A bill aimed at adding safeguards to Baltimore’s policing practices stalled in the City Council today, after narrowly failing to gain enough support to move forward.

The proposed legislation, introduced by Council Member Kristerfer Burnett in May 2023, would have established a community advisory committee and imposed additional reporting requirements on how Baltimore polices city life that is not part of criminal investigations.

During a heated two-hour hearing, Burnett attempted to save the bill with new amendments and additional revisions. However, the legislation ultimately fell one vote short of advancing. Council members Antonio Glover and Mark Conway, who cast dissenting votes, expressed concern that the amendment process was too rushed and lacked consensus among council members and city agencies.

With the council’s current term nearing its end and Burnett preparing to retire in December, the West Baltimore councilman expressed frustration with the outcome.

“This bill was introduced 547 days ago with countless meetings and discussions with all interested parties,” Burnett said during the hearing. “It is unfortunate that concerns were raised at the last minute, especially given the time spent in deliberation. “It is a sad day for the citizens of Baltimore.”

The bill’s first hearing was initially scheduled for September 2023, but was continually postponed until Wednesday.

From the beginning, the meeting got off to a rocky start, as several agencies, including the Baltimore Police Department, did not receive the latest version of the bill until days before. The hearing soon turned into a lively debate between Burnett and the Baltimore Police Department over the distinction between surveillance and forensics and the need to collect demographic data.

Rana DellaRocco, BPD’s chief of science and evidence, argued that the bill’s broad language around “biometric data” could require the department to document routine crime scene practices, which she insisted do not should be considered surveillance. Burnett responded that the intent of the bill was to address surveillance involving facial recognition and retina scanning technologies.

DellaRocco also expressed concern about provisions requiring the collection of demographic data, arguing that the burden of documenting the race and ethnicity of each crime victim (often impossible when collecting forensic evidence, such as blood) could strain department resources. Burnett defended the provision as a safeguard to track potential discriminatory surveillance practices.

After two brief breaks, Burnett offered to amend the proposal, including excluding victim demographics from required data collection and relaxing reporting requirements for city agencies. Still, Councilman Conway signaled his reluctance to proceed without further discussion, citing unresolved issues raised by the BPD.

“They have some pretty interesting concerns that I’m not entirely comfortable with in light of the importance of public safety,” Conway said.

Conway said they could revisit the bill, although the council’s term will end next month.