DC Police Union November Newsletter

1. DC Police Union Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 7
1
CONTENTS
1. AHOD Update
2. Photo Radar Tickets
3. MPD Management Put Political
Correctness Above Practicality
4. Erosion of the PSPD by D.C.
Government Officials
5. Class/Group Grievance
and Arbitration Updates
6. Thanks
7. The PD-119
NOVEMBER 9, 2015 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 7
1
AHOD UPDATE
2007: The first of a series of group grievance
was advanced to arbitration in July after
efforts to resolve the matters with the MPD
failed. One of the group grievances was
briefed and we are awaiting an award from
the arbitrator.
2008: An arbitrator was recently assigned
after efforts to resolve the matter with the
MPD failed. The arbitration hearing is being
scheduled.
2009: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and prevailed in arbitration. The
MPD did not appeal the Arbitrator's decision.
The MPD and the Union are scheduled to
return to the Public Employees Review Board
(PERB), so the PERB can determine what type
of payments should be ordered for the
Enforcement Order in DC Superior Court.
2010: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and prevailed in Arbitration and
was upheld by the PERB Board. The MPD did
not appeal the decision, but refuses to pay the
award and the matter is currently before the
2
PERB in an enforcement proceeding.
2011: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and prevailed in Arbitration
and was upheld by the PERB Board.
However, MPD appealed PERB's
decision to DC Superior Court. The
Superior Court recently denied the
appeal and the MPD filed a notice of
Appeal to the Court of Appeals where
the matter is pending.
2012: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and is scheduled for
arbitration on January 8, 2016.
2013: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and is scheduled for
arbitration on December 4, 2015.
2014: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and is scheduled for
arbitration on November 18, 2015.
2015: The DC Police Union filed a Class
Grievance and is awaiting a date for
arbitration.
Photo Radar Tickets
By: Michael Pratt, SOD Chief Steward
You’re out on Patrol engaging the
community in your PSA helping to make
the District of Columbia a safe place.
Weeks Later you are presented with a
photo radar speeding ticket and ordered
to take care of it. So what does taking
care of it mean? You have three
options when it comes to handling a
ticket, after you have verified that the
ticket is yours, and that you were
assigned to the vehicle. Now let’s talk
about the options you have (taking care
of it)
… CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 …
Page
1
1-2
2-3
3
4
4
5

2. DC Police Union Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 7
2
… CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 …
1. Go online pay the ticket and provide
management with proof that it’s paid, receipt.
2. Contest the ticket by attending a Walk- In
Hearing, and or Mail Adjudication (Photo
Enforced Citations issued to government
vehicles should not double because of the
lengthy process of notifying the agency and
identifying the employee that is responsible for
the citation).
3. If you choose not to respond to the citation, you
may possibly face discipline, either corrective
or adverse action.
Here are some things to consider when choosing
to contest the photo enforced speeding citation:
The use of radar to determine the speed a vehicle
traveling on a roadway has to be done by a person
that is currently certified in principles of Doppler
radar and radar operations. This means that every
photo enforced speeding citation that is issued to
an operator of a motor vehicle, must be certified by
an officer that has been trained and certified by the
Metropolitan Police Department, which is
supported by case law.
When you attend your hearing, you will be
presented with an MPD speed deployment log
which has been signed by a person that is stating
that he / she has been trained by the Metropolitan
Police Department to operate the fixed photo
enforced speed cameras.
Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the
government to produce the certification of the
radar operator, and that you have the right to face
your accuser, or summons the radar operator to
the hearing. The person who signs there name at
the bottom of that radar speed deployment log has
to be trained and certified in Doppler radar by the
Metropolitan Police Department, as indicated on
the deployment log. The hearing examiner will
assume that it is the respondent’s responsibility to
retrieve the certification from the issuing agency
(MPD) prior to conducting a hearing or
adjudicating the citation through the mail. Insist
that the hearing examiner continue the hearing
until the operator’s certification can be verified.
The certification of the operator should be housed
at the Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit (ATEU).
As a member of the Metropolitan Police
Department, you can contact the Program
Director of the ATEU, and request the radar
operator’s certification. STAND YOUR GROUND!
Currently there are two certified radar/ photo
radar instructors on the department, and they
have certified sworn personal. When the hearing
examiner presents you a copy of the speed
deployment log, read the last statement above the
signature at the bottom. The names that appearing
on these logs since May 18, 2015, are civilian and
contract employees, that were not trained by MPD
certified instructors. Before any person can
operate photo radar equipment they must have
been trained and certified in traditional Doppler
radar and Photo Radar Concepts by the
Metropolitan Police Department.
The bottom line is that MPD is issuing photo
enforced speeding tickets to motorist by un-
certified, non-law enforcement personnel.
Notable Case Law pertaining to the training and
certification of qualified radar operators:
State of Wisconsin v. Hanson 1978
State of Minnesota v. Gerdes 1971
State of Connecticut v. Tomanelli 1966
United States v. Fields 1982
MPD Management Put Political
Correctness Above Practicality
By: Marinos Marinos, Secretary
While addressing recruits at the academy the
Executive Committee spoke to several members
who were attending crime scene class. During the
discussion the members informed us that they
were being ordered not to wear the utility uniform
while working as crime scene search officers
(CSSO). The Executive Committee brought this
issue to MPD’s attention and discussed the
benefits of having CSSOs wearing the utility
uniforms:
• Members processing crime scenes may have
to use fingerprint dust, crawl on the ground
outside collecting evidence, or even enter a
storm drain. Members have a high likely hood
of getting dirt, mud, fingerprint dust, etcetera
on their uniform shirt. If a member is wearing
a light blue shirt it will be much more
noticeable and citizens will not understand why
their shirt is “dirty” and may perceive that the
officer and the Metropolitan Police Department
are unprofessional.
… CONINTUED ON PAGE 3 …

3. DC Police Union Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 7
3
… CONINTUED FROM PAGE 2 …
• If CSSOs are wearing the utility uniform
supervisors and managers would be able to
easily identify who is certified and ensure they
are answering up for assignments properly.
However MPD has denied the Union’s requests to
let CSSO’s wear a uniform that is conducive to the
type of work they are required to do while
processing crime scenes. The Union presumes
that MPD is attempting to eliminate members
wearing the utility uniform because citizens may
perceive dark colored uniforms as “aggressive”.
Trying to appease certain citizens while hampering
the ability to do our jobs as police officers is not a
new stance for the MPD, the membership saw that
last year when the Chief disbanded VICE units due
to political pressure. Once again we’re sacrificing
rational policing decisions for political correctness.
Erosion of the PSPD by D.C.
Government Officials
By: Leroy Williams, Chairperson, PSPD Labor
Committee
Some of you may be asking what happened to
PSPD? While others will now say, what is PSPD
and what is their function? The District of Columbia
Protective Services Division; which was previously
codified as the Protective Services Police
Department (PSPD), under Former Mayor Adrian
Fenty, is a Division of the DC Department of
General Services (DGS) and is the DC Government
Police Department/Agency responsible for
coordinating and providing security and law
enforcement services at and around all District of
Columbia Government properties; as well as
protecting District of Columbia Government
officials, assets and interests throughout the city;
this doesn’t only includes the traditional
Government Office Buildings, but also Homeless
Shelters and transition homes, Public Schools,
Public Charter Schools, Public Libraries, City Parks
and Recreation Centers to name a few.
Starting with the Gray Administration in 2012, the
number of sworn employees quickly dropped
through attrition and PSPD management has failed
to fill vacant uniform position. Presently PSPD,
deploys two to three officers per shift in in the First
District, mainly on day and evening shifts, which
leaves the government properties in the other city
districts up to the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) units to provide services in those Districts
to handle. The management of DGS and PSPD
Command Staff seems to think it is completely
acceptable to push the work that is entrusted to
our agency off onto MPD; which would include the
transporting of our prisoners when we are
available and in service; even though the DGS Act
of 2010; clearly places this responsibility on PSPD.
The PSPD fleet is in shambles and some of the
vehicles are being held together with duct tape and
super glue. Cruiser/Vehicle acquisition and
replacement ended in 2012, and no new transport
vehicles or marked cruisers have been ordered
since. Also in 2012, PSPD's vehicle maintenance
was moved from MPD's Fleet Maintenance Shop to
Department of Public Works (DPW's) Fleet
Maintenance Shop. PSPD cruisers have now gone
for months at a time for simple repairs and come
back with the same or worse problems. No one in
PSPD's command structure seems to believe this
is a major problem as is evidenced by the lack of
any progress being made. In PSPD's 35-vehicle
fleet, there are many days where only 1 or 2
marked cruisers are in service and available for
mobile use.
Recently, a Special Order was issued by the
Associate Director of DGS for PSPD; Mr. Anthony
Fortune, which states that if a PSPD Officer
observes a violent crime occurring in their
presence and it is not within PSPD's jurisdictional
area of responsibility; that the PSPD Officer has
Absolutely NO DUTY TO ACT, and if the officer(s)
chooses to act that they will be acting as a Private
Citizen without the backing or legal support of the
District of Columbia Government.
The problems within PSPD are huge. Millions in
taxpayers’ dollars are being extracted out of the
government's bank accounts and handed over to
cronies who are lucky enough to become a
"consultant" for PSPD. We, the PSPD FOP Labor
Committee have not been silent over the years and
we will continue to expose the wrongdoings of our
superiors and management; not to exclude the
violence in the workplace incident that occurred on
September 11th
, 2015, which was initiated by Mr.
Fortune that has seems to have gone unanswered
and ignored by DGS.

4. DC Police Union Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 7
4
Class/Group Grievance
and Arbitration Updates
By: Marinos Marinos, Secretary
As an elected at-large member of the D.C. Police
Union, I am tasked with ensuring that grievances
involving all, or at least a large majority of our
membership, are filed properly with the
department and the arbitration committee. In
2015, the D.C. Police Union has filed grievances
for scheduling violations for All Hands on Deck,
Independence Day, Million Man March, the Papal
Visit, and the Summer Crime Initiative. We have
also filed grievances because the MPD added the
Office of Police Complaints Director as a non-voting
member to the Use of Force Review Board and the
MPD created the Professional Conduct
Intervention Board without properly bargaining with
the D.C. Police Union.
While the D.C. Police Union is actively filing
grievances on behalf of the membership, one of the
biggest complaints we receive is the length of time
it takes for the grievance to be settled through the
arbitration process. At this time MPD appears to
be interested in settling some of our old arbitration
cases, utilizing the conciliation process outlined in
Article 19, Part E, Section 2 in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement in an attempt to quickly and
efficiently come to a resolution. The D.C. Police
Union hopes that this process and a fully staffed
Public Employee Relation Board (PERB) will help
clear the back log of arbitration cases.
One of the Executive Committee’s long term goals
is to bring the time for a member to have his/her
case completely litigated within a year of
occurrence.
Thanks
By: Peter Newsham, Assistant Chief of Police
It has been a very difficult year to work in the police
profession. The media has taken every opportunity
(many times unfairly) to paint law enforcement
officers in a negative light, and our leaders from
the President, the Attorney General and even film
makers have made public comments suggesting
that there is something wrong with law
enforcement in our country. With that as a
backdrop, the members of the Metropolitan Police
Department have continued to excel.
The local media has painted a picture of surging
violent crime in the District of Columbia. At the risk
of letting a few facts get in the way of a good story,
I think it is important to know the facts. The facts
are that currently MPD has a significant increase
in the number of homicides when compared to the
number of homicides we had last year. Although
troubling and worth focusing on, this rise in
homicides does not equate to a significant rise in
violent crime. In fact as of November 5, 2015,
there is no increase in violent crime. Also
important to note is that the 137 homicides we
have had this year equate to 2.6% of all reported
violent crime and .4% of our overall crime.
Interestingly, the one thing I have not seen
reported on by local media is that overall crime is
actually down 5% in the District of Columbia from
last year.
2015 Year to
Date - Offense
2014 2015 %Change
Homicide 90 137 52%
Sex Abuse 286 253 -12%
Assault
w/Dangerous
Weapon
2,149 2,024 -6%
Robbery 2,785 2,881 3%
Violent Crime -
Total
5,310 5,295 0%
Burglary 2,749 2,122 -23%
Motor Vehicle
Theft
2,633 2,482 -6%
Theft f/Auto 9,572 9,392 -2%
Theft/Other 12,626 11,869 -6%
Arson 23 15 -35%
Property
Crime - Total
27,603 25,880 -6%
All Crime –
Total
32,913 31,175 -5%
The reason the District of Columbia has been able
to continue to combat violent crime and continue
to reduce overall crime is because of the continued
efforts of the men and women of this organization.
I am inspired by our officers who are not afraid to
do their job because someone might complain on
them. I am inspired by our officers who on a daily
basis are being provoked, and react professionally
and respectfully in return. I am inspired by the new
members who have chosen to join this profession
at such a difficult time.
For those of you who have continued to put on your
badge and answer the call – thank you.

5. DC Police Union Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 7
5
The PD-119
By: Mark Dega, Shop Steward ISB/CSID
All too often members are ordered by an official to
make a written statement on a PD-119 for an
internal administrative investigation. First off, a PD-
119 is the [MPD] “Police Department form #119,
Complainant / Witness Statement”, in written
form. The original intended use of this form was
for gathering information in police criminal
investigations. I have always questioned the use of
this form with internal administrative investigations
as most often the member is not a witness and
almost never a complainant. I have always believed
this practice to inappropriate and feel that an
internal form should be created for administrative
investigations.
That having been said, here is some advice on
making a written statement when ordered to do
so:
First, always contact a union representative prior
to putting pen to paper. Article 13 Section 3 of the
Labor Agreement provides the member for up to
two hours in order to consult with a Union
Representative; prior to giving their statement.
Second, Fill in the boxes as appropriate. Box 1,
CCN if appropriate or “N/A”. Box 2,
“Administrative”. Box 3, “N/A”. Do not put your
personal information, other your name with title, in
boxes 4-10. Instead enter “on file”. Boxes 12 &
13, as appropriate.
Third, preface your statement, (Box 14), with a
header stating the date, time and official’s name
who ordered the statement. The nature of the
investigation. Who the target of the investigation
is, if you’re not the target then what your role in the
investigation is. If IS Numbers have been drawn
and for what charge.
Your statement should contain ONLY FACTS, as
they pertain to the incident at hand or nature of the
investigation, that you have FIRST-HAND
KNOWLEDGE OF. Do not make any suppositions,
do not include any ideas or theories, and do not
include anything outside of what was asked for in
your statement. Do not lie. Do not omit facts you
have first-hand knowledge of. Do not sign and
return to the investigating official until you and your
Union Representative agree on the statement. If
you can’t recall certain information then state that
you “can’t recall” the information at this time. If you
have no knowledge of the situation at hand then
state that as so. Do not allow the requesting
official to force or coerce you to add or remove any
information in your statement and advise your
Union Representative if this happens. If the
investigating official needs clarity to some aspect of
your statement or has follow-up questions to, or
about your statement, that official can do a formal
“Q&A” with you and your Union Representative.
Fourth, when the requesting official receives and
signs your statement get a hard copy of it and keep
in your records. Bring this copy, and all other
pertinent information, with you to any subsequent
interviews, hearings and conferences.
Lastly, remember, this a WRITTEN STATEMENT
signed by you, in Box 15, which states “I HAVE
READ THIS STATEMENT GIVEN BY ME OR HAVE
HAD IT READ TO ME. I FULLY UNDERSTAND IT
AND CERTIFY THAT IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
RECOLLECTION”. Assure that you have proof read
your statement and are comfortable signing your
name to it knowing that it will be entered into and
considered in an investigation. An unclear or
improperly written statement can truly come back
to haunt you and negatively affect your career.