Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has emerged as a national leader in proactively addressing the challenges posed by aggressive federal immigration enforcement operations. His comprehensive guidance to state and local law enforcement represents a model approach for protecting community trust while clarifying legal obligations and protecting officers from liability.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Brown issued an 11-page guidance document to local police departments reminding them that they remain bound by state law when working with federal agencies. The guidance addresses a critical gap: ensuring that Maryland officers understand their obligations under state law even when collaborating with federal agents who operate under different standards.
The guidance establishes clear boundaries for Maryland law enforcement. Maryland officers may not enforce civil immigration laws or assist federal agents in enforcing such laws while performing regular police functions. This prohibition is particularly significant because Maryland law effectively precludes officers from carrying out civil immigration enforcement actions during routine duties.
The guidance requires Maryland officers to properly use body-worn cameras in accordance with state law and agency policy, identify themselves when dealing with the public and comply with state-law requirements that do not govern federal agents. These requirements are important given reports of masked federal agents conducting operations without proper identification. Maryland officers remain subject to civilian oversight in misconduct matters and face substantial exposure to civil liability for violations of state or federal law, creating strong incentives for compliance.
The guidance addresses multiple settings where state and local officers interact with federal authorities: task forces, mutual aid agreements, cross-designations, joint operations, backup requests and federal-initiated activities. In each context, the principle remains constant: Maryland law governs Maryland officers’ conduct. Even when Maryland officers are designated to work with federal agencies, they should presume that state standards continue to govern their conduct unless counsel informs them otherwise.
Attorney General Brown’s approach serves dual purposes. First, it protects community members’ constitutional rights and maintains trust between police and all residents. Second, it protects officers and their agencies from legal liability by clarifying the boundaries of permissible conduct. As Brown stated, “Maryland’s law enforcement officers are governed by Maryland law and the communities they serve, regardless of shifting federal priorities”.
While Brown’s guidance clarifies existing law, state lawmakers must consider legislation to further limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Drawing on research showing that a majority of Americans believe violent criminals should be deported while those who have established lives here should not be deported for minor offenses, a legislative compromise is necessary.
A proposed approach would restrict the application of 287(g) immigration status checks and detainers to individuals convicted of serious crimes: Part I offenses in Maryland’s Uniform Crime Reporting system including criminal homicide, robbery, forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and arson, or selected Part II offenses such as forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, receiving stolen property, weapons offenses and sale or distribution of dangerous drugs. Critically, 287(g) would not apply to minor offenses.
This targeted approach addresses legitimate concerns about serious criminals while protecting immigrants who have put down roots, established families and become contributing members of Maryland communities. The distinction between violent felons and those arrested for minor infractions is critical for maintaining community trust while addressing genuine public safety threats.
The masking of law enforcement personnel has become a national concern, receiving attention across multiple states. California became the first state to address this issue with the No Secret Police Act, Senate Bill 627, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 20. The California law prohibits local law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings during operations, with narrow exemptions for undercover operations, medical masks and tactical gear.
Maryland should follow California’s lead. States including Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Michigan and Tennessee have introduced similar legislation recognizing masked law enforcement operations undermine public trust, enable impersonation and create environments of fear. When officers cannot be identified, accountability becomes impossible, and community members cannot distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and criminal impersonators.
Maryland lawmakers should enact legislation requiring visible identification of all law enforcement personnel operating in the state, with narrow exceptions for legitimate operational needs. Such legislation would complement Attorney General Brown’s guidance by ensuring that police operating in Maryland meet basic transparency standards.
Attorney General Brown’s proactive guidance provides Maryland law enforcement with clear direction during a challenging period. The next steps, passing legislation to limit 287(g) agreements to serious crimes and prohibiting law enforcement masking, would further protect community trust while addressing legitimate public safety concerns. Together, these measures ensure that all residents can engage with law enforcement without fear, making Maryland safer for everyone.
Karl W. Bickel (karlbickel@comcast.net) is retired from the U.S. Department of Justice, was previously second in command of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office and is a former assistant professor of criminal justice. He started his career as a Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department officer.
