Councilmember Jack Evans A BILL IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To establish an independent office of Citizen Complaint Review for the District
of Columbia to review citizen complaints involving allegations of police misconduct. BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as
the "Citizen Complaint Review Act of 1997". Sec. 2. Findings. The Council of the District of Columbia finds that: (a) The District of Columbia has delegated to its Metropolitan Police Department the
vital task of protecting the safety of all persons and property in the District of
Columbia. The task is difficult, dangerous, and sensitive. (b) Most members of the Metropolitan Police department perform their duties with
diligence,devotion, and sensitivity. From time to time, however, some members of the
Metropolitan Police Department may not act in accordance with the high standards of
conduct that the people of the District of Columbia have a right to expect of them. On
other occasions, honest misunderstandings arise between police officers and members of the
public with whom they interact. (c) Because police officers have been given extraordinary powers, it is essential that
there be an effective and efficient system for reviewing their exercise of those powers.
It is also essential that both police officers and members of the public have confidence
that this system of review is fair and unbiased. It is also essential that members of the
public be aware of this system and have easy access to its processes. (d) The need for independent review of police activities has been widely recognized
across the nation. Effective independent review enhances communication and mutual
understanding between the police and the community, reduces community tensions, deters
police misconduct, and increases the public’s confidence in their police force. (e) Some complaints against police officers involve serious charges requiring formal
proceedings, but many can best be resolved through conciliation, mediation, or other
dispute resolution techniques. An effective and efficient review mechanism should
encompass a variety of procedures for dealing with different complaints in an appropriate
manner. Back to top of page Sec. 3. Purpose. It is the purpose of this act to establish an effective, efficient and fair system of
independent review of complaints against police officers in the District of Columbia,
which will: (a) be visible to and easily accessible by all segments of the public; (b) promptly and thoroughly investigate claims of police misconduct; (c) encourage the mutually agreeable resolution of complaints through conciliation and
mediation; (d) provide adequate due process protection to officers accused of misconduct; (e) provide fair and speedy determinations in cases that cannot be resolved through
mediation; (f) render just determinations; (g) foster increased communication and understanding, and reduced tension, between the
police and the public; and (h) improve the public safety and welfare of all persons in the District of Columbia. Back to top of page Sec. 4. Independent Office of Citizen Complaint Review
established. (a) There is hereby established an Office of Citizen Complaint Review, hereinafter
referred to as the Office, under the administration of the Executive Officer of the
District of Columbia Courts, subject to the supervision of the Chief Judge of the Superior
Court. (b) Initial funding for a period not to exceed eighteen months shall be provided from
funds identified by the Metropolitan Police Department. Subsequent funding shall be
obtained through the budgetary process. (c) The Office shall be headed by an Executive Director who shall be under the
supervision of the Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts. (d) The Office shall be staffed with one or more individuals having judicial or
administrative law qualifications who shall perform duties as complaint examiners for all
matters coming before the Office. Complaint examiners shall be appointed on a contract or
part-time basis as may be determined by the Executive Officer, subject to approval of the
Chief Judge of the Superior Court. (e) The Office shall be staffed with complaint investigators on a contract or part-time
basis as may be determined by the Executive Officer, subject to the approval of the Chief
Judge of the Superior Court. (f) The Executive Officer shall engage such other personnel as may be needed by the Of
lice. Back to top of page Sec. 5. Authority of the Office. (a) The Office is authorized to establish policies and procedures for receiving,
investigating and resolving complaints filed against members of the Metropolitan Police
Department, on or off duty, while exercising police authority; to review and determine the
disposition of such complaints; to educate the public and the police about the importance
of improving communication between them; to conduct studies regarding police-community
relations and regarding the causes, nature, extent, and prevention of police misconduct;
and to inform the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, the Mayor,
the Council, the Executive Officer of the D.C. Courts, the Metropolitan Police Department
and the general public about its activities and its findings. (b) The Office is authorized to obtain the investigation and findings of fact with
respect to citizen complaints that allege one or more of the following: (i) Harassment; (ii) Use of unnecessary or excessive force; or (iii) Use of language or conduct that is insulting, demeaning or humiliating.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Metropolitan Police Department and
the Mayor are prohibited from maintaining any system other than that set forth in this Act
for processing and taking action with respect to citizen complaints alleging the conduct
specified in subsection (b) of this section against members of the Metropolitan Police
Department, where the alleged misconduct is directed towards any person not an officer of
the Metropolitan Police Department. (d) The Office shall promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to
carry out its functions. Such rulemaking shall be carried out in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (D.C. Code § 1-1501 et seq.). (e) The Office is authorized to recruit, train, and certify qualified volunteers to
assist in carrying out the mediation, investigation, and determination functions set out
in this act. (f) In January of each year, the Office shall prepare an annual report summarizing its
activities during the prior calendar year. (g) The Office is authorized to apply for and receive grants to fund its program
activities in accordance with laws and regulations relating to grant management. Back to top of page Sec. 6. Executive Director and staff. (a) The Executive Director shall have full responsibility for the supervision and
direction of employees and volunteers of the Office, and shall ensure that all rules,
regulations and orders of the Office are properly carried out and that all records of the
Office are properly maintained. (b) The Executive Director may designate other employees or volunteers of the Office to
assist him or her, or to act on his or her behalf, in carrying out any of the duties
specified in this act. Back to top of page Sec. 7. Outreach and intake. (a) The Office shall prepare and distribute through governmental and non-governmental
channels informational posters and pamphlets about the citizen complaint procedure
established pursuant to this act. Such posters and pamphlets shall be printed in English,
Spanish, and such other languages as the Office deems necessary to effectuate the purposes
of this act. The Office shall regularly publicize the availability of its services through
such other means as it deems useful. (b) Any person having knowledge of alleged police misconduct may file a complaint with
the Office on behalf of the victim. (c) Complaints must be received by the Office within 30 days from the date of the
incident or after a complainant became aware, or should with reasonable diligence have
become aware, of the facts giving rise to the complaint, but in no case later than five
years after the incident occurred. (d) Complaints received by the Office shall be screened by the Executive Director, who
may request additional information from the complainant. Within five days of receipt, the
Executive Director shall take one of the following actions: (i) Dismiss the complaint; (ii) Refer the complaint to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for
possible criminal prosecution; (iii) Refer the complaint to conciliation or mediation; (iv) Refer the complaint for investigation.
(e) The complainant and the subject police officer shall be notified in writing of the
Executive Director’s action. If the complaint is dismissed, the notice shall be
accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons therefore, and the complainant shall also
be notified that the complaint may be brought to the attention of the Chief of the
Metropolitan Police Department, who may require that the complaint be investigated and
that appropriate action be taken. Back to top of page Sec. 8. Referral to the United States Attorney. When, in the determination of the Executive Director there is reason to believe that
the misconduct alleged in a complaint or disclosed by an investigation may be criminal in
nature, the Executive Director shall refer the matter to the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia for possible criminal prosecution. The Metropolitan Police
Department, the complainant, and the subject officer shall be notified in writing of the
referral, and a record of such referral shall be maintained and the disposition of the
matter shall be ascertained and recorded. If the United States Attorney declines in
writing to prosecute, the Office may resume its processing of the complaint following
resolution of the criminal case. For the purpose of D.C. Code § 1-617.1, the receipt by the Independent Office of
Citizen Complaint Review of an oral or written complaint shall not constitute knowledge or
cause to know of acts, occurrences or allegations contained is such complaint. For the
purpose of D.C. Code § l-617.1, the Metropolitan Police Department shall be deemed to
know the acts, occurrence or allegations at the time the complaint file is received by the
Metropolitan Police Department. Back to top of page Sec. 9. Conciliation or Mediation. (a) At any time in the course of a complaint proceeding, the Executive Director or one
of the parties to the complaint, may suggest or propose terms for the conciliation or
mediation of the matter. (b) The conciliation process may consist of face-to-face meetings with the parties,
verbal apologies or assurances, written undertakings, or any other terms satisfactory to
the parties. Terms of conciliation shall remain confidential except as to summaries or
selected terms which the parties may agree to make available to the public. (c) At the discretion of the Executive Director or upon recommendation of a complaint
examiner, a complaint, other than one charging excessive force, may be referred to
mediation. (d) If a complaint is referred to mediation, an initial mediation session shall be
scheduled for the earliest convenient time, and the complainant and the subject officer
shall be notified in writing of the date, time and location of the initial session. (e) If a complaint is not disposed of by mediation, the Executive Director shall refer
the complaint for investigation. (f) Mediation may be conducted by trained volunteers certified by the Director of the
Multi-Door Division of the Superior Court or contracted for by the Office subject to the
approval of the Chief Judge of the Superior Court. (g) The complainant, the subject officer, and the mediator shall be present at
mediation sessions. No other persons may be present or participate except upon such terms
as determined by the mediator. An interpreter may be present when needed and shall be
provided by the Office when timely requested by a party. When the complainant is a minor
or is an adult who, because of mental, physical or emotional condition cannot participate
competently in mediation, a parent, guardian, conservator or other responsible adult must
be present. (h) The mediation process shall continue as long as the mediator and the parties
believe it may result in a resolution of the complaint, except that it may not extend
beyond thirty twenty days from the date of the initial mediation session without the
approval of the Executive Director. The mediation process shall terminate when the parties
sign an agreement resolving the complaint, or when either party announces its
unwillingness to continue mediation, or when the mediator concludes that further mediation
would not be useful. (i) No oral or written statements made in mediation proceedings may be used in Office
or disciplinary proceedings, or in civil or criminal litigation. (j) If an agreement resolving the complaint is signed, a copy will be provided to the
Office and placed in the complaint file. It shall not be a public document and shall not
be available to the public under the D.C. Freedom of Information Act. (k) If an agreement resolving the complaint is signed, the complaint file will be
forwarded to the Chief of Police. (1) The Chief of Police will monitor the conduct of the police officer to determine
that the police officer has complied with the terms of an agreement reached after
mediation. Back to top of page Sec. 10. Investigation, review by complaint examiner,
findings and determination. (a) If a complaint is referred for investigation, the Executive Director shall cause an
investigator to be assigned to the matter. If the complainant refuses to cooperate in the
investigation, the complaint may be dismissed. (b) The Executive Director is authorized to cause the issuance of subpoenas compelling
the complainant, the subject officer, and other witnesses to respond to written or oral
questions and to produce relevant books, records, or other evidence as may be necessary
for the proper investigation of the complaint. Such statements shall be given under oath
or affirmation. (c) When the investigation is completed, the results shall be summarized in an
investigative report. The investigative file shall be evaluated as to adequacy by the
Executive Director and assigned to a Complaint Review Judge or complaint examiner who
shall review and determine the merits of the complaint based upon the investigative file.
The Complaint Review Judge may, if deemed necessary or advisable, request additional
investigation, convene a fact finding conference, or take such other action as will lead
to a fair and expeditious resolution of the complaint or of any particular issue raised by
the complaint. (d) The Complaint Review Judge may use methods of conciliation or mediation as may be
available and appropriate in any matter. (e) Upon review of the investigative file and in the absence of a resolution of the
complaint, the Complaint Review Judge shall make written findings of fact regarding all
material facts relating to the incidents, acts or allegations of the complaint and shall
determine, on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, whether each allegation of the
complaint should be sustained or dismissed, or and whether the record discloses other
misconduct not directly related to the immediate allegations but within the general
authority of the Office. The Complaint Review Judge shall make written findings and shall
make recommendations as to determine the appropriate charge or charges growing out of such
facts as related to the list of offenses published in Metropolitan Police Department
General Order 1202.1 (Disciplinary Procedures and Processes). The Complaint Review Judge
shall not determine whether disciplinary proceedings are or are not initiated. With
respect to each charge, the Complaint Review Judge shall make one of the following
determinations: (i) Not Sustained, or (ii) Sustained
For the purpose of this Act, the Complaint Review Judge’s determinations of fact are
final and not subject to review or reversal by any Court, Department, Agency or person. A
complaint review judge is a retired or senior judge of the Superior Court who is certified
by the Chief Judge as being available to serve as a complaint review judge. Service as a
complaint review judge shall not be considered as service to the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia or as a Superior Court Judge. Service as a complaint review judge
will be compensated by the Office and not by the Superior Court at the same per diem rate
that senior judges are compensated when sitting as Superior Court judges. Compensation
received as a complaint review judge shall not effect or diminish the right to receive pay
or annuity from or pursuant to service or retirement as a Superior Court judge. (f) If the complaint record discloses misconduct that is not within the authority of
the Office, the a record shall be sent to the Chief of Police, who shall take appropriate
action. (g) A copy of the completed complaint file shall be forwarded to the
Metropolitan Police Department for further processing. Back to top of page Sec. 11. Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police
Department. (a) Upon receipt of the complaint file in a matter which has been sustained, the Chief
of Police shall cause the file to be reviewed by a tribunal of three police members
designated for such purpose. (b) The police tribunal assigned to review a citizen complaint file shall obtain the
subject officer’s personnel file and upon consideration of the prior record of the subject
officer, the tribunal is authorized to take one of the following actions: (i) Based on the findings of fact, recommend acceptance by the Chief of Police of the
Office recommendations as to violation of MPD General Order 1202.1 and assess an
appropriate penalty from the Table of Penalties Guide in accordance with General Order
1202.1 (Disciplinary Procedures and Processes); (ii) Recommend alternative action by the Chief of Police not inconsistent with the
intent and purpose of the citizen complaint review process; (iii) Request reversal or dismissal of one or all findings based upon good reasons
supported by evidence not considered by the Complaint Review Judge.
(c) When any action is taken by the Complaint Review Tribunal other than recommending
acceptance of the Office’s recommendations, the Metropolitan Police Department shall,
after consultation with the Office, notify the complainant and the subject police officer
of the action recommended and provide an opportunity for a written protest of the
recommended action to be addressed to the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police shall give
full consideration to such protest before taking final action with regard to the
complaint. (d) The decision of the Chief of Police as to the assessment of penalty shall be final
with no further right of appeal available in the matter. The Chief of Police, however, may
reopen any closed matter in the interest of fairness and justice. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an officer shall not be terminated
for misconduct except through the process of a regular trial board and a due process
hearing in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Code Sec. 4-118. Back to top of page Sec. 12. Community review and audit committee. There is hereby authorized the establishment of a community review and audit committee
which will conduct quarterly or other periodic audits of the Citizen Complaint Review
process and will advise the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
the Mayor, the Council, the Executive Officer of the D.C. Courts, the Metropolitan Police
Department and the general public of its evaluations and recommendations. Sec. 13. Effective date. This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by
the Mayor, override of the veto by the Council), approval by the Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority as provided in section 203(a) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act of 1995,
approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 116; D.C. Code § 47-392.3(a)), and a 30-day period of
Congressional review, as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia
Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat.
813; D.C. Code § 1-233(c)(1)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register. | 
