Maryland Blogger alliance
The Maryland Blogger Alliance
One of those "Gregor Samsa" moments
Last week I discovered that some interesting changes have taken place here in Baltimore County. Car theft has been legalized, and we have acquired a fourth branch of government.
At least that's what I have been able to surmise from what happened Monday. Here's the story:
Around 7:30 AM, my mother phoned to tell me that her car had (again) been broken into, while parked on the street in front of her Dundalk home. My task, besides offering moral support, was to help get it to the repair shop. As it happened, the break-in must have been an attempt at stealing the car, as nothing was missing, and there was no sign it had been ransacked. The crook had simply grabbed the top edge of the door and tried to pry it open, bending the door and breaking the window.
Several hours had passed by the time I was able to get to Mom's, and she was seething. The police had taken the crime report over the telephone and given her a "report number" for her insurance claim. Nobody had visited the house, even so much as to verify the damage, or that the event had actually occurred!
Having learned my lesson about questioning Baltimore County police policies, I decided to phone the local office of Mom's county councilman, to ask them to intervene with the police, or at least inquire about this policy of not sending a patrol car. That's when things really started to get interesting. The staffer who fielded my call showed a great deal of annoyance at having to explain the matter to me, after he had explained it to my sister, who'd called an hour earlier. "We don't get involved in police matters," is what he told me. I would have to discuss my problem with the precinct captain. (The council staffer did not bother to offer the name or phone number of this police captain, even though they occupy the same building.) I questioned the "we don't get involved" claim, knowing that the county council is responsible for approving the police department budget, and figuring that this cutback in direct service had resulted from budgetary limits. The staffer insisted that the council has no say in "police matters."
Knowing that the precinct captain was not responsible for this policy, I wanted to approach the person who was. So I suggested to the council staffer that perhaps the police department fell under the aegis of the executive branch of government, and that I ought to inquire there. Testily, he told me that the county executive has "no say in police matters." Since I KNOW the judiciary does not control the police, I concluded that some time ago, while we weren't looking, the police department had been established as the fourth branch of the county government. The council staffer snorted, "Don't be ridiculous," when I suggested this theory. But he did not offer a better explanation. The council doesn't control the police; the executive doesn't control the police; the courts don't control the police. What's left, other than the conclusion that the police department is an independent entity, apparently co-equal to the traditional three branches of government?
Now, there's no getting an explanation from the actual elected officials, because of the way these guys have insulated themselves from the electorate. You never speak to a councilman, and any correspondence you send has to be filtered through the unelected office staff. Ditto for the executive. And if you are talking directly to a county judge, it is in the midst of a trial, where questions of heirarchy will not be tolerated.
A few months ago, the county's chamber-of-commerce held a "meet your councilman" reception, which all seven of the legislators were to attend. I had made plans to go, until I learned that it would cost me fifty dollars to get in the door! So, apparently one has to BUY access to his county councilman, either through a quasi legitimate event like this reception, or some ad hoc process.
County exec Jim Smith shields himself behind an official spokesman, one Don Mohler. And the way the executive's office operates, you'd be damned lucky even to get Mohler's ear personally.
As for the police chief of the county, good luck...
Now, regarding my second conclusion--about the legalization of car theft:
I encountered a young patrolman at a convenience store later that same morning, and asked him about the telephone reporting. He told me that policy had been in effect for several years, and questioned why I thought there was anything wrong with it. The cop did offer the observation that if you phone in a theft or attempted-theft report, they would send a patrol car, but only if you asked, hinting that the police officer on the other end of the phone would not volunteer that information.
This boggles my mind, for a number of reasons.
ONE: Without a copper actually coming to the scene, what verifies that the resident is not simply phoning in a false report, in the hope of making an insurance claim? We read and hear that auto insurance fraud is growing exponentially; is this part of the reason for that growth?
TWO: Without seeing the paper police report, the resident has no idea how the crime was categorized. Last year, someone attempted breaking in to one of my cars, and later I learned that the crime was reported as "destruction of property," not "attempted automobile theft." It seems to me that this is a subtle way of cooking the crime statistics, although I suppose I should not look a gift horse in the mouth. After all, if the official stats show an increase in auto theft attempts, it can be presumed that the insurance companies will be looking for higher premiums.
THREE: If they won't send a cop to examine an attempted break-in, you can bet your bippy they won't send a cop if the crook succeeded in stealing the car. After all, without the vehicle on the scene, there'd be no evidence, right?
This is why I conclude that car theft is no longer illegal in Baltimore County: If the cops only record the VIN number and owner information in this kind of event, it's a safe bet there is going to be zero attempt at investigating it, much less bringing someone to justice.
It's a bit like the little semantic game the MD State Police play when you fill out their paperwork before buying a gun. If they decide not to stop the sale of the gun, the paperwork comes back with a large stamp that says "NOT DISAPPROVED."
Now, if you follow the court reports in some newspaper, you will see that people are occasionally arrested for and charged with "unauthorized use" of a motor vehicle. But it seems to me that THEFT is an order of magnitude more serious than "unauthorized use," which could simply mean you were borrowing the car with the intent of returning it, and simply had neglected to ask the owner's permission.
On the other hand, if you catch some SOB trying to break into your car, and you shoot or bludgeon him, you can bet the ranch that YOU will feel the full weight of the criminal justice system.
For this, we pay property taxes?