In December 1998, Greenbelt private investigator Sharon Weidenfeld called the FBI's field office in Baltimore with a tip.
Weidenfeld, who often investigates police brutality cases for private attorneys who sue police for misconduct, told the FBI that members of the Prince George's police canine unit were using their police dogs to brutalize unarmed people, often leaving suspects with permanent injuries.
A few weeks later, Weidenfeld received a letter from the FBI, saying the agency didn't have enough documentation to open an investigation. As a result, she gathered detailed information on about 50 dog bites. She examined civil lawsuits, readdepositions, reviewed interview transcripts, and looked at photographs of grisly injuries. She handed everything -- several hundred pages of documents and photos of about 20 dog bite victims -- to the FBI.
A few months later, federal authorities announced they had begun an investigation into the county police canine unit. About a year later, the probe was expanded to include a top-to-bottom review of the entire department after a troubling string of officer shootings and in-custody deaths. With that investigation, Prince George's became part of a group of only 14 police departments in the nation -- including Montgomery County's police department and the Los Angeles police force -- to face such an inquiry.
Under a law passed by Congress in 1994, the Justice Department has the authority to investigate local police departments to see whether there is a "pattern or practice" of excessive force or misconduct. Last week, almost four years after they began their investigation into the Prince George's force, Justice Department officials made public their findings -- "a pattern and practice" of misconduct by officers in the canine unit and recommendations for change in the canine unit and the department as a whole.
Although county officials deny the allegations involving the canine unit, they agreed to adopt a list of requirements to promote "constitutional law enforcement" that they said was "for the purpose of avoiding the burdens" of a Justice Department lawsuit, according to an agreement between the Justice Department and the county police.
The Justice Department said the county must:
• Adopt a use-of-force policy that will outline the appropriate scenarios for resorting to force;
• Create an early-warning system that will alert the department about officers who are the subject of repeated complaints and allegations of misconduct;
• Recertify and retrain canine handlers on an annual basis;
• File detailed reports about every dog bite.
County police leaders last week said they would make broad systemic changes to curb excessive force and other alleged abuses in the eight-member canine unit and within the 1,000-member police force. Some changes are already in place; others, they said, will come soon.
The pledges are in the form of two agreements. County officials signed a memorandum -- similar to a contract -- with the Justice Department to revise training procedures on when and how to use force. The county department also agreed to create a police panel to review all police shootings, and to restrict the situations in which officers can use pepper spray. Compliance with this agreement will be monitored by someone outside the department chosen by county and federal officials.
The county police also signed a consent decree, which has been filed in U.S. District Court, agreeing to make numerous changes in the operation of the canine unit.
County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D), the former county attorney who campaigned on a pledge of change in the police department, said in announcing the agreements at a news conference last week that the agreements "allow our police department to effectively work with our community, to carry out its duties and obligations."
"We are not limiting police activity," he said in the packed auditorium at police headquarters Jan. 22. "We are looking at conduct that is violation of our constitution. . . . so that [the department] will be in a better position to do the work that it is required to do."
Among other things, the consent decree involving the canine unit calls for county police dogs to be trained in the "guard and bark" system, in which suspects are held at bay and not bitten; for the canines to be unleashed only on suspects suspected of serious felonies or who are believed to be armed, and only after other measures have failed; and for an improved review and record-keeping system that would include a log of all dog bites.
Some changes already have been made.
After the investigation by FBI Agent Marc Savine was launched in spring 1999, then-Police Chief John S. Farrell began to change procedures in the canine unit, including adopting the "guard and bark" techniques. Department officials said last week that they are ready to put in place several other requirements such as detailed record-keeping of dog bites that they said gained urgency after a canine handler was convicted in August 2001 of violating the civil rights of an unarmed man. That former officer, Stephanie C. Mohr, was sentenced to 10 years in a federal prison.
Police officials said they believe many of the changes already have worked. During a seven-year period, from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, the county police canine unit recorded more than 800 bites. In the four years since it shifted to the "guard and bark" method, the canine unit has recorded just 50 dog bites. None has been recorded this year.
The county police department has three years to show it has successfully met the requirements of the consent decree and the memorandum of agreement. If the department is found by the outside monitor to be within substantial compliance after two years, the option exists for early termination of the federal oversight.
"The men and women [of the department] will benefit from these agreements," said R. Alexander Acosta, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division. "Officers will enjoy greater confidence. When they do deploy canines, when they do use force in the line of duty, it is important that they know they are doing it properly, with legal sanction and with the support of their management command staff."
The county is also likely to benefit financially. Police misconduct lawsuits since 2000 have cost the county nearly $10 million in jury awards and settlements.
Chief Melvin C. High called the changes "necessary," before adding that the department has "been on the road of change for some time now."
"We have diligently studied the department," he continued. "We're committed to ensuring the civil rights of our citizens and our officers. We're committed, we're dedicated, and we're determined to make this work."
Community activists applauded the agreements and said last week that they hope visible changes will follow.
"We're trying to keep a positive spin on this," said Eileen Thomas, head of the county's Citizen Complaint Oversight Panel, a group of residents assigned to investigate officer misconduct claims. "We want people to know that changes are being made so that their negativity toward the department can turn into a positive attitude."
Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA of Maryland, an immigrants rights organization based in Silver Spring, was a member of a police accountability task force set up by former County Executive Wayne K. Curry. After last week's Justice Department announcements, he said "one of the challenges we face is to follow through and make sure the police department makes good on its promises and ceases to brutalize people of color."
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.