MINORITIES; LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS;

POLICE;

Other States laws/regulations; Connecticut laws/regulations;

You asked us to compare Maryland and Connecticut’s racial profiling laws.

Connecticut law prohibits police and law enforcement agencies from engaging in racial profiling, defined as the detention, interdiction, or other disparate treatment of someone solely because of his race or ethnicity (CGS § 54-1l). Maryland’s racial profiling law does not contain this explicit prohibition, but, like Connecticut law, it requires (1) agencies to adopt policies prohibiting race-based traffic stops and (2) police departments to collect certain data when they stop people for traffic violations (CGS § 54-1m; Md. Code Ann. § 25-113).

Police officers in both states must collect similar data, including the nature of the violation that led to the traffic stop, the driver’s race and ethnicity, and whether any citation was issued or arrest made. Maryland law requires data not specifically required by Connecticut law, including (1) the date, location, and duration of stops; (2) whether any property or contraband was seized; and (3) the state where the vehicle was registered (Table 1). But, unlike the Maryland law, Connecticut law requires the police to record additional information that police departments deem appropriate.

Maryland requires police departments to submit traffic stop data to the Maryland Justice Analysis Center at the University of Maryland, which must prepare annual reports for the life of the program, which will en on August 31, 2007 unless the legislature extends it. Connecticut law initially required police departments to give data to the chief state’s attorney along with copies of complaints of discriminatory stops and written notices of their reviews and dispositions. Initially, the law also required the chief state’s attorney, within existing appropriations, to (1) review the data to determine the prevalence and disposition of discriminatory stops and related complaints and (2) report his review results and recommendations to the governor and legislature. As of January 2, 2003, police departments were no longer required to give traffic stop data to the chief state’s attorney, but they must still report complaints. Also, the chief state’s attorney is no longer required to provide racial profiling reports, having submitted his required report in December 2001.

In addition to requiring police departments to provide copies of complaints of discriminatory stops to the chief state’s attorney, Connecticut law contains other provisions not in the Maryland law. It (1) prohibits police officers from requiring people to provide information on their race, color, or ethnicity, requiring instead that the officers make a determination based on their perception; (2) immunizes officers who record traffic stop data from civil liability, unless they are reckless or unreasonable; and (3) allows the Office of Policy and Management, on the chief state’s attorney’s recommendation, to withhold unspecified state funds from police departments that do not comply with reporting requirements. Under Maryland’s law, noncompliant agencies are reported to the governor and legislature.

Maryland’s police departments were required to begin complying with the law as of January 1, 2002, if they have 100 or more law enforcement officers and January 1, 2003, if they have 50 or more officers. Other departments must start complying on January 1, 2004. The state must appropriate money to help law enforcement agencies implement the data collection and reporting requirements.

Table 1: Comparison of Data Collected Under Maryland and Connecticut Racial Profiling Laws

VR: ro