1

Statement for the Record

To:
Committee on the Judiciary
Regarding:
FYs 2014 and 2015 Oversight of the Metropolitan Police Department
By:
David C. Whidden, Sergeant, Metropolitan Police Department, Ret.
Date:
March 9, 2015

Councilmember McDuffie and members of the Committee on the Judiciary, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the operations of the Metropolitan Police Department. I am David
Whidden, a 26-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department. My comments today concern
various police practices and tactics used to protect the community, some of which have recently
come under criticism.

My background and qualifications

As I said, I am a twenty-six year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department, retiring in 2004.
I was active on the streets of the District my entire career. I started as an officer in 1D and was
assigned to the substation. I spent seven years in 1D-1. I was promoted to sergeant and assigned
to 7D. While there, I started the scooter squad and the mountain bike program. I was at 7D for
eight years. For the remaining 11 years, I worked in 6D.

It was important to me that officers working for me had the training they needed to be effective
officers. Therefore, I took it upon myself to better train my officers. On a regular basis, I
reviewed and did live exercises in room clearing, officer safety, traffic stops, all aspects of street
work, and various other tactical elements of the job. I was also the field training sergeant in both
6D and 7D.

During the latter part of my career, community policing was front-and-center in my

responsibilities. I was team leader for PSA 604 and, as such, participated in community

2
meetings, worked with representatives from other DC government agencies to address issues
such as illegal dumping, inferior lighting, and the like.

Finally, I was part of the Civil Disturbance Unit for 19 years. All CDU personnel were trained to
handle crowd-control techniques with the goal of keeping everyone safe.

Jump-outs
You have heard and will likely hear much more about jump-outs, specifically opposition to
jump-outs, from some in the community. Let me provide you with the perspective of a long-time
law enforcement officer:

Anyone who says, or implies, that jump-outs are simply police officers driving around
randomly looking for groups of blacks to harass is incorrect.

Jump-outs target specific locations, such as high drug areas. They also target specific
people, such as during the execution of an arrest warrant.

Jump-outs are generally preceded by one of two things. An undercover police officer
makes a buy in order to identify the person(s) selling drugs or the observation of drug
sales.

To be clear: Jump-outs and the execution of search/arrest warrants are two different things. I
would encourage you, then, to ask those who testify before you tomorrow or who are in contact
at other times the following questions:
1. How do you define jump-out?
2. How do you know the jump-out is random? Do you know what the purpose of the jumpout was?
3. Where are you getting your information about a particular jump-out? Is there a high
probability of bias with the source of the information?

Frisks
Like you, I'm hearing a lot about how frisks are used to harass people. Quite simply, a frisk is a
pat down of a persons garments to check for a weapon.
I do not know what New York City Police Department was doing during its Stop and Frisk
program. However, I can talk about MPD. Let's start with the fact that the department has strict

3
policies governing frisks. Officers cannot frisk an individual simply because they want to; the
officer must have articulable reasons as to why he thinks the person may have a weapon. There
are numerous tells that indicate to an officer that an individual may be carrying a weapon. I
will not describe them for if the bad guys know what they are they can compensate/adapt and
make detection much more difficult.

I encourage you to ask those who testify before you tomorrow or who are in contact at other
times the following questions:
1. How do you know why the person was frisked?
2. Where are you getting your information about a particular frisk? Is there a high
probability of bias with the source of the information?
3. Is the area a high-crime or high-drug area? Is it known for violence?

Police/Community Relations
Over the past 20 years, much in the community at-large has changed. What used to be a culture
of taking responsibility for self and family and ownership in community has changed to one
exemplified by blaming others for individual, family, and community ills. I see this thread
through all of the recent and not so recent, criticisms of DC and its "police state."

Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified than in the red-light camera debate. Opponents site
reason after reason for their opposition to the red-light cameras. My favorite has always been,
Government is just doing it to generate revenue. So what? What is conveniently forgotten is
that getting a ticket for going through a red light has nothing to do with government, politicians,
or the baker down the street. The ticket is simply a response to the action performed by the
individual. If you do not want a ticket, do not go through a red light. It is a simple concept that
is constantly ignored.

Another example: A person attacks a police officer and is shot. The default reaction in the
community is that the shooting is the police officers fault. Now it may turn out that the officer
was wrong. But in this environment in which we blame others, there is no consideration of what
the actual circumstances were, least of all those leading up to the shooting. For example, was the
person threatening the officer? Was the person attacking the officer?

4
Consider what happens in high-crime areas: More officers are deployed. Why is it a surprise
that more Notices of Infractions and arrests are made in those areas? It is a natural result of
putting more officers in an area where more crimes are committed.
I am not saying that all officers are saints and never do anything wrong. I believe that a great
percentage of police-citizen contact is appropriate, positive, and benign. I further believe that the
negatively perceived contacts need to be examined by the citizen to see how their actions
contributed to the contact. For example, I was a sergeant for 19 years. Not long before I retired
a woman came into the station to complain about one of my officers. My officer had written her
an NOI for passing a stop sign without stopping. I became confused after talking to her. She
was not complaining about the ticket or what he had said to her. I asked if he had yelled at her,
she said no. Did he curse at you or use any profanity or vulgarity? She said no. Exactly what
are you complaining about? She said, "It was not what he said but the way he said it that I did
not like." I didn't then and don't today understand her complaint.

Living in the area that you police

For years I've heard residents talking about requiring officers to live in the areas that they patrol.
There are some practical issues that present themselves with this idea:

Officers are transferred when they are promoted. This prevents the problems associated
with attempting to supervise the friends the newly-promoted person had been working
with. According to the idea, therefore, every time a person was promoted they would
have to move.

What would happen if a person was moved from one sector to another within the same
police district? Would they have to move?

What about officers working in areas that have $500,000 to several million dollar homes.
Will the officers pay be increased to allow for the purchase of a home?

Then there are mental health issues associated with this idea. Officers need to be able to
decompress in an area where they feel safe. Requiring officers to live in the high-crime
areas (not all areas are high crime areas) that they patrol has the potential to contribute to
stress-related issues such as heavy drinking, marital problems, and the development of
PTSD.

Is it a good idea to have officers living at ground zero during an attack? Supporters of
this idea argue yes, the police are closer. I would assert that if the police live at or near

5
ground zero, they will be casualties. Having police living outside the strike zone would
mean that officers are able to come into the city to perform their law enforcement duties.

Conclusion
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to participate in the oversight process of the Metropolitan
Police Department.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have; feel free to email me, dchwhidden@gmail.com.