Note: This letter is an amended version of a letter provided to reporter Brandon Soderberg for The

Appeal.

I have had the honor of serving on the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for nearly
three decades. I also have had the privilege of serving under some great leadership which was
progressive, innovative, and community focused. However, the leadership over the last four
years has caused me pause in that it has reversed any community goodwill gained under prior
leadership regimes. The current leadership has reestablished police strategies used twenty years
ago that have proven to be ineffective and unsuccessful. These outdated practices have resulted
in the adversarial relationship apparent between the community and the police department. Sadly,
the police leadership's response to community concerns is to double-down on the practices that
are of most concern to the community.

GRU
MPD deploys many strategies to both prevent and respond to crime trends, however some
of its strategies are questionable at best. For example, MPD prioritizes the removal of illegal
guns from DC neighborhoods. It relies heavily on a unit called the Gun Recovery Unit (GRU) to
accomplish this goal. The GRU is primarily focused on neighborhoods in Wards 7 and 8. The
neighborhoods within the patrol district are designated by either the patrol district commander or
GRU's commander.
The leadership's focus on GRU is stat driven. Leadership focuses on how many guns
GRU recovers and if an arrest was made with the recovery. There is very little, if any, review of
how the gun was recovered or how the arrest made. GRU routinely employs tactics that are
illegitimate such as stopping individuals for misdemeanor offenses, threatening arrest, but
delaying the effectuation of the arrest and refusing to release the individuals unless they disclose
the location of a gun or a person who is in possession of one.
MPD's leadership has been made aware of this dubious tactic yet has taken no corrective
actions. A Councilmember filmed members of GRU holding two young adults, still in their
teens, for possession of an empty gun magazine. The GRU members told the teens they would
not be released unless they have disclosed the location of a gun or a person armed with one. The
parents of the teens arrived to that scene and inquired as to the circumstances surrounding the
officers' interaction with the teens. The GRU members refused to inform the parents of why their
children were in custody, citing the fact that the teens were adults and therefore they had no legal
requirement to intervene on behalf of the parents. The Councilmember recorded the event, sent it
to the Chief, and expressed his concern. The Chief rejected the Councilmember's concerns and
went so far as to send an email to the GRU members supporting their conduct, encouraging them
to continue, and condemning the Councilmember.

Gun Recoveries
 MPD's leadership is rightfully concerned about the prevalence of illegal firearms and the
use of them in the commission of violent crimes in the community. However, this concern has
manifested into an agency culture that has become obsessed with recovering guns with little
concern as to the means of recovery. Review of gun recoveries include daily, monthly, and yearly
tallies by specified units (District, District CST, and GRU). At the end of the month, if there is a
drop in the total recoveries as compared to the prior month, the Chief inquires as to why there is
a decrease and what the Commanders plan to do to restore the number of recoveries. What is
apparently absent in the agency's review of gun recoveries is how the guns were recovered and
specifically the constitutionality of the recovery.

Stop and Frisk

Stop and Frisk has been a controversial topic not only for MPD but for police
departments around the country. It has been attributed to MPD as a crime fighting tactic despite
MPD's denials of such.
For instance, in one Patrol District, there was neighborhood concern regarding activities
in a park located near the neighborhood. As a result of these concerns, the Commander of that
District increased bike patrols in the park. One day, there was a report of sounds of gunshots
emanating from the park. Nearby residents sent emails, in real time, to the Assistant Chief (AC)
of that District communicating discontent and fear regarding what they had just heard. The AC
contacted the Commander to get a better understanding of the situation. The Commander
informed the AC that he had been inundated with emails from the community and that the
Commander needed to respond in a manner to appease the fears of the residents. The AC
directed the Commander to increase stops of individuals hanging out in the park despite knowing
that the gun shots did not originate from any individual in the park. Further, the justification
presented for these increased stops was to appease community fears. There was not an
articulation of officer safety surrounding the potential presence of a weapon possessed by a
particular person as constitutionally required.
A second example of the agency's disregard for the constitutional protections against
unreasonable searches was an incident that occurred outside of Nook's Barbershop in 2018. This
incident started when officers assigned to GRU noticed a vehicle with what appeared to be
windows that were tinted beyond the legal allowance in the District of Columbia. When the GRU
members found the vehicle parked in front of Nook's Barbershop, GRU approached several
young men sitting in folding chairs on the sidewalk in front of the establishment. After
questioning whether any of the men were in possession of any firearms, one young man admitted
to have a B.B. gun. Officers frisked that young man and took custody of the B.B. gun. They then
turned their attention to the other men present and forced them all to submit to a frisk. The
justification the officers gave, which was supported by the Chief, was if there was justification to
frisk one person, there was justification to frisk everyone.
This incident erupted into outrage. The community as well as the City Council demanded
an explanation of the officers' conduct. Chief Newsham justified the conduct by emphasizing the
danger of gun possession. His justification was contrary to the officers' actual response to the
situation. The officers paid so little attention to the person who was in possession of the gun that
he walked away unnoticed. Officers were more interested in the other men not suspected of
committing any offenses because they were emphatic and animated in their refusal to voluntarily
submit to a search.
Another dubious tactic employed by GRU is jumping out on groups of people and fishing
for statistics. GRU members ride around in unmarked police vehicles including a grey Dodge
Ram pickup truck now infamously recognized in Wards 7 and 8. Members of GRU would drive
up to an area where multiple people were hanging out, jump out of the truck, and force everyone
present to submit to a stop and frisk without any articulable reason for being stopped and frisked
other than their mere presence at the scene. “Frisk” is used loosely here because GRU would
actually conduct a search by manipulating garments and using fingers to feel for firearms under
layers of clothing, groin areas, or other areas in which a simple patdown would not reveal the
presence of a weapon. GRU would use these stops and searches to fish for the possession of a
gun or any other illegal object. If a gun was not found but other illegal objects were, GRU
members would threaten arrest unless the person could disclose the whereabouts of a gun. If the
person refused, he was arrested for whatever crime was committed. If the person cooperated, he
was not arrested and released. The paperwork associated with the recovery would only indicate
the gun was found at the location. The paperwork would have no mention of the stop of the
person or the information the GRU officer obtained in order to locate the firearm.

Manipulation of Stop Data

MPD has a reputation of being opaque and misleading in its response to the controversial
conduct by the agency. MPD is just as opaque and misleading in data reporting. The
Neighborhood Engagement Achieve Results (NEAR) Act required MPD to release, among other
things, the number of stops MPD makes, the purpose for the stop, and the demographics of those
stopped. After losing a court challenge and being directed by a judge to gather and release the
data, at least two commanders employed tactics to manipulate the results.
One Commander instructed officers of its command to increase pedestrian stops in the
parts of its district that had a higher population of white residents and pedestrians to increase the
number of white individuals being stopped. Her goal was to balance the number of pedestrian
stops made against black individuals in her district.
Another Commander instructed officers of its command to increase vehicle stops in the
parts of its district that had higher populations of white motorists to increase the number of white
motorists being stopped. His goal was to neutralize the number of vehicle stops made against
black individuals in his district.
Neither commander had a goal of decreasing unnecessary stops against black, only to
offset the total number by increasing targeted stops against whites.

Attacks Against USAO and Judges

 Chief Newsham was not known for holding himself or his agency accountable for
mistakes; in fact it is just the opposite. He blamed others; specifically the United States
Attorney's Office (USAO) and Judges. His rhetoric blamed them when cases were thrown out for
procedural errors as opposed to using these cases as learning opportunities to better train his
officers.
To illustrate this point, there was a gun arrest in the Montana Avenue neighborhood of the
Fifth District. A black male was sitting on a set of steps in front of a home with an open
unknown beverage next to him. As officers approached, the individual ran. Officers gave chase
and caught the individual a short distance later. Officer wrestled the individual to the ground and
at some point during a struggle to handcuff the individual, the individual tossed a handgun.
Officers recovered the handgun and placed the individual under arrest, charging the individual
with illegal possession of the gun.
The USAO dismissed charges against the individual citing no probable cause for the stop
existed. Chief Newsham was incensed by the USAO's decision and in a staff meeting openly
communicated his outrage. He called the USAO “soft on crime” and stated that Judges were no
better and that Judges allowed violent criminals back into the community to commit more
violence while pending trial or issued light sentencing permitting violent criminals to return to
neighborhoods prematurely to commit more violence post-release.

Impact
Top leadership at MPD took a cavalier attitude toward personal rights. Their goal to
lower crime in the city and make it more safe, although noble, was carried out independent of
constitutional policing concepts. MPD historically, and more so over the past four years, has
demonstrated a pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct. Even after having these
concerns brought to its attention through citizens complaints, video footage of officer conduct,
dismissed criminal cases, lawsuits, and court orders, MPD took no action to institute remedial
training, implement new policy, or issue any discipline to officers for Fourth Amendment
violations. There is no accountability for these actions but instead plenty of praise for the results.
Praise was not only bestowed on the rank and file members carrying out these misdeeds
but praise was also showered on the managers overseeing these officers. Many members were
promoted to command staff positions based on statistical accomplishments notwithstanding the
lack of supervision over the illegitimate methods employed to achieve them. These new
command officials have all embraced Chief Newsham's policing philosophy. They manage the
way they have been trained by Chief Newsham and thus MPD is destined to continue the same
misguided late 80s and early 90s patterns and practices reintroduced by Chief Newsham.
MPD's new police chief, Chief Contee, illustrates this point. He was the Assistant Chief
overseeing GRU during both incidents described. He made no changes to the members assigned
to the GRU, instituted no new meaningful policies concerning stop and frisk, issued no
meaningful discipline to officers involved, nor did he execute any remedial training in an effort
to prevent future occurrences. In the aftermath of the Nook's Barbershop incident, the City
Council called emergency council hearings to glean answers from MPD surrounding the lead up
to the mass stops and frisks there. Then Assistant Chief Contee testified in response to a question
about stop and frisk that as a young black male who grew up in the Carver Terrace neighborhood
of Washington DC, he did not understand why officers were stopping and searching people but
now he understands the benefit of using stop and frisk strategically. His comment drew a swift
and immediate rebuke from one of the councilmembers in attendance at the hearing.
More recently and now named the next police chief for Washington DC, Chief Contee
has stated that he intends to be a chief that officers can believe has their backs. This rhetoric
implies that he, like Chief Newsham, will support officer misconduct as opposed to instituting
methods of accountability, better training, and assurances of constitutional policing. Chief
Newsham may no longer physically be the police chief, but he remains ever present as his beliefs
and philosophies remain in effect and proteges remain top leaders at MPD.