Summary#

B26-0784, the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Technical Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2026, would temporarily amend the District’s Office of Citizen Complaint Review Establishment Act of 1998 and three provisions of Title 14. Its stated goal is to make changes related to congressional review and clarify that certain provisions apply only when the victim is under 18. The bill has passed the Council and been delivered to the Mayor; it takes effect only after Mayoral approval or a Council override, and would last no more than 90 days.

• The Police Complaints Board would grow from five members to nine: one from each Ward and one at-large. After the current MPD member’s term ends, no Board member could be affiliated with a law enforcement agency.
• The Office of Police Complaints Executive Director may start a complaint based on newly discovered evidence of abuse or misuse of police powers that was not alleged in the original complaint. This includes an officer’s failure to intervene or report certain misconduct by another officer.
• For a complaint the Executive Director starts, the bill allows the Director to take actions already listed in the existing law. The bill text supplied here does not list those actions.
• Changes to three Title 14 provisions specify that certain wording about a victim refers to a victim under 18. The supplied text does not explain the underlying rules those provisions contain.

What it means for you#

• Police Complaints Board: The Council would add four seats and assign them by Ward and at-large representation. The current MPD member may remain until their term ends; after that, Board members could not be affiliated with law enforcement.
• People making police complaints: The Executive Director would have discretion to start a separate complaint if they discover evidence of abuse or misuse not raised in the original complaint. The bill does not require the Director to do so in every such case.
• Police officers: The new authority expressly includes failures to intervene in or report observed excessive force or misconduct, and failures to report certain MPD rule violations or uses of force. The bill refers to department directives or similar directives; it does not create a new complaint process or set out its timelines or appeal rules.
• Victims and others covered by the Title 14 provisions: The wording would limit specified references in those provisions to victims under 18. Without the underlying provisions, the practical effect on adults or others cannot be confirmed.
• Current law: The bill text says the Board now has five members, including one MPD member and four with no current law-enforcement affiliation. The parent Acts were not supplied, so other current-law details and the full effect of the amendments could not be checked.

Money#

No cost estimate is included in the supplied material.

• The bill adopts a Budget Director fiscal impact statement, but that statement was not provided. No publicly available information on its figures is included here.
• The bill adds four Board seats and gives the Executive Director a new discretionary power. It does not state staffing or funding amounts.

What is unclear#

• What actions the Executive Director may take under the existing law after starting a complaint, because that list is not included.
• How the Board’s new seats would be filled, and whether or how members are paid.
• How “abuse or misuse of police powers” is defined or how the Director would decide whether to start a complaint.
• What the three Title 14 provisions do, and how limiting the specified wording to victims under 18 changes rights or procedures.
• The dates when the two sets of amendments expire. The bill ties them to applicability dates in other laws, and those dates are not given here.

Case for#

• The Director could act on evidence of misconduct discovered during a complaint, even if the complainant did not allege it.
• The bill specifically includes an officer’s failure to intervene or report another officer’s misconduct, addressing conduct that might otherwise go unraised in the original complaint.
• Ward and at-large seats could give the Board geographic representation across the District.
• The Title 14 wording changes appear intended to clarify which provisions apply to victims under 18.

Case against#

• The Director may start a complaint but is not required to; the bill does not set out criteria for using that discretion.
• The bill does not specify added staff, funding, timelines, or review procedures for the new complaint authority or expanded Board.
• The Board’s transition rule allows the current MPD member to remain until their term ends, so the change to a Board with no law-enforcement-affiliated members would not be immediate.
• Without the underlying Title 14 rules, it is unclear whether the age clarification could change how adults are treated under those provisions.