Senator Jamie Raskin

State Sen. Jamie B. Raskin on Saturday told activists targeted by the Maryland State Police in a 14-month spying operation that he plans to introduce a bill next legislative session that would prohibit such surveillance without reasonable suspicion.

During the meeting sponsored by the Washington Peace Center, Raskin (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park called the state police spying campaign an "atrocious waste of public funds" and said peaceful groups should not be targets of surveillance activities without "justifiable reason."

"We're going to introduce legislation that will prohibit surveillance by agencies without some reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity or activities have taken place or will take place," said Raskin. He said Del. Sheila Hixson (D-Dist. 20) would be a co-author of the bill.

Maryland State Police has notified about 53 activists who were placed on a terrorism watch list and spied on. Activists were told the records compiled would be destroyed and that they would have a chance to review the documents. Activists were also told that they would not be allowed to make copies of the documents nor would they be allowed to have a lawyer present.

David Rocah, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, said those terms are not acceptable.

"It is important that each of the several people get a physical copy of the information that was gathered about them," he said.

Rocah attended Saturday's meeting, held at Takoma Park Presbyterian Church, to encourage those who received notification from state police that they were targeted to seek the support of the ACLU. He said it is important to have a "clear picture" of what happened, "and it is clear to me at this point that state police are not going to give us this complete picture."

The ACLU uncovered evidence earlier this year of the state police surveillance of peaceful anti-war and anti-death penalty groups from early 2005 through May 2006. The group suspects that the names of more than 53 activists were put on the terrorism watch list and is representing more than 30 activist groups in the state that feel they may have been targeted.

Levanah Ruthschild, who was at Saturday's meeting, said she has been arrested several times during peaceful protests.

"I don't know whether or not I've been labeled as a terrorist or not at this point," she said. She hasn't received a letter from state police.

"They're criminalizing what ought to be considered perfectly legal expression of dissent," Ruthschild said of the surveillance.

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) assigned former Attorney General Stephen H. Sachs to conduct a review of the surveillance. Last month, Sachs released a 93-page report that found that state police "intruded" on First Amendment rights, improperly labeling targeted activities as "terrorism" in a federal database. Former state police Superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins testified last week before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, saying the surveillance was done legally and was justified.

Current Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan supports efforts to prevent future surveillance of peaceful groups and their members, Rocah said.

Sachs recommended at the committee hearing that the police initiate anti-spying rules, but Raskin's move to pass state legislation appeared more popular with activists Saturday, many of whom said Sach's report did not go far enough. They also debated Hutchins' claims that the surveillance was legal.

Some at the meeting said criminal charges should be pursued against Hutchins and former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), who many in attendance believe had knowledge of the spying despite police testimony to the contrary.

Rocah cautioned that pushing for charges could hurt the ACLU's current efforts to get disclosure of the state police documents.

"Calls for criminal retribution I think, in part, take us from the moral high ground that we have been occupying," he said.

The ACLU currently has a civil action pending against state police for non-disclosure of information, and Rocah hinted that a first amendment lawsuit is possible.

"The truth is that courts are very reluctant to manage law enforcement agencies for first amendment issues," he cautioned, but promised the ACLU would use every tool available. "There's an easy way to do this and a hard way to do it, and if we have to, we will take the hard way."