May 13, 2019
Updated: July 31, 2019

Introduction

Racial disparities pervade criminal justice systems across the country; Washington, D.C. is no exception. The District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recently provided extensive “arrest”[1] data for the years 2013 to 2017 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Open the Government and ACLU-DC. An analysis of that data revealed a pattern of disproportionate arrests of Black people that persists across geographic areas and offense types. It also showed that MPD arrests thousands of people every year for relatively minor offenses. This report analyzes these trends and proposes steps for addressing them.

Clear Disparities -- No Matter How You Cut the Data

From 2013 to 2017, Black individuals composed 47% of D.C.’s population but 86% of its arrestees. During this time, Black people were arrested at 10 times the rate of white people.

This disparity cannot be explained merely by a large concentration of MPD officers in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Rather, as the graph below shows, Black people are disproportionately arrested in over 90% of the District’s census tracts, including the whitest parts of the city.

CHART 1

black people disproportionately arrested everywhere they are

Traffic Arrest Patterns Raise Particularly Serious Questions about Racial Bias

Seventy-eight percent of all people arrested for driving without a permit were Black. That statistic is notable because in many cases, officers have no way of knowing whether a driver possesses a valid permit at the time they order the driver to pull over.

As a result, the significant disparity in arrests for this offense may indicate a racial disparity in traffic stops—which, in turn, could arise from discriminatory decisions by officers.

CHART 2

black drivers disproportionately arrested for driving without a permit

Unfortunately, we can’t assess whether such a relationship exists because MPD has dragged its feet tracking crucial data about police stops and making the information it does collect meaningfully accessible. 

Large Numbers of Arrests for Nonviolent and Minor Offenses

Arrests for nonviolent offenses constituted a significant share of the overall arrest total for 2013–17. Indeed, of the five offense categories that generated the most arrests, four—release violations, traffic violations, narcotics, and theft—primarily cover nonviolent forms of misconduct. The chart below, which shows the average yearly arrests for the most common offense categories, illustrates this point.

CHART 3

Frequency of arrest for top 5 Offense Categories

Some nonviolent offenses are serious; however, thousands of MPD’s arrests were for relatively minor ones. The table below describes arrest patterns for a few of those offenses.  

Table 1

Offense

Number of People Arrested

Percentage of Black Arrestees

Driving without a Permit

10,305

78%

Possession of an Open Container of Alcohol[2]

4,725

80%

Public Marijuana Consumption[3]

532

80%

Gambling

667

99%

Noise Complaints

412

76%

To interpret this data, it is important to note that not all of the arrests for the offenses listed above involved instances where officers took suspects to a police station. For some offenses—including possession of an open container of alcohol, public marijuana consumption, and noise complaints—officers have discretion to respond by issuing a citation rather than taking a suspect into custody. With respect to those offenses, MPD defines the term “arrest” to include both responses, meaning that, for at least the three offenses mentioned, the numbers reported in the table include non-custodial as well as custodial arrests. At this time, MPD has not made public the number of “arrests” that that are non-custodial in nature.  

Granting officers discretion to issue citations in lieu of custodial arrests is a step in the right direction. However, for many offenses, officers lack such discretion. For example, MPD requires officers take people into custody when they are suspected of driving without a permit, even though officers could respond by issuing a citation and either towing the car or asking the suspect to call a friend to drive it away. More generally, the fact that officers can issue citations for a subset of offenses does not disturb the main finding presented in Chart 3: offense categories composed primarily of non-violent offenses still make up four of the five categories that generated the most arrests from 2013–2017, even when excluding offenses for which officers can issue PD Form 61 D citations and Notice of Infraction citations.[4] Thus, although MPD allows officers to issue citations in some cases, its current rules have not prevented officers from taking a large number of people into custody for engaging in non-violent or relatively minor forms of misconduct. 

If the District truly wanted to address this issue, it could take more concerted action. For example, Mayor Muriel Bowser could work with the D.C. Council to decriminalize relatively low-level misconduct. She also could require that officers issue citations for low-level offenses rather than granting them discretion to do so—a change that MPD made with respect to public marijuana consumption in 2018.

The need for such reforms is particularly significant given that tolerating custodial arrests—or for that matter, citations—for relatively low-level offenses likely disproportionately affects Black residents. That’s particularly true of the crimes highlighted above—many of which indirectly constitute poverty crimes. Consider open container laws. Because people in poverty are less likely to own property than wealthier individuals, they have fewer private places to congregate with friends. That makes members of low-income communities more likely to gather in public—and commit open container violations if they drink alcohol while doing so.

Given the high correlation between race and poverty in the District, arresting people for crimes that are disproportionately committed by people who are poor will result in more arrests of Black residents, however the term “arrest” is defined.        

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Passed in 2014, Initiative 71 made it legal for people to possess, use, grow, and share small quantities of marijuana. The law does not authorize individuals to consume marijuana in public or sell the drug to other people. As a result, public consumption and distribution remains illegal.

The marijuana statute became effective in February 2015 and, that year, the overall number of arrests for marijuana-related offenses plummeted, from 1,747 arrests in 2014 to just 216 arrests in 2015. The drop was largely driven by the reduction in arrests for marijuana possession.

CHART 4

arrests for public marijuana consumption over time

However, while arrests for marijuana possession remained low, the number of arrests for public consumption of marijuana has been steadily increasing, particularly for Black people. After marijuana legalization, consumption arrests briefly declined before starting to rise, increasing from 79 arrests in 2015 to 217 in 2017.[5] Arrests for that offense are racially skewed: even though white and Black D.C. residents use marijuana at similar rates[6], Black individuals comprised 80% of the individuals arrested for marijuana consumption from 2015–2017.

This disparity could stem from officers’ racial bias. Alternatively, the disparity could be the result of another statute that makes it illegal to do in public what is legal to do in private—thereby penalizing those who have less access to private property. These explanations could also work in tandem. No matter the cause, the consequence of the current marijuana regime is that Black people are ensnared in the criminal justice system at disproportionate rates for what the D.C. government agrees is a minor offense.

How Can We Move Forward from Here?

D.C. has one of the highest rates of officers per capita in the country; its annual budget is $500 million. Mayor Bowser has proposed increasing that budget by an additional $3 million so the Department can hire more officers. That’s not the right approach: the racial disparities documented here should prompt further analysis—if not outright reform—rather than an increase in the number of officers.

Rather than give MPD money to hire more officers, the mayor should:

  • Encourage the Council to repeal criminal statutes when they disproportionately target people in poverty. The Mayor and Council should consider introducing legislation that would repeal statutes that often penalize people for being poor. At a minimum, Mayor Bowser should order MPD to respond to these types of low-level offenses with citations rather than custodial arrests. 
  • Collaborate with the Council to expand the power of the D.C. Office of Police Complaints (OPC). District law grants OPC the power to review incidents of police misconduct but significantly limits the circumstances in which OPC can exercise that authority. For example, OPC investigators can only issue reports based on the specific conduct raised in the complaint that the Office receives. That means if a complaint asserts that an officer was rude, but neglects to mention that the officer also used excessive force, OPC investigators could not open an investigation into the excessive force, even if they have incontrovertible evidence that it occurred. Restrictions of this sort hinder true accountability. D.C. Council Bill 23-0320 would eliminate these barriers by allowing the executive director of OPC to “[i]nitiate his or her own complaint against” officers upon noticing misconduct not alleged by the complainant. Mayor Bowser should support this legislation.  
  • Open an independent investigation into MPD’s Narcotics Special Investigations Division (NSID). During a recent officer disciplinary hearing, J.J. Brennan, a retired MPD sergeant who had worked in NSID and was still serving as a civilian supervisor, revealed that, when he was a sergeant, he routinely instructed officers to conduct invasive searches of suspects’ groin areas. Consistent with this testimony, several community members have complained to ACLU-DC about NSID officers committing searches of the sort Brennan described. In the face of credible allegations of grave misconduct, Mayor Bowser should demand answers by establishing an independent body outside MPD to investigate how NSID conducts searches. UPDATED July 31, 2019 – The D.C. Council funded this investigation in its latest budget. Now, it is MPD’s responsibility to fully comply with that mandate.

District residents deserve a police force that serves them without bias. This report raises important questions about whether MPD is achieving that ideal. Mayor Bowser should demand that MPD release the data necessary to analyze the trends highlighted here and work with the Council to implement the reforms necessary to reverse them.


[1] UPDATED July 31, 2019: After this report was published, a researcher with the Vera Institute of Justice informed us that, with respect to a relatively small subset of offenses, MPD defines the term “arrest” to include instances where officers issue citations as well as instances where officers take suspects into custody. At this time, MPD has not made public the share of “arrests” that fit each category. No matter the definition, the data shows that MPD officers disproportionately arrest Black people in D.C. To the extent that the definition of “arrests” affects other aspects of this report’s findings, we have revised accordingly.

[2] As defined here, this offense excludes people arrested for public drunkenness or possessing an open container of alcohol in a vehicle.

[3] Data from 2015 to 2017, after legalization of personal possession of small amounts of marijuana.

[4] MPD officers also can issue a third type of citation known as a Notice of Violation. To our knowledge, the Department has not publicly released a list of offenses for which officers can issue that citation. As a result, we cannot assess the impact of Notice of Violation citations on the main findings presented in Chart 3.  

[5] In 2018, MPD prohibited its officers from making custodial arrests for public marijuana consumption; the Department continues to enforce the statute through citations.

[6] See, e.g., National Survey on Drug Use and Health: 2-Year RDAS (2016 to 2017), Substance Abuse & Mental Health Data Archive, https://rdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2016-2017-RD02YR/crosstab/?column=MRJYR&control=STATE&filter=STATE%3D11&results_received=true&row=RACE4&weight=DASWT_1 (click “Run Crosstab” to view results) (last accessed May 10, 2019).

 

Date

Monday, May 13, 2019 - 10:30am

Featured image

photo showing arm patch of MPD officer

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Criminal Justice Reform Police Practices and Police Misconduct Racial Justice

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

44276

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Show list numbers

Last week, WMATA’s Investigations Review Panel released a two-page report outlining its short analysis of four cases of complaints against Metro Transit Police Department officers in 2019.

WMATA launched this review panel in June of last year, in the midst of racial justice protests arising from the police murder of George Floyd and following years of community complaints and lawsuits involving Metro Transit Police engaging in racially biased and violent enforcement tactics, including tackling, pepper-spraying, and tasing Black Metro passengers for perceived violations of minor offenses like fare evasion.

Unfortunately, but predictably, the brief report released by the panel last week falls far short of what’s needed to accomplish true oversight and accountability of MTPD.

First, the report lacks basic details about the four investigations it reviewed – including the time and place of the incident, demographic information about the riders involved, specific facts of what took place, and the findings of the investigations themselves. How a “report” so deeply lacking in any useful details could purport to improve the integrity of investigations is confounding.

For example, in one review of an unlawful arrest allegation, the report simply says “agreed with investigations’ findings” without telling us what those findings were exactly. The same review indicates that investigators never interviewed the subject or witnesses and didn’t address the fact that the subject was in the parking garage legally and should not have been arrested. And only in the “recommendations” section do we learn that those arrested were juveniles.

Second, the report’s only substantive recommendation is for “additional training,” which we know is not enough to change the culture and practice of Metro Transit policing. What would this training entail? The report is thin on details there, too.

And finally, that there were only four investigations to review indicates a much bigger problem with the entirety of the complaints process. The fact that the one of the most high-profile incidents of 2019— MTPD officers tasering a bystander who verbally intervened when officers were detaining a Black teen—was not included in this report is astounding. For years, the ACLU-DC has heard from D.C. community members that complaints filed with Metro seem to fall into a black hole. This two-page report does little to address that perception.

For the WMATA board to truly demonstrate a commitment to racial justice through oversight and accountability of policing by the MTPD, it must establish a fully independent body that is authorized to receive and investigate specific incidents of MTPD officer misconduct. In addition to releasing detailed public reports, this body must be empowered recommend and implement changes, including discipline of officers.

In December 2020, the D.C. Council passed the “Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Police Accountability Amendment Act of 2020” to create an independent, multi-jurisdictional civilian board to receive and investigate complaints against MTPD officers. To go into effect, Maryland and Virginia must pass identical legislation which would then go through Congressional approval. When the Council passed the bill in December, Chairman Mendelson made a commitment to work with D.C.’s neighbors and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton to make this a reality. As the District confronts the significant harms inflicted on D.C.’s Black and Brown residents by the system of policing, MTPD must not escape scrutiny.

Date

Tuesday, April 27, 2021 - 11:30am

Featured image

WMATA's Police Oversight Theater

Photo: Elvert Barnes/Flickr

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Police Practices and Police Misconduct

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

43459

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

by Gwen Frisbie-Fulton

I had a Thermos of coffee and my 10-year-old son had a mug of hot chocolate as we drove north from our home in North Carolina through the Virginia countryside towards Washington, D.C. We parked outside the city and rode the Metro in-- a big, exciting deal for us-- with homemade signs tucked under our arms. “Looks like we are in town for different reasons,” chuckled a man in a MAGA hat sitting next to us. “Looks like it!” I smiled back.

We had come to Washington to protest Donald Trump’s Inauguration, wanting to register our dissent against the racist and xenophobic vitriol that had shaped his campaign and, we feared, was going to shape his administration. Thinking back to the morning of the inauguration, we had no way to know what was coming for the next four years -- or in the next couple hours.

After a few hours of joining in chants and holding up our signs, we were surprised to hear that a friend of ours was being detained by police. We linked up with other friends and found our way to a downtown D.C. intersection where we discovered the police were detaining what looked like over 100 people. We joined a large gathering across the street, chanting for their release. I hoisted my son up on my shoulders so he could see. He waved to those being arrested, letting them know we were there to support them.

Three Things from J20

My parents raised me going to protests and I have raised my son doing the same. He and I have been to dozens of rallies, demonstrations, and marches together. We are not afraid, nor are we naive. However, what happened next to our small family and the hundreds of others around us was alarming, violent, and not okay.

With no warning, no commands, and no indication that we or anyone around us had to move or be attacked, the police began to deploy pepper spray into the crowd of bystanders a short distance from us. I told my son it was time to go. We tossed the snacks we were eating into my backpack and started to move away from the unfolding chaos. However, the police rushed in, knocking my son down onto the sidewalk. Along with a friend and several strangers, I dove on top of him to keep him from being crushed or hit. I could hear him crying underneath me.

I was able to get up holding him in my arms. I tried once again to leave but our quickest route away from the chaos was now blocked by police. As I begged to be allowed to leave with him, one officer said, “You shouldn’t have brought your kid” as they forced us back into the street where they doused us both with pepper spray and where flash-bangs erupted on the pavement beside us as we ran, trying to get away.

We learned three things that day:

One, we learned that it was other protestors, not the police, that worked to keep us safe. One grabbed my son from my arms and ran with him, another helped wash the pepper spray off his cheeks, and many more circled us, creating a barrier of safety.

Two, we relearned what too many Americans already know: There is something systematically wrong when police view dissent, including protected speech, as a threat that warrants violent suppression.

Three, we learned that we must engage every tool available to hold the police accountable. That is why we joined the ACLU-DC lawsuit challenging the mass arrest and excessive force deployed by D.C. police that day and why spent the last four years fighting to make something positive come out of that terrible day.

The settlement we have reached in that lawsuit cannot undo the very real harm done to my family, to our co-plaintiffs, or to the hundreds of people arrested on January 20, 2017. It can, however, help me and my child know that we have been able to play some part in vindicating our rights. Since that day and for the duration of the lawsuit, we have seen the D.C. Police again and again harm our communities. When we compare our treatment and that of Black Lives Matter demonstrators last summer with the kid-glove treatment Trump supporters received earlier this year during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, it shows that the police have a lot to learn about policing protests fairly and without bias.

The policy changes implemented through this settlement, especially the requirement that officers be re-notified about legal protections for protesters before expected mass demonstrations, should help remind the officers who participated in the January 20 assault that not only do we have the right to protest, but it is their role to ensure that right for people like myself and my child -- not to be the ones who create chaos and danger in their own city streets.

Date

Monday, April 26, 2021 - 10:15am

Featured image

j20 protest picture

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Freedom of Speech and Association

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

43459

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of DC RSS