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:
Post a Comment