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 of alleged police misconduct involving harassment,
use of unnecessary or excessive force, use of language or conduct that is insulting,
demeaning or humiliating, or retaliation against a person for filing a complaint against a
member of the Metropolitan Police Department.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as
the "Citizen Complaint Review Act of 1998".
Sec. 2. Findings.
The Council of the District of Columbia finds that:
(a) The District of Columbia delegated to the Metropolitan Police Department the vital
task of protecting the safety of 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 do not act in accordance with the high standards of conduct
that the people of the District of Columbia have a right to expect. 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 police powers.
Further, it is essential that both police officers and members of the public have
confidence that this system of review is fair and unbiased. Members of the public must be
aware of this system and have easy access to its processes.
(d) The need for independent review of police activities is 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
disciplinary proceedings. Many, though, can 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.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this act to establish an effective, efficient and fair system of
independent review of citizen complaints against police officers in the District of
Columbia, which will:
(1) Be visible to and easily accessible to the public;
(2) Investigate promptly and thoroughly claims of police misconduct;
(3) Encourage the mutually agreeable resolution of complaints through conciliation and
mediation where appropriate;
(4) Provide adequate due process protection to officers accused of misconduct;
(5) Provide fair and speedy determination of cases that cannot be resolved through
conciliation or mediation;
(6) Render just determinations;
(7) Foster increased communication and understanding, and reduce tension between the
police and the public; and
(8) Improve the public safety and welfare of all persons in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 4. Definitions
(1) “Board” means the Citizen Complaint Review Board.
(2) “Complaint examiner” means the person designated by the Executive
Director to determine the merits of a complaint.
(3) “Executive Director” means the head of the Office of citizen Complaint
Review.
(4) “Office” means the Office of Citizen Complaint Review.
Sec. 5. Citizen Complaint Review Board
(a) There is established a Citizen Complaint Review Board (hereinafter referred to in
this act as the “Board”). The Board shall be composed of 5 members, 1 of whom
shall be a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, and 4 of whom shall have no
current affiliation with any law enforcement agency. The members of the Board shall be
appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council of the District of
Columbia. The Mayor shall submit a nomination to the Council for a 30-day period of
Council review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council recess.
If the Council does not approve or disapprove a nomination by resolution within this
30-day period of review, the nomination shall be deemed disapproved.
(b) Board members first appointed after the effective date of this act shall serve as
follows: 2 shall serve for a three-year term, 2 shall serve for a two-year term, and 1
shall serve for a 1- year term. Thereafter, Board members shall serve without compensation
for a term of 3 years from the date of appointment to a full term or until a successor has
been appointed. A Board member may be reappointed. The Mayor shall designate the
chairperson of the Board, and may remove a member of the Board from office for
incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct. A person appointed to fill a vacancy on the
Board occurring prior to the expiration of a term shall serve for the remainder of the
term or until a successor has been appointed.
(c) A quorum for the transaction of business shall be 3 members of the Board.
(d) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews of the citizen complaint review process,
and shall make recommendations, where appropriate, to the Mayor, the Council of the
District of Columbia, the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
and the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (“Police Chief”) concerning
the status and the improvement of the citizen complaint process. The Board shall, where
appropriate, make recommendations to the above-named entities concerning those elements of
management of the MPD affecting the incidence of police misconduct, such as the
recruitment, training, evaluation, discipline, and supervision of police officers.
(e) Within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Board shall transmit to the
entities named in subsection (d) of this section an annual report of the operations of the
Board and the Office of Citizen Complaint Review.
(f) The Board is authorized to apply for and receive grants to fund its program
activities in accordance with laws and regulations relating to grant management.
Sec. 6. Office of Citizen Complaint Review — establishment;
funding; staff
(a) There is hereby established an Office of Citizen Complaint Review,
(“Office”).
(b) The Office shall be headed by an Executive Director. The Executive Director shall
be an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the District of Columbia Bar.
The Board shall appoint the Executive Director to serve for a term of 3 years, or until a
successor is appointed. An Executive Director may be reappointed. The Board may remove the
Executive Director from office for incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct. The
Executive Director shall receive such compensation as is established by the Board.
Sec. 7. Duties of the Executive Director.
(a) The Executive Director shall employ qualified persons or utilize the services of
qualified volunteers as necessary to perform the work of the Office, including the
investigation of complaints. The Executive Director may employ persons on a full-time,
part- time, or on a contract basis for the purposes of resolving a particular case or
cases, as may be determined by the Executive Director, except that complaint investigators
may not be persons currently or formerly employed by the MPD. The District of Columbia
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 1979 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C.
Code §1-601.1 et seq.) (“Personnel Act”), shall apply to the Executive
Director and other employees of the Office.
(b) The Executive Director shall supervise all employees and volunteers of the Office,
and shall ensure that all rules, regulations, and orders are carried out properly, and
that all records of the Office are maintained properly.
(c) Subject to approval of the Board, the Executive Director shall establish a pool of
qualified persons who shall be assigned by the Executive Director to carry out the
mediation and complaint determination functions set forth in this act. In selecting a
person to be a member of this pool, the Executive Director shall take into consideration
each person’s education, work experience, competence to perform the functions
required of a dispute mediator or complaint hearing examiner, and general reputation for
competence, impartiality and integrity in the discharge of his responsibilities. For their
services, the members of this pool shall be entitled to such compensation as the Executive
Director, with the approval of the Board, shall determine, provided that the compensation
shall be on a per-case basis, not a per hour basis.
(d) The Board shall have the authority to promulgate rules to implement the provisions
of this act. Such rules shall be promulgated in accordance with title 1 of the District of
Columbia Administrative Procedure Act, approved October 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 1204; D.C. Code
§1-1501 et seq.), and shall be subject to review and approval by the Board before
becoming effective.
Sec. 8. Authority of the Office and processing of complaint.
(a) The Office shall have the authority to receive and to dismiss, conciliate, mediate,
or adjudicate a citizen complaint against a member or members of the Metropolitan Police
Department that alleges abuse or misuse of police powers by such member or members,
including:
(1) Harassment:
(2) Use of unnecessary or excessive force,
(3) Use of language or conduct that is insulting, demeaning, or humiliating;
(4) Discriminatory treatment based upon a person’s race, color religion, national
origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family
responsibilities, physical handicap, matriculation, political affiliation, source of
income, or place of residence or business; or(5) Retaliation against a person for filing a complaint pursuant to this act.
(b) If a complaint alleges misconduct that is not within the authority of the Office to
review, the Executive Director shall refer the allegation to the Police Chief for further
processing by the MPD, as appropriate.
(c) Any person having personal knowledge of alleged police misconduct may file a
complaint with the Office on behalf of a victim.
(d) To be timely, a complaint must be received by the Office within 45 days from the
date of the incident that is the subject of the complaint. The Executive Director may
extend the deadline for good cause.
(e) Each complaint shall be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant.
(f) Complaint forms shall conclude with the following words: “I hereby certify
that to the best of my knowledge, and under penalty of perjury, the statements made herein
are true.”
(g) The Executive Director shall screen each complaint and may request additional
information from the complainant. Within 7 working days of the receipt of the complaint,
or within 7 working days of the receipt of additional information requested from the
complainant, the Executive Director shall take 1 of the following actions:
(1) dismiss the complaint, with the concurrence of at least 1 member of the Board;
(2) refer the complaint to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for
possible criminal prosecution;(3) attempt to conciliate the complaint;
(4) refer the complaint to mediation; or
(5) refer the complaint for investigation.
(h) The Executive Director shall notify in writing the complainant and the subject
police officer or officers of the action taken under subsection (g). If the complaint is
dismissed, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the
dismissal, and the Executive Director shall notify the complainant that the complaint may
be brought to the attention of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department who may
direct that the complaint be investigated and that appropriate action be taken.
(i) For purposes of section 1601 of the Personnel Act, the receipt by the Office of an
oral or written complaint shall not constitute knowledge or cause to know of acts,
occurrences, or allegations contained is such complaint. For purposes of section 1601,
the MPD shall be deemed to know or have cause to know of the acts, occurrences or
allegations in a complaint received by the Office at the time the MPD receives written
notice from the Office that an allegation in a complaint processed by the Office has been
sustained.
Sec. 9. Dismissal of complaint.
(a) A complaint may be dismissed on the following grounds:
(1) The complaint is deemed to lack merit;
(2) The complainant refuses to cooperate with the investigation; or
(3) If, after the Executive Director refers a complaint for mediation, the complainant
willfully fails to participate in good faith in the mediation process.
Sec. 10. Referral of complaint to the United States Attorney.
(a) 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 of the
complaint 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
referral shall be accompanied by a copy of all the Office’s files relevant to the
matter being referred.
(b) The Executive Director shall give written notification of such referral to the
Police, the complainant, and the subject officer or officers. The receipt of notification
by the Chief that a matter has been referred to the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia shall not constitute knowledge or cause to know of acts, occurrences,
or allegations contained in such referral for purposes of section 1601 of the Personnel
Act.
(c) The Executive Director shall maintain a record of each referral, and ascertain and
record the disposition of each matter referred to the United States Attorney.
(d) If the United States Attorney declines in writing to prosecute, the Office shall
resume its processing of the complaint, and thereafter the Executive Director may dismiss
the complaint in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 9, conciliate the
complaint, refer the complaint to mediation, or refer the complaint for investigation, as
appropriate.
Sec. 11. Conciliation and Mediation.
(a) If deemed appropriate by the Executive Director, and if the parties agree to
participate in a conciliation process, the Executive Director may attempt to resolve a
complaint by conciliation.
(1) The conciliation of a complaint shall be evidenced by a written agreement signed by
the Executive Director and the parties which may provide for oral apologies or assurances,
written undertakings, or any other terms satisfactory to the parties. No oral or written
statements made in conciliation proceedings may be used as a basis for any discipline or
recommended discipline against the subject police officer or officers, or used in any
civil or criminal litigation.(2) The parties may agree in writing that a written conciliation agreement shall not be
a public document and shall not be available to the public as would normally be required
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act of 1976, effective March 29, 1977 (D.C. Law
1-96; D.C. Code §1-1521 et.seq.).
[There is no section (b)]
(c) If conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, the Executive Director may dismiss the
complaint in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 7, refer the complaint to
mediation, or refer the complaint for investigation.
(d) If the Executive Director refers the complaint to mediation, the Executive Director
shall assign the matter to a member of the pool who is experienced in mediation, shall
schedule an initial mediation session for the earliest convenient time, and shall notify
the complainant and subject police officer or officers in writing of the date, time and
location of the initial mediation session.
(e) The complainant, the subject police officer or officers, and the mediator shall be
present at mediation sessions. Alternatively, the mediator may meet individually with the
complainant and the subject police officer or officers. Except as provided in this
subsection, no other person may be present or participate in mediation sessions except as
determined by the mediator to be required for a fair and expeditious mediation of the
complaint. An interpreter shall be present when necessary for effective
communication, and shall ‘tee provided by the Office when timely requested by a party.
When the complainant is under 18 years of age or is an adult who, because of mental,
physical or emotional condition or disability, cannot participate competently in
mediation, a parent, guardian, conservator, or other responsible adult must be present at
mediation sessions.
(f) The mediation process shall continue as long as the mediator believes it may result
in the resolution of the complaint, except that it may not extend beyond 30 days from the
date of the initial mediation session without the approval of the Executive Director. No
oral or written statement made during the mediation process may be used by the Office or
the Metropolitan Police Department as a basis for any discipline or recommended discipline
of the subject police officer or officers, or in any civil or criminal litigation, except
as otherwise provided by the rules of court or the rules of evidence.
(g) If mediation is successful, the mediator and the parties shall sign a mediation
agreement resolving the complaint. The Executive Director shall place a copy of the
mediation agreement in the complaint file, and shall forward a copy of the mediation
agreement to the Police Chief. The Police Chief shall monitor the conduct of the police
officer or officers to determine that the police officer complies with the terms of an
agreement reached after mediation.
(h) The parties may agree in writing that a mediation agreement shall not be a public
document and shall not be available to the public as would normally be required pursuant
to the Freedom of Information Act of 1976, effective March 29, 1977 (D.C. Law 1-96; D.C.
Code §1521 et seq.).
(i) If mediation efforts are unsuccessful, the Executive Director may dismiss the
complaint in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 9, may refer the
complaint for investigation, or may refer the complaint to a complaint for adjudication if
the Executive Director determines that further investigation is unnecessary.
(j) If, after the Executive Director refers a complaint to mediation, the complainant
willfully fails to participate in good faith in the mediation process, the Executive
Director may dismiss the complaint in accordance with the procedures of section 9, may
refer the complaint for investigation, or may refer the complaint to a complaint examiner
for adjudication of the merits of the complaint if the Executive Director determines that
further investigation is unnecessary.
(k) If, after the Executive Director refers a complaint to mediation, any police
officer subject to the complaint refuses to participate in the mediation process in good
faith, such refusal or failure shall constitute cause for discipline by the Police Chief.
The Police Chief shall cause appropriate disciplinary action to be instituted against the
police officer for such a violation, and shall notify the Executive Director of the
outcome of such action. In the event that a police officer subject to the complaint
refuses to participate in the mediation process or fails to participate in the mediation
process in good faith, the Executive Director shall refer the complaint for investigation,
or may refer the complaint for adjudication if further investigation is deemed
unnecessary.
Sec. 12. Complaint investigation, findings, and determination.
(a) If the Executive Director refers a complaint for investigation, the Executive
Director shall assign an investigator to investigate the complaint.
(b) If the complainant refuses to cooperate in the investigation, the Executive
Director may dismiss the complaint in accordance with the provisions of section 9.
(c) The Executive Director is authorized to cause the issuance of subpoenas under the
seal of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia compelling the complainant, the
subject officer or officers, witnesses, and other persons to respond to written or oral
questions, or to produce relevant documents or other evidence as may be necessary for the
proper investigation and determination of a complaint. The service of any such subpoena on
a subject police officer or any other employee of the MPD may be effected by service on
the Police Chief or on his designee, who shall deliver the subpoena to the subject police
officer or employee. The Police Chief or his designee shall transmit the return of service
to the Office. Statements made pursuant to a subpoena shall be given under oath or
affirmation.
(d) Employees of the MPD shall cooperate fully with the Office in the investigation and
adjudication of a complaint. Upon notification by the Executive Director that a MPD
employee has not cooperated as requested, the Police Chief shall cause appropriate
disciplinary action to be instituted against the employees, and shall notify the Executive
Director of the outcome of such action. An employee of the MPD shall not retaliate,
directly or indirectly, against a person who files a complaint under this act. If a
complaint of retaliation is sustained under this act, the subject police officer or
employee shall be subject to appropriate penalty, including dismissal. Such disciplinary
action shall not be taken with respect to an employee’s invocation of the Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
(e) When the investigator completes the investigation, the investigator shall summarize
the results of the investigation in an investigative report which, along with the
investigative file, shall be transmitted to the Executive Director. After reviewing the
investigative report and the investigative file, the Executive Director may dismiss the
complaint in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 9, may direct the
investigator to undertake additional investigation, or may refer the complaint to a member
of the pool who shall be the complaint examiner designated by the Executive Director to
determine the merits of the complaint.
(f) Upon receiving a complaint, a complaint examiner may request that the Executive
Director order additional investigation, or may proceed to determine the merits of the
complaint in a fair and expeditious manner. If the complaint examiner determines that an
evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine fairly the merits of a complaint, the
testimony at such hearing shall be under oath or affirmation, and the parties may be
represented by counsel. A complaint examiner shall have the authority to administer an
oath or an affirmation to a witness.
(g) If, after the Executive Director assigns a complaint to a complaint examiner, the
parties indicate to the complaint examiner that they are willing to resolve the complaint
through conciliation or mediation, the complaint examiner may act as a conciliator or
mediator. If a party already is represented by counsel, that party may continue to
be represented by counsel during this conciliation or mediation process. If one party is
represented by counsel and the other party is not so represented, the complaint examiner
shall, upon request, give the unrepresented party a reasonable time to obtain counsel
before commencing the mediation or conciliation process. Any resulting written
conciliation or mediation agreement shall be confidential as provided in section 11, and
neither any such agreement nor any oral nor written statement made by a party during the
course of the conciliation or mediation process may be used as a basis for any discipline
or recommended discipline of the subject police officer or officers, or in any civil or
criminal litigation, except as otherwise provided by the rules of court or the rules of
evidence.
(h) Upon review of the investigative file and the evidence adduced at any evidentiary
hearing, and in the absence of the resolution of the complaint by conciliation or
mediation, the complaint examiner shall make written findings of fact regarding all
material issues of fact, and shall determine whether the fact found sustain or do not
sustain each allegation of misconduct. In making that determination, the complaint
examiner may consider any MPD regulation, policy, or order that prescribes standards of
conduct for police officers. For purposes of this act, these written findings of fact and
determinations by the complaint examiner (collectively the “merits
determination”) may not be rejected unless they clearly misapprehend the record
before the complaint examiner and are not supported by substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence in that record.
(i) If the complaint examiner determines that 1 or more allegations in the complaint is
sustained, the Executive Director shall transmit the entire complaint file, including the
merits determination of the complaint examiner, to the Police Chief for appropriate
action. If the complaint examiner determines that no allegation in the complaint is
sustained, the Executive Director shall dismiss the complaint, notify the parties and the
Police Chief in writing of such dismissal with a copy of the merits determination.
Sec. 13. Action by the MPD.
(a) Upon receipt of a complaint file in which 1 or more allegations in a complaint has
been sustained, the Police Chief shall cause the file to be reviewed within 5 working days
after receiving the complaint file. This review shall not be conducted by persons from the
same organizational unit as the subject police officer or officers. All persons conducting
the review shall be senior in grade or rank to the subject police officer or officers.
(b) The review of the complaint file shall include a review of the personnel file of
the subject officer or officers, including any record of prior misconduct by the subject
police officer or officers. Within 15 working days after receiving the complaint file from
the Police Chief, the reviewing officers shall make a written recommendation, with
supporting reasons, to the Police Chief regarding an appropriate penalty from the Table of
Penalties Guide in General Order 1202.1 (Disciplinary Procedures and Processes). This
recommendation may include a proposal for any additional action by the Police Chief not
inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the citizen complaint review process.
(c) The review panel may include a proposal that the Police Chief return the merits
determination to the Executive Director for review by a final review panel set forth in
subsection (g) of this section if those charged with the review conclude, with supporting
reasons, that, insofar as it sustains 1 or more allegations in the complaint, the merits
determination clearly misapprehends the record before the complaint examiner and is not
supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence in that record. The staff
recommendation may not propose the supplementation of the evidentiary record before the
complaint examiner.
(d) Within 5 working days after receiving the staff recommendation, the Police
Chief shall notify the complainant and the subject police officer or officers in writing
of the staff recommendation, and shall afford the complainant and the subject police
officer or officers an opportunity to file with the Police Chief, within a reasonable time
period set by the Chief, a written response to the staff recommendation. The Police Chief
shall give full consideration to the written responses received from the complainant and
the subject police officer or officers before taking final action with regard to the
complaint.
(e) Within 15 working days after receiving the written responses of the complainant and
the subject officer or officers, or within 15 working days of the deadline set for receipt
of such responses, whichever is earlier, the Police Chief shall issue a decision as to the
imposition of discipline upon the subject police officer or officers. The decision
of the Police Chief shall be in writing and shall set forth a concise statement of the
reasons therefor. The Police Chief may not reject the merits determination, in whole or in
part, unless the Police Chief concludes, with supporting reasons, that the merits
determination clearly misapprehends the record before the complaint examiner and is not
supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence in the record before the
complaint examiner. The Police Chief may not supplement the evidentiary record.
(f) The Police Chief shall notify the Executive Director, the complainant, and the
subject police officer or officers in writing of the action taken by the Police Chief, and
shall include in such notice a copy of the decision.
(g) The decision of the Police Chief shall be a final decision with no further right of
administrative review, other than as provided in section 15(f), except that:
(1) The Police Chief may reopen any closed matter in the interests of fairness and
justice, or(2) If the Chief concludes on the basis of a staff recommendation under subsection (c)
of this section or otherwise that, insofar as it sustains 1 or more allegations of the
complaint, the merits determination clearly misapprehends the record before the complaint
examiner, and is not supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence in the
record, the Chief shall return the merits determination to the Executive Director for
review by a final review panel comprised of 3 complaint examiners (not including the
complaint examiner who prepared the merits determination) selected by the Executive
Director. Upon review of the record, and without taking any additional evidence, the final
review panel shall issue a written decision, with supporting reasons, regarding the
correctness of the merits determination to the extent that the Police Chief has concluded
that it erroneously sustained l or more allegations of the complaint. The final review
panel shall uphold the merits determination as to any allegation of the complaint that the
determination has sustained unless the panel concludes that the determination regarding
the allegation clearly misapprehends the record before the original complaint examiner and
is not supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence in that record. A copy
of the decision of the final review panel shall be transmitted to the Executive Director,
the complainant, the subject police officer or officers, and the Police Chief.
(h) If the final review panel concludes that the merits determination sustaining l or
more allegations of the complaint should be reversed in its entirety, the Executive
Director shall dismiss the complaint, and notify the parties and the Chief of the
Metropolitan Police Department in writing of such dismissal. If the final review panel
concludes that the merits determination should be upheld as to any allegation of the
complaint that the determination has sustained, the Police Chief, within 15 working days
of receipt of the panel’s decision, shall issue a supplemental decision as to the
imposition of discipline upon the subject officer or officers that is fully consistent
with the panel’s decision. The supplemental decision of the Police Chief shall be in
writing and shall set forth a concise statement of the reasons therefor. The Police Chief
shall notify the Executive Director, the complainant, and the subject police officer or
officers in writing of the action taken by the Police Chief, and shall include in such
notice a copy of the supplemental decision. The supplemental decision of the Police Chief
shall be a final decision with no further right of administrative review, other than as
provided in section 15(f), except that the Police Chief may reopen any closed matter in
the interests of fairness and justice.
Sec. 14. Effect of order dismissing complaint.
(a) An order of the Executive Director dismissing a complaint shall be a final
resolution of the complaint by the Office. Such order shall be neither appealable to nor
reviewable by any other entity, administrative or judicial.
(b) An order of the Executive Director dismissing a complaint for any reason, including
a dismissal based upon an adjudication of the merits of a complaint by a complaint
examiner and a decision of a final review panel that reverses a merits determination of a
complaint examiner, shall not bar the complainant from seeking any judicial relief that
may be available pursuant to the statutory and common law of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 15. Metropolitan Police Department disciplinary authority.
(a) The MPD shall have full authority, under the procedures established pursuant to
section 1 of An Act Relating to the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia,
approved February 28, 1901 (31 Stat. 819; D.C. Code §4-118), to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against an officer of the MPD with respect to a charge of misconduct within
the scope of section 8 prior to the timely filing of a complaint with the Office.
(b) If the MPD has initiated disciplinary proceedings against an officer of the MPD for
alleged misconduct, the subsequent timely, filing with the Office of a complaint against
the same officer or officers and alleging the same misconduct shall not preclude the MPD
proceeding with its own disciplinary process. Nor shall the fact that the MPD has
initiated disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for alleged misconduct
preclude the Office from processing a complaint that was timely filed against the same
officer and alleging the same misconduct, except that the Police Chief may not punish the
same officer more than once for the same act or omission that constitutes misconduct.
(c) When the MPD has not initiated a disciplinary proceeding against a police officer
prior to the timely filing of a complaint with the Office, the MPD shall not initiate a
disciplinary proceeding against the subject police officer or officers with regard to
misconduct alleged in such complaint until the Office disposes of the complaint.
(d) A merits determination by a complaint examiner, on the basis of an evidentiary
hearing, that no allegation of misconduct in the complaint is sustained, as well as a
decision of a final review panel that reverses in its entirety a merits determination that
sustained 1 or more allegations of the complaint, precludes the MPD from imposing
discipline on the subject police officer or officers with respect to any allegation of
misconduct contained in the complaint.
(e) A merits determination by a complaint examiner, on the basis of an evidentiary
hearing, or a later decision of a final review panel, if any, shall be binding on the
subject police officer or officers and on the Police Chief in all subsequent proceedings
as to all essential facts determined and all violations found.
(f) If the complaint examiner has not held an evidentiary hearing and the Police Chief
imposes termination as a disciplinary action, the affected police officer shall be
entitled to a post-termination administrative proceedings as provided by law. A police
officer disciplined by the Police Chief, whether by termination or otherwise, shall be
entitled to whatever administrative disciplinary proceeding is afforded under any
applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Sec. 16. Funding and compensation.
(a) There are authorized such funds as may be necessary to support the Board, the
Office, and support services.
(b) Any entitlement to compensation under this act for services rendered shall be
dependent upon the availability of appropriated funds to pay such compensation.
Sec. 17. Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the Committee Report as the fiscal
impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813;
D.C. Code §1-233(c)(3)).
Sec. 18. Effective date.
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by
the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), 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)), a 30-day period of
Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Code §1-233 (c)(1)), and
publication in the District of Columbia Register.