Mayor Fenty Launches Sweepercam Street Cleaning Initiative
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty today officially launched “Sweepercam,” the District’s license plate recognition equipment, in Ward 7’s River Terrace neighborhood. The District and Chicago are the first cities in the country to apply this technology to street sweeping.
Sweepercams are street sweepers equipped with cameras that enable the District to improve the sweeping program’s effectiveness by decreasing the number of illegally parked vehicles. The Department of Public Works is responsible for both street sweeping and parking enforcement.
“The biggest challenge to effective street sweeping is the number of parked cars that block the sweeping lane during cleaning hours,” said Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. “This is a clear win-win for District residents. We will save resources; and removing pollutants, such as oil, grease, nitrogen and phosphorus, from the streets keeps them from being washed into rivers and streams by rainfall.”
“The 2009 street sweeping program began March 23; but ticketing begins today, March 30, and the tickets carry a $30 fine,” said DPW Director William O. Howland, Jr. “DPW traditionally gives motorists a week to get used to moving their cars before we issue parking tickets.” Mr. Howland added that while Sweepercam addresses street cleaning parking violations, DPW’s Parking Control Officers also will be working in residential neighborhoods writing tickets for other parking violations, such as expired registration and zone parking.
Street sweeping is a major component of the District’s efforts to control pollution from stormwater runoff. “Routine street sweeping collects a range of pollutants, including sediments and trace metals,” said George Hawkins, Director of the District Department of the Environment. For every 10 miles swept, about 100 pounds of oil and grease and 30 pounds each of nitrogen and phosphorus are removed by street sweepers. “Oil and grease have been linked to the high occurrence of tumors in bottom-dwelling fish in the Anacostia River,” he said.
Mr. Howland added that motorists will be able to review their citations online and the citation will provide visible evidence that a sweeper was on site and in operation, but most of all it will allow sweepers to do the job the residents on that street have asked DPW to do.
For more information about DPW’s street sweeping program and for frequently asked questions about Sweepercam, visit www.dpw.dc.gov, go to Brochures and Fact Sheets under the Information section and click on Sweepercam FAQ.
31 March, 2009
Arrest Made in the Elwood Wallace Murder Case
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that an arrest has been made in the murder of Elwood Carl Wallace, which occurred on Friday, March 27, 2009 in the 2800 block of Good Hope Road, SE. On Saturday, March 28, 2009, at approximately, 7:20 pm, 54-year-old Ronnell Calvin Knight of Washington, DC was arrested by the Joint Fugitive Task Force pursuant to an arrest warrant charging him with Murder I While Armed in connection with the homicide of Mr Wallace.
Shortly before 6:00 pm on Friday, March 27, 2009, police responded to the 2800 block of Good Hope Road, SE to investigate the report of a shooting. Upon arrival on the scene, officers located 52-year-old Elwood Carl Wallace of Upper Marlboro, Maryland suffering from a gunshot wound in front of 2808 Good Hope Road. DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services personnel responded to the scene, but they could find no life signs. Mr. Wallace was pronounced dead on the scene and subsequently transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia.
Shortly before 6:00 pm on Friday, March 27, 2009, police responded to the 2800 block of Good Hope Road, SE to investigate the report of a shooting. Upon arrival on the scene, officers located 52-year-old Elwood Carl Wallace of Upper Marlboro, Maryland suffering from a gunshot wound in front of 2808 Good Hope Road. DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services personnel responded to the scene, but they could find no life signs. Mr. Wallace was pronounced dead on the scene and subsequently transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia.
Arrest Made in Van Darrell Ewing Murder Case
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that an arrest has been made in the murder of Van Darrell Ewing, which occurred in the 4400 block of C Street, SE on Sunday, October 5, 2008. On Monday, March 30, 2009, 29-year-old Tywan Cummings, who was already incarcerated at the DC Jail on unrelated charges, was charged with Murder I While Armed pursuant to an arrest warrant.
On Sunday, October 5, 2008, at approximately 9:45 pm, officers from the Sixth District responded to the 4400 block of C Street, SE to investigate the report of a shooting. Upon arrival, they located an adult male suffering from multiple gunshot wounds in the hallway of an apartment building. Personnel from the DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department responded, but were unable to find any signs consistent with life. The victim, identified as 30-year-old Van Darrell Ewing of the unit block of 58th Street, SE, subsequently was pronounced dead on the scene by a representative from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia.
On Sunday, October 5, 2008, at approximately 9:45 pm, officers from the Sixth District responded to the 4400 block of C Street, SE to investigate the report of a shooting. Upon arrival, they located an adult male suffering from multiple gunshot wounds in the hallway of an apartment building. Personnel from the DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department responded, but were unable to find any signs consistent with life. The victim, identified as 30-year-old Van Darrell Ewing of the unit block of 58th Street, SE, subsequently was pronounced dead on the scene by a representative from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia.
Stiffer Penalties in Traffic Enforcement
Motorists who ignore traffic safety laws in the District now face stiffer penalties. Drivers who do not stop and give the right of way to pedestrians in crosswalks now face a $250 fine and three points on their driver’s license. If the driver strikes a pedestrian in the process of failing to stop, the penalty is $500 and 6 points.
For more information on DDOT’s bicycle and pedestrian programs, please visit the DDOT
web site at: http://www.ddot.dc.gov.
For more information on DDOT’s bicycle and pedestrian programs, please visit the DDOT
web site at: http://www.ddot.dc.gov.
Safety Tips Online
The MPD offers a variety of safety tips online, including tips on preventing thefts
from autos, at: http://mpdc.dc.gov/safety National Public Radio spent an evening with
Officer Mark Lakomec in the MPD’s Auto Theft Unit while he was on patrol. Listen to
the story and view a slideshow online at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=101998015
from autos, at: http://mpdc.dc.gov/safety National Public Radio spent an evening with
Officer Mark Lakomec in the MPD’s Auto Theft Unit while he was on patrol. Listen to
the story and view a slideshow online at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=101998015
27 March, 2009
Bank Robbery Suspect Apprehended
Bank Robbery Suspect Apprehended
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced the arrest of a bank robbery suspect in Northwest, Washington.
At approximately 10:45 am, on Friday, March 27, 2009, 54-year-old James Edward Simpson, of Washington, DC, was arrested and charged with one count of Bank Robbery and one count of Attempted Bank Robbery.
At approximately 10:30 am, on Friday, March 27, 2009, a lone male reportedly entered the Bank of America located in the 1000 block of Vermont Avenue, NW. Once inside, the suspect passed a note announcing a robbery. Members assigned to the Department’s First District were immediately summoned to the location and apprehended the suspect.
At approximately 2:15 pm, on Thursday, March 26, 2009, a lone male reportedly entered the BB&T Bank located in the 3100 block of 14th Street, NW. Once inside, the suspect passed a note announcing a robbery and obtained an undetermined amount of cash before fleeing the scene.
A preliminary investigation revealed that Mr. Simpson was the individual responsible in both these cases.
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced the arrest of a bank robbery suspect in Northwest, Washington.
At approximately 10:45 am, on Friday, March 27, 2009, 54-year-old James Edward Simpson, of Washington, DC, was arrested and charged with one count of Bank Robbery and one count of Attempted Bank Robbery.
At approximately 10:30 am, on Friday, March 27, 2009, a lone male reportedly entered the Bank of America located in the 1000 block of Vermont Avenue, NW. Once inside, the suspect passed a note announcing a robbery. Members assigned to the Department’s First District were immediately summoned to the location and apprehended the suspect.
At approximately 2:15 pm, on Thursday, March 26, 2009, a lone male reportedly entered the BB&T Bank located in the 3100 block of 14th Street, NW. Once inside, the suspect passed a note announcing a robbery and obtained an undetermined amount of cash before fleeing the scene.
A preliminary investigation revealed that Mr. Simpson was the individual responsible in both these cases.
PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST SAFETY
DC AND REGIONAL PARTNERS PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST SAFETY
On March 25, 2009, the District Department of Transportation’s acting Director Gabe
Klein and Assistant Chief Patrick Burke of the MPD called on District drivers, bikers and walkers to follow the city’s traffic laws and help make the roads safer for everyone. At the busy intersection of 14th and U Streets, NW, Director Klein and Assistant Chief Burke joined local elected officials and other law enforcement leaders to launch the 2009 Street Smart pedestrian safety campaign. The campaign aims to reduce the number of pedestrian injuries and deaths in the Washington metropolitan area through education and stepped up enforcement.
“In addition to making the public – walkers, bikers and drivers – more aware of each
other,” said Assistant Chief Burke, “it is critical that violators understand there are significant consequences for not adhering to our traffic safety laws.”
To date, there have been four traffic fatalities in the District in 2009, and one of the victims was a pedestrian. In 2008, 15 pedestrians and one bicyclist were killed on the city’s streets, down from 25 pedestrians and three bicyclists the previous year. That decline is encouraging and indicates the Street Smart campaign and other efforts to improve pedestrian safety are having an impact.
New to the Street Smart campaign this year is a heightened focus on cyclist safety.
Following their remarks, Director Klein and Assistant Chief Burke participated in a bike ride in the Midtown area to highlight the dangers and the responsibilities of cycling in the city.
“In the District we are really happy to see an emphasis on bicycling in this year’s campaign, with specific messages for everyone who used our streets,” said Director Klein. “Motorists:
please yield to walkers and look out for bikes when turning. Cyclists: if you want respect on the road, please obey signs and signals, don’t ride against traffic, and use a light at night. And pedestrians: please use the crosswalks and wait for the walk signal.”
On March 25, 2009, the District Department of Transportation’s acting Director Gabe
Klein and Assistant Chief Patrick Burke of the MPD called on District drivers, bikers and walkers to follow the city’s traffic laws and help make the roads safer for everyone. At the busy intersection of 14th and U Streets, NW, Director Klein and Assistant Chief Burke joined local elected officials and other law enforcement leaders to launch the 2009 Street Smart pedestrian safety campaign. The campaign aims to reduce the number of pedestrian injuries and deaths in the Washington metropolitan area through education and stepped up enforcement.
“In addition to making the public – walkers, bikers and drivers – more aware of each
other,” said Assistant Chief Burke, “it is critical that violators understand there are significant consequences for not adhering to our traffic safety laws.”
To date, there have been four traffic fatalities in the District in 2009, and one of the victims was a pedestrian. In 2008, 15 pedestrians and one bicyclist were killed on the city’s streets, down from 25 pedestrians and three bicyclists the previous year. That decline is encouraging and indicates the Street Smart campaign and other efforts to improve pedestrian safety are having an impact.
New to the Street Smart campaign this year is a heightened focus on cyclist safety.
Following their remarks, Director Klein and Assistant Chief Burke participated in a bike ride in the Midtown area to highlight the dangers and the responsibilities of cycling in the city.
“In the District we are really happy to see an emphasis on bicycling in this year’s campaign, with specific messages for everyone who used our streets,” said Director Klein. “Motorists:
please yield to walkers and look out for bikes when turning. Cyclists: if you want respect on the road, please obey signs and signals, don’t ride against traffic, and use a light at night. And pedestrians: please use the crosswalks and wait for the walk signal.”
PREVENT THEFTS FROM AUTOS
DO YOUR PART TO PREVENT THEFTS FROM AUTOS
The good news, according to a recent story that aired on National Public Radio, is that if your vehicle is broken into, it’s doubtful the thieves will take the stereo. According to the FBI’s latest crime report, car stereo thefts have fallen by more than half over the past 15 years, from more than a million in 1994 to just over 400,000, even as national car theft rates have remained high. Experts speculate
that car stereo theft has declined in popularity among thieves because most cars now roll off the production line with better factory stereos already installed. Since ALL cars now have better stereos, there’s no real market for the stolen property. The bad news is that thieves are still targeting property left in unattended cars.
Although up nationally, thefts from auto are down 19% in DC, compared to same time last year. And, while thefts from auto have decreased in DC, valuable property is still being taken from cars. Drivers now often leave other electronic devices in their vehicles. These devices are generally small (and, therefore, easily concealed), and more valuable than the bigger bulkier car stereos. Examples of
property commonly stolen from vehicles include GPS devices, cell phones, and laptop computers. You can make a difference and help reduce the risk of thieves breaking into your car by removing ALL valuables from your car before your exit it. If your car has a trunk, use it. Put valuables in there or in a locked glove compartment. Hiding items under seats is better than leaving them in plain view, but securing them inside the glove compartment or trunk is a far better deterrent. Erase the little circle that the GPS device creates. Any time you’re
shopping, place packages in the trunk, not on the passenger seats or floors. Also, keep your car doors and windows locked—all the time! And, finally, remember the old cliché: “out of sight, out of mind”—if thieves can’t see your valuables, they’re less likely to waste their time targeting your auto.
Take the time to secure your valuables Before you arrive at a friends house, Mall or bar; it really does make a difference.
The good news, according to a recent story that aired on National Public Radio, is that if your vehicle is broken into, it’s doubtful the thieves will take the stereo. According to the FBI’s latest crime report, car stereo thefts have fallen by more than half over the past 15 years, from more than a million in 1994 to just over 400,000, even as national car theft rates have remained high. Experts speculate
that car stereo theft has declined in popularity among thieves because most cars now roll off the production line with better factory stereos already installed. Since ALL cars now have better stereos, there’s no real market for the stolen property. The bad news is that thieves are still targeting property left in unattended cars.
Although up nationally, thefts from auto are down 19% in DC, compared to same time last year. And, while thefts from auto have decreased in DC, valuable property is still being taken from cars. Drivers now often leave other electronic devices in their vehicles. These devices are generally small (and, therefore, easily concealed), and more valuable than the bigger bulkier car stereos. Examples of
property commonly stolen from vehicles include GPS devices, cell phones, and laptop computers. You can make a difference and help reduce the risk of thieves breaking into your car by removing ALL valuables from your car before your exit it. If your car has a trunk, use it. Put valuables in there or in a locked glove compartment. Hiding items under seats is better than leaving them in plain view, but securing them inside the glove compartment or trunk is a far better deterrent. Erase the little circle that the GPS device creates. Any time you’re
shopping, place packages in the trunk, not on the passenger seats or floors. Also, keep your car doors and windows locked—all the time! And, finally, remember the old cliché: “out of sight, out of mind”—if thieves can’t see your valuables, they’re less likely to waste their time targeting your auto.
Take the time to secure your valuables Before you arrive at a friends house, Mall or bar; it really does make a difference.
Kick the Silence!
“Kick the Silence!” Charity Kickball
Tournament on April 25. In recognition
of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, the MPD
Victim Services Branch is partnering with
the DC Rape Crisis Center in a Charity Kickball
Tournament to raise funds for the DC Rape Crisis
Center. The event will take place on Sat., April
25, 2009, at the Harriet Tubman Elementary
School Field, 3101 13th St., NW, from 10 am - 6
pm. Individuals interested in participating are
asked to contact Esther Thomas at estheru.
thomas@dc.gov or Lucane LaFortune at
llafortune@dcrcc.org.
Tournament on April 25. In recognition
of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, the MPD
Victim Services Branch is partnering with
the DC Rape Crisis Center in a Charity Kickball
Tournament to raise funds for the DC Rape Crisis
Center. The event will take place on Sat., April
25, 2009, at the Harriet Tubman Elementary
School Field, 3101 13th St., NW, from 10 am - 6
pm. Individuals interested in participating are
asked to contact Esther Thomas at estheru.
thomas@dc.gov or Lucane LaFortune at
llafortune@dcrcc.org.
26 March, 2009
Police Alert Linden Neighborhood
Police Alert-Robbery Force & Violence
Robbery Force & Violence_2349 Hours_12th & G Street, NE_ LOF 4 B/M S-1 wearing White Shirt all other suspects wearing dark clothing L/S towards Maryland Avenue, NE DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #I20090150128
Robbery Force & Violence_2349 Hours_12th & G Street, NE_ LOF 4 B/M S-1 wearing White Shirt all other suspects wearing dark clothing L/S towards Maryland Avenue, NE DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #I20090150128
Police Alert Linden Neighborhood
Police Alert-Robbery Snatch
Robbery Snatch_2156 Hours_ 700 block 13th Street, NE between H & Linden Place, NE_ LOF 2 Males wearing black gloves and gray sweatshirts with hoods running west on G Street, NE DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #I20090149945
Robbery Snatch_2156 Hours_ 700 block 13th Street, NE between H & Linden Place, NE_ LOF 2 Males wearing black gloves and gray sweatshirts with hoods running west on G Street, NE DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #I20090149945
25 March, 2009
Arrest Made in Murder Case
Arrest Made in a May 2008 Murder Case
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that an arrest has been made in the murder of Jasmine McCray, which occurred in the 4800 block of G Street, SE on Monday, May 5, 2008. On Monday, March 23, 2009, at 1:15 pm, 20-year-old Robert Lee Walker of Northwest Washington, DC was arrested in the 1200 block of Taylor Street, NW by members of the Joint Fugitive Task Force pursuant to an arrest warrant charging him with First Degree Murder While Armed in the shooting death of Jasmine McCray.
On Monday, May 5, 2008, at approximately 3:07 am, officers from the Sixth District responded to the 4900 block of G Street, SE to investigate the report of a shooting. Upon arrival, officers discovered an adult female lying in the street in the 4800 block of G Street suffering from a gunshot wound to the head. The victim, identified as 23-year-old Jasmine McCray of the 4900 block of G Street, SE, was transported to an area hospital where she was pronounced dead at 3:43 am.
During the course of their investigation, officers located another gunshot victim in the 4800 block of Benning Road, SE. That victim, an adult male, was treated and released at an area hospital for a non-life threatening injury. His identity is being withheld because he is a potential witness in the case.
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that an arrest has been made in the murder of Jasmine McCray, which occurred in the 4800 block of G Street, SE on Monday, May 5, 2008. On Monday, March 23, 2009, at 1:15 pm, 20-year-old Robert Lee Walker of Northwest Washington, DC was arrested in the 1200 block of Taylor Street, NW by members of the Joint Fugitive Task Force pursuant to an arrest warrant charging him with First Degree Murder While Armed in the shooting death of Jasmine McCray.
On Monday, May 5, 2008, at approximately 3:07 am, officers from the Sixth District responded to the 4900 block of G Street, SE to investigate the report of a shooting. Upon arrival, officers discovered an adult female lying in the street in the 4800 block of G Street suffering from a gunshot wound to the head. The victim, identified as 23-year-old Jasmine McCray of the 4900 block of G Street, SE, was transported to an area hospital where she was pronounced dead at 3:43 am.
During the course of their investigation, officers located another gunshot victim in the 4800 block of Benning Road, SE. That victim, an adult male, was treated and released at an area hospital for a non-life threatening injury. His identity is being withheld because he is a potential witness in the case.
Arrest in Triple Homicide Carver Terrace Neighborhood
Arrest Made in the Triple Homicide in the 2000 Block of Maryland Avenue, NE
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that an arrest has been made in the triple homicide which occurred inside of an apartment building in the 2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE.
On Saturday, March 21, 2009, 44-year-old Joseph Randolph Mays was arrested and charged with three counts of Murder 1 While Armed.
Shortly after 1 pm on Saturday, March 21, 2009, members assigned to the Department’s Fifth District responded to the 2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE to investigate a call for service. Upon arrival, officers requested the assistance of DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services personnel to provide forced entry into the location. Once inside the location, they discovered four victims suffering from apparent trauma to the body.
Victim # 1 is identified as 37-year-old Erika Peters, who was pronounced dead on the scene.
Victim #2 whose identity is not being released pending next of kin notification, was pronounced dead on the scene.
Victim # 3 whose identity is not being released pending next of kin notification, was transported to an area hospital in critical condition. The victim was subsequently pronounced dead.
The suspect 44-year-old Joseph Randolph Mays was transported to an area hospital with non-life threatening injuries. He was treated and released into the custody of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch.
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that an arrest has been made in the triple homicide which occurred inside of an apartment building in the 2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE.
On Saturday, March 21, 2009, 44-year-old Joseph Randolph Mays was arrested and charged with three counts of Murder 1 While Armed.
Shortly after 1 pm on Saturday, March 21, 2009, members assigned to the Department’s Fifth District responded to the 2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE to investigate a call for service. Upon arrival, officers requested the assistance of DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services personnel to provide forced entry into the location. Once inside the location, they discovered four victims suffering from apparent trauma to the body.
Victim # 1 is identified as 37-year-old Erika Peters, who was pronounced dead on the scene.
Victim #2 whose identity is not being released pending next of kin notification, was pronounced dead on the scene.
Victim # 3 whose identity is not being released pending next of kin notification, was transported to an area hospital in critical condition. The victim was subsequently pronounced dead.
The suspect 44-year-old Joseph Randolph Mays was transported to an area hospital with non-life threatening injuries. He was treated and released into the custody of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch.
Person of Interest in William Vancroft Missing Person Case
The Metropolitan Police Department is seeking the public’s assistance in locating 17-year-old William Vancroft, who was last seen at about 4:30 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2009 in the 1300 block of G Street, SE.
William may be in the company of a known acquaintance, Erica Laws, his deceased father’s girlfriend. Ms. Laws is described as a 40-year-old black female, 5’3” in height, weighing 125 pounds, with black and brown hair and brown eyes.
William is described as a medium complexioned black male, 5’8” tall, weighing about 168 pounds, with brown eyes and black hair. He was last seen wearing blue jeans and a burgundy sweater. He is in need of medication and may appear to be disoriented.
Anyone who has information regarding the whereabouts of William Vancroft or Erica Laws is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099.
William may be in the company of a known acquaintance, Erica Laws, his deceased father’s girlfriend. Ms. Laws is described as a 40-year-old black female, 5’3” in height, weighing 125 pounds, with black and brown hair and brown eyes.
William is described as a medium complexioned black male, 5’8” tall, weighing about 168 pounds, with brown eyes and black hair. He was last seen wearing blue jeans and a burgundy sweater. He is in need of medication and may appear to be disoriented.
Anyone who has information regarding the whereabouts of William Vancroft or Erica Laws is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099.
24 March, 2009
Police Alert-
Police Alert-
ATTEMPT ROBBERY_1635 HOURS_1647 BENNING RD NE_LOF 2 B/M' 1 SUBJ HAD ON RED JACKET THE OTHER SUBJ HAD ON BLUE JACKET SUBJ'S ON FOOT HEADED TOWARDS BENNING RD NE BETWEEN THE LAUNDRY MAT AND PHARMACY DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #I20090147624
ATTEMPT ROBBERY_1635 HOURS_1647 BENNING RD NE_LOF 2 B/M' 1 SUBJ HAD ON RED JACKET THE OTHER SUBJ HAD ON BLUE JACKET SUBJ'S ON FOOT HEADED TOWARDS BENNING RD NE BETWEEN THE LAUNDRY MAT AND PHARMACY DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #I20090147624
Advisory
A film production special effects scene will take place March 25 between 9:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. on the Potomac River. It will last only two seconds and will involve a brief flash and plume of smoke.
23 March, 2009
STREET SMART CAMPAIGN FOCUSES ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Regionally, pedestrians and bicyclists account for a fifth of those killed on the roads in the Washington region (averaging 86 per year, with over 2,600 injured). “Street Smart” is an annual public education and awareness campaign in the Washington, DC, suburban Maryland and northern Virginia area. Since its beginning in 2002, the campaign has used radio, newspaper,and transit advertising, public awareness efforts, and added law enforcement, to respond to the challenges of pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
The latest wave of the “Street Smart” regional pedestrian and bicyclist safety outreach campaign will begin March 23, and run through April 19, 2009. The goals of the campaign are to change motorist and pedestrian behavior, and reduce pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and injuries, by increasing awareness of the consequences of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and recommending actions to reduce risks. Simple actions, like using crosswalks, obeying signals, and looking “left-right-left” will help reduce the risk of a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle. Drivers can take precautions like slowing down and stopping for pedestrians. During the Street Smart campaign, area law enforcement partners will remind walkers and drivers of their responsibilities, and they’ll also be taking action against unsafe and illegal behavior.
In addition to walkers and drivers, cyclists also need to take the proper precautions before hitting the road. They must obey all regulatory signs and traffic lights. Bikers should never ride against traffic, as riding with the flow helps avoid potential accidents. Bikers should also remember to use hand signals to inform motorists of what they intend to do, and ride in a straight line to the right of traffic. Finally, ALWAYS wear a helmet – they dramatically reduce the risk of head injury in a bicycle accident.
In the 2007 Street Smart enforcement waves, the MPD gave 5,695 total citations, 3,725 to drivers and 1,931 to pedestrians. Between the March 23-April 19 campaign period, MPD will conduct two weeks of intensive enforcement during the campaign period. MPD has trained 230 officers in a course on effective pedestrian enforcement techniques since January of 2007.
The latest wave of the “Street Smart” regional pedestrian and bicyclist safety outreach campaign will begin March 23, and run through April 19, 2009. The goals of the campaign are to change motorist and pedestrian behavior, and reduce pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and injuries, by increasing awareness of the consequences of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and recommending actions to reduce risks. Simple actions, like using crosswalks, obeying signals, and looking “left-right-left” will help reduce the risk of a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle. Drivers can take precautions like slowing down and stopping for pedestrians. During the Street Smart campaign, area law enforcement partners will remind walkers and drivers of their responsibilities, and they’ll also be taking action against unsafe and illegal behavior.
In addition to walkers and drivers, cyclists also need to take the proper precautions before hitting the road. They must obey all regulatory signs and traffic lights. Bikers should never ride against traffic, as riding with the flow helps avoid potential accidents. Bikers should also remember to use hand signals to inform motorists of what they intend to do, and ride in a straight line to the right of traffic. Finally, ALWAYS wear a helmet – they dramatically reduce the risk of head injury in a bicycle accident.
In the 2007 Street Smart enforcement waves, the MPD gave 5,695 total citations, 3,725 to drivers and 1,931 to pedestrians. Between the March 23-April 19 campaign period, MPD will conduct two weeks of intensive enforcement during the campaign period. MPD has trained 230 officers in a course on effective pedestrian enforcement techniques since January of 2007.
OCTO LAUNCHES DIGITAL PUBLIC SQUARE
The Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) has launched the District of
Columbia’s Digital Public Square (DPS) which puts you, the citizen, in the driver’s seat to discover how District agencies work, participate in the democratic process and connect with your government. Popular downloads available at the Digital Public Square include Crime Incidents and Arrest data from the Metropolitan Police Department, public space permits from DC Department of Transportation, and much more. Users can also get information through live data feeds, custom downloads and a comprehensive data catalog.
In addition to getting information and data, visitors to the DPS can get information about the District of Columbia through featured applications like iLive.at, DC Historic Tours, Park It DC, and “We the People Wiki.” Finally, existing communication tools like Twitter, and community network tools such as Facebook and Linkin, provide even more avenues for our community members to stay connected to other participants in the Digital Public Square.
Columbia’s Digital Public Square (DPS) which puts you, the citizen, in the driver’s seat to discover how District agencies work, participate in the democratic process and connect with your government. Popular downloads available at the Digital Public Square include Crime Incidents and Arrest data from the Metropolitan Police Department, public space permits from DC Department of Transportation, and much more. Users can also get information through live data feeds, custom downloads and a comprehensive data catalog.
In addition to getting information and data, visitors to the DPS can get information about the District of Columbia through featured applications like iLive.at, DC Historic Tours, Park It DC, and “We the People Wiki.” Finally, existing communication tools like Twitter, and community network tools such as Facebook and Linkin, provide even more avenues for our community members to stay connected to other participants in the Digital Public Square.
Chief lanier and Attorney General Nickles Testimony
Public Hearing on Two Bills: the "Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009" and the "Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009"
The following joint testimony was presented by Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and MPD Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier to the District of Columbia Council Committee on the Judiciary, Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chair, on March 18, 2009, at the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Good morning Chairman Mendelson and members of the Committee. We are pleased to have this opportunity to testify at this roundtable regarding Bills 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009” (the “Omnibus”), Bill-18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009,” and Bill 18-152, the “Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009.”
We are submitting this testimony jointly to emphasize the importance of Bill 18-138, the Mayor’s “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009,” to the District of Columbia. This legislation is a creative and thoughtful collaborative effort of the Mayor, the Attorney General, the Chief of Police, the United States Attorney, and the community. In fact, some provisions of the bill have been revised in response to testimony before this Committee in November, as well as other community comments, and we look forward to hearing more feedback today on this critical legislation.
Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009”
The Mayor’s Omnibus Anti-Crime bill is ambitious in scope. It seeks to modernize a number of laws and expand the tools available to law enforcement to protect the safety of the residents of the District. The Omnibus, itself, is 56 pages and proposes numerous changes to District law that range from re-writing and modernizing the District’s “Stalking Law” to more procedural provisions such as allowing the court to close on New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, thereby saving the District significant overtime expenses. Rather then discuss in detail every section of the Omnibus in our testimony today, we are attaching a section-by-section analysis and the rationale for each proposed change. Our testimony highlights those portions that we believe will have the most significant impact on public safety; that is the portions relating to firearms, witness protection, and gangs.
Firearms
Bill 18-138 proposes a number of changes to our criminal firearms law. With the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller, the District is entering a new era in which we expect legal gun ownership to increase. In fact, since the Heller ruling, MPD’s Gun Registration Unit has registered more than 400 handguns and 150 rifles and shotguns. While the District government is strongly committed to complying with the ruling, and ensuring that law-abiding residents can possess a handgun in their home for self-defense, we also want to send an unambiguous message to those who commit violent acts that we will not tolerate criminal gun possession or use.
We are having some success in addressing criminal use of a firearm. In 2008, gun crimes showed double digit reductions across the board, including a 12 percent reduction in robberies with guns and a 14 percent reduction in assaults with guns. In fact, there were fewer gun crimes in the summer of 2008 than any summer since at least 2003. There was a 10 percent increase in the number of illegal guns recovered, for the highest number recovered in at least the past 6 years (excluding gun buy-back or amnesty programs).
Despite these successful efforts, guns are still used in about four out of five homicides in the District, nearly half of the robberies, and one-fifth of the assaults with a dangerous weapon. We can—and must--do more to ensure that repeat violent gun offenders who have been arrested are not allowed to quickly return to the communities they have victimized. The Omnibus strengthens how the entire criminal justice system deals with criminal use and possession of a firearm by:
Lengthening sentences for violent felons who possess guns (Section 208);
Establishing for the purposes of pre-trial detention that criminal possession of firearms presents a danger to the community (Section 212);
Closing a loophole that makes it difficult to charge illegal possession of a firearm when it is found in a vehicle (Section 220); and
Enhancing supervision of gun offenders who are released to the community (Section 219).
Lengthening sentences for violent felons who possess guns (Section 208)
One of the most serious threats to public safety is from previously convicted felons who are later found to be in possession of a firearm. Under both federal and District law, felons cannot possess firearms.
In 2006, the Council passed legislation imposing a mandatory-minimum sentence of one year for a previously convicted felon who is then convicted of being in possession of a firearm. This means that when police officers arrest, and the courts convict, a felon in possession of a firearm, that offender is off the streets for at least a year on the gun possession charge alone -- the police and prosecutors no longer have to wait until the felon commits another crime with the gun to exact significant consequences. Over the past two years, this mandatory-minimum sentence has helped MPD and the U.S. Attorney’s Office get almost 250 felons with guns off the streets.
This is critical because a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm clearly demonstrates that he or she has not been rehabilitated and is a serious danger to the community. We know already that offenders with a previous conviction for a serious crime are more likely to commit future violent offenses. According to a 12-year study by the Department of Justice, 38 percent of violent felons had a previous felony conviction and 15 percent had a previous conviction for a violent felony [Footnote 1]. If a person previously convicted of a violent felony is found again with a firearm, getting him or her off the street is essential to preventing future violent crimes.
We believe that the existing mandatory-minimum sentence has been effective in getting criminals off the streets and in reducing violent gun crime in the District since 2006. But we also know that this sentencing can be made stronger and be even more effective in deterring felons from carrying guns and in preventing the next gun crime. We can look to our neighbors in Virginia to gauge the impact a longer mandatory-minimum sentence could have. Virginia has a two-year mandatory-minimum sentence for felons in possession of a firearm, which increases to five years if the previous felony conviction was for a violent crime. Local, state, and federal law enforcement and prosecutors credit tough and certain sentences for gun offenses with significant reductions in violent crime in Richmond. Homicides in Richmond have dropped in each of the past five years, from 93 in 2003 to 32 in 2008—a two-thirds reduction overall. In 2008, violent crime decreased 14 percent [Footnote 2].
Section 208 also clarifies that existing penalty enhancements for gun crimes includes previous convictions in other jurisdictions, not just the District of Columbia. The thinking behind this is that if the purpose of the enhanced penalty is to punish recidivists more severely, the place where they committed their first crime of violence should make no difference.
Establishing that criminal possession of firearms presents a danger to the community (Section 212)
Bill 18-183 would also give the court more authority to detain gun offenders. When an individual uses a gun in a crime of violence, illegally possesses a gun, or is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, the Act creates a presumption in favor of pre-trial detention. While everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent, this legislation is consistent with the District’s current statutory approach to pre-trial detention in that the courts must consider the nature of the charged crime when considering whether it is safe to release that person back into the community.
Currently under DC Code 23-1322, which governs pre-trial detention, the government can establish a presumption that the accused should be held pending trial by proving a "substantial probability" that the accused possessed the weapon. The Omnibus proposes changing 23-1322 to lessen the burden on the government at the detention stage to having to establish that there is "probable cause" to believe that the accused possessed the weapon in order for the court to detain the individual. In addition to CPWL, the Omnibus also proposes adding several other gun related charges, including carrying a rifle or shotgun, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and unlawful possession of a firearm to the provision that would permit pretrial detention.
Closing a loophole that makes it difficult to charge illegal possession of a firearm when it is found in a vehicle (Section 220)
Law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and the community can all agree that people illegally carrying or transporting guns in the community are a danger. As we will discuss later, all too often criminals will use cars to facilitate criminal acts to ensure a quick get-away. Criminals carrying guns in DC also know that it is much harder to convict someone of criminal possession of a firearm if there is more than one person in the car and the gun is located such that no one has clear control of the gun. Because of District case law , we see in the histories of some of our most violent offenders multiple arrests for criminal possession of a firearm that do not end in conviction. In order to close this gap, the Administration is proposing a new offense of illegal possession of a firearm in a vehicle. To be clear, this offense would not apply to anyone with a legally registered firearm or to anyone transporting a firearm to a lawful activity. Nor would it be used to prosecute someone who unknowingly rides in a car with a firearm. It would mean that criminals will no longer be able to knowingly ride around with a gun in clear sight in a car and then claim that it was not in their possession or under their control as a defense.
Enhancing supervision of gun offenders who are released to the community (Section 219)
The Omnibus also strengthens supervision of convicted gun offenders once they are released back into the community. Modeled on successful programs in New York City and Baltimore, the Anti-Crime Act will create a “gun offender registry,” which will require gun offenders to register and maintain an accurate address with MPD for two years after incarceration or supervision ends.
We asked officials in Baltimore for information on the evaluation of their gun offender registration program. As of February 3, 2009, Baltimore had 472 gun offenders under supervision. 270 were incarcerated, 50 lived outside of the city, and 152 were out of jail and living in Baltimore. In just over a year, overall recidivism for these offenders is quite low: only three people in the registry were re-arrested for handgun violations.
As noted above, studies conclusively demonstrate that gun offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, and their subsequent arrests are more likely to involve crimes of violence. Baltimore found that 42% of defendants charged with felony gun crimes have prior gun arrests. In New York City, when compared to other felons, those convicted of felony gun possession were more likely to be re-arrested for crimes of violence and perhaps most significant is the finding that previous gun offenders are four times more likely to be arrested for homicide than other offenders.
Witness Security
Section 201 of the Omnibus allows police and prosecutors to remove the names and addresses of victims of certain crimes on public police reports, including victims of domestic crimes, violent crimes, stalking, and threats. Oftentimes, victims have a real and persistent fear of re-victimization or retaliation, which is heightened when their assailants can find them. This is true of many crimes, but particularly of those crimes covered by this provision. In some cases, victims move and sometimes change their name in fear that assailants will be able to find them. In addition, for sexual assault victims in particular, there is the added fear of public exposure of the nature of their victimization. Notwithstanding these valid victim concerns, under current law, a victim’s name and address are public. This amendment seeks to protect this information in a way that is sensitive to competing interests, including the defendant’s right to know the identity of his or her accuser.
To be clear, this provision would not change the right of a defendant in a criminal case to know who the victim is. This information will still be disclosed, and if need be, under a protective order. However, under District law, a victim also has a right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and privacy, and to be reasonably protected from the accused [Footnote 3]. While these issues have long been a concern, this protection against unnecessary disclosure of witness information is needed now more than ever. Retaliation is a significant threat in modern crime. Witnesses have been murdered and otherwise assaulted to deter them from testifying against perpetrators of crime. The government needs to do everything it reasonably can to protect those who come forward -- protecting their names and addresses is a small, but significant step in that direction. Sensitive to the concerns expressed by the media since introduction of the bill, MPD is already working out an efficient process by which members of the press can quickly access necessary information that achieves the aims of the legislation as well as those of the media.
Gangs
Section 102 of Bill 18-138 would give the DC Attorney General the ability to seek civil injunctions against criminal gangs operating in the District. As you are aware, gangs are a growing problem in the District of Columbia and nationwide. In fact, we were very pleased to see Chairman Mendelson adopt word for word in Bill 18-151 the “Findings and Declaration of Necessity” proposed in the Omnibus, which recognizes the growth of gangs, the injurious effect that gang activity has on neighborhoods, and the need for creative action to address these issues. We look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to come up with a final version of the legislation that achieves our common policy goals in light of the resources of the OAG. Gangs may range in sophistication from a formal organization with a leader or ruling council, gang colors, gang identifiers, gang name and national affiliation, to a looser knit group of individuals who come from the same neighborhood or housing development and regularly commit violent crimes together. Both groups involve individuals who ban together, stake out turf, harass innocent residents, commit violent or other crimes, and war with competing groups with the result that bystanders are often hurt or killed in the crossfire. If we are to reduce crime in the District, we must figure out ways to prevent both of these types of gangs from flourishing in our city.
At the present time, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) estimates that there are approximately 1,730 active gang members in 87 gangs in the District. Each gang has established turf in a city neighborhood. There are 8 gangs who have made a neighborhood in the First Police District (1D) their turf; 18 gangs who are at home in 3D; 13 gangs who have established themselves in 4D; 12 gangs who operate in communities served by 5D; 16 gangs who base themselves out of 6D neighborhoods; and 20 gangs that make a neighborhood in 7D their home. Every day, citizens and neighborhoods in the District are victimized by the activities of these gangs. For example, in September of this year, eight members of a local Bloods gang sect were indicted on federal racketeering charges. A federal grand jury returned a 19-count indictment against them which included the charges of conspiracy to commit kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity, kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity, assault with a dangerous weapon, six counts of sexual abuse and obstructing justice.
Faced with growing gang activity, jurisdictions around the country have tried to develop innovative ways to reduce such crime, impede gang growth, and generally interfere with gangs’ ability to function. Sometime in the late 1980s and early 90s, a school of thought developed with the following principles:
gangs are nothing more than an unincorporated association of individuals who regularly come together;
under common law, an association of individuals is responsible for the consequences of its activities.
associations can be sued in civil court to enjoin them from performing illegal activities; and
what gangs do in public space constitutes a public nuisance.
Thinking about gangs in this new way led to an innovative approach for reducing the incidence of gang violence. City attorneys began suing gangs in civil court seeking orders that would enjoin them from being a public nuisance. Civil courts issued injunctions against gangs, as unincorporated associations, and their respective members for violations of local nuisance laws [Footnote 4]. The injunctions were limited in scope and, in order to not interfere with constitutionally protected activity, only enjoined persons from engaging in listed activities in a relatively small geographic area. These gang injunctions prohibit gang members from engaging in a limited amount of activities that are considered a nuisance to the community or that have been proven to be precursors to the gang’s criminal and nuisance behavior [Footnote 5]. Please note that the key to this enforcement tool is that it prevents and enjoins identified gang members from associating with each other within the defined boundaries of public space or within view of that public space.
Gang members who knowingly violate the terms of these injunctions are charged with criminal contempt in the same way that any party in a civil matter can be charged with contempt for violating a court order. In other words, the purpose of the gang injunction is to initially use the civil system to change the behavior of the gang members in ways that reduce and interrupt their ability to engage in criminal and nuisance activities, intimidate neighborhood residents, recruit others into the gang, and lessen the gangs’ ability to control turf. So long as enjoined gang members do not violate the terms of the injunction, they can go about their legal business even within the limited geographic area established in the injunction.
It is important to note at the outset that these injunctions have survived constitutional challenges. For example, in Gallo v. Acuna, 929 P.2d 596 (1997), the Supreme Court of California upheld the validity of an injunction issued against a gang in San Jose. The Court held that the defendants' association was not entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution because the gang was not formed for the purpose of engaging in protected speech or religious activities. The Court further held that the trial court's preliminary decree was not overbroad because it was addressed to identifiable parties and to specific circumstances and the enjoined acts were particularly described. In the conclusion of the majority opinion, the California Court stated:
To hold that the liberty of the peaceful, industrious residents of Rocksprings must be forfeited to preserve the illusion of freedom for those whose ill conduct is deleterious to the community as a whole is to ignore half the political promise of the Constitution and the whole of its sense. The freedom to leave one's house and move about at will, and to have a measure of personal security is "implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' enshrined in the history and basic constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples. Preserving the peace is the first duty of government, and it is for the protection of the community from the predations of the idle, the contentious, and the brutal that government was invented.” (Internal citations omitted.) [Footnote 6]
The Court of Appeals of Texas, like the Supreme Court of California, has also upheld the validity of civil gang injunctions. In August 2008, the Texas court ruled in the case of Goyzueta v. Texas, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6565, that the Texas Penal Code which establishes civil gang injunctions
was not overbroad under the First Amendment. [The injunction] did not restrict a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct; the only conduct it restricted was a knowing violation of a court order. Moreover, it was not void for vagueness. The clear language of the statute would have given an individual in defendant's position clear notice that violating the curfew amounted to a criminal offense. Further, it was not arbitrarily applied; instead, it prevented arbitrary enforcement through the establishment of certain guidelines.
Civil gang injunctions have had success in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities. For example, in 2002, Professor Jeffrey Grogger released a study of the effectiveness of civil gang injunctions on reported violent crime in Los Angeles County [Footnote 7]. Professor Grogger did a comprehensive study comparing the target areas, where there were injunctions, with adjoining areas and neighboring areas. He concluded that the civil gang injunctions led the level of violent crime to decrease in the target areas by about 7%.
Professor Grogger then analyzed whether the decrease in violent crime due to the civil gang injunctions caused crime to increase or spillover into adjoining areas. He compared the changes in violent crime within adjoining areas to changes within neighboring areas over the same time period. The result was a statistically insignificant spillover amount. So, while the civil gang injunction was shown to decrease violent crime in the injunction target areas, it did not displace that crime to surrounding neighborhoods. In other words, as Professor Grogger states, “under the assumption that the neighboring areas provide an adequate comparison sample, the estimates indicate that the injunctions significantly reduced the level of violent crime in the target areas without causing spillovers.” [Footnote 8]
In addition to decreasing violent crime, there is evidence that civil gang injunctions actually decrease neighborhood residents’ fear of intimidation and confrontation with gang members. Gang injunctions, therefore, serve both as a crime reduction tool as well as a mechanism that makes everyday citizens more comfortable going about their business.
In April 2004, a report entitled Can Civil Gang Injunctions Change Communities? A Community Assessment of the Impact of Civil Gang Injunctions was submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice [Footnote 9]. As reported in the abstract:
“[t]he study surveyed 797 San Bernardino residents in five neighborhoods eighteen months prior and 1229 residents six months subsequent to the issuance of a [gang] injunction.” The report concludes that “[a]nalyses indicated positive evidence of short-term effects in the primary injunction area, including less gang presence, fewer reports of gang intimidation and less fear of confrontation with gang members. The primary injunction area showed no significant changes in intermediate or long-term outcomes save lower fear of crime. See report at page iv. In fact, “fewer residents report acts of gang intimidation and residents report less fear of confrontation with gang members. We estimate a net shift of thirteen percent fewer respondents experiencing intimidation and twelve percent fewer respondents experiencing more than a little fear in the primary injunction area relative to its control. See report at page ix.
Of course, the use of civil gang injunctions has generated valid concerns regarding their impact on civil liberties, and we would like to address those concerns beyond the legal analysis summarized above. First, please note that the legislation does not allow judges to issue stay away orders that would prevent people from going into their neighborhoods or standing in public space. It does not single out any group based on race, religion, gender or any other constitutionally protected status. It does not prevent family members -- even known gang members -- from gathering with each other in their homes outside of public view. What Section 103 of the bill does do is authorize the issuance of civil injunctions against criminal gangs that would declare their public gang-related behavior a nuisance and permit a judge to issue orders aimed at gang members that would prohibit certain gang related activities from occurring in the public space within a narrowly defined geographic area.
Now let us turn our attention to the specifics of the gang injunction proposal. As we mentioned earlier in our testimony, section 102(a) states the purpose of the legislation as creating “a mechanism so that civil actions may be brought to enjoin gangs and gang members from engaging in activities which create a public nuisance.” It then recaps gang-related crime in the District and concludes that “[s]uch gang activity injures the health, safety and security of the District’s citizens, frightens or intimidates them, obstructs the free use of both private and public property, and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of the lives and property of the District’s residents, and is therefore a nuisance.” Finally, Section 102 (a) declares that “[t]he enactment of this subchapter is hereby declared to be a public necessity.” Again we are very pleased that Chairman Mendelson shares our concerns by adopting the same statement in Bill 18-151.
Since introducing the concept of civil gang injunctions in Bill 17-951 and providing testimony in the last legislative session we have re-written several portions of our original proposal to meet some of the concerns raised at the roundtable. These changes were the result of careful consideration of comments from residents and civil liberty advocates. For example we have expanded the definition of “gang” [Footnote 10] in section 102(b)(2), “gang activity” in section 102(b)(4) and “Public Nuisance; Use of Space” in 102(d). By adding to and clarifying these definitions we believe that we have given specific notice as to the activities that this legislation targets, while maintaining the basic premise under Section 102(c) that it is a public nuisance for a gang “to engage in gang activity in any private place or public space in the District of Columbia or to use any private place or public space in the District of Columbia as a base for engaging in gang activity in another jurisdiction.” Similarly, Section 102(d) recognizes that certain gang activity in public space is a public nuisance. This portion of the bill states that “[i]t is a public nuisance for a criminal street gang to engage in a pattern of behavior on public space which has an adverse impact upon the community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons.” Moreover, we have provided a procedure whereby juveniles may also be brought under a civil gang injunction.
Section 102(e) establishes the ability of OAG to file a complaint in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to enjoin public nuisances created by gangs. It acknowledges that in litigation of public nuisances, the government is not required to furnish bond or security and that actions to enjoin a nuisance are tried in equity without a jury [Footnote 11]. In another significant change from Bill 17-951, section 102(e)(6) provides that OAG must establish the existence of the public nuisance by the more stringent civil standard of clear and convincing evidence, another change made since first introduction of the legislation.
Section 102(e)(2) requires that the complaint “must identify the criminal street gang and allege that there is an adverse impact of the gang’s activities within a defined geographic area such that there exists a public nuisance” and requires OAG to “list at least three criminal street gang members whom the Attorney General alleges should be designated to receive service on behalf of the entity.” Significantly, section 102(e)(3) allows “any person who associates with others to engage in gang activity as a member of a criminal street gang may be made a defendant in the suit,” and “any person who owns or is responsible for maintaining a place that is used for engaging in gang activity also may be made a defendant in the suit.”
OAG expects that it will use law enforcement witnesses to prove the existence of the gang related public nuisances. That said, Section 102(f) of the bill provides that when proof of the existence of the public nuisance depends, in whole or in part, upon information from civilian witnesses, the court, in its discretion, may issue an order to protect those witnesses. While OAG does not expect that gang injunction litigation will be premised in any great part on affidavits of civilian witnesses, we wanted to be sure that should it be necessary that we use civilian affidavits, there are some provisions built into the statute that would protect these vulnerable witnesses from retaliation from gang members whose gang is the target of the case.
The bill provides that, when necessary, judges may place under seal the supporting affidavits or the portions thereof that would identify civilian witnesses. This portion of the bill was based upon the Drug or Prostitution-Related Nuisance Abatement Act, as codified in D.C. Official Code § 42-3101, et seq. Specifically, D.C. Official Code § 42-3105, which states that “[i]f proof of the existence of the drug or prostitution-related nuisance depends, in whole or in part, upon affidavits of witnesses who are not law enforcement officers, the court in its discretion may issue orders to protect those witnesses, including, but not limited to, placing the complaint and supporting affidavits under seal.” Certainly, the concern for witness safety that led the Council to protect civilian witnesses when they assist in litigation to end drug or prostitution related nuisances applies to civilian witnesses who may assist in litigation aimed at ending gang related nuisances.
Sections 102(g) and (h) authorize the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions. They provide that if the court finds that the gang activity constitutes a public nuisance, the court may enter an order permanently enjoining, abating, and preventing the continuance or recurrence of the nuisance. They further state that the court order shall be directed against the crew or criminal street gang and its respective members prohibiting specified activities in a defined geographic area. In subparagraph (A), it provides that “[t]he order shall enjoin (i) the crew or criminal street gang and its respective members from engaging in gang activities; and (ii) the crew or criminal street gang members from associating or congregating with one or more other enjoined crew or criminal street gang members in public space within a defined geographic area.”
Section 102(h) then goes on to state that the injunction may also impose other reasonable prohibitions to disrupt gang activities. Among the possible enjoinable activities listed in the legislation, they include prohibiting gang members from:
Using private property for gang activities;
Confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking, or assaulting any person;
Possessing or knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone who is in possession of any firearm, ammunition, or other weapon;
Possessing or knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone who is in possession of any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia;
Being present on any private property within a defined geographic area without the written consent of the owner;
Defacing any public or private property;
Possessing graffiti material [Footnote 12] ; and
Violating a court-defined curfew.
When drafting Section 102 of this bill, we were very careful not to impinge on the gang members’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. Freedom of association does not extend to joining with others to commit illegal activities. As the Court stated in Gallo, supra, “[f]reedom of association, in the sense protected by the First Amendment, does not extend to joining with others for the purpose of depriving third parties of their lawful rights." (Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 753, 776 [114 S. Ct. 2516, 2530, 129 L. Ed. 2d 593]). We do not, in short, believe that the activities of the gang and its members ... are either "private" or "intimate" as constitutionally defined; the fact that defendants may "exercise some discrimination in choosing associates [by a] selective process of inclusion and exclusion" ( New York State Club Assn. v. New York City (1988) 487 U.S. 1, 13 [108 S. Ct. 2225, 2234, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1], italics added) does not mean that the association or its activities ... is one that commands protection under the First Amendment.”
Section 102(h) also establishes a procedure for bringing new gang members under the terms of the injunction. These provisions were added in recognition that gangs continuously and actively recruit new members. It makes no sense not to have a mechanism to subject new members of the unincorporated association to the same injunction that was designed to eliminate the public nuisance caused by the members who recruited them.
Section 102(i) establishes the penalty that the court could impose on persons who it has found to have violated its injunction. Under this provision, a person who violates a temporary or permanent injunction is subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 180 days, or both. This charge, as a variant of criminal contempt, would be prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The final portion of the bill regarding gangs that we would like to highlight is found in Section 102(l) and is entitled “Injunction Review and Termination of Gang Affiliation.” While the Texas statute does not specifically provide for a way for persons who have disassociated themselves from gangs to remove themselves from the terms of the gang injunction, and we have found no California case law on point, in drafting this legislation we wanted to make sure that persons who honestly and demonstrably have cut off all ties with gang activities could cease to come under the terms of the injunction. As a result of concerns raised at the previous roundtable on gang injunctions, this version of the bill now includes specific factors that the court may use in determining whether a person is still gang affiliated. These factors include: the length of time that the person has disassociated him or her self from gang and criminal activity, establishment of residency outside the enjoined area, the obtaining of a GED or other educational certificate, gainful employment and completion of a court approved program which promotes a gang free lifestyle.
Not withstanding that this Omnibus added a provision that would give more guidance to the court when it determines if a gang member has dissociated themselves from the gang and therefore should come out from under the terms of the gang injunction, the bill retains the requirement that the Executive Branch promulgate regulations that would indicate under what circumstances a person may obtain the government’s assistance in lifting the injunction. We want to be clear that what we are talking about here is an alternative method that may be used by the former gang member. With that goal in mind, Section 102(l) continues to require OAG in consultation with MPD to “promulgate regulations within 120 day detailing the process to provide relief to enjoined gang members who disaffiliate with the enjoined gang.”
When considering whether to seek a civil gang injunction, MPD must provide the evidence establishing the statutory requirements to OAG. MPD and OAG must then develop a case that can define the gang as an organized entity and demonstrate the criminal and nuisance activity committed by the gang. This information must be in a form that is admissible as evidence in a court hearing and must be sufficiently compelling to prompt a judge to issue an injunction. As you can see from a review of these activities, obtaining a civil gang injunction would require a significant investment of MPD and OAG time. Such an expenditure of resources would only be used as part of a broader effort to thwart a gang’s ability to commit crime and terrorize law abiding citizens.
Overall, section 102 of the Omnibus would add another tool to the criminal justice tool box to fight the growth of gangs and gang-related crime. Carefully crafted civil injunctions have been shown to decrease gang related crime in target neighborhoods without creating more crime in adjoining neighborhoods. It inhibits gang members from intimidating neighborhood residents and has been shown to make those residents feel more secure when going about their business.
That concludes the joint testimony submitted by the Attorney General and the Chief of Police for the District of Columbia, Chairman Mendelson. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
Reaves, Brian. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties. US Department of Justice. July 2006.
2008 data from the Richmond Police Department, “Chief Releases 2008 Crime Reductions, 2009 Goals.” Press Release, January 21, 2009. 2003 homicide figure from Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 2003.
See D.C. Official Code §§ 23-1901 through 23-1906.
In California, the City Attorney based their cases on common law nuisance principals. In Texas, they passed a gang nuisance injunction statute that is similar to Section 103 of the Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2008. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem § 125.061 through 125.069 and § 71.01 and § 71.02.
This information is taken from the April 2007 Office of the City Attorney report entitled Gang Injunctions: How and Why They Work.
See also, The People v. Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th (2001). The California Court of Appeals affirmed the validity of the gang injunction, holding (1) that the case was an equitable civil action to abate a public nuisance, and as such, did not require a trial by jury; (2) the government should prove its case by clear and convincing evidence, (3) the trial court used the correct definition in determining who was a gang member; (4) the scope of the injunction did not impermissibly limit appellant's associational rights; and (5) the prohibitions on gang hand signs and clothing were sufficiently narrowly tailored to abate the significant governmental purpose of abating an enjoinable public nuisance.
See The Effects of Civil Gang Injunctions on Reported Violent Crime: Evidence from Los Angeles County, Journal of law and Economics, vol. XLV (April 2002).
Id, at page 81. In addition, in 2004, the Los Angeles County grand jury commissioned a study that applied Professor Grogger’s method to a different, more recent set of injunctions which reportedly generated the same results.
The report was co-authored by Cheryl Maxson, Karen Hennigan, David Sload and Kathy Kolnick and was funded by a U.S. Department of Justice Grant.
Section 102(b)(2) defines a gang as a group of four or more individuals who engage in certain illegal activities. We recognize that a smaller number of people would qualify as a criminal street gang under this legislation than would qualify as a criminal street gang under the current version of D.C. Official Code § 22-951(e), the criminal gang statute. Sec. 102(o) of the bill, however, would, among other things, amend D.C. Official Code § 22-951(e) to lower the number of persons needed to prove a gang under D.C. Official Code § 22-951(e) from 6 to 4 persons. This is another change from last year’s Omnibus wherein we recommended reducing the number from 6 to 3. NOTE: The US Attorney’s Office recently won its first conviction under §22-951(e) and, based on that experience, is opposed to changing that statute. As the civil gang injunction and the criminal statute have two distinct purposes and therefore do not need to have mirroring language, we would propose adopting the definition in the Mayor’s Omnibus and leaving the language in §22-951(e) as it is currently written.
Governmental authorities do not have to post bond or security because, unlike individual civil litigants, there is no fear that the City will be unable to pay judgments as ordered by the court. The legislation recognizes that when suing for injunctive relief courts are sitting in equity. Courts which are guided primarily by equitable doctrine are said to be courts of equity. When a court sits in equity it sits without a jury. Examples of equitable remedies include injunctions and orders for specific performance.
Graffiti material is defined in the Anti-Intimidation and Defacing of Public or Private Property Criminal Penalty Act of 1982, effective June 12, 2001 (D.C. Law 4-203; D.C. Official Code § 22-3312.05(5)).
The following joint testimony was presented by Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and MPD Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier to the District of Columbia Council Committee on the Judiciary, Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chair, on March 18, 2009, at the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Good morning Chairman Mendelson and members of the Committee. We are pleased to have this opportunity to testify at this roundtable regarding Bills 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009” (the “Omnibus”), Bill-18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009,” and Bill 18-152, the “Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009.”
We are submitting this testimony jointly to emphasize the importance of Bill 18-138, the Mayor’s “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009,” to the District of Columbia. This legislation is a creative and thoughtful collaborative effort of the Mayor, the Attorney General, the Chief of Police, the United States Attorney, and the community. In fact, some provisions of the bill have been revised in response to testimony before this Committee in November, as well as other community comments, and we look forward to hearing more feedback today on this critical legislation.
Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009”
The Mayor’s Omnibus Anti-Crime bill is ambitious in scope. It seeks to modernize a number of laws and expand the tools available to law enforcement to protect the safety of the residents of the District. The Omnibus, itself, is 56 pages and proposes numerous changes to District law that range from re-writing and modernizing the District’s “Stalking Law” to more procedural provisions such as allowing the court to close on New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, thereby saving the District significant overtime expenses. Rather then discuss in detail every section of the Omnibus in our testimony today, we are attaching a section-by-section analysis and the rationale for each proposed change. Our testimony highlights those portions that we believe will have the most significant impact on public safety; that is the portions relating to firearms, witness protection, and gangs.
Firearms
Bill 18-138 proposes a number of changes to our criminal firearms law. With the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller, the District is entering a new era in which we expect legal gun ownership to increase. In fact, since the Heller ruling, MPD’s Gun Registration Unit has registered more than 400 handguns and 150 rifles and shotguns. While the District government is strongly committed to complying with the ruling, and ensuring that law-abiding residents can possess a handgun in their home for self-defense, we also want to send an unambiguous message to those who commit violent acts that we will not tolerate criminal gun possession or use.
We are having some success in addressing criminal use of a firearm. In 2008, gun crimes showed double digit reductions across the board, including a 12 percent reduction in robberies with guns and a 14 percent reduction in assaults with guns. In fact, there were fewer gun crimes in the summer of 2008 than any summer since at least 2003. There was a 10 percent increase in the number of illegal guns recovered, for the highest number recovered in at least the past 6 years (excluding gun buy-back or amnesty programs).
Despite these successful efforts, guns are still used in about four out of five homicides in the District, nearly half of the robberies, and one-fifth of the assaults with a dangerous weapon. We can—and must--do more to ensure that repeat violent gun offenders who have been arrested are not allowed to quickly return to the communities they have victimized. The Omnibus strengthens how the entire criminal justice system deals with criminal use and possession of a firearm by:
Lengthening sentences for violent felons who possess guns (Section 208);
Establishing for the purposes of pre-trial detention that criminal possession of firearms presents a danger to the community (Section 212);
Closing a loophole that makes it difficult to charge illegal possession of a firearm when it is found in a vehicle (Section 220); and
Enhancing supervision of gun offenders who are released to the community (Section 219).
Lengthening sentences for violent felons who possess guns (Section 208)
One of the most serious threats to public safety is from previously convicted felons who are later found to be in possession of a firearm. Under both federal and District law, felons cannot possess firearms.
In 2006, the Council passed legislation imposing a mandatory-minimum sentence of one year for a previously convicted felon who is then convicted of being in possession of a firearm. This means that when police officers arrest, and the courts convict, a felon in possession of a firearm, that offender is off the streets for at least a year on the gun possession charge alone -- the police and prosecutors no longer have to wait until the felon commits another crime with the gun to exact significant consequences. Over the past two years, this mandatory-minimum sentence has helped MPD and the U.S. Attorney’s Office get almost 250 felons with guns off the streets.
This is critical because a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm clearly demonstrates that he or she has not been rehabilitated and is a serious danger to the community. We know already that offenders with a previous conviction for a serious crime are more likely to commit future violent offenses. According to a 12-year study by the Department of Justice, 38 percent of violent felons had a previous felony conviction and 15 percent had a previous conviction for a violent felony [Footnote 1]. If a person previously convicted of a violent felony is found again with a firearm, getting him or her off the street is essential to preventing future violent crimes.
We believe that the existing mandatory-minimum sentence has been effective in getting criminals off the streets and in reducing violent gun crime in the District since 2006. But we also know that this sentencing can be made stronger and be even more effective in deterring felons from carrying guns and in preventing the next gun crime. We can look to our neighbors in Virginia to gauge the impact a longer mandatory-minimum sentence could have. Virginia has a two-year mandatory-minimum sentence for felons in possession of a firearm, which increases to five years if the previous felony conviction was for a violent crime. Local, state, and federal law enforcement and prosecutors credit tough and certain sentences for gun offenses with significant reductions in violent crime in Richmond. Homicides in Richmond have dropped in each of the past five years, from 93 in 2003 to 32 in 2008—a two-thirds reduction overall. In 2008, violent crime decreased 14 percent [Footnote 2].
Section 208 also clarifies that existing penalty enhancements for gun crimes includes previous convictions in other jurisdictions, not just the District of Columbia. The thinking behind this is that if the purpose of the enhanced penalty is to punish recidivists more severely, the place where they committed their first crime of violence should make no difference.
Establishing that criminal possession of firearms presents a danger to the community (Section 212)
Bill 18-183 would also give the court more authority to detain gun offenders. When an individual uses a gun in a crime of violence, illegally possesses a gun, or is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, the Act creates a presumption in favor of pre-trial detention. While everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent, this legislation is consistent with the District’s current statutory approach to pre-trial detention in that the courts must consider the nature of the charged crime when considering whether it is safe to release that person back into the community.
Currently under DC Code 23-1322, which governs pre-trial detention, the government can establish a presumption that the accused should be held pending trial by proving a "substantial probability" that the accused possessed the weapon. The Omnibus proposes changing 23-1322 to lessen the burden on the government at the detention stage to having to establish that there is "probable cause" to believe that the accused possessed the weapon in order for the court to detain the individual. In addition to CPWL, the Omnibus also proposes adding several other gun related charges, including carrying a rifle or shotgun, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and unlawful possession of a firearm to the provision that would permit pretrial detention.
Closing a loophole that makes it difficult to charge illegal possession of a firearm when it is found in a vehicle (Section 220)
Law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and the community can all agree that people illegally carrying or transporting guns in the community are a danger. As we will discuss later, all too often criminals will use cars to facilitate criminal acts to ensure a quick get-away. Criminals carrying guns in DC also know that it is much harder to convict someone of criminal possession of a firearm if there is more than one person in the car and the gun is located such that no one has clear control of the gun. Because of District case law , we see in the histories of some of our most violent offenders multiple arrests for criminal possession of a firearm that do not end in conviction. In order to close this gap, the Administration is proposing a new offense of illegal possession of a firearm in a vehicle. To be clear, this offense would not apply to anyone with a legally registered firearm or to anyone transporting a firearm to a lawful activity. Nor would it be used to prosecute someone who unknowingly rides in a car with a firearm. It would mean that criminals will no longer be able to knowingly ride around with a gun in clear sight in a car and then claim that it was not in their possession or under their control as a defense.
Enhancing supervision of gun offenders who are released to the community (Section 219)
The Omnibus also strengthens supervision of convicted gun offenders once they are released back into the community. Modeled on successful programs in New York City and Baltimore, the Anti-Crime Act will create a “gun offender registry,” which will require gun offenders to register and maintain an accurate address with MPD for two years after incarceration or supervision ends.
We asked officials in Baltimore for information on the evaluation of their gun offender registration program. As of February 3, 2009, Baltimore had 472 gun offenders under supervision. 270 were incarcerated, 50 lived outside of the city, and 152 were out of jail and living in Baltimore. In just over a year, overall recidivism for these offenders is quite low: only three people in the registry were re-arrested for handgun violations.
As noted above, studies conclusively demonstrate that gun offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, and their subsequent arrests are more likely to involve crimes of violence. Baltimore found that 42% of defendants charged with felony gun crimes have prior gun arrests. In New York City, when compared to other felons, those convicted of felony gun possession were more likely to be re-arrested for crimes of violence and perhaps most significant is the finding that previous gun offenders are four times more likely to be arrested for homicide than other offenders.
Witness Security
Section 201 of the Omnibus allows police and prosecutors to remove the names and addresses of victims of certain crimes on public police reports, including victims of domestic crimes, violent crimes, stalking, and threats. Oftentimes, victims have a real and persistent fear of re-victimization or retaliation, which is heightened when their assailants can find them. This is true of many crimes, but particularly of those crimes covered by this provision. In some cases, victims move and sometimes change their name in fear that assailants will be able to find them. In addition, for sexual assault victims in particular, there is the added fear of public exposure of the nature of their victimization. Notwithstanding these valid victim concerns, under current law, a victim’s name and address are public. This amendment seeks to protect this information in a way that is sensitive to competing interests, including the defendant’s right to know the identity of his or her accuser.
To be clear, this provision would not change the right of a defendant in a criminal case to know who the victim is. This information will still be disclosed, and if need be, under a protective order. However, under District law, a victim also has a right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and privacy, and to be reasonably protected from the accused [Footnote 3]. While these issues have long been a concern, this protection against unnecessary disclosure of witness information is needed now more than ever. Retaliation is a significant threat in modern crime. Witnesses have been murdered and otherwise assaulted to deter them from testifying against perpetrators of crime. The government needs to do everything it reasonably can to protect those who come forward -- protecting their names and addresses is a small, but significant step in that direction. Sensitive to the concerns expressed by the media since introduction of the bill, MPD is already working out an efficient process by which members of the press can quickly access necessary information that achieves the aims of the legislation as well as those of the media.
Gangs
Section 102 of Bill 18-138 would give the DC Attorney General the ability to seek civil injunctions against criminal gangs operating in the District. As you are aware, gangs are a growing problem in the District of Columbia and nationwide. In fact, we were very pleased to see Chairman Mendelson adopt word for word in Bill 18-151 the “Findings and Declaration of Necessity” proposed in the Omnibus, which recognizes the growth of gangs, the injurious effect that gang activity has on neighborhoods, and the need for creative action to address these issues. We look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to come up with a final version of the legislation that achieves our common policy goals in light of the resources of the OAG. Gangs may range in sophistication from a formal organization with a leader or ruling council, gang colors, gang identifiers, gang name and national affiliation, to a looser knit group of individuals who come from the same neighborhood or housing development and regularly commit violent crimes together. Both groups involve individuals who ban together, stake out turf, harass innocent residents, commit violent or other crimes, and war with competing groups with the result that bystanders are often hurt or killed in the crossfire. If we are to reduce crime in the District, we must figure out ways to prevent both of these types of gangs from flourishing in our city.
At the present time, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) estimates that there are approximately 1,730 active gang members in 87 gangs in the District. Each gang has established turf in a city neighborhood. There are 8 gangs who have made a neighborhood in the First Police District (1D) their turf; 18 gangs who are at home in 3D; 13 gangs who have established themselves in 4D; 12 gangs who operate in communities served by 5D; 16 gangs who base themselves out of 6D neighborhoods; and 20 gangs that make a neighborhood in 7D their home. Every day, citizens and neighborhoods in the District are victimized by the activities of these gangs. For example, in September of this year, eight members of a local Bloods gang sect were indicted on federal racketeering charges. A federal grand jury returned a 19-count indictment against them which included the charges of conspiracy to commit kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity, kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity, assault with a dangerous weapon, six counts of sexual abuse and obstructing justice.
Faced with growing gang activity, jurisdictions around the country have tried to develop innovative ways to reduce such crime, impede gang growth, and generally interfere with gangs’ ability to function. Sometime in the late 1980s and early 90s, a school of thought developed with the following principles:
gangs are nothing more than an unincorporated association of individuals who regularly come together;
under common law, an association of individuals is responsible for the consequences of its activities.
associations can be sued in civil court to enjoin them from performing illegal activities; and
what gangs do in public space constitutes a public nuisance.
Thinking about gangs in this new way led to an innovative approach for reducing the incidence of gang violence. City attorneys began suing gangs in civil court seeking orders that would enjoin them from being a public nuisance. Civil courts issued injunctions against gangs, as unincorporated associations, and their respective members for violations of local nuisance laws [Footnote 4]. The injunctions were limited in scope and, in order to not interfere with constitutionally protected activity, only enjoined persons from engaging in listed activities in a relatively small geographic area. These gang injunctions prohibit gang members from engaging in a limited amount of activities that are considered a nuisance to the community or that have been proven to be precursors to the gang’s criminal and nuisance behavior [Footnote 5]. Please note that the key to this enforcement tool is that it prevents and enjoins identified gang members from associating with each other within the defined boundaries of public space or within view of that public space.
Gang members who knowingly violate the terms of these injunctions are charged with criminal contempt in the same way that any party in a civil matter can be charged with contempt for violating a court order. In other words, the purpose of the gang injunction is to initially use the civil system to change the behavior of the gang members in ways that reduce and interrupt their ability to engage in criminal and nuisance activities, intimidate neighborhood residents, recruit others into the gang, and lessen the gangs’ ability to control turf. So long as enjoined gang members do not violate the terms of the injunction, they can go about their legal business even within the limited geographic area established in the injunction.
It is important to note at the outset that these injunctions have survived constitutional challenges. For example, in Gallo v. Acuna, 929 P.2d 596 (1997), the Supreme Court of California upheld the validity of an injunction issued against a gang in San Jose. The Court held that the defendants' association was not entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution because the gang was not formed for the purpose of engaging in protected speech or religious activities. The Court further held that the trial court's preliminary decree was not overbroad because it was addressed to identifiable parties and to specific circumstances and the enjoined acts were particularly described. In the conclusion of the majority opinion, the California Court stated:
To hold that the liberty of the peaceful, industrious residents of Rocksprings must be forfeited to preserve the illusion of freedom for those whose ill conduct is deleterious to the community as a whole is to ignore half the political promise of the Constitution and the whole of its sense. The freedom to leave one's house and move about at will, and to have a measure of personal security is "implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' enshrined in the history and basic constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples. Preserving the peace is the first duty of government, and it is for the protection of the community from the predations of the idle, the contentious, and the brutal that government was invented.” (Internal citations omitted.) [Footnote 6]
The Court of Appeals of Texas, like the Supreme Court of California, has also upheld the validity of civil gang injunctions. In August 2008, the Texas court ruled in the case of Goyzueta v. Texas, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6565, that the Texas Penal Code which establishes civil gang injunctions
was not overbroad under the First Amendment. [The injunction] did not restrict a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct; the only conduct it restricted was a knowing violation of a court order. Moreover, it was not void for vagueness. The clear language of the statute would have given an individual in defendant's position clear notice that violating the curfew amounted to a criminal offense. Further, it was not arbitrarily applied; instead, it prevented arbitrary enforcement through the establishment of certain guidelines.
Civil gang injunctions have had success in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities. For example, in 2002, Professor Jeffrey Grogger released a study of the effectiveness of civil gang injunctions on reported violent crime in Los Angeles County [Footnote 7]. Professor Grogger did a comprehensive study comparing the target areas, where there were injunctions, with adjoining areas and neighboring areas. He concluded that the civil gang injunctions led the level of violent crime to decrease in the target areas by about 7%.
Professor Grogger then analyzed whether the decrease in violent crime due to the civil gang injunctions caused crime to increase or spillover into adjoining areas. He compared the changes in violent crime within adjoining areas to changes within neighboring areas over the same time period. The result was a statistically insignificant spillover amount. So, while the civil gang injunction was shown to decrease violent crime in the injunction target areas, it did not displace that crime to surrounding neighborhoods. In other words, as Professor Grogger states, “under the assumption that the neighboring areas provide an adequate comparison sample, the estimates indicate that the injunctions significantly reduced the level of violent crime in the target areas without causing spillovers.” [Footnote 8]
In addition to decreasing violent crime, there is evidence that civil gang injunctions actually decrease neighborhood residents’ fear of intimidation and confrontation with gang members. Gang injunctions, therefore, serve both as a crime reduction tool as well as a mechanism that makes everyday citizens more comfortable going about their business.
In April 2004, a report entitled Can Civil Gang Injunctions Change Communities? A Community Assessment of the Impact of Civil Gang Injunctions was submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice [Footnote 9]. As reported in the abstract:
“[t]he study surveyed 797 San Bernardino residents in five neighborhoods eighteen months prior and 1229 residents six months subsequent to the issuance of a [gang] injunction.” The report concludes that “[a]nalyses indicated positive evidence of short-term effects in the primary injunction area, including less gang presence, fewer reports of gang intimidation and less fear of confrontation with gang members. The primary injunction area showed no significant changes in intermediate or long-term outcomes save lower fear of crime. See report at page iv. In fact, “fewer residents report acts of gang intimidation and residents report less fear of confrontation with gang members. We estimate a net shift of thirteen percent fewer respondents experiencing intimidation and twelve percent fewer respondents experiencing more than a little fear in the primary injunction area relative to its control. See report at page ix.
Of course, the use of civil gang injunctions has generated valid concerns regarding their impact on civil liberties, and we would like to address those concerns beyond the legal analysis summarized above. First, please note that the legislation does not allow judges to issue stay away orders that would prevent people from going into their neighborhoods or standing in public space. It does not single out any group based on race, religion, gender or any other constitutionally protected status. It does not prevent family members -- even known gang members -- from gathering with each other in their homes outside of public view. What Section 103 of the bill does do is authorize the issuance of civil injunctions against criminal gangs that would declare their public gang-related behavior a nuisance and permit a judge to issue orders aimed at gang members that would prohibit certain gang related activities from occurring in the public space within a narrowly defined geographic area.
Now let us turn our attention to the specifics of the gang injunction proposal. As we mentioned earlier in our testimony, section 102(a) states the purpose of the legislation as creating “a mechanism so that civil actions may be brought to enjoin gangs and gang members from engaging in activities which create a public nuisance.” It then recaps gang-related crime in the District and concludes that “[s]uch gang activity injures the health, safety and security of the District’s citizens, frightens or intimidates them, obstructs the free use of both private and public property, and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of the lives and property of the District’s residents, and is therefore a nuisance.” Finally, Section 102 (a) declares that “[t]he enactment of this subchapter is hereby declared to be a public necessity.” Again we are very pleased that Chairman Mendelson shares our concerns by adopting the same statement in Bill 18-151.
Since introducing the concept of civil gang injunctions in Bill 17-951 and providing testimony in the last legislative session we have re-written several portions of our original proposal to meet some of the concerns raised at the roundtable. These changes were the result of careful consideration of comments from residents and civil liberty advocates. For example we have expanded the definition of “gang” [Footnote 10] in section 102(b)(2), “gang activity” in section 102(b)(4) and “Public Nuisance; Use of Space” in 102(d). By adding to and clarifying these definitions we believe that we have given specific notice as to the activities that this legislation targets, while maintaining the basic premise under Section 102(c) that it is a public nuisance for a gang “to engage in gang activity in any private place or public space in the District of Columbia or to use any private place or public space in the District of Columbia as a base for engaging in gang activity in another jurisdiction.” Similarly, Section 102(d) recognizes that certain gang activity in public space is a public nuisance. This portion of the bill states that “[i]t is a public nuisance for a criminal street gang to engage in a pattern of behavior on public space which has an adverse impact upon the community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons.” Moreover, we have provided a procedure whereby juveniles may also be brought under a civil gang injunction.
Section 102(e) establishes the ability of OAG to file a complaint in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to enjoin public nuisances created by gangs. It acknowledges that in litigation of public nuisances, the government is not required to furnish bond or security and that actions to enjoin a nuisance are tried in equity without a jury [Footnote 11]. In another significant change from Bill 17-951, section 102(e)(6) provides that OAG must establish the existence of the public nuisance by the more stringent civil standard of clear and convincing evidence, another change made since first introduction of the legislation.
Section 102(e)(2) requires that the complaint “must identify the criminal street gang and allege that there is an adverse impact of the gang’s activities within a defined geographic area such that there exists a public nuisance” and requires OAG to “list at least three criminal street gang members whom the Attorney General alleges should be designated to receive service on behalf of the entity.” Significantly, section 102(e)(3) allows “any person who associates with others to engage in gang activity as a member of a criminal street gang may be made a defendant in the suit,” and “any person who owns or is responsible for maintaining a place that is used for engaging in gang activity also may be made a defendant in the suit.”
OAG expects that it will use law enforcement witnesses to prove the existence of the gang related public nuisances. That said, Section 102(f) of the bill provides that when proof of the existence of the public nuisance depends, in whole or in part, upon information from civilian witnesses, the court, in its discretion, may issue an order to protect those witnesses. While OAG does not expect that gang injunction litigation will be premised in any great part on affidavits of civilian witnesses, we wanted to be sure that should it be necessary that we use civilian affidavits, there are some provisions built into the statute that would protect these vulnerable witnesses from retaliation from gang members whose gang is the target of the case.
The bill provides that, when necessary, judges may place under seal the supporting affidavits or the portions thereof that would identify civilian witnesses. This portion of the bill was based upon the Drug or Prostitution-Related Nuisance Abatement Act, as codified in D.C. Official Code § 42-3101, et seq. Specifically, D.C. Official Code § 42-3105, which states that “[i]f proof of the existence of the drug or prostitution-related nuisance depends, in whole or in part, upon affidavits of witnesses who are not law enforcement officers, the court in its discretion may issue orders to protect those witnesses, including, but not limited to, placing the complaint and supporting affidavits under seal.” Certainly, the concern for witness safety that led the Council to protect civilian witnesses when they assist in litigation to end drug or prostitution related nuisances applies to civilian witnesses who may assist in litigation aimed at ending gang related nuisances.
Sections 102(g) and (h) authorize the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions. They provide that if the court finds that the gang activity constitutes a public nuisance, the court may enter an order permanently enjoining, abating, and preventing the continuance or recurrence of the nuisance. They further state that the court order shall be directed against the crew or criminal street gang and its respective members prohibiting specified activities in a defined geographic area. In subparagraph (A), it provides that “[t]he order shall enjoin (i) the crew or criminal street gang and its respective members from engaging in gang activities; and (ii) the crew or criminal street gang members from associating or congregating with one or more other enjoined crew or criminal street gang members in public space within a defined geographic area.”
Section 102(h) then goes on to state that the injunction may also impose other reasonable prohibitions to disrupt gang activities. Among the possible enjoinable activities listed in the legislation, they include prohibiting gang members from:
Using private property for gang activities;
Confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking, or assaulting any person;
Possessing or knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone who is in possession of any firearm, ammunition, or other weapon;
Possessing or knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone who is in possession of any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia;
Being present on any private property within a defined geographic area without the written consent of the owner;
Defacing any public or private property;
Possessing graffiti material [Footnote 12] ; and
Violating a court-defined curfew.
When drafting Section 102 of this bill, we were very careful not to impinge on the gang members’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. Freedom of association does not extend to joining with others to commit illegal activities. As the Court stated in Gallo, supra, “[f]reedom of association, in the sense protected by the First Amendment, does not extend to joining with others for the purpose of depriving third parties of their lawful rights." (Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 753, 776 [114 S. Ct. 2516, 2530, 129 L. Ed. 2d 593]). We do not, in short, believe that the activities of the gang and its members ... are either "private" or "intimate" as constitutionally defined; the fact that defendants may "exercise some discrimination in choosing associates [by a] selective process of inclusion and exclusion" ( New York State Club Assn. v. New York City (1988) 487 U.S. 1, 13 [108 S. Ct. 2225, 2234, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1], italics added) does not mean that the association or its activities ... is one that commands protection under the First Amendment.”
Section 102(h) also establishes a procedure for bringing new gang members under the terms of the injunction. These provisions were added in recognition that gangs continuously and actively recruit new members. It makes no sense not to have a mechanism to subject new members of the unincorporated association to the same injunction that was designed to eliminate the public nuisance caused by the members who recruited them.
Section 102(i) establishes the penalty that the court could impose on persons who it has found to have violated its injunction. Under this provision, a person who violates a temporary or permanent injunction is subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 180 days, or both. This charge, as a variant of criminal contempt, would be prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The final portion of the bill regarding gangs that we would like to highlight is found in Section 102(l) and is entitled “Injunction Review and Termination of Gang Affiliation.” While the Texas statute does not specifically provide for a way for persons who have disassociated themselves from gangs to remove themselves from the terms of the gang injunction, and we have found no California case law on point, in drafting this legislation we wanted to make sure that persons who honestly and demonstrably have cut off all ties with gang activities could cease to come under the terms of the injunction. As a result of concerns raised at the previous roundtable on gang injunctions, this version of the bill now includes specific factors that the court may use in determining whether a person is still gang affiliated. These factors include: the length of time that the person has disassociated him or her self from gang and criminal activity, establishment of residency outside the enjoined area, the obtaining of a GED or other educational certificate, gainful employment and completion of a court approved program which promotes a gang free lifestyle.
Not withstanding that this Omnibus added a provision that would give more guidance to the court when it determines if a gang member has dissociated themselves from the gang and therefore should come out from under the terms of the gang injunction, the bill retains the requirement that the Executive Branch promulgate regulations that would indicate under what circumstances a person may obtain the government’s assistance in lifting the injunction. We want to be clear that what we are talking about here is an alternative method that may be used by the former gang member. With that goal in mind, Section 102(l) continues to require OAG in consultation with MPD to “promulgate regulations within 120 day detailing the process to provide relief to enjoined gang members who disaffiliate with the enjoined gang.”
When considering whether to seek a civil gang injunction, MPD must provide the evidence establishing the statutory requirements to OAG. MPD and OAG must then develop a case that can define the gang as an organized entity and demonstrate the criminal and nuisance activity committed by the gang. This information must be in a form that is admissible as evidence in a court hearing and must be sufficiently compelling to prompt a judge to issue an injunction. As you can see from a review of these activities, obtaining a civil gang injunction would require a significant investment of MPD and OAG time. Such an expenditure of resources would only be used as part of a broader effort to thwart a gang’s ability to commit crime and terrorize law abiding citizens.
Overall, section 102 of the Omnibus would add another tool to the criminal justice tool box to fight the growth of gangs and gang-related crime. Carefully crafted civil injunctions have been shown to decrease gang related crime in target neighborhoods without creating more crime in adjoining neighborhoods. It inhibits gang members from intimidating neighborhood residents and has been shown to make those residents feel more secure when going about their business.
That concludes the joint testimony submitted by the Attorney General and the Chief of Police for the District of Columbia, Chairman Mendelson. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
Reaves, Brian. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties. US Department of Justice. July 2006.
2008 data from the Richmond Police Department, “Chief Releases 2008 Crime Reductions, 2009 Goals.” Press Release, January 21, 2009. 2003 homicide figure from Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 2003.
See D.C. Official Code §§ 23-1901 through 23-1906.
In California, the City Attorney based their cases on common law nuisance principals. In Texas, they passed a gang nuisance injunction statute that is similar to Section 103 of the Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2008. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem § 125.061 through 125.069 and § 71.01 and § 71.02.
This information is taken from the April 2007 Office of the City Attorney report entitled Gang Injunctions: How and Why They Work.
See also, The People v. Englebrecht, 88 Cal. App. 4th (2001). The California Court of Appeals affirmed the validity of the gang injunction, holding (1) that the case was an equitable civil action to abate a public nuisance, and as such, did not require a trial by jury; (2) the government should prove its case by clear and convincing evidence, (3) the trial court used the correct definition in determining who was a gang member; (4) the scope of the injunction did not impermissibly limit appellant's associational rights; and (5) the prohibitions on gang hand signs and clothing were sufficiently narrowly tailored to abate the significant governmental purpose of abating an enjoinable public nuisance.
See The Effects of Civil Gang Injunctions on Reported Violent Crime: Evidence from Los Angeles County, Journal of law and Economics, vol. XLV (April 2002).
Id, at page 81. In addition, in 2004, the Los Angeles County grand jury commissioned a study that applied Professor Grogger’s method to a different, more recent set of injunctions which reportedly generated the same results.
The report was co-authored by Cheryl Maxson, Karen Hennigan, David Sload and Kathy Kolnick and was funded by a U.S. Department of Justice Grant.
Section 102(b)(2) defines a gang as a group of four or more individuals who engage in certain illegal activities. We recognize that a smaller number of people would qualify as a criminal street gang under this legislation than would qualify as a criminal street gang under the current version of D.C. Official Code § 22-951(e), the criminal gang statute. Sec. 102(o) of the bill, however, would, among other things, amend D.C. Official Code § 22-951(e) to lower the number of persons needed to prove a gang under D.C. Official Code § 22-951(e) from 6 to 4 persons. This is another change from last year’s Omnibus wherein we recommended reducing the number from 6 to 3. NOTE: The US Attorney’s Office recently won its first conviction under §22-951(e) and, based on that experience, is opposed to changing that statute. As the civil gang injunction and the criminal statute have two distinct purposes and therefore do not need to have mirroring language, we would propose adopting the definition in the Mayor’s Omnibus and leaving the language in §22-951(e) as it is currently written.
Governmental authorities do not have to post bond or security because, unlike individual civil litigants, there is no fear that the City will be unable to pay judgments as ordered by the court. The legislation recognizes that when suing for injunctive relief courts are sitting in equity. Courts which are guided primarily by equitable doctrine are said to be courts of equity. When a court sits in equity it sits without a jury. Examples of equitable remedies include injunctions and orders for specific performance.
Graffiti material is defined in the Anti-Intimidation and Defacing of Public or Private Property Criminal Penalty Act of 1982, effective June 12, 2001 (D.C. Law 4-203; D.C. Official Code § 22-3312.05(5)).
Eighteen Year Old Missing Person Case Closed
March 20, 2009
Eighteen Year Old Missing Person Case Closed
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced the closure of a 1990 missing person case with the assistance of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Twenty-six-year-old Audrey Palmer was found on Sunday, August 12, 1990 in a dumpster in the 5100 block of Sargent Road, NE. She had been beaten, strangled and stabbed to death.
For nearly 19 years, there have been various attempts to discover the identity of Ms. Palmer. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children created a new composite photo and the case was featured by various media outlets. When the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) expanded nationwide, her fingerprints were run through again, but with negative results.
Recently, as part of an ongoing project by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner/MPD Major Case Unit on suspicious missing persons and the unidentified dead, an investigator with the OCME submitted the victim’s fingerprints into the new National Missing and Unidentified Person System database. The case caught the attention of DHS’ Biometric Support Center. After searching multiple databases, followed by a physical comparison of multiple fingerprint files, DHS was able to match the victim’s fingerprints to those of Audrey Palmer (aka: Althea Palmer) a 26-year-old female from Brooklyn, New York.
The information was turned over to an FBI analyst assigned to the MPD Major Case/Cold Case Unit who tracked Ms. Palmer to an outstanding bench warrant on a 1989 drug charge in Brooklyn, NY where Palmer’s next of kin was located.
Detectives discovered that sometime after her arrest, Palmer had left New York with the intent of going to Washington, D.C. She was accompanied by some men known to be from the DC area who have yet to be identified. Those responsible for Ms. Palmer’s death have not been identified.
The MPD wishes to thank OCME investigator Michelle Mack, DHS supervisory fingerprint examiner Ed Sears, FBI analyst Steve Milefsky, detective Jeff Williams and FBI special agent Viet Nguyen.
The identification of Audrey Palmer after 18 years as a Jane Doe demonstrates the value of collaboration across agencies and the initiative of those involved to work toward a common goal and move a case forward.
Eighteen Year Old Missing Person Case Closed
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced the closure of a 1990 missing person case with the assistance of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Twenty-six-year-old Audrey Palmer was found on Sunday, August 12, 1990 in a dumpster in the 5100 block of Sargent Road, NE. She had been beaten, strangled and stabbed to death.
For nearly 19 years, there have been various attempts to discover the identity of Ms. Palmer. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children created a new composite photo and the case was featured by various media outlets. When the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) expanded nationwide, her fingerprints were run through again, but with negative results.
Recently, as part of an ongoing project by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner/MPD Major Case Unit on suspicious missing persons and the unidentified dead, an investigator with the OCME submitted the victim’s fingerprints into the new National Missing and Unidentified Person System database. The case caught the attention of DHS’ Biometric Support Center. After searching multiple databases, followed by a physical comparison of multiple fingerprint files, DHS was able to match the victim’s fingerprints to those of Audrey Palmer (aka: Althea Palmer) a 26-year-old female from Brooklyn, New York.
The information was turned over to an FBI analyst assigned to the MPD Major Case/Cold Case Unit who tracked Ms. Palmer to an outstanding bench warrant on a 1989 drug charge in Brooklyn, NY where Palmer’s next of kin was located.
Detectives discovered that sometime after her arrest, Palmer had left New York with the intent of going to Washington, D.C. She was accompanied by some men known to be from the DC area who have yet to be identified. Those responsible for Ms. Palmer’s death have not been identified.
The MPD wishes to thank OCME investigator Michelle Mack, DHS supervisory fingerprint examiner Ed Sears, FBI analyst Steve Milefsky, detective Jeff Williams and FBI special agent Viet Nguyen.
The identification of Audrey Palmer after 18 years as a Jane Doe demonstrates the value of collaboration across agencies and the initiative of those involved to work toward a common goal and move a case forward.
13 March, 2009
Sexual Assault Suspect Sought
March 13, 2009
Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE
The Metropolitan Police Department is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying and locating a suspect related to a sexual assault case on Mississippi Avenue, SE.
At approximately 1:35 am, on Saturday, March 7, 2009, an unknown suspect approached the victim who was walking in the Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE. The suspect subsequently sexually assaulted the victim before fleeing the scene in an unknown direction.
The suspect in this case is described as a black male, who is in his early 40s. He is approximately 5’7” in height, with a strong build, dark complexion, and a mustache. He was last seen wearing a black hat, black jacket, and black pants.
This case is being investigated by the Department’s Sexual Offenses Unit. Anyone with information about this case is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099 or 1-888-919-CRIM [E] (1-888-919-2746). Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to DC Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS and to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. If the information provided by the caller to the Crime Solvers Unit leads to an arrest and indictment, that caller will be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000.
Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE
The Metropolitan Police Department is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying and locating a suspect related to a sexual assault case on Mississippi Avenue, SE.
At approximately 1:35 am, on Saturday, March 7, 2009, an unknown suspect approached the victim who was walking in the Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE. The suspect subsequently sexually assaulted the victim before fleeing the scene in an unknown direction.
The suspect in this case is described as a black male, who is in his early 40s. He is approximately 5’7” in height, with a strong build, dark complexion, and a mustache. He was last seen wearing a black hat, black jacket, and black pants.
This case is being investigated by the Department’s Sexual Offenses Unit. Anyone with information about this case is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099 or 1-888-919-CRIM [E] (1-888-919-2746). Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to DC Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS and to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. If the information provided by the caller to the Crime Solvers Unit leads to an arrest and indictment, that caller will be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000.
AVOID TAX SEASON SCAMS
AS APRIL 15TH APPROACHES, MPD REMINDS ALL TO
AVOID TAX SEASON SCAMS
April 15th is almost a month away, and many of us have just begun thinking about filing our income tax returns. It’s important to consider your privacy when preparing your returns. The IRS is warning the public about some common tax-related scams. They only expect the number of these types of scams to grow as the filing deadline approaches. Here are a few examples of common tax-related scams:
Phishing. Phishing scams often take the form of an email that appears to come from a legitimate source. Some scam emails falsely claim to come from the IRS. These emails will often try to scare you into thinking there is an error with your tax filing. These so-called “phishing” emails will typically urge you to visit a site, which will then prompt you to enter personal and financial information that is then sent off to identity thieves. To date, taxpayers have forwarded more than 33,000 of these scam emails, reflecting more than 1,500 different schemes, to the IRS. The IRS
never uses email to contact taxpayers about their tax issues. All valid IRS websites will have a web address that begins with http://ww.irs.gov/.
Scams Related to the Economic Stimulus Payment. Some scam artists are trying to trick individuals into revealing information that can be used to access their financial accounts by making promises relating to the economic stimulus payment, often called a “rebate.” To obtain the payment, eligible individuals in most cases will not have to do anything more than file a 2007 federal tax return.
However, some criminals posing as IRS representatives are trying to trick taxpayers by falsely telling them they must provide information to get a payment.
Whether it’s tax season or any other time of the year, you should exercise caution and approach any offer or service with a healthy dose of skepticism. Con artists know how to win over your confidence with their smooth talk and self-assured manner. Unless you are careful, you may find yourself turning over cash or personal information. Here are some good rules to follow all the time—whether or not you suspect a fraud:
• Don’t believe “something-for-nothing” offers. You get what you pay for.
• Read all contracts and agreements before signing.
• Compare services, prices, and credit offers before agreeing to a deal.
• Do not hesitate to check the credentials of anyone who comes to your door.
• Report all suspicious offers immediately, before someone else can become a victim. And if you’ve been victimized, don’t be embarrassed about coming forward.
AVOID TAX SEASON SCAMS
April 15th is almost a month away, and many of us have just begun thinking about filing our income tax returns. It’s important to consider your privacy when preparing your returns. The IRS is warning the public about some common tax-related scams. They only expect the number of these types of scams to grow as the filing deadline approaches. Here are a few examples of common tax-related scams:
Phishing. Phishing scams often take the form of an email that appears to come from a legitimate source. Some scam emails falsely claim to come from the IRS. These emails will often try to scare you into thinking there is an error with your tax filing. These so-called “phishing” emails will typically urge you to visit a site, which will then prompt you to enter personal and financial information that is then sent off to identity thieves. To date, taxpayers have forwarded more than 33,000 of these scam emails, reflecting more than 1,500 different schemes, to the IRS. The IRS
never uses email to contact taxpayers about their tax issues. All valid IRS websites will have a web address that begins with http://ww.irs.gov/.
Scams Related to the Economic Stimulus Payment. Some scam artists are trying to trick individuals into revealing information that can be used to access their financial accounts by making promises relating to the economic stimulus payment, often called a “rebate.” To obtain the payment, eligible individuals in most cases will not have to do anything more than file a 2007 federal tax return.
However, some criminals posing as IRS representatives are trying to trick taxpayers by falsely telling them they must provide information to get a payment.
Whether it’s tax season or any other time of the year, you should exercise caution and approach any offer or service with a healthy dose of skepticism. Con artists know how to win over your confidence with their smooth talk and self-assured manner. Unless you are careful, you may find yourself turning over cash or personal information. Here are some good rules to follow all the time—whether or not you suspect a fraud:
• Don’t believe “something-for-nothing” offers. You get what you pay for.
• Read all contracts and agreements before signing.
• Compare services, prices, and credit offers before agreeing to a deal.
• Do not hesitate to check the credentials of anyone who comes to your door.
• Report all suspicious offers immediately, before someone else can become a victim. And if you’ve been victimized, don’t be embarrassed about coming forward.
11 March, 2009
MPD Investigates Police Involved Shooting
March 9, 2009
MPD Investigates Police Involved Shooting
The Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) Force Investigation Team is currently investigating a police involved shooting.
At approximately 5 am on Sunday, March 8, 2009, an off-duty member of the Metropolitan Police Department was involved in a use of service pistol incident in the 5300 block of B Street, SE.
The off-duty officer was seated in his personal vehicle when an armed, masked gunman approached the vehicle and announced a robbery. The officer exited his vehicle and exchanged gunfire with the robbery suspect, who fled the scene on foot.
The robbery suspect was subsequently located a short distance away, suffering from a gunshot wound. The suspect was transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, where he was pronounced dead at 8:55 am. The decedent is identified as 34-year-old, Jelani Khalid Slay of Clinton, Maryland.
A second victim of the robbery attempt was shot by the robbery suspect and sustained a non-life threatening gunshot wound. The victim was transported to an area hospital for treatment. The victim’s name is not being released because they are considered a witness in this case.
The off-duty officer did not sustain any injuries. His name is not being released because he is considered a witness in this case. He is an 18-year veteran of MPD and is currently assigned to the Fourth District.
Today’s incident is the second fatal MPD police-involved shooting this year.
MPD Investigates Police Involved Shooting
The Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) Force Investigation Team is currently investigating a police involved shooting.
At approximately 5 am on Sunday, March 8, 2009, an off-duty member of the Metropolitan Police Department was involved in a use of service pistol incident in the 5300 block of B Street, SE.
The off-duty officer was seated in his personal vehicle when an armed, masked gunman approached the vehicle and announced a robbery. The officer exited his vehicle and exchanged gunfire with the robbery suspect, who fled the scene on foot.
The robbery suspect was subsequently located a short distance away, suffering from a gunshot wound. The suspect was transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, where he was pronounced dead at 8:55 am. The decedent is identified as 34-year-old, Jelani Khalid Slay of Clinton, Maryland.
A second victim of the robbery attempt was shot by the robbery suspect and sustained a non-life threatening gunshot wound. The victim was transported to an area hospital for treatment. The victim’s name is not being released because they are considered a witness in this case.
The off-duty officer did not sustain any injuries. His name is not being released because he is considered a witness in this case. He is an 18-year veteran of MPD and is currently assigned to the Fourth District.
Today’s incident is the second fatal MPD police-involved shooting this year.
Arrest Triple Homicide in Trinidad Neighborhood
Arrest Made in 2008 Triple Homicide in Trinidad Neighborhood
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that a second arrest has been made in the murders of Duane Hough, Anthony Mincey, and Johnny Jeter, who were shot to death on Holbrook Street, NE on May 31, 2008.
On Friday, March 6, 2009, detectives of the Homicide Branch Major Case Squad obtained an arrest warrant charging 24-year-old Andre Clinkscale of Northeast Washington, DC with three counts of First Degree Murder While Armed in the homicides of Misters Hough, Mincey, and Jeter. On Sunday, March 8, 2009, at approximately 8:00 pm, members of the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force arrested Mr. Clinkscale, without incident, in the 3400 block Croffut Place SE.
On Saturday, May 31, 2008, at approximately 4:15 am, officers assigned to the Fifth District responded to the 1100 block of Holbrook Street, NE to investigate the report of gunshots at that location. Upon arrival, police located three adult males suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. All three victims were pronounced dead on the scene by a representative from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. The victims were identified as 37-year-old Duane Hough of the 1400 block of Trinidad Street, NE, 35-year-old Anthony Mincey of the 600 block of Morton Street, NW, and 24-year-old Johnny Jeter of the 1700 block of Holbrook Street, NE.
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that a second arrest has been made in the murders of Duane Hough, Anthony Mincey, and Johnny Jeter, who were shot to death on Holbrook Street, NE on May 31, 2008.
On Friday, March 6, 2009, detectives of the Homicide Branch Major Case Squad obtained an arrest warrant charging 24-year-old Andre Clinkscale of Northeast Washington, DC with three counts of First Degree Murder While Armed in the homicides of Misters Hough, Mincey, and Jeter. On Sunday, March 8, 2009, at approximately 8:00 pm, members of the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force arrested Mr. Clinkscale, without incident, in the 3400 block Croffut Place SE.
On Saturday, May 31, 2008, at approximately 4:15 am, officers assigned to the Fifth District responded to the 1100 block of Holbrook Street, NE to investigate the report of gunshots at that location. Upon arrival, police located three adult males suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. All three victims were pronounced dead on the scene by a representative from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. The victims were identified as 37-year-old Duane Hough of the 1400 block of Trinidad Street, NE, 35-year-old Anthony Mincey of the 600 block of Morton Street, NW, and 24-year-old Johnny Jeter of the 1700 block of Holbrook Street, NE.
REWARDS
RESIDENTS REMINDED ABOUT REWARDS IN
HOMICIDES, ROBBERIES, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES
In an effort to enlist even more community support in solving crimes and prosecuting
offenders, the MPD reminds members of the public that the Department operates and
supports a number of reward programs. These programs offer members of the community
substantial cash rewards for information that can help the MPD close cases.
For example, the MPD offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in DC. This reward applies to recent cases or homicides that were committed years ago.
The Department also offers an enhanced reward of up to $5,000 to anyone who provides
information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any robbery in DC. The reward amount increases to up to $10,000 for information in robberies that involve a life-threatening injury to the victim.
Anyone with information about an unsolved homicide, robbery, or other crime in DC is
asked to call the MPD’s 24-hour or the Command Information Center (CIC) at (202) 727-9099.
Callers wishing to remain anonymous may call 1-888-919-CRIME (888 919-2746). Anonymous information may also be forwarded to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. And, of course, the Department continues to support the Crime Solvers program, which offers rewards of up to $1,000 for information that leads to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons responsible for other felony crimes. The Crime Solvers telephone number is (800)673-2777. All calls to Crime Solvers are confidential, and callers need not provide their names.
HOMICIDES, ROBBERIES, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES
In an effort to enlist even more community support in solving crimes and prosecuting
offenders, the MPD reminds members of the public that the Department operates and
supports a number of reward programs. These programs offer members of the community
substantial cash rewards for information that can help the MPD close cases.
For example, the MPD offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in DC. This reward applies to recent cases or homicides that were committed years ago.
The Department also offers an enhanced reward of up to $5,000 to anyone who provides
information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any robbery in DC. The reward amount increases to up to $10,000 for information in robberies that involve a life-threatening injury to the victim.
Anyone with information about an unsolved homicide, robbery, or other crime in DC is
asked to call the MPD’s 24-hour or the Command Information Center (CIC) at (202) 727-9099.
Callers wishing to remain anonymous may call 1-888-919-CRIME (888 919-2746). Anonymous information may also be forwarded to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. And, of course, the Department continues to support the Crime Solvers program, which offers rewards of up to $1,000 for information that leads to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons responsible for other felony crimes. The Crime Solvers telephone number is (800)673-2777. All calls to Crime Solvers are confidential, and callers need not provide their names.
OUTSTANDING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
DPW TO IMMOBILIZE VEHICLES
WITH OUTSTANDING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
On February 17, 2009, the DC Department of Public Works (DPW) announced that
it will now begin booting vehicles with outstanding photo enforcement tickets. Photo
enforcement violations include red-light running, speeding, and parking on streets during street sweeping hours.
As of January 30, 2009, 12,834 vehicles were boot eligible with 15,700 outstanding
photo enforcement tickets representing $1,852,865 in fines. “Law enforcement’s public safety efforts will be enhanced by immobilizing vehicles with unanswered photo enforcement tickets,” said DPW Director William O. Howland, Jr.
“Too many violators ignore these tickets and have not changed their dangerous driving
habits as a result.” District law states that a vehicle is boot eligible if it has two or more tickets that remain unpaid with no request for adjudication within 60 days of issuance or that remain unpaid after the owner’s appeal rights have been exhausted.
“If you have outstanding photo enforcement tickets, I strongly encourage residents
to pay them right away to avoid possible boot and tow fees,” Howland said.
WITH OUTSTANDING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
On February 17, 2009, the DC Department of Public Works (DPW) announced that
it will now begin booting vehicles with outstanding photo enforcement tickets. Photo
enforcement violations include red-light running, speeding, and parking on streets during street sweeping hours.
As of January 30, 2009, 12,834 vehicles were boot eligible with 15,700 outstanding
photo enforcement tickets representing $1,852,865 in fines. “Law enforcement’s public safety efforts will be enhanced by immobilizing vehicles with unanswered photo enforcement tickets,” said DPW Director William O. Howland, Jr.
“Too many violators ignore these tickets and have not changed their dangerous driving
habits as a result.” District law states that a vehicle is boot eligible if it has two or more tickets that remain unpaid with no request for adjudication within 60 days of issuance or that remain unpaid after the owner’s appeal rights have been exhausted.
“If you have outstanding photo enforcement tickets, I strongly encourage residents
to pay them right away to avoid possible boot and tow fees,” Howland said.
IACP, PARADE MAGAZINE SEEK NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICER OF THE YEAR
Law enforcement can be rewarding and challenging — as well as frustrating and
dangerous — so providing appropriate recognition to deserving officers is very important.
As law enforcement leaders, we must reinforce to the public that the vast majority of the police officers who serve us are dedicated professionals working to make our lives better and our communities safer. To provide such recognition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Parade magazine sponsor the Police Officer of the Year Award.
This award symbolizes the highest level of achievement among police officers in the
United States. Nominations may be made for exceptional achievement in any police endeavor, either on-duty or off-duty, including cold cases, community policing, criminal investigation, extraordinary valor, forensic science, policing technology, terrorism, and traffic safety. Nominees may come from virtually any area of law enforcement, from sheriffs’ departments to border and park patrols to standard municipal police agencies. The time frame for eligibility extends from actions performed between June 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009.
dangerous — so providing appropriate recognition to deserving officers is very important.
As law enforcement leaders, we must reinforce to the public that the vast majority of the police officers who serve us are dedicated professionals working to make our lives better and our communities safer. To provide such recognition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Parade magazine sponsor the Police Officer of the Year Award.
This award symbolizes the highest level of achievement among police officers in the
United States. Nominations may be made for exceptional achievement in any police endeavor, either on-duty or off-duty, including cold cases, community policing, criminal investigation, extraordinary valor, forensic science, policing technology, terrorism, and traffic safety. Nominees may come from virtually any area of law enforcement, from sheriffs’ departments to border and park patrols to standard municipal police agencies. The time frame for eligibility extends from actions performed between June 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009.
FORTY-FOUR NEW OFFICERS HITTING THE STREETS OF DC
FORTY-FOUR NEW OFFICERS HITTING THE STREETS OF DC
Patrols in DC neighborhoods are being boosted by the addition of 44 officers who were
sworn in during a graduation ceremony on Friday, February 20, 2009 at the MPD’s Maurice T. Turner, Jr. Metropolitan Police Academy in Southwest.
The new officers all completed approximately 24 weeks of training at the police academy, which includes a full program of physical, classroom, and firearms training to prepare them for the challenges of being a police officer. The subjects covered include laws of arrest, search and seizure, criminal law, traffic regulations, human relations, community policing, and ethics. In addition, recruit officers receive skills training in firearms, operation of emergency police vehicles, self-defense, advanced first aid, and much more.
Patrols in DC neighborhoods are being boosted by the addition of 44 officers who were
sworn in during a graduation ceremony on Friday, February 20, 2009 at the MPD’s Maurice T. Turner, Jr. Metropolitan Police Academy in Southwest.
The new officers all completed approximately 24 weeks of training at the police academy, which includes a full program of physical, classroom, and firearms training to prepare them for the challenges of being a police officer. The subjects covered include laws of arrest, search and seizure, criminal law, traffic regulations, human relations, community policing, and ethics. In addition, recruit officers receive skills training in firearms, operation of emergency police vehicles, self-defense, advanced first aid, and much more.
CRIME VICTIMS GET SUPPORT
CRIME VICTIMS CONTINUE TO GET SUPPORT THROUGH
DC SUPERIOR COURT’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
The policy of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is to treat all victims in a respectful, responsive and compassionate manner. To that end, the department’s Victim Specialists Unit provides support, information, and referrals to victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The Victim Specialists in the unit act as a support system and conduit for victims/survivors; with hope of empowering victims. Moreover, the Victim Specialists Unit aims to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of the District of Columbia by establishing relationships with the community and being a resource for victims and their families.
In addition to providing support and services, the Victim Specialists Unit also helps victims coordinate with the crime Victims Compensation Program (CVCP). The CVCP, administered by the Superior Court of DC assists innocent victims of violent crime and their families with crime-related expenses such as funeral and burial costs, medical and mental health costs, lost wages, loss of support and services, clean up of a crime scene and, for victims of domestic violence, the cost of temporary shelter. Through the services of a victim advocate, crime victims receive assistance in filing applications; locating victim service programs, support groups, or mental health counselors; and handling quality of life issues that arise after victimization.
DC SUPERIOR COURT’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
The policy of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is to treat all victims in a respectful, responsive and compassionate manner. To that end, the department’s Victim Specialists Unit provides support, information, and referrals to victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The Victim Specialists in the unit act as a support system and conduit for victims/survivors; with hope of empowering victims. Moreover, the Victim Specialists Unit aims to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of the District of Columbia by establishing relationships with the community and being a resource for victims and their families.
In addition to providing support and services, the Victim Specialists Unit also helps victims coordinate with the crime Victims Compensation Program (CVCP). The CVCP, administered by the Superior Court of DC assists innocent victims of violent crime and their families with crime-related expenses such as funeral and burial costs, medical and mental health costs, lost wages, loss of support and services, clean up of a crime scene and, for victims of domestic violence, the cost of temporary shelter. Through the services of a victim advocate, crime victims receive assistance in filing applications; locating victim service programs, support groups, or mental health counselors; and handling quality of life issues that arise after victimization.
08 March, 2009
D.C. Citywide Consumer Protection Sweep
Mayor Fenty Expands Citywide Consumer Protection Sweep of Unlicensed Businesses, Unveils New Website
Contact: Feras Sleiman, (202) 251-8829; Michael Rupert, (202) 442-4513
Washington, DC – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Attorney General Peter Nickles and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) Director Linda Argo today kicked off National Consumer Protection Week by announcing new emergency regulations targeting towing and auto repair dealers to further assist the District in cracking down on unlicensed businesses. This action will also allow the District to ramp up enforcement against unscrupulous used car lots, after multiple warnings to clean up or close down.
“The residents of the District of Columbia have lived for too long alongside many of these businesses who have no regard for their neighbors or for consumers,” Mayor Fenty said. “We are going to continue to move swiftly through both new regulations and strong enforcement so legitimate small businesses can thrive.”
The new regulations will target towing and auto repair shops in an effort to prevent neighborhood blights and stop the creation of corrupt businesses, which often lead to crime and distress in communities.
Towing and Auto Repair Regulation Highlights
Below are examples of regulations that will go into effect today:
Towing Service Lots
• Car storage lots will no longer be able to store vehicles for more than sixty (60) days.
• Lots must now maintain permanent signs, visible from the lot entrance, showing the name of the establishment and its hours of operation.
• Lots must be separated by fencing from any neighboring outdoor space.
• Lots used for storing, parking or moving vehicles must be paved and maintained.
• No vehicle parts or trash can be stored outdoors on the storage lot, unless stored off the ground in secured containers.
Auto Repair Shops
• All auto repair shops servicing motor vehicles must perform repairs within a permanent garage or permanent building by a licensed auto repair shop or mechanic.
• Auto repair shops are prohibited from repairing and storing of motor vehicles outdoors.
• Auto repair shop dealers must maintain a customer log for each motor vehicle kept on the premises.
These regulations will limit the amount of vehicles stored or repaired outside or in public space, adds signage and paving requirements, screening requirements and new zoning limits. The regulations are effective immediately and the city will begin enforcement in stages over the next 60 days.
In addition, the administration today unveiled a new consumer protection website, www.consumer.dc.gov to serve as a one-stop shop for consumer protection information and to solicit concerns and tips from residents. The site, a joint effort between DCRA and the Office of the Attorney General, includes educational materials, exclusive videos, live data feeds and other interactive online features. The site launch coincides with the District participation in the 11th annual National Consumer Protection Week, which runs March 1-7.
“As with used car lots, towing and auto repair businesses will not get a free ride when it comes to operating legitimately in our city,” said Nickles. “Thanks to these new regulations, the District continues its momentum of enforcing compliance, maintaining public safety, and protecting consumers.”
“We have been extremely successful in cleaning up more than half of the used car lots across the city over the past three months,” said DCRA Director Argo. “We want to be sure towing lots and auto repair shops do not become the new refuge for criminal activity.”
The new regulations coupled with the new website will provide the city with the enforcement tools and real-time information from residents to stay on top of these businesses.
Contact: Feras Sleiman, (202) 251-8829; Michael Rupert, (202) 442-4513
Washington, DC – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Attorney General Peter Nickles and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) Director Linda Argo today kicked off National Consumer Protection Week by announcing new emergency regulations targeting towing and auto repair dealers to further assist the District in cracking down on unlicensed businesses. This action will also allow the District to ramp up enforcement against unscrupulous used car lots, after multiple warnings to clean up or close down.
“The residents of the District of Columbia have lived for too long alongside many of these businesses who have no regard for their neighbors or for consumers,” Mayor Fenty said. “We are going to continue to move swiftly through both new regulations and strong enforcement so legitimate small businesses can thrive.”
The new regulations will target towing and auto repair shops in an effort to prevent neighborhood blights and stop the creation of corrupt businesses, which often lead to crime and distress in communities.
Towing and Auto Repair Regulation Highlights
Below are examples of regulations that will go into effect today:
Towing Service Lots
• Car storage lots will no longer be able to store vehicles for more than sixty (60) days.
• Lots must now maintain permanent signs, visible from the lot entrance, showing the name of the establishment and its hours of operation.
• Lots must be separated by fencing from any neighboring outdoor space.
• Lots used for storing, parking or moving vehicles must be paved and maintained.
• No vehicle parts or trash can be stored outdoors on the storage lot, unless stored off the ground in secured containers.
Auto Repair Shops
• All auto repair shops servicing motor vehicles must perform repairs within a permanent garage or permanent building by a licensed auto repair shop or mechanic.
• Auto repair shops are prohibited from repairing and storing of motor vehicles outdoors.
• Auto repair shop dealers must maintain a customer log for each motor vehicle kept on the premises.
These regulations will limit the amount of vehicles stored or repaired outside or in public space, adds signage and paving requirements, screening requirements and new zoning limits. The regulations are effective immediately and the city will begin enforcement in stages over the next 60 days.
In addition, the administration today unveiled a new consumer protection website, www.consumer.dc.gov to serve as a one-stop shop for consumer protection information and to solicit concerns and tips from residents. The site, a joint effort between DCRA and the Office of the Attorney General, includes educational materials, exclusive videos, live data feeds and other interactive online features. The site launch coincides with the District participation in the 11th annual National Consumer Protection Week, which runs March 1-7.
“As with used car lots, towing and auto repair businesses will not get a free ride when it comes to operating legitimately in our city,” said Nickles. “Thanks to these new regulations, the District continues its momentum of enforcing compliance, maintaining public safety, and protecting consumers.”
“We have been extremely successful in cleaning up more than half of the used car lots across the city over the past three months,” said DCRA Director Argo. “We want to be sure towing lots and auto repair shops do not become the new refuge for criminal activity.”
The new regulations coupled with the new website will provide the city with the enforcement tools and real-time information from residents to stay on top of these businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)