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)).
23 March, 2009
Eighteen Year Old Missing Person Case Closed
March 20, 2009
Eighteen Year Old Missing Person Case Closed
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced the closure of a 1990 missing person case with the assistance of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Twenty-six-year-old Audrey Palmer was found on Sunday, August 12, 1990 in a dumpster in the 5100 block of Sargent Road, NE. She had been beaten, strangled and stabbed to death.
For nearly 19 years, there have been various attempts to discover the identity of Ms. Palmer. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children created a new composite photo and the case was featured by various media outlets. When the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) expanded nationwide, her fingerprints were run through again, but with negative results.
Recently, as part of an ongoing project by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner/MPD Major Case Unit on suspicious missing persons and the unidentified dead, an investigator with the OCME submitted the victim’s fingerprints into the new National Missing and Unidentified Person System database. The case caught the attention of DHS’ Biometric Support Center. After searching multiple databases, followed by a physical comparison of multiple fingerprint files, DHS was able to match the victim’s fingerprints to those of Audrey Palmer (aka: Althea Palmer) a 26-year-old female from Brooklyn, New York.
The information was turned over to an FBI analyst assigned to the MPD Major Case/Cold Case Unit who tracked Ms. Palmer to an outstanding bench warrant on a 1989 drug charge in Brooklyn, NY where Palmer’s next of kin was located.
Detectives discovered that sometime after her arrest, Palmer had left New York with the intent of going to Washington, D.C. She was accompanied by some men known to be from the DC area who have yet to be identified. Those responsible for Ms. Palmer’s death have not been identified.
The MPD wishes to thank OCME investigator Michelle Mack, DHS supervisory fingerprint examiner Ed Sears, FBI analyst Steve Milefsky, detective Jeff Williams and FBI special agent Viet Nguyen.
The identification of Audrey Palmer after 18 years as a Jane Doe demonstrates the value of collaboration across agencies and the initiative of those involved to work toward a common goal and move a case forward.
Eighteen Year Old Missing Person Case Closed
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced the closure of a 1990 missing person case with the assistance of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Twenty-six-year-old Audrey Palmer was found on Sunday, August 12, 1990 in a dumpster in the 5100 block of Sargent Road, NE. She had been beaten, strangled and stabbed to death.
For nearly 19 years, there have been various attempts to discover the identity of Ms. Palmer. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children created a new composite photo and the case was featured by various media outlets. When the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) expanded nationwide, her fingerprints were run through again, but with negative results.
Recently, as part of an ongoing project by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner/MPD Major Case Unit on suspicious missing persons and the unidentified dead, an investigator with the OCME submitted the victim’s fingerprints into the new National Missing and Unidentified Person System database. The case caught the attention of DHS’ Biometric Support Center. After searching multiple databases, followed by a physical comparison of multiple fingerprint files, DHS was able to match the victim’s fingerprints to those of Audrey Palmer (aka: Althea Palmer) a 26-year-old female from Brooklyn, New York.
The information was turned over to an FBI analyst assigned to the MPD Major Case/Cold Case Unit who tracked Ms. Palmer to an outstanding bench warrant on a 1989 drug charge in Brooklyn, NY where Palmer’s next of kin was located.
Detectives discovered that sometime after her arrest, Palmer had left New York with the intent of going to Washington, D.C. She was accompanied by some men known to be from the DC area who have yet to be identified. Those responsible for Ms. Palmer’s death have not been identified.
The MPD wishes to thank OCME investigator Michelle Mack, DHS supervisory fingerprint examiner Ed Sears, FBI analyst Steve Milefsky, detective Jeff Williams and FBI special agent Viet Nguyen.
The identification of Audrey Palmer after 18 years as a Jane Doe demonstrates the value of collaboration across agencies and the initiative of those involved to work toward a common goal and move a case forward.
13 March, 2009
Sexual Assault Suspect Sought
March 13, 2009
Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE
The Metropolitan Police Department is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying and locating a suspect related to a sexual assault case on Mississippi Avenue, SE.
At approximately 1:35 am, on Saturday, March 7, 2009, an unknown suspect approached the victim who was walking in the Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE. The suspect subsequently sexually assaulted the victim before fleeing the scene in an unknown direction.
The suspect in this case is described as a black male, who is in his early 40s. He is approximately 5’7” in height, with a strong build, dark complexion, and a mustache. He was last seen wearing a black hat, black jacket, and black pants.
This case is being investigated by the Department’s Sexual Offenses Unit. Anyone with information about this case is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099 or 1-888-919-CRIM [E] (1-888-919-2746). Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to DC Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS and to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. If the information provided by the caller to the Crime Solvers Unit leads to an arrest and indictment, that caller will be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000.
Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE
The Metropolitan Police Department is seeking the public’s assistance in identifying and locating a suspect related to a sexual assault case on Mississippi Avenue, SE.
At approximately 1:35 am, on Saturday, March 7, 2009, an unknown suspect approached the victim who was walking in the Unit block of Mississippi Avenue, SE. The suspect subsequently sexually assaulted the victim before fleeing the scene in an unknown direction.
The suspect in this case is described as a black male, who is in his early 40s. He is approximately 5’7” in height, with a strong build, dark complexion, and a mustache. He was last seen wearing a black hat, black jacket, and black pants.
This case is being investigated by the Department’s Sexual Offenses Unit. Anyone with information about this case is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099 or 1-888-919-CRIM [E] (1-888-919-2746). Additionally, anonymous information may be submitted to DC Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS and to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. If the information provided by the caller to the Crime Solvers Unit leads to an arrest and indictment, that caller will be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000.
AVOID TAX SEASON SCAMS
AS APRIL 15TH APPROACHES, MPD REMINDS ALL TO
AVOID TAX SEASON SCAMS
April 15th is almost a month away, and many of us have just begun thinking about filing our income tax returns. It’s important to consider your privacy when preparing your returns. The IRS is warning the public about some common tax-related scams. They only expect the number of these types of scams to grow as the filing deadline approaches. Here are a few examples of common tax-related scams:
Phishing. Phishing scams often take the form of an email that appears to come from a legitimate source. Some scam emails falsely claim to come from the IRS. These emails will often try to scare you into thinking there is an error with your tax filing. These so-called “phishing” emails will typically urge you to visit a site, which will then prompt you to enter personal and financial information that is then sent off to identity thieves. To date, taxpayers have forwarded more than 33,000 of these scam emails, reflecting more than 1,500 different schemes, to the IRS. The IRS
never uses email to contact taxpayers about their tax issues. All valid IRS websites will have a web address that begins with http://ww.irs.gov/.
Scams Related to the Economic Stimulus Payment. Some scam artists are trying to trick individuals into revealing information that can be used to access their financial accounts by making promises relating to the economic stimulus payment, often called a “rebate.” To obtain the payment, eligible individuals in most cases will not have to do anything more than file a 2007 federal tax return.
However, some criminals posing as IRS representatives are trying to trick taxpayers by falsely telling them they must provide information to get a payment.
Whether it’s tax season or any other time of the year, you should exercise caution and approach any offer or service with a healthy dose of skepticism. Con artists know how to win over your confidence with their smooth talk and self-assured manner. Unless you are careful, you may find yourself turning over cash or personal information. Here are some good rules to follow all the time—whether or not you suspect a fraud:
• Don’t believe “something-for-nothing” offers. You get what you pay for.
• Read all contracts and agreements before signing.
• Compare services, prices, and credit offers before agreeing to a deal.
• Do not hesitate to check the credentials of anyone who comes to your door.
• Report all suspicious offers immediately, before someone else can become a victim. And if you’ve been victimized, don’t be embarrassed about coming forward.
AVOID TAX SEASON SCAMS
April 15th is almost a month away, and many of us have just begun thinking about filing our income tax returns. It’s important to consider your privacy when preparing your returns. The IRS is warning the public about some common tax-related scams. They only expect the number of these types of scams to grow as the filing deadline approaches. Here are a few examples of common tax-related scams:
Phishing. Phishing scams often take the form of an email that appears to come from a legitimate source. Some scam emails falsely claim to come from the IRS. These emails will often try to scare you into thinking there is an error with your tax filing. These so-called “phishing” emails will typically urge you to visit a site, which will then prompt you to enter personal and financial information that is then sent off to identity thieves. To date, taxpayers have forwarded more than 33,000 of these scam emails, reflecting more than 1,500 different schemes, to the IRS. The IRS
never uses email to contact taxpayers about their tax issues. All valid IRS websites will have a web address that begins with http://ww.irs.gov/.
Scams Related to the Economic Stimulus Payment. Some scam artists are trying to trick individuals into revealing information that can be used to access their financial accounts by making promises relating to the economic stimulus payment, often called a “rebate.” To obtain the payment, eligible individuals in most cases will not have to do anything more than file a 2007 federal tax return.
However, some criminals posing as IRS representatives are trying to trick taxpayers by falsely telling them they must provide information to get a payment.
Whether it’s tax season or any other time of the year, you should exercise caution and approach any offer or service with a healthy dose of skepticism. Con artists know how to win over your confidence with their smooth talk and self-assured manner. Unless you are careful, you may find yourself turning over cash or personal information. Here are some good rules to follow all the time—whether or not you suspect a fraud:
• Don’t believe “something-for-nothing” offers. You get what you pay for.
• Read all contracts and agreements before signing.
• Compare services, prices, and credit offers before agreeing to a deal.
• Do not hesitate to check the credentials of anyone who comes to your door.
• Report all suspicious offers immediately, before someone else can become a victim. And if you’ve been victimized, don’t be embarrassed about coming forward.
11 March, 2009
MPD Investigates Police Involved Shooting
March 9, 2009
MPD Investigates Police Involved Shooting
The Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) Force Investigation Team is currently investigating a police involved shooting.
At approximately 5 am on Sunday, March 8, 2009, an off-duty member of the Metropolitan Police Department was involved in a use of service pistol incident in the 5300 block of B Street, SE.
The off-duty officer was seated in his personal vehicle when an armed, masked gunman approached the vehicle and announced a robbery. The officer exited his vehicle and exchanged gunfire with the robbery suspect, who fled the scene on foot.
The robbery suspect was subsequently located a short distance away, suffering from a gunshot wound. The suspect was transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, where he was pronounced dead at 8:55 am. The decedent is identified as 34-year-old, Jelani Khalid Slay of Clinton, Maryland.
A second victim of the robbery attempt was shot by the robbery suspect and sustained a non-life threatening gunshot wound. The victim was transported to an area hospital for treatment. The victim’s name is not being released because they are considered a witness in this case.
The off-duty officer did not sustain any injuries. His name is not being released because he is considered a witness in this case. He is an 18-year veteran of MPD and is currently assigned to the Fourth District.
Today’s incident is the second fatal MPD police-involved shooting this year.
MPD Investigates Police Involved Shooting
The Metropolitan Police Department’s (MPD) Force Investigation Team is currently investigating a police involved shooting.
At approximately 5 am on Sunday, March 8, 2009, an off-duty member of the Metropolitan Police Department was involved in a use of service pistol incident in the 5300 block of B Street, SE.
The off-duty officer was seated in his personal vehicle when an armed, masked gunman approached the vehicle and announced a robbery. The officer exited his vehicle and exchanged gunfire with the robbery suspect, who fled the scene on foot.
The robbery suspect was subsequently located a short distance away, suffering from a gunshot wound. The suspect was transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, where he was pronounced dead at 8:55 am. The decedent is identified as 34-year-old, Jelani Khalid Slay of Clinton, Maryland.
A second victim of the robbery attempt was shot by the robbery suspect and sustained a non-life threatening gunshot wound. The victim was transported to an area hospital for treatment. The victim’s name is not being released because they are considered a witness in this case.
The off-duty officer did not sustain any injuries. His name is not being released because he is considered a witness in this case. He is an 18-year veteran of MPD and is currently assigned to the Fourth District.
Today’s incident is the second fatal MPD police-involved shooting this year.
Arrest Triple Homicide in Trinidad Neighborhood
Arrest Made in 2008 Triple Homicide in Trinidad Neighborhood
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that a second arrest has been made in the murders of Duane Hough, Anthony Mincey, and Johnny Jeter, who were shot to death on Holbrook Street, NE on May 31, 2008.
On Friday, March 6, 2009, detectives of the Homicide Branch Major Case Squad obtained an arrest warrant charging 24-year-old Andre Clinkscale of Northeast Washington, DC with three counts of First Degree Murder While Armed in the homicides of Misters Hough, Mincey, and Jeter. On Sunday, March 8, 2009, at approximately 8:00 pm, members of the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force arrested Mr. Clinkscale, without incident, in the 3400 block Croffut Place SE.
On Saturday, May 31, 2008, at approximately 4:15 am, officers assigned to the Fifth District responded to the 1100 block of Holbrook Street, NE to investigate the report of gunshots at that location. Upon arrival, police located three adult males suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. All three victims were pronounced dead on the scene by a representative from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. The victims were identified as 37-year-old Duane Hough of the 1400 block of Trinidad Street, NE, 35-year-old Anthony Mincey of the 600 block of Morton Street, NW, and 24-year-old Johnny Jeter of the 1700 block of Holbrook Street, NE.
The Metropolitan Police Department has announced that a second arrest has been made in the murders of Duane Hough, Anthony Mincey, and Johnny Jeter, who were shot to death on Holbrook Street, NE on May 31, 2008.
On Friday, March 6, 2009, detectives of the Homicide Branch Major Case Squad obtained an arrest warrant charging 24-year-old Andre Clinkscale of Northeast Washington, DC with three counts of First Degree Murder While Armed in the homicides of Misters Hough, Mincey, and Jeter. On Sunday, March 8, 2009, at approximately 8:00 pm, members of the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force arrested Mr. Clinkscale, without incident, in the 3400 block Croffut Place SE.
On Saturday, May 31, 2008, at approximately 4:15 am, officers assigned to the Fifth District responded to the 1100 block of Holbrook Street, NE to investigate the report of gunshots at that location. Upon arrival, police located three adult males suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. All three victims were pronounced dead on the scene by a representative from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. The victims were identified as 37-year-old Duane Hough of the 1400 block of Trinidad Street, NE, 35-year-old Anthony Mincey of the 600 block of Morton Street, NW, and 24-year-old Johnny Jeter of the 1700 block of Holbrook Street, NE.
REWARDS
RESIDENTS REMINDED ABOUT REWARDS IN
HOMICIDES, ROBBERIES, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES
In an effort to enlist even more community support in solving crimes and prosecuting
offenders, the MPD reminds members of the public that the Department operates and
supports a number of reward programs. These programs offer members of the community
substantial cash rewards for information that can help the MPD close cases.
For example, the MPD offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in DC. This reward applies to recent cases or homicides that were committed years ago.
The Department also offers an enhanced reward of up to $5,000 to anyone who provides
information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any robbery in DC. The reward amount increases to up to $10,000 for information in robberies that involve a life-threatening injury to the victim.
Anyone with information about an unsolved homicide, robbery, or other crime in DC is
asked to call the MPD’s 24-hour or the Command Information Center (CIC) at (202) 727-9099.
Callers wishing to remain anonymous may call 1-888-919-CRIME (888 919-2746). Anonymous information may also be forwarded to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. And, of course, the Department continues to support the Crime Solvers program, which offers rewards of up to $1,000 for information that leads to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons responsible for other felony crimes. The Crime Solvers telephone number is (800)673-2777. All calls to Crime Solvers are confidential, and callers need not provide their names.
HOMICIDES, ROBBERIES, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES
In an effort to enlist even more community support in solving crimes and prosecuting
offenders, the MPD reminds members of the public that the Department operates and
supports a number of reward programs. These programs offer members of the community
substantial cash rewards for information that can help the MPD close cases.
For example, the MPD offers a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any homicide committed in DC. This reward applies to recent cases or homicides that were committed years ago.
The Department also offers an enhanced reward of up to $5,000 to anyone who provides
information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for any robbery in DC. The reward amount increases to up to $10,000 for information in robberies that involve a life-threatening injury to the victim.
Anyone with information about an unsolved homicide, robbery, or other crime in DC is
asked to call the MPD’s 24-hour or the Command Information Center (CIC) at (202) 727-9099.
Callers wishing to remain anonymous may call 1-888-919-CRIME (888 919-2746). Anonymous information may also be forwarded to the department’s TEXT TIP LINE by text messaging 50411. And, of course, the Department continues to support the Crime Solvers program, which offers rewards of up to $1,000 for information that leads to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons responsible for other felony crimes. The Crime Solvers telephone number is (800)673-2777. All calls to Crime Solvers are confidential, and callers need not provide their names.
OUTSTANDING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
DPW TO IMMOBILIZE VEHICLES
WITH OUTSTANDING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
On February 17, 2009, the DC Department of Public Works (DPW) announced that
it will now begin booting vehicles with outstanding photo enforcement tickets. Photo
enforcement violations include red-light running, speeding, and parking on streets during street sweeping hours.
As of January 30, 2009, 12,834 vehicles were boot eligible with 15,700 outstanding
photo enforcement tickets representing $1,852,865 in fines. “Law enforcement’s public safety efforts will be enhanced by immobilizing vehicles with unanswered photo enforcement tickets,” said DPW Director William O. Howland, Jr.
“Too many violators ignore these tickets and have not changed their dangerous driving
habits as a result.” District law states that a vehicle is boot eligible if it has two or more tickets that remain unpaid with no request for adjudication within 60 days of issuance or that remain unpaid after the owner’s appeal rights have been exhausted.
“If you have outstanding photo enforcement tickets, I strongly encourage residents
to pay them right away to avoid possible boot and tow fees,” Howland said.
WITH OUTSTANDING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
On February 17, 2009, the DC Department of Public Works (DPW) announced that
it will now begin booting vehicles with outstanding photo enforcement tickets. Photo
enforcement violations include red-light running, speeding, and parking on streets during street sweeping hours.
As of January 30, 2009, 12,834 vehicles were boot eligible with 15,700 outstanding
photo enforcement tickets representing $1,852,865 in fines. “Law enforcement’s public safety efforts will be enhanced by immobilizing vehicles with unanswered photo enforcement tickets,” said DPW Director William O. Howland, Jr.
“Too many violators ignore these tickets and have not changed their dangerous driving
habits as a result.” District law states that a vehicle is boot eligible if it has two or more tickets that remain unpaid with no request for adjudication within 60 days of issuance or that remain unpaid after the owner’s appeal rights have been exhausted.
“If you have outstanding photo enforcement tickets, I strongly encourage residents
to pay them right away to avoid possible boot and tow fees,” Howland said.
IACP, PARADE MAGAZINE SEEK NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICER OF THE YEAR
Law enforcement can be rewarding and challenging — as well as frustrating and
dangerous — so providing appropriate recognition to deserving officers is very important.
As law enforcement leaders, we must reinforce to the public that the vast majority of the police officers who serve us are dedicated professionals working to make our lives better and our communities safer. To provide such recognition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Parade magazine sponsor the Police Officer of the Year Award.
This award symbolizes the highest level of achievement among police officers in the
United States. Nominations may be made for exceptional achievement in any police endeavor, either on-duty or off-duty, including cold cases, community policing, criminal investigation, extraordinary valor, forensic science, policing technology, terrorism, and traffic safety. Nominees may come from virtually any area of law enforcement, from sheriffs’ departments to border and park patrols to standard municipal police agencies. The time frame for eligibility extends from actions performed between June 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009.
dangerous — so providing appropriate recognition to deserving officers is very important.
As law enforcement leaders, we must reinforce to the public that the vast majority of the police officers who serve us are dedicated professionals working to make our lives better and our communities safer. To provide such recognition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Parade magazine sponsor the Police Officer of the Year Award.
This award symbolizes the highest level of achievement among police officers in the
United States. Nominations may be made for exceptional achievement in any police endeavor, either on-duty or off-duty, including cold cases, community policing, criminal investigation, extraordinary valor, forensic science, policing technology, terrorism, and traffic safety. Nominees may come from virtually any area of law enforcement, from sheriffs’ departments to border and park patrols to standard municipal police agencies. The time frame for eligibility extends from actions performed between June 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009.
FORTY-FOUR NEW OFFICERS HITTING THE STREETS OF DC
FORTY-FOUR NEW OFFICERS HITTING THE STREETS OF DC
Patrols in DC neighborhoods are being boosted by the addition of 44 officers who were
sworn in during a graduation ceremony on Friday, February 20, 2009 at the MPD’s Maurice T. Turner, Jr. Metropolitan Police Academy in Southwest.
The new officers all completed approximately 24 weeks of training at the police academy, which includes a full program of physical, classroom, and firearms training to prepare them for the challenges of being a police officer. The subjects covered include laws of arrest, search and seizure, criminal law, traffic regulations, human relations, community policing, and ethics. In addition, recruit officers receive skills training in firearms, operation of emergency police vehicles, self-defense, advanced first aid, and much more.
Patrols in DC neighborhoods are being boosted by the addition of 44 officers who were
sworn in during a graduation ceremony on Friday, February 20, 2009 at the MPD’s Maurice T. Turner, Jr. Metropolitan Police Academy in Southwest.
The new officers all completed approximately 24 weeks of training at the police academy, which includes a full program of physical, classroom, and firearms training to prepare them for the challenges of being a police officer. The subjects covered include laws of arrest, search and seizure, criminal law, traffic regulations, human relations, community policing, and ethics. In addition, recruit officers receive skills training in firearms, operation of emergency police vehicles, self-defense, advanced first aid, and much more.
CRIME VICTIMS GET SUPPORT
CRIME VICTIMS CONTINUE TO GET SUPPORT THROUGH
DC SUPERIOR COURT’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
The policy of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is to treat all victims in a respectful, responsive and compassionate manner. To that end, the department’s Victim Specialists Unit provides support, information, and referrals to victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The Victim Specialists in the unit act as a support system and conduit for victims/survivors; with hope of empowering victims. Moreover, the Victim Specialists Unit aims to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of the District of Columbia by establishing relationships with the community and being a resource for victims and their families.
In addition to providing support and services, the Victim Specialists Unit also helps victims coordinate with the crime Victims Compensation Program (CVCP). The CVCP, administered by the Superior Court of DC assists innocent victims of violent crime and their families with crime-related expenses such as funeral and burial costs, medical and mental health costs, lost wages, loss of support and services, clean up of a crime scene and, for victims of domestic violence, the cost of temporary shelter. Through the services of a victim advocate, crime victims receive assistance in filing applications; locating victim service programs, support groups, or mental health counselors; and handling quality of life issues that arise after victimization.
DC SUPERIOR COURT’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
The policy of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is to treat all victims in a respectful, responsive and compassionate manner. To that end, the department’s Victim Specialists Unit provides support, information, and referrals to victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The Victim Specialists in the unit act as a support system and conduit for victims/survivors; with hope of empowering victims. Moreover, the Victim Specialists Unit aims to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of the District of Columbia by establishing relationships with the community and being a resource for victims and their families.
In addition to providing support and services, the Victim Specialists Unit also helps victims coordinate with the crime Victims Compensation Program (CVCP). The CVCP, administered by the Superior Court of DC assists innocent victims of violent crime and their families with crime-related expenses such as funeral and burial costs, medical and mental health costs, lost wages, loss of support and services, clean up of a crime scene and, for victims of domestic violence, the cost of temporary shelter. Through the services of a victim advocate, crime victims receive assistance in filing applications; locating victim service programs, support groups, or mental health counselors; and handling quality of life issues that arise after victimization.
08 March, 2009
D.C. Citywide Consumer Protection Sweep
Mayor Fenty Expands Citywide Consumer Protection Sweep of Unlicensed Businesses, Unveils New Website
Contact: Feras Sleiman, (202) 251-8829; Michael Rupert, (202) 442-4513
Washington, DC – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Attorney General Peter Nickles and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) Director Linda Argo today kicked off National Consumer Protection Week by announcing new emergency regulations targeting towing and auto repair dealers to further assist the District in cracking down on unlicensed businesses. This action will also allow the District to ramp up enforcement against unscrupulous used car lots, after multiple warnings to clean up or close down.
“The residents of the District of Columbia have lived for too long alongside many of these businesses who have no regard for their neighbors or for consumers,” Mayor Fenty said. “We are going to continue to move swiftly through both new regulations and strong enforcement so legitimate small businesses can thrive.”
The new regulations will target towing and auto repair shops in an effort to prevent neighborhood blights and stop the creation of corrupt businesses, which often lead to crime and distress in communities.
Towing and Auto Repair Regulation Highlights
Below are examples of regulations that will go into effect today:
Towing Service Lots
• Car storage lots will no longer be able to store vehicles for more than sixty (60) days.
• Lots must now maintain permanent signs, visible from the lot entrance, showing the name of the establishment and its hours of operation.
• Lots must be separated by fencing from any neighboring outdoor space.
• Lots used for storing, parking or moving vehicles must be paved and maintained.
• No vehicle parts or trash can be stored outdoors on the storage lot, unless stored off the ground in secured containers.
Auto Repair Shops
• All auto repair shops servicing motor vehicles must perform repairs within a permanent garage or permanent building by a licensed auto repair shop or mechanic.
• Auto repair shops are prohibited from repairing and storing of motor vehicles outdoors.
• Auto repair shop dealers must maintain a customer log for each motor vehicle kept on the premises.
These regulations will limit the amount of vehicles stored or repaired outside or in public space, adds signage and paving requirements, screening requirements and new zoning limits. The regulations are effective immediately and the city will begin enforcement in stages over the next 60 days.
In addition, the administration today unveiled a new consumer protection website, www.consumer.dc.gov to serve as a one-stop shop for consumer protection information and to solicit concerns and tips from residents. The site, a joint effort between DCRA and the Office of the Attorney General, includes educational materials, exclusive videos, live data feeds and other interactive online features. The site launch coincides with the District participation in the 11th annual National Consumer Protection Week, which runs March 1-7.
“As with used car lots, towing and auto repair businesses will not get a free ride when it comes to operating legitimately in our city,” said Nickles. “Thanks to these new regulations, the District continues its momentum of enforcing compliance, maintaining public safety, and protecting consumers.”
“We have been extremely successful in cleaning up more than half of the used car lots across the city over the past three months,” said DCRA Director Argo. “We want to be sure towing lots and auto repair shops do not become the new refuge for criminal activity.”
The new regulations coupled with the new website will provide the city with the enforcement tools and real-time information from residents to stay on top of these businesses.
Contact: Feras Sleiman, (202) 251-8829; Michael Rupert, (202) 442-4513
Washington, DC – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Attorney General Peter Nickles and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) Director Linda Argo today kicked off National Consumer Protection Week by announcing new emergency regulations targeting towing and auto repair dealers to further assist the District in cracking down on unlicensed businesses. This action will also allow the District to ramp up enforcement against unscrupulous used car lots, after multiple warnings to clean up or close down.
“The residents of the District of Columbia have lived for too long alongside many of these businesses who have no regard for their neighbors or for consumers,” Mayor Fenty said. “We are going to continue to move swiftly through both new regulations and strong enforcement so legitimate small businesses can thrive.”
The new regulations will target towing and auto repair shops in an effort to prevent neighborhood blights and stop the creation of corrupt businesses, which often lead to crime and distress in communities.
Towing and Auto Repair Regulation Highlights
Below are examples of regulations that will go into effect today:
Towing Service Lots
• Car storage lots will no longer be able to store vehicles for more than sixty (60) days.
• Lots must now maintain permanent signs, visible from the lot entrance, showing the name of the establishment and its hours of operation.
• Lots must be separated by fencing from any neighboring outdoor space.
• Lots used for storing, parking or moving vehicles must be paved and maintained.
• No vehicle parts or trash can be stored outdoors on the storage lot, unless stored off the ground in secured containers.
Auto Repair Shops
• All auto repair shops servicing motor vehicles must perform repairs within a permanent garage or permanent building by a licensed auto repair shop or mechanic.
• Auto repair shops are prohibited from repairing and storing of motor vehicles outdoors.
• Auto repair shop dealers must maintain a customer log for each motor vehicle kept on the premises.
These regulations will limit the amount of vehicles stored or repaired outside or in public space, adds signage and paving requirements, screening requirements and new zoning limits. The regulations are effective immediately and the city will begin enforcement in stages over the next 60 days.
In addition, the administration today unveiled a new consumer protection website, www.consumer.dc.gov to serve as a one-stop shop for consumer protection information and to solicit concerns and tips from residents. The site, a joint effort between DCRA and the Office of the Attorney General, includes educational materials, exclusive videos, live data feeds and other interactive online features. The site launch coincides with the District participation in the 11th annual National Consumer Protection Week, which runs March 1-7.
“As with used car lots, towing and auto repair businesses will not get a free ride when it comes to operating legitimately in our city,” said Nickles. “Thanks to these new regulations, the District continues its momentum of enforcing compliance, maintaining public safety, and protecting consumers.”
“We have been extremely successful in cleaning up more than half of the used car lots across the city over the past three months,” said DCRA Director Argo. “We want to be sure towing lots and auto repair shops do not become the new refuge for criminal activity.”
The new regulations coupled with the new website will provide the city with the enforcement tools and real-time information from residents to stay on top of these businesses.
28 February, 2009
Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009
Council of the District of Columbia
Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary
Notice of Public Hearing
1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004 REVISED & ABBREVIATED
Your browser may not support display of this image.
COUNCILMEMBER PHIL MENDELSON, CHAIRPERSON
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE JUDICIARY ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC HEARING
on
Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009”
Bill 18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009”
Bill 18-152, the “Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009” THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION
on
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
10:00 a.m., Hearing Room 412, John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Councilmember Phil Mendelson, Chairperson of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, announces a public hearing on Bills 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009”, 18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009”, and 18-152, the “Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009”. The hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, in Hearing Room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building. This notice has been revised to reflect two additional bills that will also be considered. This notice has been abbreviated to provide notice to the public.
Bill 18-138 was introduced on February 6, 2009 and circulated to the Council on February 10th. Bills 18-151 and 18-152 were introduced on February 17, 2009. This hearing will be the first of two hearings on this legislation. Subject matter for the first hearing will be the entirety of these bills. The second hearing will be an opportunity for outstanding concerns from the first hearing and the more complex matters proposed in the legislation.
The stated purpose of Bill 18-138 is to repeal the Anti-Stalking Amendment Act of 1993; to enact a new anti-stalking law that more clearly defines stalking, more broadly encompasses all modern forms of stalking, assigns commensurate penalties and establishes jurisdiction to prosecute; to create a civil action to enjoin criminal street gangs and their members from engaging in activities which create a public nuisance and to amend the Omnibus Public Safety Amendment Act of 2006 to amend the definition of criminal street gang; to amend An Act to provide for the more effective prevention, detection and punishment of crime in the District of Columbia, approved June 29, 1953 to close to public inspection the names and addresses of the alleged victims of crimes of violence, obstruction of justice, stalking, assault, assault with significant injury, threats and an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses unless the Chief of Police determines that release of such information is not likely to result in harm to the investigation of the alleged crime, the victim or witness, or a member of the victim’s or witness’ family; to amend the Act codifying the District of Columbia Code, 56th Congress, Session II, Chapter 854, Subchapter 25 to suspend the marital privilege under certain circumstances, including where a spouse or domestic partner is accused of intra-family offenses or committing a crime prior to the marriage, or is testifying in a civil proceeding involving child abuse and neglect; to amend An Act to enact Part II of the District of Columbia Code, entitled “Judiciary and Judicial Procedures,” effective December 23, 1963, to suspend the physician-patient privilege in certain proceedings where a person is suspected or charged with causing the death of, or injuring a human being, or with attempting or threatening to kill or injure a human being, or where a person is suspected of defrauding a heath care benefit program; to amend An Act To establish a code of law for the District of Columbia, approved March 3, 1901, to revise the elements of the crime for assault with intent, to make unlawful entry a non-jury demandable offense and to increase the penalty for criminal conspiracies to commit violent crimes from 5 years for all conspiracies to the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy; to amend the Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of 1994 so that the defendant is not required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged victim of sexual abuse consented; to amend the District of Columbia Theft and White Collar Crimes Act of 1982 to expand the definition of the terms “property,” “person” and “value” and to make related conforming amendments so that the terms more broadly encompass conduct associated with theft and identity theft, to permit a person to be convicted of any combination of theft, fraud and other property offenses arising out of the same course of conduct, to expand the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia to prosecute fraud and insurance fraud, and to include in the definition of the crime of identity theft the use of personal identifying information belonging to or pertaining to another person to identify him/herself at the time of an arrest or to facilitate or conceal the commission of a crime; to provide for increased penalties if a person uses a stolen motor vehicle to commit a crime of violence and to add threats to injure to the obstruction of justice statute; to amend the DNA Sample Collection Act of 2001 to expand the qualifying offenses for the purposes of DNA collection under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to include all felonies; to amend An Act To control the possession, sale, transfer and use of pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia, to provide penalties, to prescribe rules of evidence, and for other purposes so that offenses committed in other jurisdictions that would constitute a crime of violence or dangerous crime if committed in the District of Columbia or conduct that is substantially similar to that prosecuted as a crime of violence or dangerous crime under the D.C. Official Code are considered prior offenses for the purpose of sentencing for committing a crime of violence or dangerous crime while armed, and to increase the penalty for the crime of felon in possession of a firearm to imprisonment for not more than 15 years and a mandatory-minimum term of 5 years, if the prior felony is a crime of violence; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-110(b) to allow a motion for post-conviction relief to be dismissed if the government has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the motion by the delay in its filing; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-523(b) to define daylight as the hours between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-581 by adding destruction of property and voyeurism to the list of misdemeanors for which an arrest can be made without a warrant; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-1322(c) so that probable cause for the arrest of certain dangerous and violent offenses will support a finding of dangerousness for pre-trial detention, and to add possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm to the list of offenses where there is a rebuttable presumption of dangerousness; to amend the District of Columbia Implied Consent Act, approved October 21, 1972, to require medical personnel to collect blood or urine at the direction of a police officer for the purpose of determining alcohol or drug content and to protect such medical personnel from liability for doing so; to amend the Protection of Children from Exposure to Drug-Related Activity Amendment Act of 1989 to provide penalties for the crime of making a false report of child abuse or neglect; to amend D.C. Official Code section 16-2312 to allow postponement of detention hearings on New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day; to amend the HIV Testing of Certain Criminal Offenders Act of 1995 to require the court to order the defendant to furnish a blood sample to be tested for the presence of HIV, upon the request of the victim or an eyewitness to the offense who may be at risk of contracting the HIV/AIDS virus at any time after a preliminary hearing; to amend the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to schedule fresh khat as a Schedule I drug; to amend the District of Columbia Traffic Act, 1925 to provide that enhanced sentencing penalties for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, under the influence or impaired shall be calculated from the date of the prior conviction to the date of the subsequent offense; to amend the Firearms Control Registration Act of 1975 to establish a registry requiring gun law offenders to register with the Metropolitan Police Department and verify their information, providing penalties for non-compliance; and to create the offense of illegally possessing a firearm in a motor vehicle.
The stated purpose of Bill 18-151, the Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009, is to create a process to allow for nuisance actions against criminal street gangs; top give arrest powers to certain correctional officers; to amend Chapter 572 effective December 15, 1941 to prohibit the introduction of cellular telephone or other portable communication device; to amend the Act codifying the District of Columbia Code, 56th Congress, Session II, Chapter 854, Subchapter 25 to suspend the marital privilege under certain circumstances, including where a spouse or domestic partner is accused of intra-family offenses or committing a crime prior to the marriage, or is testifying in a civil proceeding involving child abuse and neglect; to amend An Act to enact Part II of the District of Columbia Code, entitled “Judiciary and Judicial Procedures,” effective December 23, 1963, to suspend the physician-patient privilege in certain proceedings where a person is suspected or charged with causing the death of, or injuring a human being, or with attempting or threatening to kill or injure a human being, or where a person is suspected of defrauding a heath care benefit program; to amend The District of Columbia Elections Code of 1055ny prohibiting the destruction or defacing of campaign materials; To amend section 1002(c) of chapter 10 of title 16 of the District of Columbia code to allow the testimony of a respondent to be used in a criminal prosecutions derivative purposes, to impeach the respondent, and in prosecutions for perjury or committing false statements; to amend Section 211a of Chapter 159 approved June 29, 1953 to restate the crime of disorderly conduct; to repeal Section 6 of chapter 320 of, approved July 29, 1892; to amend section 1 of An Act for the suppression of prostitution in the District of Columbia, approved August 15, 1935 to create a new penalty structure for prostitution; to amend section 104(b)(1) of the Omnibus Public Safety Amendment of 2006to increase the time limit of a prostitution zone from 10 days to 20 days; to amend the District of Columbia Theft and White Collar Crimes Act of 1982 to create the crime of theft from motor vehicle; to amend section 1 of an Act to define and punish vagrancy in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, approved December 17, 1941; to amend the the Bias-Related Crime Act of 1989 to add homelessness to the protected class; to amend section 3(a) of the Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Act of 1996 to increase the time of a drug free zone from 10 days to 20 days; to amend the Establishment of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Act of 2000 to authorize the Mayor to waive, until April 13, 2013, the requirement that the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia be certified in forensic pathology by the American Board of Pathology or be eligible for such certification; to prohibit persons required to wear a detection device as a condition of supervision to remove, intentionally alter, interfere or mask the operation of the device, or to allow any unauthorized person to do so and to allow a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant for said violation; to amended the Title III of the District of Columbia Mental Health Information Act of 1978 to require disclosures of mental health information for criminal justice purposes.
The stated purpose of Bill 18-152, the Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009, is to authorize the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department to declare a Hot Spot No Loitering Zone, and to prohibit the congregation of 2 or more persons on any public space on public property, within an area currently designated as a Hot Spot No Loitering Zone, for the purpose of participating in criminal activity within the perimeter of the Hot Spot No Loitering Zone.
Those who wish to testify should contact Ms. Heidi Tseu, Committee Clerk, at (202) 724-8038, by fax at (202) 724-6664, or via e-mail at htseu@dccouncil.us, and provide their name, address, telephone number, organizational affiliation and title (if any) by close of business Monday, March 16, 2009. Persons wishing to testify are encouraged, but not required, to submit 15 copies of written testimony. If submitted by the close of business on Monday, March 16, 2009 the testimony will be distributed to Councilmembers before the hearing.
Witnesses must limit their testimony to five minutes; less time will be allowed if there are a large number of witnesses
If you are unable to testify at the hearing, written statements are encouraged and will be made a part of the official record. Copies of written statements should be submitted either to Ms. Tseu, or to Ms. Cynthia Brock-Smith, Secretary to the Council, Room 5 of the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004. The record will close at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 2009.
Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary
Notice of Public Hearing
1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004 REVISED & ABBREVIATED
Your browser may not support display of this image.
COUNCILMEMBER PHIL MENDELSON, CHAIRPERSON
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE JUDICIARY ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC HEARING
on
Bill 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009”
Bill 18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009”
Bill 18-152, the “Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009” THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION
on
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
10:00 a.m., Hearing Room 412, John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Councilmember Phil Mendelson, Chairperson of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, announces a public hearing on Bills 18-138, the “Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009”, 18-151, the “Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009”, and 18-152, the “Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009”. The hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, in Hearing Room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building. This notice has been revised to reflect two additional bills that will also be considered. This notice has been abbreviated to provide notice to the public.
Bill 18-138 was introduced on February 6, 2009 and circulated to the Council on February 10th. Bills 18-151 and 18-152 were introduced on February 17, 2009. This hearing will be the first of two hearings on this legislation. Subject matter for the first hearing will be the entirety of these bills. The second hearing will be an opportunity for outstanding concerns from the first hearing and the more complex matters proposed in the legislation.
The stated purpose of Bill 18-138 is to repeal the Anti-Stalking Amendment Act of 1993; to enact a new anti-stalking law that more clearly defines stalking, more broadly encompasses all modern forms of stalking, assigns commensurate penalties and establishes jurisdiction to prosecute; to create a civil action to enjoin criminal street gangs and their members from engaging in activities which create a public nuisance and to amend the Omnibus Public Safety Amendment Act of 2006 to amend the definition of criminal street gang; to amend An Act to provide for the more effective prevention, detection and punishment of crime in the District of Columbia, approved June 29, 1953 to close to public inspection the names and addresses of the alleged victims of crimes of violence, obstruction of justice, stalking, assault, assault with significant injury, threats and an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses unless the Chief of Police determines that release of such information is not likely to result in harm to the investigation of the alleged crime, the victim or witness, or a member of the victim’s or witness’ family; to amend the Act codifying the District of Columbia Code, 56th Congress, Session II, Chapter 854, Subchapter 25 to suspend the marital privilege under certain circumstances, including where a spouse or domestic partner is accused of intra-family offenses or committing a crime prior to the marriage, or is testifying in a civil proceeding involving child abuse and neglect; to amend An Act to enact Part II of the District of Columbia Code, entitled “Judiciary and Judicial Procedures,” effective December 23, 1963, to suspend the physician-patient privilege in certain proceedings where a person is suspected or charged with causing the death of, or injuring a human being, or with attempting or threatening to kill or injure a human being, or where a person is suspected of defrauding a heath care benefit program; to amend An Act To establish a code of law for the District of Columbia, approved March 3, 1901, to revise the elements of the crime for assault with intent, to make unlawful entry a non-jury demandable offense and to increase the penalty for criminal conspiracies to commit violent crimes from 5 years for all conspiracies to the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy; to amend the Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of 1994 so that the defendant is not required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged victim of sexual abuse consented; to amend the District of Columbia Theft and White Collar Crimes Act of 1982 to expand the definition of the terms “property,” “person” and “value” and to make related conforming amendments so that the terms more broadly encompass conduct associated with theft and identity theft, to permit a person to be convicted of any combination of theft, fraud and other property offenses arising out of the same course of conduct, to expand the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia to prosecute fraud and insurance fraud, and to include in the definition of the crime of identity theft the use of personal identifying information belonging to or pertaining to another person to identify him/herself at the time of an arrest or to facilitate or conceal the commission of a crime; to provide for increased penalties if a person uses a stolen motor vehicle to commit a crime of violence and to add threats to injure to the obstruction of justice statute; to amend the DNA Sample Collection Act of 2001 to expand the qualifying offenses for the purposes of DNA collection under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to include all felonies; to amend An Act To control the possession, sale, transfer and use of pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia, to provide penalties, to prescribe rules of evidence, and for other purposes so that offenses committed in other jurisdictions that would constitute a crime of violence or dangerous crime if committed in the District of Columbia or conduct that is substantially similar to that prosecuted as a crime of violence or dangerous crime under the D.C. Official Code are considered prior offenses for the purpose of sentencing for committing a crime of violence or dangerous crime while armed, and to increase the penalty for the crime of felon in possession of a firearm to imprisonment for not more than 15 years and a mandatory-minimum term of 5 years, if the prior felony is a crime of violence; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-110(b) to allow a motion for post-conviction relief to be dismissed if the government has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the motion by the delay in its filing; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-523(b) to define daylight as the hours between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-581 by adding destruction of property and voyeurism to the list of misdemeanors for which an arrest can be made without a warrant; to amend D.C. Official Code section 23-1322(c) so that probable cause for the arrest of certain dangerous and violent offenses will support a finding of dangerousness for pre-trial detention, and to add possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm to the list of offenses where there is a rebuttable presumption of dangerousness; to amend the District of Columbia Implied Consent Act, approved October 21, 1972, to require medical personnel to collect blood or urine at the direction of a police officer for the purpose of determining alcohol or drug content and to protect such medical personnel from liability for doing so; to amend the Protection of Children from Exposure to Drug-Related Activity Amendment Act of 1989 to provide penalties for the crime of making a false report of child abuse or neglect; to amend D.C. Official Code section 16-2312 to allow postponement of detention hearings on New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day; to amend the HIV Testing of Certain Criminal Offenders Act of 1995 to require the court to order the defendant to furnish a blood sample to be tested for the presence of HIV, upon the request of the victim or an eyewitness to the offense who may be at risk of contracting the HIV/AIDS virus at any time after a preliminary hearing; to amend the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to schedule fresh khat as a Schedule I drug; to amend the District of Columbia Traffic Act, 1925 to provide that enhanced sentencing penalties for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, under the influence or impaired shall be calculated from the date of the prior conviction to the date of the subsequent offense; to amend the Firearms Control Registration Act of 1975 to establish a registry requiring gun law offenders to register with the Metropolitan Police Department and verify their information, providing penalties for non-compliance; and to create the offense of illegally possessing a firearm in a motor vehicle.
The stated purpose of Bill 18-151, the Public Safety and Justice Amendments Act of 2009, is to create a process to allow for nuisance actions against criminal street gangs; top give arrest powers to certain correctional officers; to amend Chapter 572 effective December 15, 1941 to prohibit the introduction of cellular telephone or other portable communication device; to amend the Act codifying the District of Columbia Code, 56th Congress, Session II, Chapter 854, Subchapter 25 to suspend the marital privilege under certain circumstances, including where a spouse or domestic partner is accused of intra-family offenses or committing a crime prior to the marriage, or is testifying in a civil proceeding involving child abuse and neglect; to amend An Act to enact Part II of the District of Columbia Code, entitled “Judiciary and Judicial Procedures,” effective December 23, 1963, to suspend the physician-patient privilege in certain proceedings where a person is suspected or charged with causing the death of, or injuring a human being, or with attempting or threatening to kill or injure a human being, or where a person is suspected of defrauding a heath care benefit program; to amend The District of Columbia Elections Code of 1055ny prohibiting the destruction or defacing of campaign materials; To amend section 1002(c) of chapter 10 of title 16 of the District of Columbia code to allow the testimony of a respondent to be used in a criminal prosecutions derivative purposes, to impeach the respondent, and in prosecutions for perjury or committing false statements; to amend Section 211a of Chapter 159 approved June 29, 1953 to restate the crime of disorderly conduct; to repeal Section 6 of chapter 320 of, approved July 29, 1892; to amend section 1 of An Act for the suppression of prostitution in the District of Columbia, approved August 15, 1935 to create a new penalty structure for prostitution; to amend section 104(b)(1) of the Omnibus Public Safety Amendment of 2006to increase the time limit of a prostitution zone from 10 days to 20 days; to amend the District of Columbia Theft and White Collar Crimes Act of 1982 to create the crime of theft from motor vehicle; to amend section 1 of an Act to define and punish vagrancy in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, approved December 17, 1941; to amend the the Bias-Related Crime Act of 1989 to add homelessness to the protected class; to amend section 3(a) of the Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Act of 1996 to increase the time of a drug free zone from 10 days to 20 days; to amend the Establishment of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Act of 2000 to authorize the Mayor to waive, until April 13, 2013, the requirement that the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia be certified in forensic pathology by the American Board of Pathology or be eligible for such certification; to prohibit persons required to wear a detection device as a condition of supervision to remove, intentionally alter, interfere or mask the operation of the device, or to allow any unauthorized person to do so and to allow a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant for said violation; to amended the Title III of the District of Columbia Mental Health Information Act of 1978 to require disclosures of mental health information for criminal justice purposes.
The stated purpose of Bill 18-152, the Hot Spot No Loitering Zone Act of 2009, is to authorize the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department to declare a Hot Spot No Loitering Zone, and to prohibit the congregation of 2 or more persons on any public space on public property, within an area currently designated as a Hot Spot No Loitering Zone, for the purpose of participating in criminal activity within the perimeter of the Hot Spot No Loitering Zone.
Those who wish to testify should contact Ms. Heidi Tseu, Committee Clerk, at (202) 724-8038, by fax at (202) 724-6664, or via e-mail at htseu@dccouncil.us, and provide their name, address, telephone number, organizational affiliation and title (if any) by close of business Monday, March 16, 2009. Persons wishing to testify are encouraged, but not required, to submit 15 copies of written testimony. If submitted by the close of business on Monday, March 16, 2009 the testimony will be distributed to Councilmembers before the hearing.
Witnesses must limit their testimony to five minutes; less time will be allowed if there are a large number of witnesses
If you are unable to testify at the hearing, written statements are encouraged and will be made a part of the official record. Copies of written statements should be submitted either to Ms. Tseu, or to Ms. Cynthia Brock-Smith, Secretary to the Council, Room 5 of the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004. The record will close at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 2009.
24 February, 2009
Street Closures for President’s Address
Traffic Advisory: Street Closures for President’s Address to Joint Session of Congress
The United States Capitol Police have provided the following information regarding security restrictions for President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, February 24, 2009. The Capitol Square will be restricted to authorized pedestrians only beginning at 6 pm. In addition, the following streets surrounding the Capitol will be closed from 7:30 pm until the event has concluded:
* D Street between 2nd Street, NE & Louisiana Avenue, NW
* C Street between 2nd Street, NE & Louisiana Avenue, NW
* Constitution Avenue between 2nd Street, NE & Louisiana Avenue, NW
* Delaware Avenue between Columbus Circle, NE & Constitution Avenue, NE
* New Jersey Avenue between Louisiana Avenue, NW & D Street, NW
* Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st Street, NW & 3rd Street, NW
* East Capitol Street between 2nd Street & 1st Street
* 1st Street between Columbus Circle, NE & C Street, SE
* 1st Street between Louisiana Avenue, NW and Washington Avenue, SW
* Maryland Avenue between 1st Street, SW & 3rd Street, SW
* Independence Avenue between 2nd Street, SE & Washington Avenue, SW
* C Street between 1st Street, SE & Washington Avenue, SW
* Delaware Avenue between Washington Avenue, SW & C Street, SW
* New Jersey Avenue between Independence Avenue, SE & D Street, SE
* South Capitol Street between Independence Avenue & D Street
For additional information, please contact the United States Capitol Police Public Information Office at 202-224-1677.
The United States Capitol Police have provided the following information regarding security restrictions for President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, February 24, 2009. The Capitol Square will be restricted to authorized pedestrians only beginning at 6 pm. In addition, the following streets surrounding the Capitol will be closed from 7:30 pm until the event has concluded:
* D Street between 2nd Street, NE & Louisiana Avenue, NW
* C Street between 2nd Street, NE & Louisiana Avenue, NW
* Constitution Avenue between 2nd Street, NE & Louisiana Avenue, NW
* Delaware Avenue between Columbus Circle, NE & Constitution Avenue, NE
* New Jersey Avenue between Louisiana Avenue, NW & D Street, NW
* Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st Street, NW & 3rd Street, NW
* East Capitol Street between 2nd Street & 1st Street
* 1st Street between Columbus Circle, NE & C Street, SE
* 1st Street between Louisiana Avenue, NW and Washington Avenue, SW
* Maryland Avenue between 1st Street, SW & 3rd Street, SW
* Independence Avenue between 2nd Street, SE & Washington Avenue, SW
* C Street between 1st Street, SE & Washington Avenue, SW
* Delaware Avenue between Washington Avenue, SW & C Street, SW
* New Jersey Avenue between Independence Avenue, SE & D Street, SE
* South Capitol Street between Independence Avenue & D Street
For additional information, please contact the United States Capitol Police Public Information Office at 202-224-1677.
07 February, 2009
FENTY ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHENS ANTI-CRIME BILL
On Friday, February 6, 2009, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty reintroduced the Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act with revised provisions aimed at strengthening measures to limit gang activity, enforce compliance among gun offenders, and crack down on illegal gun possession. The new provisions will create a registry to effectively supervise gun offenders and provide confidentiality protections for juvenile gang members. More importantly, the bill focuses efforts to deter at-risk youth from gang involvement by connecting them to programs that steer them toward positive life choices. The bill also makes it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm in a vehicle.
“Protecting the lives of District residents and youth is a top priority,” said Mayor Fenty. “We’re reintroducing this legislation to send a clear message that the District will use all the tools at its disposal to fight crime in our city.” He added, “This measure also ensures at-risk youth have alternative options that prevent violence among of kids.”
“The purpose of this bill is twofold—to keep repeat violent offenders off our streets and save lives. It is well known that an overwhelming majority of the homicides that are committed are committed by those who’ve been arrested before,” said Metropolitan Police Department Chief Lanier. According to Attorney General Nickles, “This bill contains necessary amendments and provisions that are essential to protecting citizens and our youth from senseless crimes. Would be criminals should think twice about their actions, because the District is not going to make it
easy for them to harm our residents. Through this legislation, the administration will strengthen District laws to crackdown on criminal activities.”
The Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009 represents the District’s commitment to
fighting crime on behalf of the 600,000 citizens living in the city. With tougher laws that increase penalties for violent crimes, the District can effectively send a message to criminals in an effort to deter potential crimes from even taking place.
“Protecting the lives of District residents and youth is a top priority,” said Mayor Fenty. “We’re reintroducing this legislation to send a clear message that the District will use all the tools at its disposal to fight crime in our city.” He added, “This measure also ensures at-risk youth have alternative options that prevent violence among of kids.”
“The purpose of this bill is twofold—to keep repeat violent offenders off our streets and save lives. It is well known that an overwhelming majority of the homicides that are committed are committed by those who’ve been arrested before,” said Metropolitan Police Department Chief Lanier. According to Attorney General Nickles, “This bill contains necessary amendments and provisions that are essential to protecting citizens and our youth from senseless crimes. Would be criminals should think twice about their actions, because the District is not going to make it
easy for them to harm our residents. Through this legislation, the administration will strengthen District laws to crackdown on criminal activities.”
The Omnibus Anti-Crime Amendment Act of 2009 represents the District’s commitment to
fighting crime on behalf of the 600,000 citizens living in the city. With tougher laws that increase penalties for violent crimes, the District can effectively send a message to criminals in an effort to deter potential crimes from even taking place.
04 February, 2009
FIRST DISTRICT CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
FIRST DISTRICT CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL (CAC)
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
7:00 – 9:00 PM
1. Commander’s Report – Commander David Kamperin
Introduction of newly assigned 1D Officers
Crime Statistics and Activity Report
Q & A (10 minutes)
2. Presentation of Awards: 1D’s 2008 Winter Holiday Wonderland
Officer Joseph Ferris
Officer James Steinbach
Officer Kiriaki Avramidis
Frager’s Hardware
Mildred and Jerome Bluestein
3. Guest Speaker: MPD’s Office of Facilities Management
Sean MacCarthy, Project Manager for new 1D site Status
Status Report and Update – 1D’s Relocation to new facility
Q & A (10 – 15 minutes)
4. Installation of New Officers – Commander Kamperin
5. Report by the Chair – Nancy Rosen
Introductions
State of the CAC
Meeting Calendar for 2009
Committee Formation and Facilitation
Strategic Initiatives
Finance
Fundraising
6. Old Business
Approval of November Meeting Minutes
7. New Business
Monthly PSA Presentations (March 3rd. - PSA 102 )
Annual Awards Banquet
Community Announcements
8. Adjournment
Please remember to sign the attendance sheet!
2009 Membership Applications, 2009 CAC Meeting and Event Calendar, and Suggestion/Complaint Forms are available at the sign-in table. Hope to see you again at the March Meeting. Thank you!
FIRST DISTRICT CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL (CAC)
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
7:00 – 9:00 PM
1. Commander’s Report – Commander David Kamperin
Introduction of newly assigned 1D Officers
Crime Statistics and Activity Report
Q & A (10 minutes)
2. Presentation of Awards: 1D’s 2008 Winter Holiday Wonderland
Officer Joseph Ferris
Officer James Steinbach
Officer Kiriaki Avramidis
Frager’s Hardware
Mildred and Jerome Bluestein
3. Guest Speaker: MPD’s Office of Facilities Management
Sean MacCarthy, Project Manager for new 1D site Status
Status Report and Update – 1D’s Relocation to new facility
Q & A (10 – 15 minutes)
4. Installation of New Officers – Commander Kamperin
5. Report by the Chair – Nancy Rosen
Introductions
State of the CAC
Meeting Calendar for 2009
Committee Formation and Facilitation
Strategic Initiatives
Finance
Fundraising
6. Old Business
Approval of November Meeting Minutes
7. New Business
Monthly PSA Presentations (March 3rd. - PSA 102 )
Annual Awards Banquet
Community Announcements
8. Adjournment
Please remember to sign the attendance sheet!
2009 Membership Applications, 2009 CAC Meeting and Event Calendar, and Suggestion/Complaint Forms are available at the sign-in table. Hope to see you again at the March Meeting. Thank you!
Results of Community Meeting with XII Restaurant
MINUTES OF PROTESTANT MEETING REGARDING ADHERANCE TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
The Following Minutes have been redacted to protect the participants
We had approximately 20 households represented at this meeting (not all signed in). For the most part the agenda was followed:
Accomplishments
* We outlined the problem and identified that there are at least 3 residents that have informed ABRA/ABC and maybe, some other communications to Joseph Fengler, (Single Member District Commissioner for 6A02 and current Chairman of the ANC6A commission).
* We informed that there are two Cooperative Agreements (CA) embedded in the ABC License of XII and provided copies to our neighbors.
* We explained what a CA is, how it functions, that any member of the community (whether they are an actual signee or not) can invoke the CA, and that MPD and ABRA are the enforcers of the documents, not us.
* We informed, that when the CA was written by the neighbors (who are protestants), that it specifically addressed the sensitivities of the most immediate neighbor and then the residences along the 700 block of 12th going west in the alley behind 12th Street and north back toward H Street immediately behind XII.
* We informed that the walls of the establishment are extremely thick (1.5') and that no sound can possibly be coming through the walls. We also indicated that pending the support of all of the signed protestants, we will seek to remove the clause from this agreement referencing walls simply because its not relevant.
* Residents raised a very good point with Bernard Gibson (Licensee) that he has to focus on where noise could be coming from at his establishment, possibly the last two windows in a concrete stairwell where there may be some sound leakage.
* Police identified that on at least two occasions that they had hear some sound from the establishment outside and also some sound in the home of the most immediate neighbor, but not to the level that is complained about and its still unclear as whether vibrations are felt in the home of the resident on a consistent basis.
* The designated XII staff person who guards entry to the establishment, stated publically, that he has been inside of the most immediate resident . 's home but did not feel any vibrations.
* Police informed that they substantiate a noise complaint before it’s written up as a PD 251 and forwarded to ABRA. Police went further to explain that the owner may obtain a copy of the report for free, others must pay. The police stated they could care less as to who the owner is, they are going to do their jobs of enforcing the laws, whether it’s XII, Showbar or the Argonaut.
Other
* Certain residents who were expected to attend due to their complaints were not present.
* Mr. whose family resides at 1200 G Street, N.E. identified noise from the Showbar and Red and the Black but did not seem to implicate XII as disturbing his home and family.
* Mr. did come but stated the last time he had heard sound which he identifies as coming from XII was December 6 and that there has been no sound in January of 2009. When questioned about other bars and noise that others hear Mr. was unable to identify sound from those bars.
* Mrs. of 1208 G Street indicated that she does not hear sound from XII.
* Another resident of whom we don't know named "" and I believe he simply signed in as PSA 102 for an address said that he has sometimes heard sound which he thinks was from XII but that it was not disturbing. We are going to followup to clarify his position as we are unsure as to where he lives on G Street.
* The family who reside at 1248 Linden Place expressed no concern with XII but were able to identify noise from Rock and Roll Hotel at 1353 H street and Red and Black and Showbar, including fights and noise.
* Mr. and his wife of 1244 G were not able to hear any sound from any direction.
* Mrs. of 710 12th Street does not hear music.
* Other residents on 12th Street are not indicating a problem with the establishment.
* A few residents have said on occasion they have heard some sound from XII, but this was early on before XII installed new windows.
* There is no curb cut where XII is, however the area that he has parked vehicles is private space. Mr. Gibson has agreed not to park there anymore, period. He does continue to use the space for deliveries and trash pickup. I have arranged for him to use Autozone's parking lot should he not be able to park on the street.
Actions from Here:
* It was agreed at the meeting that a sound check would be performed Friday night. We are still trying to decide the time. Current thinking is that we don't want to perform the test too early as to be ineffective or too late to disturb families. At present (pending further discussion with neighbors on 12th Street, Linden and G, we are leaning toward 9:45pm to 10:15pm Friday. Our thinking is that this is the optimal period which will not provide an inconvenience to neighbors, but will allow them to communicate with XII and us if sound/vibrations are or can be heard. We will distribute a notice this evening to everyone informing them of the sound check, a contact number and email address they should use to help us evaluate the sound levels (if there are any). Residents will further be encouraged to come out on the street and participate in determining the levels and providing feedback to the establishment.
* We will invite Linda Obrien from Council member Tommy Well’s Office, Commissioner Joseph Fengler and anyone who wants to help resolve the issue for once and for all. This is a onetime test.
* We have informed Mr. Gibson publically, that if he wishes to keep his ABC license that he must have a staff member close to the sound system/musical live band that ensures that once we have set the limits for bass and sound, that the management of sound will ensure that the levels never increase; ever. That there can be no more substantiated complaints by residents to the police or ABRA or the protestants will make a formal charge to ABC/ABRA for action on the license. Mr. Gibson has agreed to this and so we move forward.
* Mr. Gibson has further agreed to mark his equipment in such a way as to denote that bass/sound is never turned higher than what the community agrees upon at the forthcoming sound check.
* Pending approval by the other protestants, we will submit a request in the next 30 days to the ABC Board to amend the current CA to reflect the discussions of last evening, and forward this to MPD.
* Ms. Obrien, apparently was not aware that that Mr. 's wall isn't attached to Mr. Gibson wall and that they are separated by an entire lot. Ms. Obrien was not apparently aware that the building that XII is in (Square 982) does not abut Mr. 's residence and also that it is separated by an entire Lot.
* I will make contact with Laverne Fletcher (ABRA Mediator) later this afternoon to obtain 4 dates to schedule a sit down between Mr. and Mr. Gibson to hopefully reach a compromise/resolution in this conflict.
* I will also send a letter to Mr. and Mr. Gibson offering the dates that Ms. Fletcher provides for mediation in February 2009.
* We will provide a detail explanation to each community member in Square 1004 and 982 (corrected from 986) on how to file official complaints to ABC/ABRA on any establishment.
* I will also post each CA on the PSA102 blog and our neighborhood websites, but encourage residents to first attempt to make a telephonic contact to the owner of the establishments if they have problems with some activity that they observe (that reasonably does not require immediate police or ABRA response).
* It was suggested that I contact Skip Coburn because of his work with clubs and bars.
We hope this provides an understanding of what we did last evening. Since this issue really does not reflect an action of PSA 102 any correspondence or comments should be sent to me at Lin Den 1200 at g mail dot com.
At the request of ABRA the sound check will not occur until we receive notice that XII has upgraded the soundproofing in the rear of the building. At that time the protestants will notify the community and government and perform a sound check. Current thinking is for a Thursday or Friday night between 9:45pm and 10:15pm. Residents will be requested to email or call a specific number if they can hear sound from this establish. Residents will also be on the street with government to walk the area and determine levels that exceed the restrictions of the CA. Once this part is complete, the licensee has agreed to mark his sound equipment in a way that gives performers warning that they cannot exceed that level marked. The Licensee will also agree to have a staff member within a zone where that person can frequently check to ensure that this procedure is adhered to during hours of operation. There is also consideration to amend the CA to reflect these changes.
Cancelled
The Following Minutes have been redacted to protect the participants
We had approximately 20 households represented at this meeting (not all signed in). For the most part the agenda was followed:
Accomplishments
* We outlined the problem and identified that there are at least 3 residents that have informed ABRA/ABC and maybe, some other communications to Joseph Fengler, (Single Member District Commissioner for 6A02 and current Chairman of the ANC6A commission).
* We informed that there are two Cooperative Agreements (CA) embedded in the ABC License of XII and provided copies to our neighbors.
* We explained what a CA is, how it functions, that any member of the community (whether they are an actual signee or not) can invoke the CA, and that MPD and ABRA are the enforcers of the documents, not us.
* We informed, that when the CA was written by the neighbors (who are protestants), that it specifically addressed the sensitivities of the most immediate neighbor and then the residences along the 700 block of 12th going west in the alley behind 12th Street and north back toward H Street immediately behind XII.
* We informed that the walls of the establishment are extremely thick (1.5') and that no sound can possibly be coming through the walls. We also indicated that pending the support of all of the signed protestants, we will seek to remove the clause from this agreement referencing walls simply because its not relevant.
* Residents raised a very good point with Bernard Gibson (Licensee) that he has to focus on where noise could be coming from at his establishment, possibly the last two windows in a concrete stairwell where there may be some sound leakage.
* Police identified that on at least two occasions that they had hear some sound from the establishment outside and also some sound in the home of the most immediate neighbor, but not to the level that is complained about and its still unclear as whether vibrations are felt in the home of the resident on a consistent basis.
* The designated XII staff person who guards entry to the establishment, stated publically, that he has been inside of the most immediate resident . 's home but did not feel any vibrations.
* Police informed that they substantiate a noise complaint before it’s written up as a PD 251 and forwarded to ABRA. Police went further to explain that the owner may obtain a copy of the report for free, others must pay. The police stated they could care less as to who the owner is, they are going to do their jobs of enforcing the laws, whether it’s XII, Showbar or the Argonaut.
Other
* Certain residents who were expected to attend due to their complaints were not present.
* Mr. whose family resides at 1200 G Street, N.E. identified noise from the Showbar and Red and the Black but did not seem to implicate XII as disturbing his home and family.
* Mr. did come but stated the last time he had heard sound which he identifies as coming from XII was December 6 and that there has been no sound in January of 2009. When questioned about other bars and noise that others hear Mr. was unable to identify sound from those bars.
* Mrs. of 1208 G Street indicated that she does not hear sound from XII.
* Another resident of whom we don't know named "" and I believe he simply signed in as PSA 102 for an address said that he has sometimes heard sound which he thinks was from XII but that it was not disturbing. We are going to followup to clarify his position as we are unsure as to where he lives on G Street.
* The family who reside at 1248 Linden Place expressed no concern with XII but were able to identify noise from Rock and Roll Hotel at 1353 H street and Red and Black and Showbar, including fights and noise.
* Mr. and his wife of 1244 G were not able to hear any sound from any direction.
* Mrs. of 710 12th Street does not hear music.
* Other residents on 12th Street are not indicating a problem with the establishment.
* A few residents have said on occasion they have heard some sound from XII, but this was early on before XII installed new windows.
* There is no curb cut where XII is, however the area that he has parked vehicles is private space. Mr. Gibson has agreed not to park there anymore, period. He does continue to use the space for deliveries and trash pickup. I have arranged for him to use Autozone's parking lot should he not be able to park on the street.
Actions from Here:
* It was agreed at the meeting that a sound check would be performed Friday night. We are still trying to decide the time. Current thinking is that we don't want to perform the test too early as to be ineffective or too late to disturb families. At present (pending further discussion with neighbors on 12th Street, Linden and G, we are leaning toward 9:45pm to 10:15pm Friday. Our thinking is that this is the optimal period which will not provide an inconvenience to neighbors, but will allow them to communicate with XII and us if sound/vibrations are or can be heard. We will distribute a notice this evening to everyone informing them of the sound check, a contact number and email address they should use to help us evaluate the sound levels (if there are any). Residents will further be encouraged to come out on the street and participate in determining the levels and providing feedback to the establishment.
* We will invite Linda Obrien from Council member Tommy Well’s Office, Commissioner Joseph Fengler and anyone who wants to help resolve the issue for once and for all. This is a onetime test.
* We have informed Mr. Gibson publically, that if he wishes to keep his ABC license that he must have a staff member close to the sound system/musical live band that ensures that once we have set the limits for bass and sound, that the management of sound will ensure that the levels never increase; ever. That there can be no more substantiated complaints by residents to the police or ABRA or the protestants will make a formal charge to ABC/ABRA for action on the license. Mr. Gibson has agreed to this and so we move forward.
* Mr. Gibson has further agreed to mark his equipment in such a way as to denote that bass/sound is never turned higher than what the community agrees upon at the forthcoming sound check.
* Pending approval by the other protestants, we will submit a request in the next 30 days to the ABC Board to amend the current CA to reflect the discussions of last evening, and forward this to MPD.
* Ms. Obrien, apparently was not aware that that Mr. 's wall isn't attached to Mr. Gibson wall and that they are separated by an entire lot. Ms. Obrien was not apparently aware that the building that XII is in (Square 982) does not abut Mr. 's residence and also that it is separated by an entire Lot.
* I will make contact with Laverne Fletcher (ABRA Mediator) later this afternoon to obtain 4 dates to schedule a sit down between Mr. and Mr. Gibson to hopefully reach a compromise/resolution in this conflict.
* I will also send a letter to Mr. and Mr. Gibson offering the dates that Ms. Fletcher provides for mediation in February 2009.
* We will provide a detail explanation to each community member in Square 1004 and 982 (corrected from 986) on how to file official complaints to ABC/ABRA on any establishment.
* I will also post each CA on the PSA102 blog and our neighborhood websites, but encourage residents to first attempt to make a telephonic contact to the owner of the establishments if they have problems with some activity that they observe (that reasonably does not require immediate police or ABRA response).
* It was suggested that I contact Skip Coburn because of his work with clubs and bars.
We hope this provides an understanding of what we did last evening. Since this issue really does not reflect an action of PSA 102 any correspondence or comments should be sent to me at Lin Den 1200 at g mail dot com.
At the request of ABRA the sound check will not occur until we receive notice that XII has upgraded the soundproofing in the rear of the building. At that time the protestants will notify the community and government and perform a sound check. Current thinking is for a Thursday or Friday night between 9:45pm and 10:15pm. Residents will be requested to email or call a specific number if they can hear sound from this establish. Residents will also be on the street with government to walk the area and determine levels that exceed the restrictions of the CA. Once this part is complete, the licensee has agreed to mark his sound equipment in a way that gives performers warning that they cannot exceed that level marked. The Licensee will also agree to have a staff member within a zone where that person can frequently check to ensure that this procedure is adhered to during hours of operation. There is also consideration to amend the CA to reflect these changes.
Cancelled
03 February, 2009
Investigating Unsolved Murders in DC
When does a case become a “cold case”
Typically, all cases are worked by the original case detective for a period of up to three years. At that time, if all reasonable leads have been exhausted, the case is transferred to the Major Case/Cold Case Unit. This is not a hard and fast rule. If the original detective, or his or her replacement, has active leads, the detective may choose to keep the case until those leads are exhausted, before allowing the case to be transferred.
What is the Major Case/Cold Case Unit?
The MPDC's Major Case/Cold Case Unit is composed of eight detectives. They work closely with crime and intelligence analysts as well as homicide prosecutors from the US Attorney’s Office. Additionally, the Major Case/Cold Case detectives receive assistance as needed from the Special Victims Unit (who handle all child deaths), as well as other specialized units.
The Violent Crime Case Review Project is part of the unit. The project includes one detective, who oversees several college interns. These interns, primarily specially trained graduate students studying Forensic Psychology, Criminology or other related fields, are involved in the comprehensive and systematic review of all homicide cases going back to the 1960s. The interns determine if the case is open or closed, determine the status of all suspects, summarize the case, prepare it for entry in investigative databases and help to prioritize cases with high solvability factors. One of their primary functions is to identify cases that may benefit from advances in forensic technology – specifically DNA testing.
How are unsolved murders in the Major Case/Cold Case Unit assigned?
When a case is first transferred to the Major Case/Cold Case Unit, it is not assigned to any individual detective or team. Cases are assigned out for additional investigation when, during the review process unresolved leads are identified or new information becomes available.
How do cases get reviewed?
The Violent Crime Case Review Project is working to review all homicides that have occurred in the District of Columbia – going back as far as records are available. The review process is systematic – with years being reviewed in turn. It is a slow process and is expected to take several years to complete. Cases are pulled and reviewed out of turn when:
* The family of a homicide victim makes an inquiry about the status of their loved one’s case.
* New information – including forensic information – becomes available.
* An outside law enforcement agency makes an inquiry about a case.
What happens when a case is reviewed?
The first thing the review team does is determine the status of the case (open or closed). If the case is closed, they determine whether or not the case went to trial, the outcome of the trial and the status of the suspect.
All cases are being reviewed – even closed cases. This is because information in a closed case may help solve an open case. This review can also determine whether or not the suspect in the closed case ever went to trial. If it is determined that the charges against the defendant were dismissed without trial, the case is treated by the review team as an open case.
The case information is summarized and placed in a format to be entered into two separate databases. One is an MPDC internal case management database; the other is the national FBI Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) database. The ViCAP database collects detailed behavioral information about the crime and allows for complex link analysis and searches. The most important thing that ViCAP does is allows analysts to link incoming clues to the cases. If an investigator cannot link the clue to the case, it does no one any good. MPDC's ViCAP case information is also shared with the national ViCAP database for additional analysis.
Finally, the review team identifies cases that might benefit from advances in forensic technology, or have unresolved investigative leads. Those cases are passed along for additional review, work and re-assignment, where appropriate. In cases with forensic potential only, additional lab work may be requested and the case put on hold pending the outcome of that testing.
How do I get someone assigned to work on my loved one’s case?
The review is the first step. Contact information for requesting a review is below. If you have any new information when you make the request, please be prepared to share it at that time. Once the request is made, we will check to see if the case has already been reviewed. If not, the case will be put on a list to be reviewed by the review team. How quickly this is accomplished depends on the current workload and the complexity of the case. You are encouraged to check on the status of the review with the persons listed below.
If the MPDC does not already have one, detectives will be requesting a photograph of your loved one. The photograph can either be mailed or e-mailed to reviewed. If mailed, the photo will be scanned and mailed back to the sender immediately. The photo may be posted on the Unsolved Murder website, as well as used to create a reward poster for distribution (for more information on rewards, see below).
Once the review is completed, the MPDC will make arrangements to meet with you and your family to discuss the case. This does not mean that the case will automatically be re-assigned for additional investigation. During this meeting, we will discuss the current status of the cases as well as possible investigative options.
Cases that are not chosen for additional investigation are placed in a “holding pattern” – awaiting any new leads or tips that warrant follow up.
Can a reward be offered in my loved-one’s case?
The Metropolitan Police Department will pay up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a suspect in any murder case that occurs within the District of Columbia, regardless of how old the case may be.
If a photograph of the decedent is available, we will post a copy of the reward poster on our Unsolved Murder web page. We will also supply copies of the poster to the decedent’s friends and family for distribution. We have found that we often get better results if the family and friends distribute and post the flyers, as people who may have information are more likely to approach the victim’s family.
What happens when my loved one’s case gets chosen for additional investigation?
Typically, the decedent’s next of kin will be notified by the assigned detective that the case has been chosen for additional investigation. Usually, a specific investigative plan will have been developed – based on the review, new information or the results of new forensic testing. Depending on security and other concerns, the nature of the investigative plan may not be fully disclosed to the next of kin at the time the case is reassigned. Following the implementation of the investigative plan, the case will be re-evaluated by the detective team and their supervisors. Depending on that review, additional investigative steps may be taken or the case may be put aside, awaiting further developments. The next of kin will be notified of the outcome of the investigation to the fullest extent possible.
Though the murder happened years ago, we are still hurting. Can anything be done to help us?
You are not alone. Even if the murder occurred decades ago, many people tell us that it feels like it just happened yesterday.
The family members and friends of the decedent may be eligible for all sorts of programs, including compensation, free counseling and other services. Additionally, there are several victim support groups made up of persons just like you. They not only provide support and advice, but allow you to assist others who are now going through what you have been through. For information about these services and groups, please contact the MPDC's Family Liaison Specialist Unit at (202) 645-6363. The specialists are highly trained professionals skilled in assisting the survivors of homicide victims through the aftermath of crime and in locating and utilizing resources.
What else can we do to help solve our loved-one’s case?
The most important thing is to keep your eyes and ears open. We have found that persons who may have information will frequently approach family members before they approach the police. Pass this information along to us – no matter how insufficient it seems at the time.
If it has not been done already, get us a picture of the decedent so we can post it on the website and create reward posters. Get family and friends to help post the reward posters in the appropriate neighborhoods.
Don’t be afraid to discuss problems or shortcomings that the decedent had around the time of their murder. These do not minimize the importance of the case in our eyes and often provide very important clues as to suspects and/or motive.
If possible, maintain contact with the decedent’s friends and associates. Often times, they will have information that is relevant to the investigation. It may fall upon you to assist us in convincing them to cooperate. Continue to let them know that you care and need to find out what happened.
Become an activist – work with the victim support groups and other anti-violence and anti-gun groups. Not only are you turning your tragedy into something more positive, but continued exposure of your loved one’s case to the public may help generate additional leads.
http://www.mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1243,Q,541992,mpdcNav_GID,1533,.asp
Who Do I Contact?
Case Status Information & Case Reviews Contact Phone Email
Violent Crime Case Review Project Det. Jim Trainum (202) 727-5037 unsolved.murder@dc.gov
MPD Family Liaison Specialist Unit Carla Okonkwo (202) 645-6363
MPD Family Liaison Specialist Unit Bridget Jones-Smith (202) 645-5537
MPD Family Liaison Specialist Unit Marlene James (202) 645-9631
Typically, all cases are worked by the original case detective for a period of up to three years. At that time, if all reasonable leads have been exhausted, the case is transferred to the Major Case/Cold Case Unit. This is not a hard and fast rule. If the original detective, or his or her replacement, has active leads, the detective may choose to keep the case until those leads are exhausted, before allowing the case to be transferred.
What is the Major Case/Cold Case Unit?
The MPDC's Major Case/Cold Case Unit is composed of eight detectives. They work closely with crime and intelligence analysts as well as homicide prosecutors from the US Attorney’s Office. Additionally, the Major Case/Cold Case detectives receive assistance as needed from the Special Victims Unit (who handle all child deaths), as well as other specialized units.
The Violent Crime Case Review Project is part of the unit. The project includes one detective, who oversees several college interns. These interns, primarily specially trained graduate students studying Forensic Psychology, Criminology or other related fields, are involved in the comprehensive and systematic review of all homicide cases going back to the 1960s. The interns determine if the case is open or closed, determine the status of all suspects, summarize the case, prepare it for entry in investigative databases and help to prioritize cases with high solvability factors. One of their primary functions is to identify cases that may benefit from advances in forensic technology – specifically DNA testing.
How are unsolved murders in the Major Case/Cold Case Unit assigned?
When a case is first transferred to the Major Case/Cold Case Unit, it is not assigned to any individual detective or team. Cases are assigned out for additional investigation when, during the review process unresolved leads are identified or new information becomes available.
How do cases get reviewed?
The Violent Crime Case Review Project is working to review all homicides that have occurred in the District of Columbia – going back as far as records are available. The review process is systematic – with years being reviewed in turn. It is a slow process and is expected to take several years to complete. Cases are pulled and reviewed out of turn when:
* The family of a homicide victim makes an inquiry about the status of their loved one’s case.
* New information – including forensic information – becomes available.
* An outside law enforcement agency makes an inquiry about a case.
What happens when a case is reviewed?
The first thing the review team does is determine the status of the case (open or closed). If the case is closed, they determine whether or not the case went to trial, the outcome of the trial and the status of the suspect.
All cases are being reviewed – even closed cases. This is because information in a closed case may help solve an open case. This review can also determine whether or not the suspect in the closed case ever went to trial. If it is determined that the charges against the defendant were dismissed without trial, the case is treated by the review team as an open case.
The case information is summarized and placed in a format to be entered into two separate databases. One is an MPDC internal case management database; the other is the national FBI Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) database. The ViCAP database collects detailed behavioral information about the crime and allows for complex link analysis and searches. The most important thing that ViCAP does is allows analysts to link incoming clues to the cases. If an investigator cannot link the clue to the case, it does no one any good. MPDC's ViCAP case information is also shared with the national ViCAP database for additional analysis.
Finally, the review team identifies cases that might benefit from advances in forensic technology, or have unresolved investigative leads. Those cases are passed along for additional review, work and re-assignment, where appropriate. In cases with forensic potential only, additional lab work may be requested and the case put on hold pending the outcome of that testing.
How do I get someone assigned to work on my loved one’s case?
The review is the first step. Contact information for requesting a review is below. If you have any new information when you make the request, please be prepared to share it at that time. Once the request is made, we will check to see if the case has already been reviewed. If not, the case will be put on a list to be reviewed by the review team. How quickly this is accomplished depends on the current workload and the complexity of the case. You are encouraged to check on the status of the review with the persons listed below.
If the MPDC does not already have one, detectives will be requesting a photograph of your loved one. The photograph can either be mailed or e-mailed to reviewed. If mailed, the photo will be scanned and mailed back to the sender immediately. The photo may be posted on the Unsolved Murder website, as well as used to create a reward poster for distribution (for more information on rewards, see below).
Once the review is completed, the MPDC will make arrangements to meet with you and your family to discuss the case. This does not mean that the case will automatically be re-assigned for additional investigation. During this meeting, we will discuss the current status of the cases as well as possible investigative options.
Cases that are not chosen for additional investigation are placed in a “holding pattern” – awaiting any new leads or tips that warrant follow up.
Can a reward be offered in my loved-one’s case?
The Metropolitan Police Department will pay up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a suspect in any murder case that occurs within the District of Columbia, regardless of how old the case may be.
If a photograph of the decedent is available, we will post a copy of the reward poster on our Unsolved Murder web page. We will also supply copies of the poster to the decedent’s friends and family for distribution. We have found that we often get better results if the family and friends distribute and post the flyers, as people who may have information are more likely to approach the victim’s family.
What happens when my loved one’s case gets chosen for additional investigation?
Typically, the decedent’s next of kin will be notified by the assigned detective that the case has been chosen for additional investigation. Usually, a specific investigative plan will have been developed – based on the review, new information or the results of new forensic testing. Depending on security and other concerns, the nature of the investigative plan may not be fully disclosed to the next of kin at the time the case is reassigned. Following the implementation of the investigative plan, the case will be re-evaluated by the detective team and their supervisors. Depending on that review, additional investigative steps may be taken or the case may be put aside, awaiting further developments. The next of kin will be notified of the outcome of the investigation to the fullest extent possible.
Though the murder happened years ago, we are still hurting. Can anything be done to help us?
You are not alone. Even if the murder occurred decades ago, many people tell us that it feels like it just happened yesterday.
The family members and friends of the decedent may be eligible for all sorts of programs, including compensation, free counseling and other services. Additionally, there are several victim support groups made up of persons just like you. They not only provide support and advice, but allow you to assist others who are now going through what you have been through. For information about these services and groups, please contact the MPDC's Family Liaison Specialist Unit at (202) 645-6363. The specialists are highly trained professionals skilled in assisting the survivors of homicide victims through the aftermath of crime and in locating and utilizing resources.
What else can we do to help solve our loved-one’s case?
The most important thing is to keep your eyes and ears open. We have found that persons who may have information will frequently approach family members before they approach the police. Pass this information along to us – no matter how insufficient it seems at the time.
If it has not been done already, get us a picture of the decedent so we can post it on the website and create reward posters. Get family and friends to help post the reward posters in the appropriate neighborhoods.
Don’t be afraid to discuss problems or shortcomings that the decedent had around the time of their murder. These do not minimize the importance of the case in our eyes and often provide very important clues as to suspects and/or motive.
If possible, maintain contact with the decedent’s friends and associates. Often times, they will have information that is relevant to the investigation. It may fall upon you to assist us in convincing them to cooperate. Continue to let them know that you care and need to find out what happened.
Become an activist – work with the victim support groups and other anti-violence and anti-gun groups. Not only are you turning your tragedy into something more positive, but continued exposure of your loved one’s case to the public may help generate additional leads.
http://www.mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1243,Q,541992,mpdcNav_GID,1533,.asp
Who Do I Contact?
Case Status Information & Case Reviews Contact Phone Email
Violent Crime Case Review Project Det. Jim Trainum (202) 727-5037 unsolved.murder@dc.gov
MPD Family Liaison Specialist Unit Carla Okonkwo (202) 645-6363
MPD Family Liaison Specialist Unit Bridget Jones-Smith (202) 645-5537
MPD Family Liaison Specialist Unit Marlene James (202) 645-9631
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)