps over 1000 children a year who have reported being sexually abused.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Protecting Our Children from Gangs
By Speaker of the House Michael E. Busch.
Last year, Maryland residents were shaken by several horrific incidents of gang violence in schools across our State. As the father of two young daughters, ages 11 and 14, I was stunned to learn that gangs exist in every county in Maryland. During a briefing to the House Judiciary Committee, Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy told the Committee that he knew for a fact that 25 members of the national gang MS-13 existed in one freshman class at a Montgomery County High School, but could not do anything to address it.
We have set up our schools as safe havens and yet, the State Department of Juvenile Services reports that children as young as 10 years old are being recruited to participate in gangs in Maryland.
Early in my tenure in the legislature, we established schools as Drug-Free Zones, doubling the criminal penalties for drug possession and distribution in and around schools. Last year, every school system in the State established a notification system for parents, teachers and students if anyone in the school community contracted the H1-N1 virus. And yet, there are prohibitions in the law that prevent schools and law enforcement from communicating about gang recruitment and other gang-related activities, short of a crime, that involve students.
Last week, I introduced the Safe Schools Act of 2010 to try and address some of these shortcomings. Working with stakeholders from across the State including the Maryland State’s Attorney’s Association, the Public School Superintendents Association of Maryland, the Governor’s Office and the Anne Arundel County Executive, Police and Sheriff, and others, we crafted the Safe Schools Act of 2010 to:
o Expand the number of reportable offenses. When a student is arrested for certain offenses, such as a crime of violence, this information must be reported to their school. Currently the law does not require reporting for some crimes that can be indicative of gang membership. The bill requires that arrests for malicious destruction of property and simple assault also be reported to school personnel;
o Require the State Board of Education to develop a model statewide policy for gang intervention, prevention, and suppression efforts in our schools, including teacher training and professional development programs;
o Require each middle and high school to have a designated school security officer on site and regular school security meetings that involve all stakeholders, including school administrators, prosecutors, community leaders, intervention/prevention representatives, and law enforcement;
o Require the development of criteria for intervention and prevention programs that are evidenced-based and outcome-oriented, as well as the coordination of community resources to maintain safe school environments.
Several advocacy groups have expressed concerns over labeling and criminalizing students, early in their lives. This legislation does not assess any criminal penalties against students but rather establishes mechanisms to prevent student involvement in gangs and encourage interventions into more positive activities. It is our responsibility, as parents, coaches, mentors, guardians and family members, to ensure that our children have the safest possible environment in which to learn each and every day. We cannot allow gangs to infiltrate these safe havens and attract our children to lives of criminal behavior.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
O'Malley Comments on DNA Collection
The Economist magazine is holding a debate on the ethics of DNA databasing. Following is Governor Martin O'Malley's comment on the subject from 3/27/09.
In January 2007 I was sworn in as Governor of the State of Maryland. I inherited a shameful backlog of 24,000 convicted offender samples that had not been tested for DNA. These samples were keys to convictions, justice, exoneration and, to the extent possible, closure for victims of violent crime.
In my first year of office, we eliminated that backlog. In my second year, in collaboration with the Maryland General Assembly, our state took the courageous next step of expanding our DNA testing from convicted offenders to those charged with crimes of violence. And as a direct result of these actions, in just two years more than 130 murderers, rapists, robbers and burglars were behind bars in Maryland, thanks to DNA. Simply put, when we increase the library of DNA samples in our state against which evidence can be matched from the scenes of crimes, we solve more crimes.
Every day that we fail to recognise our ability to collect DNA fingerprints and match them against crime scene evidence to solve crimes, is another day when Marylanders are unnecessarily made vulnerable to repeat violent offenders.
Thirteen states have enacted legislation to require DNA samples to be taken from certain felony arrestees. The practice is legal, constitutional and has withstood judicial scrutiny.
Both the high courts in Maryland and Virginia have found that requiring a DNA sample after arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment (Anderson v Commonwealth of Virginia 634 S.E.2d 372 (2006) and State v Raines 844 A.2d 427 (2004)).
In Anderson, the court held that the taking of a DNA sample at the time of arrest "is permissible as a part of routine booking procedures. As such, no 'additional finding of individualized suspicion' much less probable cause, must be established before the sample may be obtained." The court cited Raines for the proposition that the DNA profile "is akin to that of a fingerprint. As such, appellees and other incarcerated individuals have little if any expectation of privacy in their identity."
Anderson goes on to state that "the analogous treatment of the taking of DNA samples to the taking of fingerprints has been widely accepted." The opinion cites federal courts in the Fourth Circuit, the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit which support this premise. Anderson also cites state appellate courts in New Jersey and Oregon which have held that buccal cheek swabs are not more intrusive than fingerprinting and thus an additional finding of individualised suspicion is not required before a sample can be taken.
Forensic DNA samples are not used for genetic predisposition, medical or familial purposes. The genetic markers used in law enforcement databases, often characterised as junk DNA or non-coding DNA, do not constitute a threat to privacy. DNA profiles simply list the number of repeats found in 13 non loci or STRs (Short Tandem Repeats) These loci have little if any medical predictive value or significance and thecurrent understanding of the selected 13 loci is that they lack a biological function. The 13 loci have not been determined to cause a physical trait, but are accurate in establishing identity.
Crime labs do not have the expertise, equipment or capability to delve into all the medical possibilities or fingerprints or DNA. Simply put, the DNA analysed in our criminal justice process does not contain genetic information on individuals or their families. It is not the same DNA sampling that is performed by medical doctors. The DNA loci analysed yields purely identification data. The DNA data do not supply codes for cancer, genetic diseases, birth defects or other medical information. DNA sampling upon arrest is an entirely different process from DNA research that is conducted in the medical field.
There are existing laws in place to protect the DNA collection and storage process, and there have been no proven cases of the misuse of DNA samples. At the Federal level, harsh penalties for misuse of DNA are already in place. Under the Federal Justice for All Act (2004), the penalties for misuse of DNA increased. That law provides that anyone who misuses DNA analyses under 42 U.S.C. §14133(c)(2) or who violates the privacy protection standards under 42 U.S.C. §14135e, is subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Prior to this amendment, the penalty was a fine of not more than $100,000.
Additionally, misuse of DNA information is also prohibited by Maryland law (Section 2-512 of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code).
Collecting DNA samples at the time of arrest can prevent a certain number of violent crimes from occurring. Providing for the public safety of Maryland's residents is the government's highest obligation. In Chicago's Study on Preventable Crimes, the city determined that waiting to collect DNA until conviction can cost lives. Their examination of the criminal timeline of eight individuals demonstrated that 60 violent crimes, including 53 murders and rapes, could have been prevented if DNA had been taken during the booking process of suspects of violent crime. In Maryland's Study on Preventable Crimes, if DNA samples had been required upon arrest for three individuals in the study, 20 crimes could have been prevented.
Maryland's study cites the case of Alphonso Hill. During the past 30 years, Mr Hill was arrested over 30 times for rape, sex offences, kidnapping, assault and burglary. If Maryland had required him to give a DNA sample during his first felony arrest for assault with intent to rob in June 1979, a DNA match could have been obtained with the DNA evidence recovered from his first rape in July 1978. Upon conviction for that July 1978 rape, seven future victims could have been saved from subsequent rapes, sex offences, kidnapping, assault, burglary and sodomy, all committed by Mr Hill.
Collecting DNA samples at the time of arrest helps solve crimes and exonerate innocent people.
The comparison of crime scene DNA with the DNA of suspected offenders provides increased opportunities for conviction and exoneration. Since 1989, there have been more than 213 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Countless potential suspects have been cleared prior to arrest as the result of comparing DNA crime scene evidence with a suspect's stored DNA sample.
DNA databases also help purge racial bias from the criminal justice process. The science of DNA is blind to race and, unlike some eyewitness testimony, is not more likely to misidentify a minority suspect.
Maryland's pre-trial DNA collection law has extensive expungement and destruction provisions in it for instances when cases never make it to trial. This is an additional check and balance to ensure our law is respectful of privacy rights while focused on the ultimate goal of a safer Maryland.
In conclusion, the use of DNA technology to identify offenders and solve criminal cases quickly is a vital instrument in Maryland's mission to provide safe and sustainable communities for every Maryland resident. DNA provides vital identification information for us to rule out suspects and focus our scarce resources on those offenders who prey on our citizens. DNA is almost required by today's modern juries in their decision to convict the guilty. We have vowed to fight back against violent crime whenever and wherever it occurs in our state. This is not some pervasive enemy that remains beyond our reach, the constant scourge of civil society. By bringing together our innovation and technology against crimes of violence, we can better protect not only the rights of the accused, but our communities and neighbourhoods while we save lives.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Car Thieves Captured by Silver Spring “Bait Bus”
A Silver Spring neighborhood near the notorious “Intersection of Death” has been plagued with two simultaneous problems. First, a rash of car break-ins and thefts convinced some residents of the need to start a “bait car” program to catch the thieves. Second, a giant “monster bus” parked on a residential street has blocked out the sun for years. So the clever residents put together two problems and came up with one solution.
“We talked to the monster bus owner and transformed it into a bait bus,” explained Neighborhood Watch Chairman Oscar Sodani. “We hung up some zirconium necklaces in the windows and the thieves go right in.” The bait bus is equipped with a door that opens only from the outside and locks immediately after entry.
The sheer number of thieves entering the bus has taxed the resources of the police, who can only pick them up every few days. But the residents keep the bait bus stocked with food and beverages for its “guests.” Even the thieves seem to approve. One thief said, “I like the camaraderie. Just over the last two days, I saw Mickey, Bozo, Shifty... those are great guys. I haven’t seen them since reform school!” Another thief raved, “The bus is so gigantic that no matter how many people come in, it never feels crowded. It’s very tastefully appointed. And the food is great!”
As the police arrived to load the suspects into squad cars, a handcuffed thief seemed remorseful – but not about stealing cars. “I wish I could stay in the bus awhile longer,” he sighed. “It’s a lot nicer in there than in jail!”
Acknowledgement: This post originated from a joke by Paul Gordon.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
County Council: Tell Us More About Bait Cars
At a 7/28/08 work session of the County Council’s Public Safety Committee, Chairman Phil Andrews and committee members Marc Elrich and Don Praisner asked the Montgomery County Police Department for more information on successful bait car programs. Car thieves everywhere shuddered at the news.
Regular readers will remember how I declared war against car thieves after my neighbor’s car was stolen last fall. In researching the best practices for suppressing the lurking, squealing thieves, I quickly found British Columbia’s amazing baitcar.com website. British Columbia is one of dozens of jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada that employs large, aggressive bait car programs to capture and deter car thieves. When a thief breaks into the bait car, its cameras begin recording, its GPS device activates and an alarm is triggered at police headquarters. The police then swoop in to capture the now-pitiful criminal and the video is posted on the Internet and other media outlets. The combined effect of apprehension, deterrence and the massive media campaigns that accompany these programs have produced double-digit declines in theft in British Columbia, Minneapolis, Dallas, Stanislaus County in California and other jurisdictions. Arlington County, Virginia reports that bait cars have helped cut its car theft totals to the lowest levels since 1965. Best of all, many bait car programs are paid in whole or in part by insurance companies. We have combined all of this information and more in the heavily-demanded Bait Car Bible available here.
The Public Safety Committee interviewed Acting Assistant Police Chief Wayne Jerman. Jerman said that Montgomery County purchased two bait cars in 2004: a 1991 Toyota Corolla and a 1995 Honda. Neither proved desirable to the car thieves, who have only committed one theft and one break-in on the cars over the past four years. Unlike other jurisdictions, the county does not promote the cars. (British Columbia’s famous slogan, “Steal a Bait Car. Go to Jail,” has been the centerpiece of its award-winning “advertising campaign.”) Jerman described the bait car programs in both Prince George’s County and Fairfax County as “successful” but did not have statistics on their performance.
Council Members Don Praiser (left) and Marc Elrich.
Chairman Andrews noted that Montgomery County experiences roughly 2,500 car thefts per year, much lower than in Prince George’s County (where it is 12,000 per year) but still, in his words, “a high plateau.” Mr. Andrews stated that vehicle-related thefts were the number one category of crime in Montgomery and handed out a reported crime list from the 7/17/08 Washington Post. Of the 120 Montgomery County crimes in that report, 56 were car thefts or car break-ins. Mr. Andrews told the Assistant Chief, “It seems to me we need to do more in this area, especially in those parts of the county where it is a problem.” He asked Jerman what more could be done to have a greater impact on car thefts.
Assistant Chief Jerman admitted that the police could use more bait cars, stating, “Two is not enough.” But he described them as “labor-intensive,” saying that each needed three officers – two to drive it to the drop-off point and another to monitor it from headquarters. The auto theft unit’s nine investigators together record a 70% recovery rate of stolen cars (but not the valuables inside), which everyone agrees is a good performance. But if the thieves were deterred from stealing the cars in the first place, how much more effective could the investigators be?
Public Safety Committee Chairman Phil Andrews.
Mr. Andrews then put his finger on the key issue: why have bait car programs worked so well in other places? Noting that British Columbia has used its program to cut its auto thefts from 26,000 in fiscal 2004 to 17,000 in fiscal 2007 – a decline of 35% – he told Jerman, “What I want to get is more details on how they do it... What have they done that has been so successful?” Mr. Andrews specifically asked for information on how funding is collected from insurance companies, how much costs are paid by the police themselves and how successful jurisdictions deploy the cars. Assistant Chief Jerman agreed to find out and the Public Safety Committee will reconvene in the fall.
It’s clear that the County Council, and Phil Andrews in particular, have heard us and are responding to our blockbuster letter from last fall. We will see whether the police believe that bait cars can work in Montgomery County. But if they can achieve the same success that other jurisdictions have seen, the county’s citizens will benefit in two ways:
1. The most common type of crime in the county will be seriously reduced.
2. Over the long run, the police may then be able to redeploy their resources to more serious problems, like home burglaries and violent crime.
As for the sniveling car thieves, I have one message for you: enjoy yourselves while you can because the good times won’t last forever. As our friends in British Columbia say:
STEAL A BAIT CAR. GO TO JAIL.
Update: The Gazette's coverage, which includes statistics on car thefts and break-ins, is here.
Update 2: Here's an article from the Washington Post detailing the successful use of a bait car by D.C. police in March.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
In Praise of Phil Andrews
Margarita-drinking penguins surf off the sandy beaches of Antarctica. Osama bin Laden sips matzo ball soup in Tel Aviv. George W. Bush admits the Iraq War is a mistake. But in an even more unlikely event, I am praising Montgomery County Council Member Phil Andrews for winning a spending increase in this year’s budget. These are strange times indeed.
Regular readers know that I am a career trade unionist. During the last county budget round, I vigorously disagreed with Mr. Andrews’ recommendation to cut two percentage points from the public employees’ cost of living increase. I went out of my way to demonstrate how the unions’ contracts were affordable on this blog. And still Mr. Andrews faced down three hundred chanting, stomping union members and told them, “Employees need to do their part… It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax increase to fully fund employee contracts that would be 8% next year.”
But Mr. Andrews is no mere budget cleaver. While he was pursuing labor savings, he was also trying to restore another part of the budget that was of utmost importance to the county. In his original budget plan, County Executive Ike Leggett proposed doing away with the police department’s community service officers (CSOs). The CSOs maintain regular contact with community leaders and citizens inside their districts and train them to implement Neighborhood Watch programs. My neighborhood had just started a watch program and feared seeing them abandoned just as we were creating one. Moreover, many African American, Latino and immigrant leaders protested losing an important communication channel to the police. The total savings from the elimination of the liaison officers was only projected to be $623,000 (out of a $297 million deficit).
Mr. Andrews, Chairman of the council’s Public Safety Committee, would have none of it. He declared: The officers in these positions provide a crucial link between the department and the public and often are the main link between community members, HOAs and other groups... A relationship has developed between the CSOs and folks in the respective district that very much needs to continue.
Mr. Andrews promptly formed an alliance with Police Chief Tom Manger and guided the restoration of the CSOs through every step of the budget process. Other spending hikes and cuts would come and go, but the CSOs survived. Yes, Mr. Andrews wanted to limit spending in some areas, but he fought hard to fund a program he believed made sense. And as the summer crime season begins, the CSOs are working with my neighborhood and many others to greet the criminals with wary eyes in every house.
But that is not all. Last year, a group of nine civic associations in Silver Spring, Wheaton and Kensington representing 4,440 households wrote to the county asking for implementation of a bait car program. As we detailed in January, bait cars are decoys rigged with cameras and GPS devices by the police to catch car thieves. We asked Mr. Andrews to consider the idea, but that was before the budget crisis dominated Rockville. However, he never forgot about us and has scheduled a Public Safety work session on the issue on July 28. Perhaps he will agree with us that bait cars are a cost-effective way to fight vehicle crime and perhaps he will not. But the fact is that none of our associations are located inside his district and he had no direct self-interest in helping us. He listened to us anyway.
One of Rockville’s most brilliant lobbyists once told me, “I communicate with everyone. Someone might disagree with me nine times in a row, but they could be with me the tenth time.” And so it is with Phil Andrews. Even his detractors admit that he will tell you exactly what he thinks without hesitation and will stick to his word. Crime-weary neighborhoods are lucky to have him in Rockville; the criminals are not.
Monday, January 21, 2008
“Oh NOOOO! It’s a BAIT CAR!!!”
Have you ever had someone ransack your car? If so, did you say something like, “If I could ever get my hands on that punk, I’d…” Well, how about watching a video of that punk getting busted by the police? That’s exactly what the citizens of British Columbia can do and MoCo citizens should be entitled to the same pleasure.
Thefts from vehicles are a huge problem in MoCo. According to the Washington Post, between 1/1/07 and 10/15/07, there were 5,092 break-ins in MoCo, up 19% from the levels of the year before. In Police District 2, which includes Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Kensington, break-ins jumped from 577 to 1,062 over the same period. In my own neighborhood, car break-ins rose by 60% and car thefts rose by 56% over last year. And when my neighbor’s car, parked right across the street from mine, was stolen – that was the final straw for me.
Rising outrage over repeated crimes led us to identify a solution: bait cars. Used in dozens of jurisdictions across North America, bait cars are rigged with cameras, GPS devices and sensors linked to police headquarters. When a thief breaks in, the devices are triggered, the police are alerted and the cameras begin recording. If the thief tries to escape, police can remotely shut off the bait car engine and lock the doors. The trapped crook then bounces around the car like a panicked ping-pong ball as the long arm of the law reaches down to drag him off to jail.
Many of these bait car videos wind up on the Internet. You can find a lot of them on British Columbia’s marvelous baitcar.com website and on YouTube. Go ahead and watch these hilarious videos! You will quickly learn who these thieves really are. They are hardly hulking mastodons of the underworld. Rather, they are sniveling, larcenous weasels, so craven that they would likely flee in terror from the raised cane of an old woman. They scurry in packs like twitching, squeaking rats through parking lots, garages and neighborhoods looking for tasty morsels to grab. While certainly greedy, many are barely intelligent enough to figure out how to pick their noses with one finger.
Here’s a video from British Columbia. Note the teeth-chattering paranoia of the car thieves as they whine, “I hope this isn’t another f***’in bait car, man!”
And here’s another sorry miscreant on his way to jail. As the cops approach with police dogs, watch the crying wretch beg, “Please don’t let the dog chew on me!”
So do these programs really work? Absolutely, but only if done in tandem with aggressive marketing campaigns that inform criminals, “Steal a bait car and go to jail!” Minneapolis started the first comprehensive bait car program in the U.S. in 1997 and has seen a 30% drop in car thefts. Stanislaus County, California saw a 40% drop in two years. British Columbia has seen 10% annual drops since implementing their program in 2004. And in Arlington County, Virginia, their bait car program has helped cut auto thefts to their lowest level since 1965. Best of all, insurance companies often donate the cars and finance the marketing programs because reduced crime cuts down on claims. Upon learning these facts, nine civic associations in Forest Glen, Silver Spring and Kensington promptly asked that the MoCo police implement a comparable program.
So how could MoCo refuse a program that can draw on private funding to cut down on auto crime by double digits? Given its current budget problems, isn’t it time for the county to get creative? One thing is for sure: the car thieves aren’t going to take next summer off just because the county is cutting funding for police. So when they steal that next car, why not make these gibbering curs scream, “Oh NOOOO! It’s a BAIT CAR!!!”
