D.C. Council Passes Anti-Crime Bill Despite Civil Rights Group Concerns

WASHINGTON -- District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed legislation this week that gives police broader powers to try to reduce crime that has prompted threats of intervention by members of Congress.

The law increases penalties for illegal gun possession at a time homicides in the nation’s capital are at the highest level in a quarter century.

It also imposes harsher penalties for retail theft in a response to complaints from business owners. Some of them closed their shops in the past two years or moved away from neighborhoods hit hardest by thefts.

One controversial provision allows police to collect DNA from blood tests after probable cause hearings for criminal suspects but before they are convicted. Another one would authorize police to use mask-wearing as a justification to stop and question people.

The stricter measures raised alarms from the ACLU and other civil liberties advocates who say they could violate constitutional rights to privacy.

Bowser, who has been known for seeking ways to discourage crime first and punish it only if necessary, said, “We are a city that is committed to creating opportunity and that believes in second chances, but we will not tolerate violence and we will not tolerate criminal activity that disrupts our sense of safety and our ability to build thriving neighborhoods.”

Two local politicians, Council members Charles Allen and Brianne K. Nadeau, both Democrats, are facing possible recalls over allegations of being too soft on crime. Both of them voted for the Secure D.C. Act in the nearly unanimous vote of the Council.

Another controversial provision is establishment of “drug-free zones.” It allows police to stop and question or chase away loiterers from public places that have a disproportionately high number of drug arrests or violent crimes.

The drug-free zones would extend 1,000 feet from properties protected under the provision and allow enhanced authority for police stops up to 120 hours after the designation.

The legislation also expands the power of judges to order adults and juveniles charged with violent crimes to be held in jail while awaiting trial. It creates a new felony titled “organized retail theft” to crack down on flash mob thefts. Carjacking is more broadly defined under the act to make the crime easier to prosecute.

After the vote, ACLU of D.C. expressed concerns about potential civil rights abuses.

“While the amended Secure DC Act provides some limited safeguards, it falls short of keeping us safe from abuse of power,” said ACLU-D.C. Policy Counsel Melissa Wasser in a statement. 

Some parts of the legislation could be effective in deterring crime while protecting civil rights, she said.

“But we continue to have deep concerns about several provisions in this bill,” Wasser said. “Failed and ineffective ‘drug-free’ zones do little to prevent crime. Instead, they open the door for police officers to harass people and violate our rights. The District cannot make it a crime to simply be standing around.”

The unresolved question about the Secure D.C. Act is whether it is adequate to prevent congressional intervention, which was a concern mentioned by D.C. Council Member Brooke Pinto (D) during debate before the vote Tuesday. Pinto sponsored the legislation.

A bill pending before the House Oversight Committee would take away the D.C. Council’s right to modify minimum sentencing laws. Introduction of the bill coincided with hearings in Congress in the past year on public safety in Washington.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.