Federal report: Discrimination rampant among Baltimore police

A Justice Department report released Wednesday is a damning indictment of how officers in Baltimore carry out the most fundamental of policing practices.

Patrick Semansky/AP
In this April 29, 2015 file photo, police stand in formation as a curfew approaches in Baltimore. In the wake of the Freddie Gray case, the police union has push back against reforms designed to provide citizens with more oversight, the union also has sued to block a civilian review board from having access to police disciplinary records.

Baltimore police officers routinely discriminate against blacks, use excessive force too often and are not adequately disciplined for misconduct, according to a harshly critical Justice Department report being issued Wednesday.

The report, the culmination of a yearlong investigation into one of the country's largest police forces, also found that officers make large numbers of traffic stops — mostly in poor, black neighborhoods — with dubious justification and unlawfully arrest citizens for speech deemed rude or disrespectful.

The Justice Department released a copy of the report in advance of its public announcement Wednesday at an event in Baltimore.

The report is a damning indictment of how officers carry out the most fundamental of policing practices, such as traffic stops and searches and responding to First Amendment expression.

Beyond that, though, it could serve as a blueprint for sweeping changes at the police force: The Justice Department said it was seeking court-enforceable consent decree that would force the police agency to commit to improving its procedures in order to avoid a federal lawsuit.

The federal investigation was launched after the April 2015 death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man whose neck was broken while he was handcuffed and shackled but left unrestrained in the back of a police van. The death set off protests and the worst riots in decades. The report examined a slew of potentially unconstitutional practices, including excessive force and discriminatory traffic stops, within the department.

Federal investigators spent more than a year interviewing Baltimore residents, police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and elected officials, as well as riding along with officers on duty and reviewing documents and complaints.

Among the findings: Black residents account for roughly 84 percent of stops, though they represent just 63 percent of the city's population. Likewise, African-Americans make up 95 percent of the 410 people stopped at least t10en times by officers between 2010 and 2014.

During the same time period, officers stopped 34 black residents 20 times, and seven African-Americans 30 times or more, while the report says that no individuals of any other race were stopped more than 12 times.

One man who spoke to investigators said he was stopped 30 times in less than four years. Fifteen of those stops, he said, were to check for outstanding warrants. None of the stops resulted in charges.

In addition to pat-downs, Baltimore officers perform unconstitutional public strip searches, including searches of people who aren't under arrest.

The report partially blames the department's unconstitutional practices on a "zero tolerance" policy dating back to the early 2000s, during which residents were arrested en masse for minor misdemeanor charges such as loitering.

Although the department has publicly denounced these practices after a 2010 settlement with the NAACP, which sued the department over the policing strategy, "the legacy of the zero tolerance era continues to influence officer activity and contribute to constitutional violations," the report said.

Officers also routinely stop and question individuals without cause or a legitimate suspicion that they're involved in criminal activity, the report says: No charges were filed in 26 of every 27 pedestrian stops. The directives often come from supervisors. In one instance, a supervisor told a subordinate officer to "make something up" after the officer protested an order to stop and question a group of young black men for no reason.

Unconstitutional frisks are also rampant, the report says. In one incident in 2010, a man fled from an officer patrolling a "high-crime area." The officer proceeded to fire his stun gun at the running man's back, striking him several times. When the officer was able to detain the man, he frisked him but found no weapon. The officer's report "provides no reason to believe the man was armed."

State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, the city's top prosecutor, said she expected the report to "confirm what many in our city already know or have experienced firsthand."

"While the vast majority of Baltimore City Police officers are good officers, we also know that there are bad officers and that the department has routinely failed to oversee, train, or hold bad actors accountable," she said in a statement.

She said she was confident that the federal probe would "lead to even more reforms which is an important step in ensuring best practices for a fully functioning police-prosecutor relationship."

Six officers, three white and three black, were charged in the death of Gray. Three were acquitted, another officer's trial ended in a mistrial and the charges against the others were dropped.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.