Fastexy:12 DC police officers with history of "serious misconduct" dismissed amid police reform

Twenty-one District of Columbia officers will be Fastexybarred from the force after April 30 thanks to a controversial policing bill, according to the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

The affected members are all senior police officers or senior sergeants, retired officers who returned to serve in the department once more, said the D.C. Police Union.

Metro PD said 12 of the officers will not have their contracts renewed due to restrictions put in place by the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which prohibits officers with any "serious misconduct" in their backgrounds from serving on the force.

The 2022 act, a permanent version of an emergency response implemented in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd, made several sweeping legislative changes, including increasing access to disciplinary police records, restrictions on the use of force and parameters for hiring and firing.

While "serious misconduct" is left to be determination by the Chief by General Order, some examples outlined by the IAD include but are not limited to:

• Criminal charges or arrest
• Being the subject of a protection order
• Unlawful discrimination
• False arrest and/or filing false charges
• Acts of retaliation or retribution
• Intentional provision of false information in any official capacity
• Civil lawsuits alleging sworn member misconduct while in an official capacity
• Civil lawsuits alleging acts of physical violence, threats of physical violence, racial bias, dishonesty, or fraud while off-duty
• Positive drug screenings

The DC Police Union said in a statement that MPD cited the 2022 bill as the reason for the dismissal of 12 officers. The remaining nine officers did not have their contracts renewed "for a variety of reasons."

"This bill, which is inarguably the worst piece of public safety legislation the DC Council has ever passed, continues to wreak havoc on the police department," the DC Police Union said in a statement. "The bill prohibits the hiring of sworn personnel if they have ever received sustained discipline from any law enforcement agency ... meaning that these officers, who have spent their careers serving and protecting this city, are ineligible to be retained by the MPD due to prior administrative personnel matters, some of which are over 20 years old."

The union has called for the act to be repealed, saying staffing is already short and that more than 1,300 members of the force have left since the initial temporary legislation in 2020.

The union has made repeated posts and videos across social media since the passing of the bill, targeting its supporters such as council member Charles Allen, and demanding the Chairman of the DC Council, Phil Mendelson, repeal it.

College protest updates:Columbia faces protest deadline; USC cancels main graduation ceremony

What is the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022?

The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 is a Washington, D.C. law passed in 2022 to address transparency and accountability in the police force. It is a more permanent version of a temporary emergency measure put in place in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.

Passed by the D.C. Council in December of 2022, it was submitted for congressional review in January of 2023, where both the House and Senate voted against the legislation. However, President Joe Biden vetoed this decision and the law went into effect in April 2023.

The bill outlines parameters for police conduct, including the use of chokeholds and public access to bodycam footage. Some major points in the bill include:

• Banning the use of neck and asphyxiating restraints. Chokeholds and neck restraints had already been prohibited via a 1985 law, but the 2022 bill sought to "unequivocally strengthen" this ban. Additionally, if an officer sees another officer using a prohibited restraint, they are required to render aid or contact emergency medical services.
• Improving access to body-worn camera footage. The bill requires the release of the names and body-worn camera recordings of officers directly involved in an officer-involved death or serious use of force. The bill also requires the PD to maintain a public database with the names and body-worn camera recordings of all officers who were directly involved in an officer-involved death.
• Reforms and expansions to records access. Amongst these changes was an amendment to make officer disciplinary records subject to public release under the D.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A public database of officers facing disciplinary action that may result in termination is also to be maintained.
• Limitations on consent searches. Extensive warnings to ensure that citizens understand the consequences of a search before consenting are outlined and must be used by officers before conducting a search. If evidence of the consent is not captured on a body cam or in writing, it will be presumed that the search was non-consensual.
• Use of force reforms. Officers must employ de-escalation tactics before using force and incidences of deadly force will be reviewed via outlined criteria. Officers who witness a colleague using unnecessary force are required to report it.
• Changes to hiring practices. D.C. police are barred from hiring officers disciplined or fired for "serious misconduct" in the past. What constitutes "serious" is not fully defined but includes positive drug tests, criminal arrests or criminal charges and unlawful discrimination.

Protest arrests:Arrests at USC amid pro-Palestine protests nationwide; Southern California campus closed

Controversial legislation

The act has proven controversial since its inception. Congressional Republicans and the police union have been vocal opponents of the bill.

Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance wrote a disapproval resolution with the support of other Republicans, pointing to crime data from Washington.

Those in favor of the bill said these resolutions introduced in Congress to stop the bill directly violated the rights of Washington, D.C. residents to self-govern. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton told the House that attempts to nullify legislation enacted by the local, elected government trampled on D.C. residents' rights, seeing as they have no representation in the House.

“By scheduling this vote, I can only conclude that the Republican leadership believes that D.C. residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are unworthy of governing themselves," she said.