December 2, 2014

Obama names truly bad cop to co-chair “Task Force on 21st Century Policing”


Sam Smith - In one of his worst appointments to date, Barack Obama has named Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey to be co-chair a “"Task Force on 21st Century Policing."

To those of us who remember when Ramsey was chief of the DC Police the appointment is not only terrible, but absurd. As Washingtonian EddieBecker put it on Facebook:

President Obama must have lost his mind or is getting very bad advice if he thinks the appointment of former DC Police Chief, Charles Ramsey, as co-chair of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, will do much to make the police. obey the law and basic human rights. In these post-Ferguson times, where cell phone cameras seem to capture daily outages of "cops acting badly" the smooth talking silver tongued Ramsey only indicates cover up.

Ramsey's style is to provide lip service to the law, while allowing bad cops to "take care of business" as they see fit. After abuse is uncovered, Ramsey acts shocked, declares a thorough investigation that drags on and does not get to the root cause of much of the underlying problem. Which is basically: let bad cops "take care of business" as they see fit.

Here are just a few of our stories from the time when Ramsey controlled the DC police force:

2000

Sam Smith - The District of Columbia publicly disseminated false information casting the Mobilization and other plaintiffs as violent. After illegally seizing and searching the Convergence Center, the District of Columbia announced to the media that it had confiscated the makings of pepper spray. The District later conceded that the "pepper spray" was in fact peppers, onions and other vegetables found in a kitchen area and were the makings of gazpacho soup. The District of Columbia announced to the media that it had found a Molotov cocktail inside the Convergence Center. The District later conceded that the "Molotov cocktail" was in fact a plastic soda bottle containing rags. After a raid on an activists' residence, the District of Columbia announced that it had confiscated an undisclosed amount of ammunition. The District later conceded that the confiscated item was a Mexican ornament, a string of empty shells. These examples of dissemination of false information by defendants were part of their effort to disrupt plaintiffs, to discredit plaintiffs, to justify defendants' actions in interfering with the demonstrations, and to portray plaintiffs as violent in order to discourage participation in the demonstrations. "

Progressive Review City Desk  - More publications have noticed what we early pointed out about police inspector Andy Solberg, who got slapped by Chief Ramsey for one maladroit comment at a public meeting: Solberg is an unusually good cop. For example, Ralph Blessing wrote to DC Watch: "Those who know Andy Solberg know what a superb police officer he is and that he is also a wonderful, decent human being, an involved member of our community (in and out of uniform) and the kind of person we should have more of, not fewer, in our police department. His life, both on the job and off, is a living example of tolerance and inclusiveness. Rather than dismiss him, as some have suggested, I believe that he should be reinstated so that we and Metropolitan Police Department can benefit from his exceptional skills at confronting crime in the District.". . . And Marc Fisher in the Washington Post: " Solberg's neighbor and friend in Shepherd Park, Charles Lawrence, a former D.C. school board member, who, like most of the many who called me to defend Solberg, is black: 'This is a white police officer who doesn't just encounter the black community on the job but sends his kid to a school that is 95 percent black. For years, he has coached a soccer team that is almost entirely black. What we really need is more white folks who are not going to run and hide but are committed to living here, like Andy. I don't know any white person in the city who is less afraid of or more fair about race.' And Marc Loud, a parent leader at Shepherd Elementary School, says: "Any one of us could make the kind of statement Andy made. It doesn't mean you have racial darkness in your heart. I look at his life: While many other whites have fled, he looked beyond color and entrusts his children to African Americans for their education.'"

Safe Streets DC - Even Councilmember Jack Evans, who voted for the [police chief's] pay raise, said today that "when I go to community meeting there is no support for Chief Ramsey's pay raise." Evans went on to explain that half the residents at his community meetings want Chief Ramsey fired.

Matthew Cella, Washington Times - The District reclaimed its status as murder capital of the United States last year, according to FBI statistics released yesterday. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which tracks crime trends across the nation, revealed that the District had a higher homicide rate last year than any other city in the nation with more than 500,000 residents. The city had 262 killings last year, a rate of 45.82 per 100,000 residents. Detroit came in second, with 402 killings, or 42.04 per capita. The information was released a day before the D.C. Council is scheduled to debate a $25,000 pay raise for Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey. .. . .

2002

Safe Streets DC - In an article meant to justify his proposed $25,000 raise, this is how Chief Ramsey characterized his handling of recent anti-globalization protests: "DC police have avoided the violence, property damage and looting that have taken place in Seattle and elsewhere while still protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters and demonstrators."

In fact, this past January a confidential police report concluded that hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were arrested in Pershing Park last September under trumped-up charges (the police arrested the protesters for "failing to obey an order to disperse" when in fact no such order was ever given). In addition, the report reveals that the arresting officers signed arrest reports attesting to the fact that they witnessed the protesters committing the "crimes" in question, when the officers witnessed nothing of the sort. Arresting protesters illegally does not protect their First Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, the public will never see the police report in which the MPD admits arresting the protesters under false pretenses, because Chief Ramsey says the report is about "personnel issues" and thus can't be discussed publicly. But in this Sunday's Washington Post, Chief Ramsey flat-out contradicted the conclusions of his own report, and thus can no longer argue that this is a private matter. We have a right to know why our chief of police publicly lied about a massive violation of civil rights in an effort to convince DC residents to support his pay raise under false pretenses. Any supposed "privacy" issues were forfeited the moment Chief Ramsey put pen to paper. You can read a summary of the confidential police report here:

Councilmember Adrian Fenty - The council's Committee on the Judiciary has issued report after report indicating its concerns about the police department's performance -- "failure to hire 3,800 sworn officers"; "failure to create and hire a family liaison unit"; "failure to address the extended sick leave/limited duty issue"; "failure to effectively manage overtime," etc. . . Because Ramsey has been unable to earn bonuses, which are based on meeting minimum performance goals, he wants a 17 percent salary increase that isn't tied to his performance…

The 911 emergency phone system is a disaster. At the time Ramsey was hired, 13 percent of 911 callers hung up, apparently because operators took so long to answer. Last year that figure rose to nearly 20 percent. In the past several months, a Marine, a young man in Dupont Circle and another in Chinatown all died -- perhaps unnecessarily -- after family and friends say they called 911 to no avail.

People complain that they can't find the police when they need them, even though the District has more police officers per capita than any other major U.S. city. The chief tells us he is stretched to the limits and can't put more cops in the neighborhoods. But whenever the federal enclave has a hint of trouble, Ramsey finds hundreds of officers to send downtown.

Progressive Review City Desk - The D.C. Statehood Green Party has called on the D.C. Council not to renew Police Chief Charles Ramsey's contract… "Ramsey has fostered a chilling effect on free speech in the nation's capital and wasted tax dollars on police time that could be better spent on working to reduce crimes that affects residents," said Adam Eidinger, a member of the D.C. Statehood Green Party's steering committee and frequent organizer of public events and demonstrations against corporate globalization and the war on Iraq.  Chief Ramsey sent undercover agents to meetings in Eidinger's home, without warrant, to infiltrate and disrupt the Mobilization for Global Justice, in violation of Eidinger's Fourth Amendment rights.

Chief Ramsey has been widely criticized for the absence of police walking the beat (which ensures familiarity with neighborhoods and reduces street crime), the Metropolitan Police's high failure rate in solving homicides (up 20% over the past year) and other serious crimes, problems in the handling of 911 calls, and low morale among the force's rank and file officers.

"We've seen people detained for days at a time, then released with no charges filed against them or with spurious charges that don't stand up in court," said Maya O'Connor, D.C. Statehood Green Party delegate to the national committee of the Green Party of the United States.  "When police refuse to follow the law or their own rules, the result is anarchy.  Police anarchy is infinitely more dangerous than a half dozen anarchists misbehaving at a demonstration."

In April 2000 Ramsey, speaking to reporters from CNN and other world media, claimed that anti-globalization activists were making homemade pepper spray and Molotov cocktails. The Molotov cocktail materials turned out to be as a plastic water bottle with paint thinner used to clean paint brushes in a puppet workshop.

Progresive Review City Desk - Ramsey and his top deputies panicked, ordering the arrest of everyone in the park without giving any warnings. The roundup netted not just protesters but also passersby, tourists, and others. They were hogtied, and some of them remained restrained for up to 18 hours. They would dispute Lanier's "not uncomfortable" assessment of hogtying, pointing out that the restraints hampered their circulation and left them numb in places. . . "In January 2005, the city paid out $425,000 to seven Pershing Park victims, part of a settlement that also required a letter of apology from Ramsey to the plaintiffs."

2004

The City Council committee report on the unconstitutional and illegal behavior of Chief Ramsey and his force during the September 2002 demonstrations is a rare case of truth triumphing over spin in this fair city. The committee, headed by Kathy Patterson, did what it should: find out the facts and lay them on the table. Of course, there is little likelihood that anything will be done about them.

It has long been our hunch that Ramsey, Terrance Gainer and Odie Washington were brought in to establish Chicago style martial law on the capital colony whenever deemed necessary. It was clear that no one in authority at either the local or national level would complain if they broke the law or ignored the constitution. The result was the worst policing of demonstrations since the 1971 police riot under Chief Jerry Wilson.  Patterson's committee has been the first official voice raised in objection and deserves every citizens' gratitude.

David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post - D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and other police officials conspired to deflect blame and cover up evidence of their wrongdoing during the mass arrests of anti-globalization demonstrators in September 2002, according to a D.C. Council committee that investigated the incident. The Judiciary Committee criticized police for not telling protesters to disperse during the demonstrations and then arresting them for failing to obey the nonexistent order. Hundreds of protesters and bystanders were arrested. In the months afterward, Ramsey changed his account of whether he had approved the arrests, according to a copy of the committee report obtained yesterday.

The investigation found fault with the police department's handling of demonstrations dating back to 2000. The report challenges the force's use of undercover officers to infiltrate protest groups, saying some continued surveillance after organizations were found to be generally law-abiding.

Ramsey reacted angrily yesterday when told of the report's conclusions. "That's bullshit," he said. "If they're challenging my integrity, that's just total BS."

Excerpt From Report - The investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary into the policies and practices of the Metropolitan Police Department in handling demonstrations has found:

- Metropolitan Police Department use of undercover officers to infiltrate political organizations in the absence of criminal activity and in the absence of policy guidance meant to protect the constitutional rights of those individuals being monitored.

- A pattern and practice of misrepresentation and evasion on the part of leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department with regard to actions by the Department.

- Repeated instances of what appear to be preemptive actions taken against demonstrators including preemptive arrests.

- Failure of the Metropolitan Police Department to effectively police its own members for misconduct associated with demonstrations.

- Failure of the Metropolitan Police Department to acknowledge and to protect the rights of individuals to privacy, and to free speech and assembly.

In 2004, the D.C. Council passed the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act, largely in response to the arrests on Sept. 27, 2002, most notably at Pershing Park, where more than 400 people were arrested without warning. Charles H. Ramsey, the police chief at the time, came in for withering criticism for the decision to undertake mass arrests. He later admitted the arrests were improper.

In November, the city agreed to pay $685,000 to settle another lawsuit over police conduct at demonstrations, this one involving the treatment of protesters at President Bush's inauguration in 2001. More than 80 percent of that money was to go toward legal fees, with the rest going to two people hit with pepper spray.

David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post - D.C. police officers expressed dissatisfaction with Chief Charles H. Ramsey's leadership and criticized the department's effectiveness in a survey conducted this month by the police labor union, the latest sign of tension between the chief and the rank and file. . . The union's survey focused on Ramsey, but it also asked officers how confident they were in all levels of the department's hierarchy. . . 48 percent said they were confident their sergeants would support them, one-third were confident in their lieutenants, but only 9 percent were confident in the chief.

Of the 465 surveyed, slightly less than half said they felt the department was "not very effectively" carrying out its basic duties. A total of 222 (about 48 percent) of those who sent back the questionnaires said the department's performance had declined under Ramsey, compared to 90 (19 percent) who said it improved and 126 (27 percent) who said it had stayed the same. Twenty-seven other officers declined to answer that question.

2006

Carol D. Leonnig And Del Quentin Wilber Washington Post - The District government agreed yesterday to pay a total of $425,000 to seven people caught up in a mass arrest at a downtown park in September 2002, acknowledging that they were wrongfully arrested and promising to adopt changes in police procedures. The agreement settles a lawsuit in which the seven alleged that D.C. police violated their constitutional rights and department policy during the roundup of about 400 protesters and bystanders in Pershing Park. The settlement also requires D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey to send a personal letter of apology to each of the plaintiffs.

The monetary award raised questions about the settlement's effect on three lawsuits that make similar claims against the city, including a class-action suit filed on behalf of all 400 people arrested that day. . . 

In interviews yesterday, the plaintiffs said they decided not to take the case to trial because of the city's agreement to adopt police procedures intended to prevent improper arrests in the future. "I've said all along that I would withdraw my name from this lawsuit if Chief Ramsey resigned or was fired. That's what should have happened here," said Adam Eidinger, 31, a protest organizer and one of the plaintiffs. "But I accepted this agreement because the changes the police are going to have to make in their arrest procedures are substantial."

Under the terms of the agreement, a high-ranking police commander must issue a warning to disperse before police can begin arresting protesters. Officers must be able to prove that individual protesters broke the law and cannot arrest people simply for protesting without a permit. All officers must have clearly displayed badge numbers. Police must also provide phones so that detainees can call attorneys, friends or family members.

2007

Chief Ramsey moved on in 2007, but this gives a flavor the police force he directed

Andy Laken, DC Indymedia - The DC Antiwar Network fundraiser at Cafe Mawonaj tonight was rudely interrupted tonight when DC police arrested two people outside the cafe. According to eyewitness Adrian Wilson, plainclothes officers in an unmarked car were performing a search of a car and had handcuffed the two men who had been in the car. The men were a DJ who was scheduled to perform at the event and a friend. As police were searching the car, DAWN participant Chris Otten was questioning them if they had the subject's consent for the search. An MPD officer identified by witnesses as Manny Rodriguez (badge #3762) replied they didn't need consent for the search if he arrested the subjects.

Rodriguez didn't make clear whether the men were under arrest or not. Chris replied that as far as he understood consent was required nonetheless. Rodriguez told Chris to leave the scene or he would be charged with assault. Chris asked how he was assaulting the officer, then Rodriguez approached Chris, got in his face and told him to leave again. Chris started backing away, still asking how he was assaulting the officer. Rodriguez started running toward Chris, who tried to run from the officer. Rodriguez and another officer grabbed Chris, pushed him against the wall, handcuffed him, and arrested him.

I walked out of the Cafe at this point and saw Chris being arrested and what followed. A group of about 15 including people were witnessing all this, and about 8 or 9 officers, one in uniform on a motorcycle who pulled up separating us from Chris where the arrest was taking place. Several of us asked why he was being arrested and what he was being charged with. Officer Rodriquez responded by telling us to get off the sidewalk or we would be arrested as well. He told Spring Super that she needed to get 20 feet away from the arrest. Spring said she was 20 feet away, then Officer Rodriguez began walking toward her, saying that it was 20 feet from him. Two officers began removing Chris' necklace and other personal effects, going through his pockets and removing cash etc. The officers were making no record of the items they were taking from Chris.

The charge is interfering with an arrest, which is a felony under DC statute. According to Captain Manning of the 3rd District, a person needs to be materially interfering with an arrest, laying hands on the officer or arrest subject. I asked him if a person standing off asking questions during an arrest could possibly be interfering with an arrest. He said "We don't arrest people for asking questions."

Jim Mcdonald, DC Anti-War Network - Today, following a long day at DC Superior Court, DAWN activist Chris Otten was released from police custody, having his charges reduced. Otten plans on fighting the charges remaining against him. . .

Several eyewitnesses at Cafe Mawonaj last night verify Otten's story that he was merely asking questions about the rights of a fellow activist. According to a 1987 Supreme Court decision (Houston v. Hill), the right of people to verbally oppose police action is protected. The Supreme Court majority wrote: "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."

Andy Laken, DC Peace Resources - We went back to 3rd District police headquarters for him to retrieve his personal property. There he was told that his stuff was locked in a property room they didn't have the key for. He would have to come back tomorrow between 6 AM and 12 PM. Showing what I thought was more restraint than I would have mustered in the situation, Chris said that his money, ID, and house keys were in his effects, and he needed them, was there anything they could do? The first guy to talk to him was polite but totally unhelpful, but then one of the officers who had been listening (name of Cunningham) spoke up and was just disgustingly rude and disrespectful to Chris. This is the very definition of adding insult to injury. They arrest you illegally, hold you overnight in inhumane conditions, invent trumped-up charges, then tie you up in court all day, reduce the charges even before arraignment, then verbally abuse you about your property because "you were the one who got locked up" as Officer Cunningham said.

Progressive Review City Desk – The federal court of appeals has ruled that Assistant Police Chief Peter J. Newsham can be held personally liable for his  "indefensible " action in the mass arrest of nearly 400 protesters in 2002.  "No reasonable officer " would have done what Nesham did, said the court. But the court said it didn't have enough information concerning Chief Ramsey to make a similar decision. This was the largest illegal arrest since the notorious May Day 1971 sweep that locked up 12,000 demonstrators. Here are excerpts from the court's decision:

||||| Newsham and Ramsey concede that the mass arrest was executed with no prior warning to the occupants of the park to disperse and no warning to them that arrest was imminent. In the end, 386 people were arrested. . . . . Undisputed evidence reveals that Newsham arrested an undifferentiated mass of people on the basis of crimes committed by a handful of individuals who were never identified. Because nothing in the record suggests that Newsham had particularized probable cause to arrest each of the 386 persons caught in the police sweep, . . . his claim to qualified immunity raises no genuine issue as to any material fact.. . . Newsham has no entitlement to qualified immunity.

Ramsey's situation is somewhat different. The Chief admitted having  "tacitly approved " Newsham's arrest order. His entitlement to qualified immunity thus turns on whether he knew that the park had not been cleared of individuals who were not observed breaking the law. Based on the record assembled for summary judgment, it is not possible for us to answer that question. Because Ramsey's claim for immunity turns on the resolution of factual disputes regarding his participation in the events of September 27, 2002, his appeal is premature. . .

Quite simply, Newsham had no basis for suspecting that all of the occupants of Pershing Park were then breaking the law or that they had broken the law before entering the park. Vague allegations that  "demonstrators " committed offenses will not compensate for this shortcoming. Appellants have attempted to justify the sweep by focusing on allegedly illegal activities observed near the scene of the arrest before  "demonstrators " converged on Pershing Park. Indeed, Newsham evidently justified his decision to Ramsey by citing the unlawfulness that he claims to have witnessed earlier that morning in the surrounding areas. Traffic offenses and scattered acts of vandalism by unidentified individuals in the streets, however, could not have incriminated all of the individuals who happened to occupy the park when Newsham ordered the arrest.

Even to the extent that Newsham asserts that some  "demonstrators " were unlawfully assembled in the park, he has made no effort to ascribe misdeeds to the specific individuals arrested. Nowhere have appellants suggested that the particular individuals observed committing violations were the same people arrested; instead, they refer generically to what  "demonstrators " were seen doing. . .

There is no indication of how an officer might distinguish between a  "demonstrator " and a person walking to work or enjoying a stroll through the park, let alone how one would distinguish someone engaged in an allegedly illegal assembly from a passerby interested in hearing the political speech of protestors. Ramsey's statement that he  "did not realize" the park had not been cleared is not enough to establish an undisputed fact, because both he and others submitted statements that do not square with Ramsey's denial. There appears to be a contradiction between Ramsey's initial claim that he  "tacitly approved " Newsham's actions without having discussed whether the park was cleared, and his subsequent statement that Newsham assured him the park had in fact been cleared of innocent persons.||||

2009

Washington Post, 2009 - The D.C. government and a nonprofit civil rights organization have settled a class-action lawsuit brought by hundreds of protesters and bystanders arrested during a downtown demonstration in 2002.

The District agreed to pay $8.25 million to almost 400 protesters and bystanders to end the lawsuit over mass arrests in Pershing Park during World Bank protests, according to lawyers involved in the suit.

Police did not warn people to disperse before rounding them up Sept. 27, 2002, and some were hogtied and held for more than 24 hours before being released. Former D.C. police chief Charles H. Ramsey has apologized for the arrests.

It is the third settlement reached by the District in a mass arrest lawsuit in recent weeks. On Nov. 23, the District agreed to pay $13.7 million to about 700 protesters arrested during a 2000 demonstration. It also agreed to pay $450,000 to eight war protesters to settle a lawsuit filed after a 2002 detention and interrogation.

No comments: