Metropolitan Police Department: News Room - Chief's Statements - October 7, 2004 - Page 4
DC Home Mayor DC Guide Residents Business Visitors DC Government Kids

Metropolitan Police Department


Jan
Feb Mar
Apr
May
Jun Jul Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov 
Dec
 
2005 Statements
Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct  Nov  Dec

2004 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May  Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

2003 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

2002 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

2000 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

1999 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

1998 Statements
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec

News Room

October 7, 2004

Public Hearing on Bill 15-968 – “First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004”

In many sections, the legislation outlines policies and procedures that our Department has already implemented through our Mass Demonstration Handbook and other internal regulations. For example, before last weekend’s IMF and World Bank event, we issued updated policies in such critical areas as verbal warnings, prisoner processing, and notification of arrestees’ rights and options. These and other recent reforms are generally consistent with the guidelines contained in the bill.

The legislation also provides guidelines on the collection and use of intelligence information during preliminary inquiries and criminal investigations that involve individuals or groups that may also be engaging in First Amendment activities. Again, these proposed guidelines generally mirror existing MPD policies and procedures, and they provide sufficient flexibility that would allow our Department to conduct such inquiries and investigations in an effective and efficient manner.

We do have one specific recommended change, however. Section 208 of the bill provides for auditing of the Department’s preliminary inquiries and investigations in this area. We welcome this scrutiny, but disagree with having the Office of Citizen Complaint Review serve as the auditor. We believe it would create a conflict of interest to have the OCCR audit the very same information and records that might also be the basis for a citizen complaint investigated by the OCCR. As an alternative, we feel that the Office of the Inspector General possesses the resources, the expertise and the independence to fulfill the auditing role as outlined in the legislation.

Page 4 of 8                            1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8