ACLU-D.C. lawyers and advocates are among the nation's leading experts on civil liberties and constitutional freedoms. They are regularly sought out by leading broadcast, print and online media to lend an essential voice to the conversation about some of the most important issues facing the nation and the District.
For all press inquiries, please contact: [email protected]
Press Release For: Wednesday, January 20, 2016, at 2:00 PM
Contact: Melanie Bates, Director of Communications, ACLU-DC, 202-601-4275 or [email protected]
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the DC Council passed Bill 21-0351, the “Body-Worn Camera Program Amendment Act of 2015.” The American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital (ACLU-DC) applauds Councilmember Kenyan R. McDuffie’s (D-Ward 5) steadfast leadership in the implementation of this legislation. Despite this outstanding leadership, the bill was amended to allow officers of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to view body-worn camera (BWC) recordings prior to writing their initial reports, except in cases of police shootings. The original text of the bill did not allow officers to view BWC recordings prior to writing their initial reports.
The ACLU-DC expresses its extreme disappointment in the DC Council for voting to include this amendment. “If the real intent of the BWC program is accountability, transparency, and fostering police-community relations, this provision would have been kept as is,” said Monica Hopkins-Maxwell, Executive Director of ACLU-DC. Instead, this provision tips the scales of justice in favor of law enforcement by allowing officers to view BWC recordings prior to writing their initial reports, but prevents potential defendants the same access prior to making statements. “Allowing officers to review footage before making an initial statement threatens to taint investigations, undermines the use of body-worn cameras as a tool for accountability, and hurts the public trust that BWCs should be building,” Hopkins-Maxwell said.
A week of events in the Des Moines Public Schools is planned for December 14th to 18th to commemorate the 50th anniversary of events leading to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969.
Two of the plaintiffs, Mary Beth and John Tinker, as well as their attorney, Dan Johnston, will tell the story behind the historic case, and discuss current student speech issues. They will be joined by siblings Hope and Paul Tinker, who wore black armbands to their 5th and 2nd grade classes and will speak with fifth graders at both schools at their old Des Moines elementary schools, Madison and Cattell.
Bruce Clark, who helped to plan the original armband actions at Roosevelt High School and was also suspended there for wearing a black armband, will discuss how the black armband action was planned, and how it was censored by the Des Moines Public Schools administrators, leading to the Supreme Court challenge. Mr. Clark currently serves as Iowa State President of the American Postal Workers Union.
Throughout the week, student voices will be featured. Kenna Bell, the student editor of the Roosevelt Roundup said that she is excited to meet the “Tinker” plaintiffs and celebrate the anniversary. “Some youth are unaware of the extent of their individual powers and freedoms. By raising awareness and promoting youth activism, there could be very positive outcomes for society as a whole,” she said.
|
|
The Smithsonian Institution regularly violates the legal rights of nursing mothers by failing to provide them with adequate space and privacy to pump breast milk at work,
A U.S. Army medic stationed in Korea has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to order the Army to discharge him as a conscientious objector. The Army refused to release Robert Aaron Weilbacher from his enlistment, according to the lawsuit, even though his claim was upheld by the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board, whose decision was final under the Army’s own regulations. Weilbacher is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital.
After a lengthy investigation and a hearing, the Army’s Review Board determined that clear and convincing evidence established that Weilbacher’s sincere and deeply held moral and ethical beliefs do not permit him to continue to serve in the military. Army regulations entitle sincere conscientious objectors to an honorable discharge if their beliefs have changed since they enlisted.
