Maryland transportation chief halts audio surveillance plans

she said. Swaim-Staley said her decision should not be interpreted as a rebuke of Wiedefeld. “I think he’s a terrific administrator and I think he’s been doing a good job under very difficult circumstances.”

Dresser writes that by backing off the proposal, Swaim-Staley may avert a confrontation with the General Assembly. Legislators who were contacted, reacting to the contents of the letter, said any audio surveillance program would likely have prompted lawmakers to introduce legislation to prohibit the practice. “Do we really need to stoop that low in order to keep order?” said Sen. Brian Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. “It’s that 1984 question ultimately: Do you want government delving that closely into everybody’s personal life to maintain our safety?”

Senate Minority Whip Nancy Jacobs, a Harford County Republican, said there would have been bipartisan resistance to the idea. “I imagine most of the Republicans would feel it was another government intrusion,” she said.

Dave Rocah, a staff attorney with the Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, reviewed the letter at the request of The Sun. He noted that nothing in it indicated the MTA would not be able to listen in to the conversation of two people sitting together in the back seat of a bus.

“The government shouldn’t be snooping on that conversation absent an adequate individualized need,” Rocah said. He said that would involve obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.

In an interview before Swaim-Staley’s decision, Wiedefeld said the agency had no intention of monitoring private conversations. He said the agency was considering using audio only as an after-the-fact investigative tool in the event of a criminal incident or crash.

According to the administrator, the decision to seek the legal opinion was prompted by the fact that many of the video security cameras now in use come equipped with the capability of recording sound. He said that a number of large transit agencies such as those in Cleveland, Denver and Chicago have decided to use the audio. “It’s something that’s becoming the standard of the industry,” he said.

Wiedefeld said the MTA was simply trying to determine whether it would be legal to, in effect, flip the “on” switch for the audio in the some of cameras it employs now. Even before the acting secretary’s move, he stressed that no decision had been made that the MTA would use audio surveillance even if given the green light by the attorney general.

While some large transit agencies may be moving in the direction of audio surveillance, the two closest to Maryland say they are not.

“To my knowledge, that’s not ever come up at all in any conversations,” said Steven Taubenkibel, a spokesman for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration. Jerri Williams, a spokeswoman for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, said the Philadelphia agency would not consider such taping because it would be illegal under Pennsylvania law.

“At this time audio-taping is not under consideration,” Williams said.