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

The proposed legislation, introduced by Councilman Kristerfer Burnett in May 2023, would have established a community advisory committee and imposed additional reporting requirements on how Baltimore is surveilling city life that isn’t a part of criminal investigations.

During a heated two-hour hearing, Burnett attempted to salvage the bill with new amendments and additional revisions. However, the legislation ultimately fell one vote short of advancing. Councilmen Antonio Glover and Mark Conway, who cast dissenting votes, cited concerns 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 set 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 stakeholders,” Burnett said during the hearing. “It’s unfortunate that concerns were raised at the eleventh hour, especially given the time dedicated to deliberation. It’s a sad day for the citizens of Baltimore.”

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

The meeting got off to a rocky start, with several agencies, including the Baltimore Police Department, having not received the latest version of the bill until days prior. The hearing soon evolved 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, the BPD’s chief of science and evidence, argued that the bill’s broad language about “biometric data” could require the department to document routine crime scene practices, which she insisted should not be considered surveillance. Burnett countered that the bill’s intent was to address surveillance involving facial recognition and retinal scanning technologies.

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

After two brief recesses, Burnett offered to amend the proposal, including excluding victims’ 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 BPD.

“They have some pretty interesting concerns that I don’t feel totally comfortable moving forward with in light of the importance of public safety,” Conway said.

Conway said they could revisit the bill, though the council’s term will wrap up next month.