Opinion ID: 1952178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CCRB Act

Text: The District of Columbia Council adopted the CCRB Act in 1980, effective October 1, 1981, in response to legislative findings that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) had not adequately responded to citizens' complaints against police officers. The CCRB Act provides a mechanism for public participation in the review of allegations of misconduct by police officers. The CCRB Act established a seven-member board [8] and gave the board exclusive jurisdiction over citizens' complaints against police officers in three areas: (1) Police harassment; (2) Excessive use of force; [and] (3) Use of language likely to demean the inherent dignity of any person to whom it was directed and to trigger disrespect for law-enforcement officers. D.C.Code § 4-901(c), -903(a) (1988). [9] The MPD and the Mayor are prohibited from maintaining any system other than that set forth in the CCRB Act for the processing of civilian complaints in these three areas. D.C.Code § 4-909(c) (1988). Within thirty days of the submission of the complaint the CCRB is to set the time and place for a hearing, unless the complaint is frivolous on its face. D.C.Code § 4-905(a) (1988); 6A DCMR § 2108.1 (1988). [10] The accused officer must be given sufficient opportunity to respond to allegations in [the] complaint, D.C.Code § 4-905(a), and must be given notice of the hearing at least fifteen days prior to the commencement of the hearing. 6A DCMR § 2109.1. The Executive Director of the CCRB shall, at the direction of the CCRB, conduct an investigation of the complaint, including the interviewing of witnesses and police personnel, and a written report explaining the results of such investigation shall be filed with the CCRB and served on every party before the hearing. D.C.Code § 4-905(a). The decision of the CCRB must be based on the exclusive record developed in the investigation and at the hearing. Id. § 4-905(c). [11] The CCRB must determine in each case whether the complaint should be sustained, dismissed, or found to evidence misconduct not directly related to the immediate complaint but within the authority of the [CCRB]. Id. § 4-902(a) (1988). [12] The [CCRB] shall be empowered to recommend [in writing] personnel actions against officers involved in misconduct.... [and] shall recommend actions to be taken by the Chief of the MPD. Id. § 4-902(a), (b). The Chief of the MPD is required to act within thirty days of the CCRB recommendation, and a [f]ailure to act within 30 days shall be deemed final action by the Chief of the [MPD] ratifying the findings and recommendations of the [CCRB]. Id. § 4-903(c). Within thirty days after receiving the CCRB's recommendation, the Chief may (1) [i]mplement or otherwise issue a final order with respect to such recommendations; or (2) refer the matter to a police trial board. Id. § 4-903(c). If the Chief disagrees with the CCRB's recommendation, the Chief's written recommendation and reason therefor and the CCRB's findings and recommendation shall be submitted to the Mayor, who then has thirty days in which to either uphold the recommendation of the Chief, impose the recommendation of the CCRB, or order a compromise between the two. Id. § 4-902(c) (1988). If the Mayor fails to act within thirty days, the recommendation of the Chief becomes final. Id. If the Chief decides to implement the CCRB's decision or to refer the matter to a trial board, that decision is final, id. §§ 4-902(c), -903(c), [p]rovided, that, all rights provided by [the CMPA] as amended by this chapter, including the right to appeal before the [OEA] and the right to a trial board hearing prior to dismissal[,] are maintained. Id. § 4-902(c) (1993 Supp.). A final decision, other than referral to a police trial board, by the Chief or the Mayor may be appealed to the OEA. [13] Id. § 4-903(c).