Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
Proposal to ban 'disruptive' people assailed by ACLU
http://www.gazette.net/200414/montgomerycty/county/209316-1.html
by Agnes Blum
Staff Writer
Mar. 31, 2004
A proposed law that would give some county employees the power to declare people disruptive, demand identification and ban them from county premises for up to 90 days is rife with civil liberties problems, said an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The National Capital Area ACLU plans to send a letter of protest to the County Council, which is expected to vote on the proposal in May.
Under Bill 1-04, the person in charge of a county facility, or an equivalent or a law enforcement officer, could decide if a person's behavior is disruptive, eject them from the facility and ban them for up to 90 days.
The bill, sponsored by County Council President Steven A. Silverman (D-At large) of Silver Spring at the request of County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D), is needed to protect county employees from an increasingly volatile and aggressive public, supporters say.
"If somebody is going to harass one of our employees, these people should be ripped into court at the very next possible moment," said Councilman Michael L. Subin (D-At large) of Gaithersburg. "This bill is the bare minimum."
But critics say existing laws already protect county workers and this bill would give them too much power.
Stephen M. Block, a staff attorney for the National Capital Area ACLU, said there are two major problems with the proposal.
First, he said, it violates a person's right to due process by allowing the same official to decide what is disruptive and then impose a punishment. That is analogous to a police officer being the one who arrests you and sentences you to jail, he said.
The second big flaw is that it requires so-called disruptive people to produce photo identification on demand, Block said. "You shouldn't have to have a photo ID to go to the library."
On Monday, the Public Safety Committee -- Subin, Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown and Philip M. Andrews (D-Dist. 3) of Gaithersburg -- unanimously recommended that the council approve the bill. It is slated for a vote May 3.
The proposal was drafted at the request of the Department of Public Libraries, but would apply to all county facilities.
Between January and November 2003, library staff reported 27 incidents, ranging from physical threats to harassment of library staff and customers. Six incidents resulted in someone being banned from library buildings for one year through a "trespass notice" issued by the police.
The bill would give branch managers more discretion and control, said Harriet Henderson, director of libraries. It would give a branch manager the power to bar someone for as little as one day and for as long as 90 days. The bill also would allow the staff to respond to disruptive behavior without having to involve police.
"We don't want our staff to be in danger," Henderson said.
But critics say police should respond to dangerous situations and allowing county employees to ban people from taxpayer-owned facilities is a recipe for abuse of power.
"Let's say that a person is in a public meeting and he might have a minority view and he is carrying on," said Robert H. Abrams, a member of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. "The person who heads that facility could throw him out."
Bill supporters counter that anyone banned from a county facility would have the right to a hearing the next day, which would be overseen either by the director of the banning department or an administrative officer. That process has not been worked out yet.
"If there's cause to eject someone," Abrams said, "a police officer ought to do it. Let's use the existing laws."
The president of the civic federation, Cary Lamari, wrote a letter to the County Council on Feb. 3, arguing that the bill might impose a "possible infringement of the rights of our citizens to have free access to government facilities" and criticizing the definition of "disruptive behavior" as vague.
Constitutional scholars say the proposed bill's vagueness may be its undoing.
County officials have the right to kick out people who are disruptive, said C. Christopher Brown, lawyer and professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, but the danger lies in making that judgment call.
"This law allows them to do it themselves. It thrusts the administrator into a judge-like role," Brown said, adding the bill as written is "intimidating and vague enough to be open to abuse."
Knapp said the council would review how the bill was working after a month or so to make sure it wasn't being abused.
It is not clear how the bill would be enforced; it is still being amended, said Michael Faden, the council's senior legislative attorney. For example, how a facility would keep track of who was banned is still unclear.
A public hearing was held on Feb. 3. There are no plans to hold any more meetings on the proposal. Comments may be sent to County Council President Steven A. Silverman, 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville MD 20850.
_
_
http://www.gazette.net/200414/montgomerycty/county/209316-1.html
by Agnes Blum
Staff Writer
Mar. 31, 2004
A proposed law that would give some county employees the power to declare people disruptive, demand identification and ban them from county premises for up to 90 days is rife with civil liberties problems, said an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The National Capital Area ACLU plans to send a letter of protest to the County Council, which is expected to vote on the proposal in May.
Under Bill 1-04, the person in charge of a county facility, or an equivalent or a law enforcement officer, could decide if a person's behavior is disruptive, eject them from the facility and ban them for up to 90 days.
The bill, sponsored by County Council President Steven A. Silverman (D-At large) of Silver Spring at the request of County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D), is needed to protect county employees from an increasingly volatile and aggressive public, supporters say.
"If somebody is going to harass one of our employees, these people should be ripped into court at the very next possible moment," said Councilman Michael L. Subin (D-At large) of Gaithersburg. "This bill is the bare minimum."
But critics say existing laws already protect county workers and this bill would give them too much power.
Stephen M. Block, a staff attorney for the National Capital Area ACLU, said there are two major problems with the proposal.
First, he said, it violates a person's right to due process by allowing the same official to decide what is disruptive and then impose a punishment. That is analogous to a police officer being the one who arrests you and sentences you to jail, he said.
The second big flaw is that it requires so-called disruptive people to produce photo identification on demand, Block said. "You shouldn't have to have a photo ID to go to the library."
On Monday, the Public Safety Committee -- Subin, Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown and Philip M. Andrews (D-Dist. 3) of Gaithersburg -- unanimously recommended that the council approve the bill. It is slated for a vote May 3.
The proposal was drafted at the request of the Department of Public Libraries, but would apply to all county facilities.
Between January and November 2003, library staff reported 27 incidents, ranging from physical threats to harassment of library staff and customers. Six incidents resulted in someone being banned from library buildings for one year through a "trespass notice" issued by the police.
The bill would give branch managers more discretion and control, said Harriet Henderson, director of libraries. It would give a branch manager the power to bar someone for as little as one day and for as long as 90 days. The bill also would allow the staff to respond to disruptive behavior without having to involve police.
"We don't want our staff to be in danger," Henderson said.
But critics say police should respond to dangerous situations and allowing county employees to ban people from taxpayer-owned facilities is a recipe for abuse of power.
"Let's say that a person is in a public meeting and he might have a minority view and he is carrying on," said Robert H. Abrams, a member of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. "The person who heads that facility could throw him out."
Bill supporters counter that anyone banned from a county facility would have the right to a hearing the next day, which would be overseen either by the director of the banning department or an administrative officer. That process has not been worked out yet.
"If there's cause to eject someone," Abrams said, "a police officer ought to do it. Let's use the existing laws."
The president of the civic federation, Cary Lamari, wrote a letter to the County Council on Feb. 3, arguing that the bill might impose a "possible infringement of the rights of our citizens to have free access to government facilities" and criticizing the definition of "disruptive behavior" as vague.
Constitutional scholars say the proposed bill's vagueness may be its undoing.
County officials have the right to kick out people who are disruptive, said C. Christopher Brown, lawyer and professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, but the danger lies in making that judgment call.
"This law allows them to do it themselves. It thrusts the administrator into a judge-like role," Brown said, adding the bill as written is "intimidating and vague enough to be open to abuse."
Knapp said the council would review how the bill was working after a month or so to make sure it wasn't being abused.
It is not clear how the bill would be enforced; it is still being amended, said Michael Faden, the council's senior legislative attorney. For example, how a facility would keep track of who was banned is still unclear.
A public hearing was held on Feb. 3. There are no plans to hold any more meetings on the proposal. Comments may be sent to County Council President Steven A. Silverman, 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville MD 20850.
_
_
