The bill was introduced in July 2004 after a DC Council investigation into the Metropolitan Police Department’s handling of the 2000 and 2002 anti-corporate globalization and anti-war protests, where hundreds of demonstrators were arrested. The investigation, led by DC Council Judiciary Committee Chair Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), found the MPD violated the liberty and First Amendment rights of hundreds of demonstrators, and also has been involved in surveillance activities of political organizations in the District.

The bill focuses on many of the inappropriate police practices found by the Council’s investigation. In addition, the bill also addresses many of the issues in recent class-action lawsuits against the city related to the September 2002 mass-arrests by the MPD of demonstrators against the IMF and World Bank. Some of the most contentious issues from those demonstrations were the entrapment of large amounts of people in city parks for detention (many of whom had nothing to do with the protest), and the use of wrist to ankle cuffing while the individuals were detained.

According to a recent press release by Councilmember Patterson, the legislation adopts a “crowd management” policy in handling political demonstrations, emphasizing communication and voluntary compliance, and precludes preemptive actions that tend to “chill” First Amendment expression. Two specific policies would restrict use of police lines to encircle and entrap demonstrators unless there is probable cause to arrest, and restrict use of wrist-to-ankle restraints on nonviolent demonstrators.

The MPD’s ability to order mass-detentions as seen in 2002 is severely limited by the legislation. If demonstrators are seen violating laws, police are required to first seek “voluntary compliance,” and then are only permitted to take action against “specific non-compliant persons (where probably cause to issue a citation or to arrest is present).” Police are still able to make mass-arrests, but are required to issue orders to disburse and give the opportunity for demonstrators to do so, something many activists claim the police did not do during the September 2002 demonstrations.

The legislation also mandates that MPD officers must change their uniforms (including riot gear) to clearly display badge numbers, requires documentation of all those arrested at the scene (including a list of specific offences by the individual), prohibits the use of plastic cuffs for misdemeanors and in other circumstances, calls for justification for anyone detained for more than four hours if arrested in first amendment demonstrations, and stipulates that arrestees must be notified of their legal options. Greater protections for media covering protests is also provided. Training must be provided for MPD officers so they know how to comply with the law for First Amendment demonstrations.

There are also significant clarifications to the permit process for future demonstrations. Specifically, Section 105(c) states that individuals or groups do not need a permit from the city for a demonstration on a “District street, sidewalk or other public way, or in a District park,” as long as they do not block normal pedestrian traffic, “reasonably anticipates that fewer than 50 persons will participate in the assembly,” or if the assembly is for the purpose of “an immediate and spontaneous expression of views in response to an event.” For events not falling under this description, the bill attempts to make the process of obtaining permits much easier, and includes provisions to prevent government officials from unreasonably denying permits, as has occurred in the past.

“It’s fair to note that the policies in the First Amendment bill mirror not only good police practice nationally but also provisions in the current MPD manual on demonstrations,” Patterson said in her press release. “It’s important to make these policies statutory, however, because of the recent instances in which MPD failed to follow its own policies and procedures on issues like dispersal and arrests.”

The legislation calls for Mayor Anthony Williams to enact these procedures within 90 days of the law coming into force.

The bill is still subject to approval or veto by the mayor. However, the Council appears to have more than enough votes to override such an unexpected veto. Councilmember Harold Brazil (D-At Large) was the sole vote against the legislation.

Bill status from DC Council site: www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/billrecord.asp

Councilmember Patterson’s website: www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/patterson/patterson.html

Washington Post: Police Coverup Alleged After Mass Arrests: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48021-2004Mar10.html

DC Indymedia coverage of 2002 IMF-World Bank protests: dc.indymedia.org/info/display/september_2002/