Download Electronic Version - UDC Law Review

10 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
fusing to advise arrestees of the charges being placed against them or of
their constitutional rights ... 39
The District Court also found that "a pervasive pattern of lack of restraint by
police was discernible from the police films and supported by the testimony of
witnesses"; and that "wanton use of physical force also accompanied the arrests
made on [the George Washington University] campus in the late afternoon.,,40
The Court condemned the excessive use of riot batons, chemical Mace, and
gas. 41 Finally, the Court found unlawful conditions of detention and the denial of
the right to be brought promptly before a judicial officer or released on collateral,42
concluding:
[W]hether the [police] department purposely failed to make ... [sufficient]
plans in order to prolong the booking process, thereby keeping the
demonstrators off the streets, [could] not be conclusively determined from
the record. Whatever the motivation, "however, the net effect of keeping
persons in detention for such extraordinary long periods of time was
unlawful. 43
The Court issued detailed instructions for the correction of these practices and
policies, including a ban on dispersing demonstrators "unless a breach of the
peace involving a substantial risk of violence has occurred or will occur," a ban
on mass arrests without immediately "recording information necessary to establish
probable cause," and directing that a new police manual for handling demonstrations
and prompt release of arrestees be prepared and submitted to the court
for approval. 44
Those reforms were never carried out. A three-judge panel of the United
States Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling. 45 The ACLU challenged
the action of the panel, asking the full nine-member U.S. Court of Appeals
to rehear the case and to reinstate the District Court's ruling. A majority of
five of the nine judges of the full United States Court of Appeals then issued
opinions stating that the three-judge panel's reversal was wrong, but that, rather
than prolong the litigation, they would deny a rehearing and rely upon the Metropolitan
Police Department, which by then had a new chief of police, voluntarily
to change its mass demonstration policies and practices. 46
39 [d. at 208.
40 [d. at 195.
41 [d. at 198, 204, 213.
42 [d. at 205-08, 214-15.
43 [d. at 215.
44 [d. at 218-19
45 Washington Mobilization Comm., 566 F.2d at 107 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
46 Washington Mobilization Comm., reh'g denied en bane, 566 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977).