Maryland state troopers "significantly overreached" in their infiltration and surveillance of peaceful protest groups. That's the finding of a report released by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's office. Prepared by former Maryland Attorney General Stephen H. Sachs, the report, Review of Maryland State Police Covert Surveillance of Anti-Death Penalty and Anti-War Groups from March 2005 to May 2006 (PDF) reveals:
From March 2005 to May 2006, the Maryland State Police (MSP) covertly monitored individuals and groups engaged in anti-death penalty and anti-war activism in Maryland. The surveillance was not predicated on any information indicating that those individuals or groups had committed or planned any criminal misconduct. The state trooper assigned to lead this surveillance was then a member of MSP’s Homeland Security and Intelligence Division (HSID) and acted at the direction of HSID commanders. Using a false identity, the trooper attended more than two dozen protests and meetings. She took significant steps to build trust with the subjects of her surveillance. She reported on what she saw and heard at these meetings about the subjects’ views and their plans to express those views publicly.
MSP surveillance revealed essentially no evidence of proposed criminal conduct or unlawful activity of any kind.1 On the contrary, the trooper noted repeatedly the subjects’ stated intentions not to violate the law during their planned protests. Nonetheless, MSP’s covert activity continued for fourteen months. Furthermore, when entering information about its investigation into HSID’s electronic database, MSP assigned labels such as “Security Threat Group” and “Terrorism - Anti-War Protestor” to certain groups and individuals. Supervisory officers then transmitted certain information about these groups and individuals – including, in some cases, the “terrorism” designation – to a federally funded database.
Sachs's report came as a quick scramble to stay ahead of a wave of outrage after documents came to light in mid-July of this year revealing the covert surveillance operation. As such, it was quick work. And while it gives the Maryland State Police a pass on their motivations, it's fairly tough on their conduct.That conduct, Sachs suggests, was more unthinking than intentionally oppressive.
I found no evidence that anyone in the MSP chain of command – troopers, civilian intelligence analysts, supervisors, or the then-Superintendent – gave any thought whatever to the possibility that its covert surveillance of these groups, though not intended to suppress their rights of expression and association, was in any way inappropriate. Moreover, I found no evidence that anyone, at any time, questioned whether there was any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or other compelling justification for the covert surveillance.
The overall attitude of the police, Sachs says, was that it was "better to be safe than sorry" in determining who should be the target of surveillance arguments. As the report itself says, such a rationale "would justify government infiltration, without limitation, of any group of people who seek to exercise publicly their rights of free expression and association."
And there are consequences of this surveillance. Not only did the individuals and groups targeted have their privacy violated; they were also tagged as potential terrorists. That's an enormously dangerous label to have attached to your name in the age of the security state -- one that could, says the report, "cause serious harm to that person’s reputation, career, and
standing in the community."
To prevent future rights violations, Sachs recommends that police develop "binding regulations that govern covert surveillance" of political groups. These regulations should require respect for constitutional safeguards. He also says the state police "should establish standards for the collection and dissemination of criminal intelligence information," to restrict just what gets stuck into databases and who has access to that information. And the Case Explorer database that was used in the covert operations should probably be revised or abandoned, the report recommends.
Sachs also proposes that the subjects of the 2005-2006 investigations should be contacted to let them know they've been labeled as potential terrorists so they can review the files that were kept on them. Just in case they want to know why they're not getting any job interviews, I suppose.
All in all, those sound ike reasonable responses -- to a situation that never should have occurred.
Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
Comments