Public Safety panel opposes Bill 2‑24 in committee but sends it to full council

The Montgomery County Public Safety Committee on Monday debated Bill 2‑24, the "Freedom to Leave Act," which would restrict police requests to conduct consent searches during traffic stops and require expanded data collection, then voted 2‑1 to oppose the measure in committee while forwarding it to the full County Council for further consideration.

Councilmember Jawando, the bill's sponsor, framed the legislation as a response to racial disparities in traffic enforcement and the power imbalance that can make a request for consent feel involuntary. "You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to say no," Jawando told the committee, arguing data and testimony show most people asked for consent say yes even when searches rarely yield contraband.

The sponsor proposed a compromise amendment described in the committee packet: permit officers to ask for consent only when they have reasonable articulable suspicion, require the officer to contemporaneously record the reason in a form or into the officer's body camera, put that rationale on the form residents receive when asked to waive rights, and subject all consent searches to supervisory review.

Police leaders pushed back on restricting consent searches. Montgomery County Police Chief Mark Yamada said consent searches "are a valuable tool, for us to use to accomplish our mission," citing their role in removing guns and fentanyl from neighborhoods and stressing officer training and constitutional policing. State's Attorney John McCarthy told the committee that much of the contested information is already recorded: "we go to the videotape," he said, noting his office and other county reviewers look at body‑worn camera footage and that the department's review found few formal complaints tied specifically to consent searches.

County staff and the county executive's office signaled support for many of the sponsor's aims but recommended pursuing the changes through departmental policy rather than immediate legislation. Earl Stoddard, assistant chief administrative officer, said the county executive supports adding reasonable‑suspicion language, increasing oversight so supervisors review consent searches, expanding data collection, and giving residents plain‑language information about their rights.

Committee members questioned operational details: how reasonable articulable suspicion would be defined and documented, the length of time body cameras have been in use, and how the department would implement an app to replace paper forms and capture GPS and supervisory review. Officials said body‑worn cameras have been used in the county since about 2014 and that calendar‑year 2023 included 37,103 traffic stops and 15 formal traffic‑stop complaints, figures cited during the hearing.

The political dispute centered on process as much as policy. Several members said a departmental policy negotiated with the police union (FOP Lodge 35) could deliver many changes more quickly, while Jawando argued the legislative process drove public input and transparency he believed would not necessarily happen without a bill.

At the meeting's end, Councilmember Lukey moved that the committee record opposition to the bill as drafted; Chair Katz seconded. The motion passed, 2‑1, sending an unfavorable committee report and the bill to the full County Council. The committee's recommendation does not preclude the full council from hearing, amending or ultimately passing the measure.

Next steps: the committee vote and the department's work on a formal policy (including the proposed app and supervisor review procedures) will be included in the full Council packet. County officials said they expected to present a draft departmental policy for review within days to weeks, subject to required bargaining timelines for the police union.