>Are we losing most of our top tier candidates to other agencies and do you have any idea what that costs us? (It happens in our school system and I don't know the cost)

I don’t believe that the quality of candidates plays into who is leaving. Officers across the board are leaving and it’s not limited to Baltimore. For officers with more time, other agencies offer higher pay for the same amount of years in grade in addition to large signing bonuses. For newer officers, they may be using BPD as a stepping stone towards their first choice agency. Other officers might want to get into specialized units and other agencies offer a better chance to do the kind of work they’d like. Some officers have had bad experiences and want to work for an agency or jurisdiction that has stronger relationships with officers.

As to the cost - I can only speculate and I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Trainees are taught as a class, so the money spent paying training staff and facility upkeep isn’t exactly lost. If the trainee graduated, made it through field training, and spent any time pushing a car in patrol, then the city got something out of them which means they put their training to use, so it’s not a lost cost; and I don’t think you could argue that their paycheck was somehow a lost investment if that officer answered calls for service. If it was an officer with a lot of time on, I think the cost is better viewed as loss of experienced personnel rather than a financial loss directly attributable to retention.

>Why does it often feel like the police work is extremely lackluster when you're the victim of a crime?

There is a lot that may contribute to this perception.

The FBI defines crimes in their Uniform Crime Reporting standard. Many calls that I respond to do not actually rise to the level of a reportable crime per UCR. Common calls include reports of “threats” which do not actually fit the definition of an assault by threat and is therefore simply a dispute which is not a crime.

Also, even with a UCR crime, enforcement can only take place when a suspect is identifiable. From a patrol perspective, we do our best to try to interview witnesses and canvass for cameras; but when we can not immediately identify a suspect, that task usually falls on detectives. I have not worked in a detective unit, but I know that the process of sifting through footage, statements, and interviews in order to positively identify a suspect takes a lot of time. Furthermore, the case load that BPD detectives carry is ridiculous - easily 4 to 5 times the FBI recommended case load per detective.

In many cases, it is almost impossible to identify a suspect in a manner which rises to probable cause. It is the difference between what you know and what you can prove. This is common with larceny incidents. Person A left their stuff in their house while Person B was also there. Person B leaves and Person A’s property is missing. Person A did not see Person B take it. Person B probably took it, but there is not enough evidence to name Person B as the suspect.

In other cases, the suspect description is so generic and cameras captured barely usable footage that there is little hope of actually identifying the offender. Even more common is that someone did see who did it, but refuses to cooperate with the police.

Even if an incident gets all the way to identifying the suspect, sometimes the responsibility of filing charges against that suspect falls upon the victim. This is true in cases such as a destruction of property, common assault (not domestic), larceny, and trespassing. In many cases, particularly domestic incidents, the victim refuses to show up for court or file for a protective order and then get angry at responding officers for “not doing anything.”

>Ivan Bates says that he's going to get cops enforcing traffic laws and squeegee statutes. Is this realistic, or is he "pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining"?

Maybe - it depends on how such a program is implemented. Mosby made a public statement and listed which crimes her office would decline to prosecute. Simply being able to enforce those named crimes would likely have a positive effect on enforcement. Quality of life crimes such as disorderly conduct, loitering, littering, spitting, etc. are generally not prosecuted and those types of charges can be useful tools to keep dealers off of corners. The problem with QOL crimes is that they are too easy to overuse and can lead to overzealous enforcement.

I’m not sure how the SAO would be able to increase traffic enforcement. There is no standing order to write traffic tickets and any such order would likely run afoul of laws against quotas; specifically Maryland PS § 3-504. I don’t see how the department could force officers to pull over more cars and issue more citations.

As for squeegee statutes - there is already a city code which prohibits squeegee behavior, Article 19 § 47-4 (4), but if the States Attorney’s Office declines to charge this crime, then it does not seem to be worth risking a foot chase in traffic and a use of force to enforce it. The question would still remain even if it were being prosecuted: Is it worth you or the suspect getting hit by a car or getting injured in a use of force for squeegeeing?

>What does the average day and average week look like on patrol?

It varies a lot by shift, by day of the week, and by season.

Midnights may get calls from 2300h - 0300h, but then the volume goes to almost zero. Day work doesn’t usually get calls until 1000h. Swing shift is almost always busy.

Peak crimes is usually on Friday and Saturday. Sunday is usually dead. Call volume peaks in the summer and dies down significantly in the winter.