DC Council Passes Anti-Crime Bill Despite Civil Rights Group Concerns

WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia Council approved legislation Tuesday that gives police broader powers to try to reduce crime that has risen to a level some members of Congress believe warrants federal intervention.

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.

Mayor Muriel 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.”

She said the legislation, called the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, will help Washington “by rebalancing our public safety and justice ecosystem in favor of safety and accountability.”

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves said the legislation “will provide crucial tools to police and to prosecutors as we collectively work together to hold those who commit crimes in our community accountable.”

The crime concerns in Washington are only slightly greater than opinions expressed in a Reuters-Ipsos poll published last week.

It showed that 88% of respondents would consider presidential candidates’ policies on crime to be an important issue in deciding who gets their vote.

Two local politicians in Washington, D.C., Councilmembers 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 the 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.

Before the D.C. Council vote, members of the Washington Interfaith Network urged council members to revise the harshest parts of the legislation.

They said the expanded power it gives police would lead young people to fear the officers. They also said it focused too heavily on punishment rather than crime prevention.

They were joined in their concerns by the ACLU of D.C.

“While the amended Secure D.C. 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. Councilmember Brooke Pinto, a Democrat, 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.

The Republican-led bill also would restore authority of police to use some neck restraints and vehicular pursuit tactics.

You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and X.