District of Columbia Courts

500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 6680

Washington, D.C. 20001
202-879-1700 Office
202-879-4829 Fax

September 18, 2023

Chairperson Brooke Pinto

Committee on the Judiciary & Public Safety
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 106
Washington, DC 20004

Re: Comments of the District of Columbia Courts to the Council of the District of
Columbia on the proposed Addressing Crime through Targeted Interventions and
Violence Enforcement (ACTIVE”) Amendment Act of 2023

Dear Chairperson Pinto:

On Friday September 15, 2023, we received the proposed Addressing Crime through Targeted
Interventions and Violence Enforcement (ACTIVE”) Amendment Act of 2023 hereinafter,
“ACTIVE Amendment Act” or “Act”). We write to provide you, Chairman Pinto, and the
Council of the District of Columbia, comments on behalf of District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and Court System, (collectively, “D.C.
Courts” or “Courts”).

Chairperson Pinto, this legislation seeks to amend the District of Columbia Code in several ways,
and we would like to provide our perspective on several of the Act’s proposed provisions.

First, the ACTIVE Amendment Act would amend the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
to “require gun offenders who are on probation, supervised release, or parole to agree to submit
to a search when they are in a public place.” It is our understanding that this provision is based
on existing California law. Without knowing the legal basis for California’s law permitting
individuals on probation, parole and pre-trial release be subject to warrantless searches which the
proposed legislation seeks to implement in the District of Columbia, the proposed legislation
appears to violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches of individuals
without probable cause. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). We welcome an opportunity to
review the statute on which this provision is based and provide additional comments, if
warranted.

Second, the Act would Amend Title 23 of the DC. Code to “require judges to issue written
findings where they decide against holding individuals pretrial.” This amendment would have a

Open to All  Trusted by All  Justice for All

significant impact on the resources of the DC Courts. Requiring more written findings would
significantly increase the workload on the Superior Court Criminal Division associate and
magistrate judges, and their law clerks of the Superior Court. Moreover, an increase of this
magnitude would not only have an enormous impact on associate judges currently with heavy
trial calendars but would also have a substantial impact on the workload of magistrate judges
handling the largest percentage of detention hearings. This, at a time when the Superior Court
has been short on associate judges for years now and increasingly rely on magistrate judges to
handle a larger share of Superior Court matters, is not feasible.

Finally, the ACTIVE Amendment Act, among other things, would amend Title 23 to “eliminate
the requirement that extensions to the 100-day clock for pretrial detention” for certain offenses
“be granted only in 20-day increments. This reflects an improvement to the current statutory
language. Many felony cases cannot be tried in 100 days due to the unavailability of an essential
witness, the necessity for forensic analysis of evidence, the ability to conduct a joint trial with a
co-defendant or co-defendants, complex or major investigations, complex or difficult legal
issues, and a myriad of other good cause. Thus, removing the 20-day increment would make it
clear that the legislature does not intend to limit the continuance only if it can be tried within 20
days. It would also allow judges the discretion not only to determine if there is good cause for
the continuance but to also determine the appropriate length of the continuance based on the
same.

Again, thank you, on behalf of the D.C. Courts, for the opportunity to present comments from
the judicial branch about the ACTIVE Amendment Act.

Anna Blackburne-Rigsby
Chief Judge
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Chair
Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, DC Courts

Anita Josey-Herring
Chief Judge
Superior Court of the District of Columbia