News today from 2 council members, on two different issues, that despite recent court rulings and legal advice, have decided to proceed not with logic and rational, but a steadfast commitment to their ideology.
First up, is CM Gabe Albornoz, who posted this statement on X.com (Twitter)
What is most shocking with Gabe’s statement is that he references the wrong Constitutional Amendment, mistaking the 1st for the 2nd. Maybe a simple typo? Regardless, it does not add a strong degree of confidence that he truly does not want to violate anyone of the secured rights under the constitution.
His response stems from a recent decision by U.S. District Judge George L Russell III that granted in part motions for preliminary judgement on behalf of individuals challenging the Gun Safety Act of 2023 (Senate Bill 1). While the decision did not completely hollow out Senate Bill 1, it did block portions.
What is Gabe’s response? To affirm that he doesn’t have any intention of stepping on 2nd amendment rights, BUT he will continue to try and find ways to do so. What will this result in? More legal challenges and more costs to the county.
Next up with CM Will Jawando who issued a statement today related to the Safety and Traffic Equity in Policing Act (STEP). In his statement, Will says:
I plan to proceed with the consent search and data provisions in the bill and I urge our leaders in the Montgomery County General Assembly Delegation to review the opinion, and consider improvements at the state level that further the goals of the STEP Act. We must address racial disparities in traffic enforcement and focus on enforcement of traffic violations that are the key drivers of serious injuries and fatalities.
Will has made the decision because MDs Attorney General basically stripped the rest of the proposed Act, noting that State Law would preempt the STEP Act’s provision designating certain traffic offenses as secondary. Yet Will decides to press on with the component that would not preempt State law – prohibiting an MCPD officer from requesting consent to search a vehicle.
What is interesting is that the opinion of the AG basically says that this provision is just a show.
The STEP Act would thus eliminate “investigatory” traffic stops in which an officer requests consent to search for evidence of crimes beyond the motor vehicle offense that authorized the stop, without particularized suspicion of the driver or vehicle at issue.
Does Will really think that an officer walks up during a traffic stop and flips a coin to see if they will ask for consent to search? Does he think that an officer walks up to a vehicle in a traffic stop and sees that the driver is black so decides to ask for consent to search? Where is the evidence that consent search is being conducted without suspicion? What this Act sets the county up for is when an officer does their job, and does it properly, there will be an influx of court cases challenging the validity of their “suspicion”. More money spent in court because of ideology.
