MPD TO AUCTION 27 VEHICLES THROUGH ONLINE AUCTION SITE
The District of Columbia auctions its surplus property online through Liquidation.com, a Liquidity Services, Inc. marketplace. This includes vehicles that are seized or impounded by the MPD. Approximately 27 such vehicles, including some higher-end luxury vehicles, are now up for auction on the Liquidation.com website. All vehicles for auction will be online by May 30; many have already been posted and are open for bid. The District has a contract for the management of the inventory, appraisal, sale and shipping of the city’s surplus property to Liquidity Services Inc. (LSI).
LSI conducts auctions of city assets such as vehicles, automobile accessories, computer equipment, radios and other communications equipment, office furniture and other supplies through its online marketplace. The online auctions are designed to improve data tracking and financial oversight of the city’s surplus
asset disposition activities. All property offered for sale is “as is,” “where is” and without recourse against the Government of the District of Columbia.
29 May, 2009
D.C. EVIDENCE WAREHOUSE PROJECT
EVIDENCE WAREHOUSE PROJECT
On May 26, 2009, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty joined Metropolitan Police Department
Chief Cathy L. Lanier and Office of Property Management Director Robin-Eve Jasper to
break ground on the future state-of-the-art Property and Evidence Warehouse for the
Metropolitan Police Department.
The new 30,000 square-foot warehouse MPD Property and Evidence Warehouse will
greatly improve upon the current facility in the areas of design, capacity, safety, security,environmental working conditions, air conditioning, lighting, electricity, and inventory tracking automation.
The new and improved facility will feature computer-automated storage system for
logging and retrieval of evidence; secure and controlled access to all areas; video event logging of transactions; radio frequency handheld portable terminals; bar code scanning & printing techniques; and refrigerated units for storing DNA samples
The District expects construction to be complete by the fall of 2010. The project is
also expected to achieve at least LEED Silver certification or higher, incorporating the sustainable development goals for all public projects as outlined in the District’s Green DC Agenda.
On May 26, 2009, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty joined Metropolitan Police Department
Chief Cathy L. Lanier and Office of Property Management Director Robin-Eve Jasper to
break ground on the future state-of-the-art Property and Evidence Warehouse for the
Metropolitan Police Department.
The new 30,000 square-foot warehouse MPD Property and Evidence Warehouse will
greatly improve upon the current facility in the areas of design, capacity, safety, security,environmental working conditions, air conditioning, lighting, electricity, and inventory tracking automation.
The new and improved facility will feature computer-automated storage system for
logging and retrieval of evidence; secure and controlled access to all areas; video event logging of transactions; radio frequency handheld portable terminals; bar code scanning & printing techniques; and refrigerated units for storing DNA samples
The District expects construction to be complete by the fall of 2010. The project is
also expected to achieve at least LEED Silver certification or higher, incorporating the sustainable development goals for all public projects as outlined in the District’s Green DC Agenda.
DC Safety TIPS
TRAVELING THIS SUMMER? HELP KEEP YOUR HOME
SAFE AND SECURE WHILE YOU’RE AWAY
Burglars can strike at almost any time and on almost any target. But burglars
particularly like targets that look vulnerable. So if you’re traveling this summer, make sure you take a few minutes to plan how to help keep your home and your possessions secure while you’re away. The primary goal is to make your home look “lived in” (almost all burglars prefer homes where residents clearly aren’t home). That means arranging to have your newspaper deliveries stopped and your mail collected by a trusted neighbor. If you’re going to be away for a couple of weeks, it may be a good idea to have someone mow your lawn. It’s probably best not to put your garbage cans out for pickup—or, alternatively, arrange to have a neighbor take in your can after the collection date. Empty trash cans left at the curb or in an alley for several days can be a sure-fire sign that no one is home.
Inside, set timers to turn on lights—as well as radio or television sets—in various rooms at various times of the day. And don’t change your voice mail message or your email reply to indicate that you are “out of town.”
SAFE AND SECURE WHILE YOU’RE AWAY
Burglars can strike at almost any time and on almost any target. But burglars
particularly like targets that look vulnerable. So if you’re traveling this summer, make sure you take a few minutes to plan how to help keep your home and your possessions secure while you’re away. The primary goal is to make your home look “lived in” (almost all burglars prefer homes where residents clearly aren’t home). That means arranging to have your newspaper deliveries stopped and your mail collected by a trusted neighbor. If you’re going to be away for a couple of weeks, it may be a good idea to have someone mow your lawn. It’s probably best not to put your garbage cans out for pickup—or, alternatively, arrange to have a neighbor take in your can after the collection date. Empty trash cans left at the curb or in an alley for several days can be a sure-fire sign that no one is home.
Inside, set timers to turn on lights—as well as radio or television sets—in various rooms at various times of the day. And don’t change your voice mail message or your email reply to indicate that you are “out of town.”
DPW GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFERS GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES
Graffiti is generally described as a drawing or inscription made on any exterior surface—from street signs to sidewalks—for the purpose of being seen by the public. The inscription can be rudimentary or elaborate, colorful or plain black. Gang members use graffiti to define territory and intimidate rivals. Almost by definition, graffiti defaces property and contributes to blight.
In an effort to keep the District clean and attractive, the DC Department of Public Works(DPW) deploys three graffiti removal crews Monday through Friday, whenever temperatures are above 45º F.
DPW crews clean graffiti from public space and private property, such as sidewalks,
bridges and exterior walls. When power washing is impractical, our crews resort to more low-tech methods, such as simply painting over the graffiti. “Tags,” those spray-painted black squiggles sometimes found on traffic signs, fences or metal garage doors, are often removed with chemical-treated cleaning cloths.
Owners of private property may now request graffiti removal services from the city.
Although the service is free, property owners must read and sign a graffiti removal waiver of liability form. Unfortunately, DPW can’t guarantee that the graffiti will be completely removed by chemical means.
Additionally, since paint colors offered by the city are limited to four or five basic shades, homeowners may want to try painting out graffiti themselves. To request graffiti removal on private property and/or to get a waiver form, contact the Mayor’s Citywide Call Center at 311.
Graffiti is generally described as a drawing or inscription made on any exterior surface—from street signs to sidewalks—for the purpose of being seen by the public. The inscription can be rudimentary or elaborate, colorful or plain black. Gang members use graffiti to define territory and intimidate rivals. Almost by definition, graffiti defaces property and contributes to blight.
In an effort to keep the District clean and attractive, the DC Department of Public Works(DPW) deploys three graffiti removal crews Monday through Friday, whenever temperatures are above 45º F.
DPW crews clean graffiti from public space and private property, such as sidewalks,
bridges and exterior walls. When power washing is impractical, our crews resort to more low-tech methods, such as simply painting over the graffiti. “Tags,” those spray-painted black squiggles sometimes found on traffic signs, fences or metal garage doors, are often removed with chemical-treated cleaning cloths.
Owners of private property may now request graffiti removal services from the city.
Although the service is free, property owners must read and sign a graffiti removal waiver of liability form. Unfortunately, DPW can’t guarantee that the graffiti will be completely removed by chemical means.
Additionally, since paint colors offered by the city are limited to four or five basic shades, homeowners may want to try painting out graffiti themselves. To request graffiti removal on private property and/or to get a waiver form, contact the Mayor’s Citywide Call Center at 311.
Police Alert
Police Alert-Robbery Hold-Up Knife
Robbery Hold-Up Knife_0358 hrs_L Street and !st Street NE_L/O for 1 B/M wearing a red and white shirt DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #120090281220
Robbery Hold-Up Knife_0358 hrs_L Street and !st Street NE_L/O for 1 B/M wearing a red and white shirt DO NOT TAKE ACTION CALL 911 W/EVENT #120090281220
26 May, 2009
Traffic Advisory: Work to Begin on 14th Street Bridge
Work is scheduled to begin on the northbound 14th Street Bridge beginning on Wednesday, May 27th. Crews will spend the first three days of the project, during off-peak hours, preparing the roadway, restriping, and installing barriers in preparation of the lane shifts that will be part of the permanent traffic control for the year-long bridge rehabilitation project. Temporary lane closures will be in effect from 10:30am – 2:30pm from Wednesday, May 27th – Friday, May 29th during this preparation stage.
For more details on the construction, including graphics showing the eight phases of work, visit www.ddot.dc.gov/14thstreetbridge. DDOT is encouraging all commuters to go to this site and sign up for email or Twitter alerts so motorists can receive real time information about the bridge work.
For more details on the construction, including graphics showing the eight phases of work, visit www.ddot.dc.gov/14thstreetbridge. DDOT is encouraging all commuters to go to this site and sign up for email or Twitter alerts so motorists can receive real time information about the bridge work.
21 May, 2009
Compromise on Anti Crime Bill
May 18, 2009
Public Hearing on Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009” and Bill 18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009”
The following joint testimony of Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and MPD Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier was presented to the District of Columbia Council Committee on the Judiciary, Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chair, on May 18, 2009, at the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Testimony and related documents submitted to Council on March 18, 2009
Good morning Chairman Mendelson and members of the Committee. We are pleased to have an opportunity to testify at this public hearing on Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009” (the “Omnibus”), and Bill-18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009.”
Mayor Fenty’s proposed Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act is the culmination of a comprehensive and collaborative effort begun over a year ago. Last spring, the Office of the Attorney General, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office put pen to paper to draft legislation that would have a significant impact on public safety in the District. As we discussed during the two earlier hearings on this bill in December 2008 and March 2009, the Omnibus creates or strengthens tools to get serious gun offenders off of our streets, keep gang members from intimidating neighborhoods, and protect the safety and privacy of victims of and witnesses to violent crime. In addition, it seeks to modernize a number of laws to help the criminal justice system work more effectively and efficiently.
In drafting the Act, we drew upon the considerable experience of the District’s public servants, the strong and consistent voice of the community, experts in the field, and the ideas and experiences of various other jurisdictions. Since its first introduction last October, we have continued to refine and improve the Omnibus based on comments and questions from the Committee and other Councilmembers, public and key stakeholders, community members, and advocates. Many of the recommendations for revisions and clarifications to the legislation have been adopted in an emergency version that we propose the Council adopt at its June legislative session and that the Mayor will be submitting to Council shortly. The end result is a bill that is stronger and enjoys broad support.
The section on Gang Injunctions is an excellent example of this inclusive and collaborative process. With the assistance of Chairman Mendelson and his staff, the OAG, USAO, MPD, the Public Defender Service, Peaceaholics, The Latin American Youth Center, the East of the River Clergy-Police Community Partnership, and one of the Council’s attorneys met several times to review every word of the Gang Injunction proposal. Many reasonable concerns were raised and language was revised to address those concerns.
Several other sections of the Omnibus such as “stalking,” “victim and witness protection,” “blood drawing,” and “marital privilege” were carefully reviewed and discussed with our community partners. We are appreciative of the extensive input we received from the National Press Association, Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association, and the Washington Post regarding protecting the safety and privacy of victims and witnesses to serious crimes. We listened to their concerns and ultimately compromised by allowing the victims of certain crimes (crimes of violence, domestic violence, stalking, and threats) to request that their names and addresses not be placed on the public police reports. This compromise has not completely reconciled the differences between the positions of the media and the Administration, however, we are placing a higher priority on the safety and privacy of victims and witnesses of serious crime, and must therefore agree to disagree on this point.
We also worked with representatives of the District’s hospitals to craft a compromise regarding the drawing of blood in impaired driving cases. We have agreed in principle to not require the hospitals to do so when the individual suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol has refused consent. Again this process contributed to the final bill that we put before the Committee today and upon which we seek emergency passage.
At the recommendation of the US Attorney’s Office, we have also revised the provision on the Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (DC Official Code §22-4503) to clarify that certain individuals who are prohibited by federal or local statute from possessing a firearm can be charged with this offense. This mirrors federal law, but will allow for prosecution in the Superior Court. The change will support higher penalties for gun possession for an individual who is prohibited from having a gun (a maximum penalty of $10,000, 10 years, or both) than for an individual who is eligible to possess a gun but has an unregistered one (a penalty not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment for 1 year, or both, DC Official Code §7-2507.06).
In addition, we have reviewed and considered Chairman Mendelson’s proposed Bill-18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009.” We have substantive agreement on many of these issues, and would like to incorporate these provisions into the Omnibus emergency. We thank the Chairman for proposing penalty enhancements for chronic offenders and prostitution, providing for the disclosure of mental health information for criminal defendants to ensure continuity of care, and updating laws prohibiting contraband in correctional facilities and licensing of massage parlors. All of these proposals will help to improve public safety in the District while remaining within the scope of the Omnibus.
We would also ask the Council to consider legislation drafted by our Office of Property Management that would expand the authority of the Protective Services Division to be similar to the authority of the DC Housing Authority Police Department. It would add additional police presence on the streets by clarifying PSD authority and police powers, allow PSD officers to make traffic stops on government property and elsewhere, enable PSD officers to make an arrest and assist the public when witnessing a crime in progress and other provisions.
For the convenience of the Committee and the public, we are attaching the testimony submitted on March 18th as well as a chart that shows the changes that will be incorporated into the emergency bill. This information is also available on the MPD website, at www.mpdc.dc.gov.
To be clear, we recognize that this bill may not enjoy unanimous support. There are of course areas where the Administration’s priorities differ from others. Rest assured that we have listened, but on some issues we must respectfully agree to disagree. The Administration is strongly committed to this final version of the Omnibus, which reflects the goals and objectives of the earlier versions. We are confident that this bill truly reflects and balances the significant input of our broad community.
Lastly, because the final version of the Omnibus will achieve its goal of making the District safer, we urge the Council to immediately act on this bill by passing it as emergency legislation at its next legislative meeting on June 2nd. Historically, more crimes of violence – homicides, robberies, and assaults with a dangerous weapon – happen during the summer months than in any other season of the year. While some may believe that it is to be expected and there is nothing we can do about it, we strongly disagree. It is unacceptable that just when the District’s families, children, and visitors most want to be out enjoying the many things our neighborhoods and this city have to offer, violent crimes on our streets increases. Three summers ago, the Council passed emergency crime legislation in the aftermath of a surge of violent crime that reminded us briefly of the violence in the early 1990s. This year, we should all be more proactive in ensuring that our communities, our families, and our children have a safe summer.
The community has demonstrated that they are ready and willing to work with the police, prosecutors, and courts to keep our streets safe. The Administration’s Omnibus Anti-Crime Emergency Amendment Act of 2009 fulfills our commitment to ensure that the entire criminal justice system is aligned to support the community in this fight against violent crime. Therefore, we urge the Council to join with us and enact this important legislation now, so our neighborhoods will have the benefit of its protections before summer begins.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
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)).
Public Hearing on Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009” and Bill 18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009”
The following joint testimony of Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and MPD Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier was presented to the District of Columbia Council Committee on the Judiciary, Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chair, on May 18, 2009, at the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
Testimony and related documents submitted to Council on March 18, 2009
Good morning Chairman Mendelson and members of the Committee. We are pleased to have an opportunity to testify at this public hearing on Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009” (the “Omnibus”), and Bill-18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009.”
Mayor Fenty’s proposed Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act is the culmination of a comprehensive and collaborative effort begun over a year ago. Last spring, the Office of the Attorney General, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office put pen to paper to draft legislation that would have a significant impact on public safety in the District. As we discussed during the two earlier hearings on this bill in December 2008 and March 2009, the Omnibus creates or strengthens tools to get serious gun offenders off of our streets, keep gang members from intimidating neighborhoods, and protect the safety and privacy of victims of and witnesses to violent crime. In addition, it seeks to modernize a number of laws to help the criminal justice system work more effectively and efficiently.
In drafting the Act, we drew upon the considerable experience of the District’s public servants, the strong and consistent voice of the community, experts in the field, and the ideas and experiences of various other jurisdictions. Since its first introduction last October, we have continued to refine and improve the Omnibus based on comments and questions from the Committee and other Councilmembers, public and key stakeholders, community members, and advocates. Many of the recommendations for revisions and clarifications to the legislation have been adopted in an emergency version that we propose the Council adopt at its June legislative session and that the Mayor will be submitting to Council shortly. The end result is a bill that is stronger and enjoys broad support.
The section on Gang Injunctions is an excellent example of this inclusive and collaborative process. With the assistance of Chairman Mendelson and his staff, the OAG, USAO, MPD, the Public Defender Service, Peaceaholics, The Latin American Youth Center, the East of the River Clergy-Police Community Partnership, and one of the Council’s attorneys met several times to review every word of the Gang Injunction proposal. Many reasonable concerns were raised and language was revised to address those concerns.
Several other sections of the Omnibus such as “stalking,” “victim and witness protection,” “blood drawing,” and “marital privilege” were carefully reviewed and discussed with our community partners. We are appreciative of the extensive input we received from the National Press Association, Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association, and the Washington Post regarding protecting the safety and privacy of victims and witnesses to serious crimes. We listened to their concerns and ultimately compromised by allowing the victims of certain crimes (crimes of violence, domestic violence, stalking, and threats) to request that their names and addresses not be placed on the public police reports. This compromise has not completely reconciled the differences between the positions of the media and the Administration, however, we are placing a higher priority on the safety and privacy of victims and witnesses of serious crime, and must therefore agree to disagree on this point.
We also worked with representatives of the District’s hospitals to craft a compromise regarding the drawing of blood in impaired driving cases. We have agreed in principle to not require the hospitals to do so when the individual suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol has refused consent. Again this process contributed to the final bill that we put before the Committee today and upon which we seek emergency passage.
At the recommendation of the US Attorney’s Office, we have also revised the provision on the Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (DC Official Code §22-4503) to clarify that certain individuals who are prohibited by federal or local statute from possessing a firearm can be charged with this offense. This mirrors federal law, but will allow for prosecution in the Superior Court. The change will support higher penalties for gun possession for an individual who is prohibited from having a gun (a maximum penalty of $10,000, 10 years, or both) than for an individual who is eligible to possess a gun but has an unregistered one (a penalty not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment for 1 year, or both, DC Official Code §7-2507.06).
In addition, we have reviewed and considered Chairman Mendelson’s proposed Bill-18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009.” We have substantive agreement on many of these issues, and would like to incorporate these provisions into the Omnibus emergency. We thank the Chairman for proposing penalty enhancements for chronic offenders and prostitution, providing for the disclosure of mental health information for criminal defendants to ensure continuity of care, and updating laws prohibiting contraband in correctional facilities and licensing of massage parlors. All of these proposals will help to improve public safety in the District while remaining within the scope of the Omnibus.
We would also ask the Council to consider legislation drafted by our Office of Property Management that would expand the authority of the Protective Services Division to be similar to the authority of the DC Housing Authority Police Department. It would add additional police presence on the streets by clarifying PSD authority and police powers, allow PSD officers to make traffic stops on government property and elsewhere, enable PSD officers to make an arrest and assist the public when witnessing a crime in progress and other provisions.
For the convenience of the Committee and the public, we are attaching the testimony submitted on March 18th as well as a chart that shows the changes that will be incorporated into the emergency bill. This information is also available on the MPD website, at www.mpdc.dc.gov.
To be clear, we recognize that this bill may not enjoy unanimous support. There are of course areas where the Administration’s priorities differ from others. Rest assured that we have listened, but on some issues we must respectfully agree to disagree. The Administration is strongly committed to this final version of the Omnibus, which reflects the goals and objectives of the earlier versions. We are confident that this bill truly reflects and balances the significant input of our broad community.
Lastly, because the final version of the Omnibus will achieve its goal of making the District safer, we urge the Council to immediately act on this bill by passing it as emergency legislation at its next legislative meeting on June 2nd. Historically, more crimes of violence – homicides, robberies, and assaults with a dangerous weapon – happen during the summer months than in any other season of the year. While some may believe that it is to be expected and there is nothing we can do about it, we strongly disagree. It is unacceptable that just when the District’s families, children, and visitors most want to be out enjoying the many things our neighborhoods and this city have to offer, violent crimes on our streets increases. Three summers ago, the Council passed emergency crime legislation in the aftermath of a surge of violent crime that reminded us briefly of the violence in the early 1990s. This year, we should all be more proactive in ensuring that our communities, our families, and our children have a safe summer.
The community has demonstrated that they are ready and willing to work with the police, prosecutors, and courts to keep our streets safe. The Administration’s Omnibus Anti-Crime Emergency Amendment Act of 2009 fulfills our commitment to ensure that the entire criminal justice system is aligned to support the community in this fight against violent crime. Therefore, we urge the Council to join with us and enact this important legislation now, so our neighborhoods will have the benefit of its protections before summer begins.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
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)).
20 May, 2009
12 May, 2009
Street Closings Planned for Special Events
May 11, 2009
This is to advise the public that during the week of May 11, 2009, there will be several events taking place in conjunction with National Police Week along with other special events in the District of Columbia that will necessitate street closings. Information on some of those events, including the 30th Annual Memorial Service for fallen Washington Area Law Enforcement Officers and the 21st Annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial (NLEOM) have been posted on the department’s website located at www.mpdc.dc.gov. It should be noted that vehicular traffic restrictions in the vicinity of the NLEOM on E Street, F Street and G Street, NW, may begin as early as midnight on the day of the event. The other events taking place are listed below.
POLICE UNITY BIKE TOUR
This event is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2009. Cyclists will enter the District of Columbia on Bladensburg Road, NE, and ride to the RFK Stadium Parking Lot. From that point the riders will proceed to the NLEOM located in the 400 block of E Street, NW. There will be no permanent closures with respect to this event; however, motorists in the area of RFK Stadium and the NLEOM may anticipate delays as bike traffic proceeds.
EMERALD SOCIETY PIPE BAND MARCH
This event is scheduled for Thursday, May 14, 2009.
· Road closures in the 100 block of F Street, NW, will begin at 4:00 p.m. to allow for the staging of the bands. F Street is scheduled to reopen at approximately 7:00 pm.
· Bands are scheduled to step off at 6:00 pm. and will proceed south on New Jersey Avenue, NW, and eastbound on E Street, NW, to the NLEOM.
POLICE WEEK 5K RACE
This event is scheduled for Saturday, May 16, 2009. The race is scheduled to begin at approximately 6:00 am. on 3rd Street between E and F Streets, NW.
· The race will proceed south on 3rd Street, NW, east on Independence Avenue, north on 1st Street, NE, east on Constitution Avenue, south on 2nd Street, NE, west on Independence Avenue, north on 3rd Street, NW, west on Indiana Avenue, north on 4th Street, NW, to the NLEOM.
· Roads are scheduled to be closed from approximately 5:00 am until 10:00 am.
NATIONAL ASIAN HERITAGE FESTIVAL
This event is scheduled for Saturday, May 16, 2009, with a street festival taking place on Pennsylvania Avenue, between 3rd and 6th Streets, NW.
· Road closures are scheduled to begin at 2:00 am and last until approximately 10 pm.
· Road closures will take place on Pennsylvania Avenue between 3rd and 6th Streets, NW, Constitution Avenue, between 3rd and 6th Streets, NW, and 4th Street between Madison Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. In addition to these road closures, there will be no parking allowed on these streets during the times specified.
CAPITOL CLASSIC 10K RACE
This event is scheduled for Sunday, May 17, 2009.
· The race is scheduled to begin at 6:00 a.m. and will end at approximately 1:00 pm.
· The race is scheduled to begin at Stanton is scheduled to begin at Stanton Park at Massachusetts Avenue and 3rd Street, NE., proceeding east on Massachusetts Avenue to East Capitol Street, NE, around RFK Stadium, proceeding back west on East Capitol street, south on 3rd Street and west on Independence Avenue. At that point, the runners will make a u-turn at 6th Street, SW, then proceed east on Independence, north on 2nd Street, SE and then east on Maryland Avenue until crossing the finish line on C Street, NE.
The Metropolitan Police Department and the DC Department of Transportation would like to thank motorists for their patience during these events and to be observant of increased pedestrian activity in association with these activities.
This is to advise the public that during the week of May 11, 2009, there will be several events taking place in conjunction with National Police Week along with other special events in the District of Columbia that will necessitate street closings. Information on some of those events, including the 30th Annual Memorial Service for fallen Washington Area Law Enforcement Officers and the 21st Annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial (NLEOM) have been posted on the department’s website located at www.mpdc.dc.gov. It should be noted that vehicular traffic restrictions in the vicinity of the NLEOM on E Street, F Street and G Street, NW, may begin as early as midnight on the day of the event. The other events taking place are listed below.
POLICE UNITY BIKE TOUR
This event is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2009. Cyclists will enter the District of Columbia on Bladensburg Road, NE, and ride to the RFK Stadium Parking Lot. From that point the riders will proceed to the NLEOM located in the 400 block of E Street, NW. There will be no permanent closures with respect to this event; however, motorists in the area of RFK Stadium and the NLEOM may anticipate delays as bike traffic proceeds.
EMERALD SOCIETY PIPE BAND MARCH
This event is scheduled for Thursday, May 14, 2009.
· Road closures in the 100 block of F Street, NW, will begin at 4:00 p.m. to allow for the staging of the bands. F Street is scheduled to reopen at approximately 7:00 pm.
· Bands are scheduled to step off at 6:00 pm. and will proceed south on New Jersey Avenue, NW, and eastbound on E Street, NW, to the NLEOM.
POLICE WEEK 5K RACE
This event is scheduled for Saturday, May 16, 2009. The race is scheduled to begin at approximately 6:00 am. on 3rd Street between E and F Streets, NW.
· The race will proceed south on 3rd Street, NW, east on Independence Avenue, north on 1st Street, NE, east on Constitution Avenue, south on 2nd Street, NE, west on Independence Avenue, north on 3rd Street, NW, west on Indiana Avenue, north on 4th Street, NW, to the NLEOM.
· Roads are scheduled to be closed from approximately 5:00 am until 10:00 am.
NATIONAL ASIAN HERITAGE FESTIVAL
This event is scheduled for Saturday, May 16, 2009, with a street festival taking place on Pennsylvania Avenue, between 3rd and 6th Streets, NW.
· Road closures are scheduled to begin at 2:00 am and last until approximately 10 pm.
· Road closures will take place on Pennsylvania Avenue between 3rd and 6th Streets, NW, Constitution Avenue, between 3rd and 6th Streets, NW, and 4th Street between Madison Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. In addition to these road closures, there will be no parking allowed on these streets during the times specified.
CAPITOL CLASSIC 10K RACE
This event is scheduled for Sunday, May 17, 2009.
· The race is scheduled to begin at 6:00 a.m. and will end at approximately 1:00 pm.
· The race is scheduled to begin at Stanton is scheduled to begin at Stanton Park at Massachusetts Avenue and 3rd Street, NE., proceeding east on Massachusetts Avenue to East Capitol Street, NE, around RFK Stadium, proceeding back west on East Capitol street, south on 3rd Street and west on Independence Avenue. At that point, the runners will make a u-turn at 6th Street, SW, then proceed east on Independence, north on 2nd Street, SE and then east on Maryland Avenue until crossing the finish line on C Street, NE.
The Metropolitan Police Department and the DC Department of Transportation would like to thank motorists for their patience during these events and to be observant of increased pedestrian activity in association with these activities.
11 May, 2009
Teens to Teens on Nonviolence
Lights! Camera! Action!
Media Competition: Teens to Teens on Nonviolence
The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and WPGC are pleased to announce the Teen Public Service Announcement (PSA) Competition: Teens to Teens on Nonviolence.
Young people between the ages of 14-20 are invited to show off their audio/video skills! If you are a poet, can rap, act, sing, or wrote spoken word, we want you! Send your best video, audio or printed advertisement designed to encourage other teens to have a safe, non-violent summer, using the “No Time for Crime” theme. Verse must include at least one of the following messages: anti-violence; anti-auto theft; crime prevention; teen safety; and/or anti-gang violence. School groups are encouraged to participate.
Winners will not be given money, but they will get studio time and a chance for their entry to be on TV, Radio or in the Newspaper. The ads will run throughout the 2009 Safe Summer Campaign.
The top 10 finalists will be invited to present their ideas at the Metropolitan Police Department’s Citywide Safe Summer Kickoff. Everyone is invited to attend the free kickoff event on May 30, 2009, 1-4 pm, at the Kennedy Recreation Center, 1401 7th Street, NW.
All entries must be submitted by 11:59 PM on Sunday, May 17, 2009. Contest entries should be submitted through the WPGC website (click on “CONTESTS”).
Contest Rules
Entrants must be a District of Columbia Resident (ID required)
Entrants must have parents’ or guardians’ permission
Entrants must be between the ages of 14 and 20
Video or audio entry must be 30 seconds or less
Typed ads must be 20 words or less (photo optional)
Use stock clip art and photos, rather than personal photos
No explicit language permitted
All submissions should be original in concept (no plagiarism)
Get More Information
For more information, email teen.contest@dc.gov or call (202) 462-6733.
04 May, 2009
MPD All Hands On Deck Results
MPD ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF
ALL HANDS ON DECK 2009
On April 27, 2009, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced the results of the First Phase of All Hands on Deck (AHOD) which began at 6 am Friday, April 24 and continued through 6 am on Sunday, April 26, 2009.
MPD officers made 377 arrests, recovered six firearms, and seized more than $7,000
worth of drugs. “This was a successful AHOD,” said Chief Lanier. “Despite the fact that we had significant violent crime reductions last year and that we currently have the lowest number of homicides year to date since the early 1980s, I will continue my commitment to put more officers on the street.”
During AHOD, all available sworn MPD personnel were on patrol throughout the District
emphasizing community policing, focused law enforcement and community outreach. This
included increased foot beats, homicide detectives following up with victims, and recruits passing out specific crime related information.
Anyone who has information about a crime may call police at (202) 727-9099 or
1-888-919-CRIM[E] (1-888-919-2746). Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. The MPD is also working with Crime Solvers. Through the DC Crime Solver’s program, individuals who provide information that leads to an arrest and indictment in a robbery or other serious crime may receive a reward of up to $1,000 by calling 1-866-411-TIPS.
ALL HANDS ON DECK 2009
On April 27, 2009, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced the results of the First Phase of All Hands on Deck (AHOD) which began at 6 am Friday, April 24 and continued through 6 am on Sunday, April 26, 2009.
MPD officers made 377 arrests, recovered six firearms, and seized more than $7,000
worth of drugs. “This was a successful AHOD,” said Chief Lanier. “Despite the fact that we had significant violent crime reductions last year and that we currently have the lowest number of homicides year to date since the early 1980s, I will continue my commitment to put more officers on the street.”
During AHOD, all available sworn MPD personnel were on patrol throughout the District
emphasizing community policing, focused law enforcement and community outreach. This
included increased foot beats, homicide detectives following up with victims, and recruits passing out specific crime related information.
Anyone who has information about a crime may call police at (202) 727-9099 or
1-888-919-CRIM[E] (1-888-919-2746). Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. The MPD is also working with Crime Solvers. Through the DC Crime Solver’s program, individuals who provide information that leads to an arrest and indictment in a robbery or other serious crime may receive a reward of up to $1,000 by calling 1-866-411-TIPS.
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK TO BRING THOUSANDS TO DC
HONORING OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace
Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as “National Police Week.” Every year since, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the world converge on DC each May to participate in a variety of events to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and were killed in the line of duty. The 21st Annual Candlelight Vigil will be held at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on Wednesday, May 13, 2008. Sponsored by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), the event will begin at 8 pm at the Memorial grounds, located at Judiciary Square, on the 400 block of E Street, NW,
Washington, DC. Other Police Week events include bicycle and motorcycle rides, wreath-laying ceremonies, the 14th annual Blue Mass (May 5 at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, 10th and G Streets, NW), seminars by Concerns of Police Survivors, a Pipeband March and Service, and an Honor Guard competition.
Locally, the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary sponsors the 30th Annual Memorial
Service for law enforcement officers from the region killed in the line of duty. The ceremony will take place at 11 am on Tuesday, May 11, 2009, at the memorial fountain outside MPD Headquarters at 300 Indiana Avenue, NW.
HONORING OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace
Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as “National Police Week.” Every year since, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the world converge on DC each May to participate in a variety of events to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and were killed in the line of duty. The 21st Annual Candlelight Vigil will be held at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on Wednesday, May 13, 2008. Sponsored by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), the event will begin at 8 pm at the Memorial grounds, located at Judiciary Square, on the 400 block of E Street, NW,
Washington, DC. Other Police Week events include bicycle and motorcycle rides, wreath-laying ceremonies, the 14th annual Blue Mass (May 5 at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, 10th and G Streets, NW), seminars by Concerns of Police Survivors, a Pipeband March and Service, and an Honor Guard competition.
Locally, the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary sponsors the 30th Annual Memorial
Service for law enforcement officers from the region killed in the line of duty. The ceremony will take place at 11 am on Tuesday, May 11, 2009, at the memorial fountain outside MPD Headquarters at 300 Indiana Avenue, NW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)