FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS MAYOR BOWSER’S B21-0357 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIMINAL CODE REVISIONS ACT OF 2015

WHY DO WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT B21-0357?

B21-0357 promotes ineffective and counterproductive “tough on crime” approaches to public safety. In response to the recent rise in crime in the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser (“Mayor”) proposed B21-0357, the Public Safety and Criminal Code Revisions Amendment Act of 2015. The Mayor’s proposal would employ policies that have proven ineffective and counterproductive in ensuring public safety.

Over the past 25 years local politicians have adhered to the conventional wisdom that being “tough on crime” will win elections and appease the public’s appetite for safety. To alleviate public fear and thirst for retribution, our lawmakers have deemed more acts criminal and doled out harsher punishments. Many of these laws have been selectively enforced on the District’s Black community and communities of color and have produced a dramatic rise in incarceration and criminal justice control.

Despite dramatic shifts in public opinion, with the public now supporting common sense and fair sentencing, B21-0357 adheres to the tradition of punishment and incarceration. The policies in this proposal will result in more District residents being incarcerated, and drive more people into the cycle of disenfranchisement and other collateral consequences characteristic of our criminal justice system. There are also serious constitutional concerns with some of the provisions contained within the proposal. Oppose B21-0357 and urge the D.C. Council to reject “tough on crime” rhetoric in favor of smart, evidence-supported public policy.

WHAT DOES B21-0357 DO?

B21-0357 expands the District’s power to conduct warrantless searches of certain people’s homes; promotes more aggressive forms of policing; violates due process; promotes harsh sentencing; increases the length of time police can retain footage from video surveillance systems; and, promotes other ineffective criminal justice policies.

Warrantless Searches  Expands the authority of officers to conduct suspicionless, warrantless searches on the homes of a class of individuals on parole, probation and supervised release. Aggressive Policing  Expands the power of police and prosecutors to arrest and charge people for Felony or Aggravated Assault of a police officer even when the person has been wrongfully

1 arrested. Allows the severity of an assault on a police officer charge to be based on the police officer’s self-reported level of pain, on a 1-10 scale, and increases the maximum sentence for assault on a police officer to 15 years. Due Process Violations  Expands preventative detention for people charged with a list of enumerated offenses. Harsh Sentencing  Enhances penalties by 1 1/2 times for several dozen offenses when they are committed against a public transit passenger or worker, or against any person while located on or near a park, recreation center and/or property regulated by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Increases Surveillance  Provides financial incentives to property and business owners to install security camera systems and increases the retention period for MPD surveillance footage captured by MPD cameras, and;  Expands police access to the GPS records of people under court supervision, both before they have been convicted of anything and after. Ineffective Criminal Justice Policies  Allows the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) to hire retired MPD officers while the officers continue to receive compensation in the form of retirement benefits from the MPD, which could in effect make the DFS an arm of the MPD instead of the independent, unbiased scientific agency it is supposed to be.

WHO WILL B21-0357 IMPACT?

The proposal will likely almost exclusively impact Black people in the District of Columbia.

B21-0357 will impact a class of returning citizens that have been charged and/or convicted of dozens of enumerated offenses; people on parole, probation and supervised release; juveniles; innocent people charged with crimes, and; the family and friends who house returning citizens. Given the racial disparities that plague every stage of the District’s criminal justice system it is very likely that, this proposal will almost exclusively impact Black people.

WHY DOES B21-0357 POSE CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUES FOR THE ACLU?

The erosion of civil liberties in the name of public safety damages the relationship between law enforcement and communities and makes it harder for law enforcement to do its job.

B21-0357’s reliance on criminal justice responses to what are largely public health issues is counterproductive and violates the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Deprivation of an individuals’ physical freedom is one of the most severe interferences with liberty that the government can impose. Imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive and costly. Incarceration should be a penalty of last resort, to be imposed only when no less restrictive alternative is appropriate. We oppose the excessive use of incarceration and furthermore oppose sentences that are disproportionate to the crime.

Additionally, the Fourth Amendment ensures that all persons have the right to privacy in relationship to the government in their bodies and personal effects, homes and other areas or items maintained as private, unless the person has affirmatively waived that right by freely,

2 knowingly, and voluntarily either consenting to the government intrusion or abandoning the area or item. We oppose policies that erode these fundamental constitutional protections.

WHY SHOULD WE PROTECT CRIMINALS?

Everybody, guilty or innocent, has the right to fair treatment and due process under the law. Respecting peoples’ rights makes law enforcement more effective at doing their jobs. Not everybody who is accused of a crime is guilty. Furthermore, we should support everybody’s rights. Members of our community are outraged by crime and want people who commit crimes to be charged and prosecuted. However, the rights of fair treatment and due process must be respected for people who are accused of crimes and even people who are convicted of crimes. Respecting these rights does not cause crime, nor does it hinder police from pursuing people who commit crimes. It should, and does in fact, cause police to be more effective at doing their jobs. Research and history demonstrate that people are more likely to obey the law when they believe those enforcing it have the legitimate authority to tell them what to do.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THE POLICE TARGETING PEOPLE WHO HAVE A HISTORY OF BREAKING THE LAW?

People with criminal records have constitutional rights that must be protected. Our communities are safer when we support returning citizens in reintegrating as productive members of society.

Even people with a history of breaking the law are entitled to constitutional protections. A punishment should be based on additional wrongful acts, not motivated by speculation that the person may commit illegal acts in the future. Punishment should not be based on the unscientific notion that society can predict with any reasonable standard of accuracy how a particular individual will act at some unspecified time.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO OPPOSE B21-357?

Call and/or email your D.C. Councilmember and the Mayor to let them know that you oppose B21-0357, which does not serve the interests of public safety.

If you are not sure what to say, please feel free to use the script below:

Hello, this is [YOUR NAME]. I am a resident of [YOUR WARD] and I am calling to voice concern about Mayor Bowser’s Public Safety and Criminal Code Revisions Amendment Act of 2015. This bill proposes an ineffective “tough on crime” approach to public health and safety issues in the District. I believe that the D.C. Council and the Mayor should be redirecting our public resources to evidence supported approaches that strengthen communities and reduce violence by providing jobs, housing, mental health and drug rehabilitation services. The D.C. Council should approach violence as a public health issue and promote accountability and transparency in our criminal justice system. As a District resident I demand the D.C. Council reject B21-0357.

3 MAYOR

Mayor Muriel Bowser (202 727-2643 [email protected] @MayorBowser

AT-LARGE

Chairman Phil Mendelson (202) 724-8032 [email protected] @ChmnMendelson

Council Member Vincent Orange Council Member Anita Bonds (202) 724-8174 (202) 724-8064 @VOrangeDC @AnitaBondsDC [email protected] [email protected]

Council Member David Grosso Council Member Elissa Silverman (202) 724-8105 (202)-724-7772 @CMDGrosso @TweetElissa [email protected] [email protected]

WARD 1 WARD 2 Council Member Brianne Nadeau Council Member Jack Evans (202) 724-8181 (202) 724-8058 @BrianneKNadeau @JackEvansWard2 [email protected] [email protected]

WARD 3 WARD 4 Council Member Mary Cheh Council Member Brandon Todd (202) 724-8062 (202) 724-8052 @MaryCheh @CMBrandonTodd [email protected] [email protected]

WARD 5 WARD 6 Council Member Kenyan McDuffie Council Member Charles Allen (202) 724-8028 (202)-724-8072 @KenyanMcDuffie @CN_CharlesAllen [email protected] [email protected]

WARD 7 WARD 8 Council Member Yvette Alexander Council Member LaRuby May (202) 724-8068 (202) 724-8045 @CMYMA @Ward8Rising [email protected] [email protected]

4 THE ACLU SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING BILLS:

Councilmember McDuffie introduced Bill 21-0360, the Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results Act of 2015, which applies a public health approach to address the recent surge in crime.

In response to the recent rise in crime in the District of Columbia, Councilmember McDuffie proposed B21-0360, the Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results Act of 2015. Councilmember McDuffie’s proposal would employ policies that have proven effective and productive in ensuring public safety.

As introduced, this bill establishes the Office of Neighborhood Engagement and Safety to engage individuals with a high risk of participating in, or being a victim of, violent criminal activity. The executive director of this office must report to the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice. It establishes an Office of Violence Prevention within the Department of Health which among other things will embed social workers in hospital emergency rooms to offer counseling and mediation. It creates grant-making authority for the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice to issue grants for neighborhood violence intervention and prevention program initiatives. It requires data collection and analysis by the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice on felony crimes. It places social workers in the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and requires MPD to include training on preventing biased-based policing, and the unlawful use of force. MPD is also required to collect stop and frisk data, use of force data, data regarding citizens’ complaints as well as in custody deaths.

This proposal reinvests in community-based violence interdiction models that are not tied to law enforcement or prosecution. The proposal also uses instances in which people are the victims of intentional violence as opportunities to provide wrap around services that heal and address trauma. Finally, the proposal moves the District closer to removing barriers to re-entry for returning citizens and providing services and resources to the populations who most need it. We support Bill 21 0360 as a smart evidence supported approach to public safety.

Councilmember Cheh introduced Bill 21-0189, the Police and Criminal Discovery Reform Amendment Act of 2015, which seeks to restore greater confidence in the criminal justice system.

Councilmember Cheh introduced Bill 21-0189, the Police and Criminal Discovery Reform Amendment Act of 2015, which seeks to restore greater confidence and fairness in the criminal justice system. The bill aims to more precisely define the misdemeanor of “assault on a police officer” (APO), reform how MPD officers conduct eyewitness identification procedures, increase the information available to the Office of Police Complaints (OPC), and expand the rules of discovery in criminal prosecutions.

Specifically, the bill would narrow the scope of the District’s APO statute by limiting the language to those individuals who deliberately assault an officer, modify how MPD officers conduct eyewitness identification procedures so that officers conducting lineups will not purposefully or inadvertently influence the witness, provide OPC with information related to: the number, types, and dispositions of citizen complaints received, investigated, sustained, or otherwise resolved and then any discipline related to those complaints, and codify the criminal discovery rule and expand its scope in the following areas: witness statements; documents,

5 tangible objects, and data; reports of examinations and tests; expert witnesses; disclosures related to the defendant’s mental health; and information relating to eyewitness identification procedures.

This proposal contains essential reforms to increase the transparency of our criminal justice system, providing our residents with the necessary tools and safeguards while ensuring our law enforcement officers are adequately protected. For these reasons, we support Bill 21-0189.

Moving the criminal justice system out of the center of our public safety solutions is a necessity for the health and safety of our entire community. We look forward to working with the Council to shape policy to address public health and public safety issues facing the District.

The Mayor introduced Bill 21-0382, the Bail Reform Amendment Act of 2015, which removes the prohibition of allowing pretrial inmates ordered by the court to work release from doing so from the Central Detention Facility or the Correctional Treatment Facility.

The ACLU agrees with the spirit of the Bail Reform Amendment Act of 2015. The bill would allow judges to order detainees into work release while they are incarcerated at the DC Jail or CTF, and not limit the program to those house at halfway houses. Incarceration, even for brief periods of time, frequently leads to individuals missing work and therefore going without a regular income or losing their jobs entirely. This can have devastating ripple effects on the individual and his or her family. We support an expansion of those eligible to participate in the DOC’s work release program.

However, this expansion should not come as an alternative to increasing and improving halfway house availability, and the District should simultaneously endeavor to improve halfway house conditions and expand the number of available beds at halfway houses.

The Mayor introduced Bill 21-0384, the District of Columbia Good Time Credits Amendment Act of 2015, which increases the amount of good time credits a misdemeanant inmate can earn from 8 to 10 credits per calendar month.

The ACLU supports expansion of good time credits for individuals incarcerated in the Department of Corrections. Good time credits further not only the goals of good behavior and prison safety, but provides the additional benefit that the individuals are better prepared for reintegration into their communities and are equipped with tools for success. Good time credit also promotes the rehabilitation of individuals, reducing the risk of recidivism when released and improving public safety.

Along with this expansion of the amount of good time credits inmates can earn must come an expansion of programs so that all eligible candidates can be accommodated. The expansion’s impact will be greatly reduced if individuals who are eligible for good time credits do not have the opportunity to earn those credits if the programs are oversubscribed. Similarly, the DOC must ensure that programs are equally available for men and women.

The ACLU also advocates for an additional expansion of the good time credit program, so as not to exclude those with felony convictions from the opportunity to earn good time credits for good behavior, or participation in rehabilitation programs, work details, and special projects. The felony/misdemeanor distinction is often a somewhat arbitrary line that has little to do with one’s ability to benefit from incentivized programming and has little to do with rehabilitation and risk of recidivism.

6