Would temporary bans after sex offenses make Metro safer?

Update (July 29): Metro’s Board of Directors deferred a vote on this policy until September.

Metro’s safety board gave its initial approval July 15 to a policy that would temporarily ban people charged with sex or weapons offenses on Metro property. The full Board of Directors is set to vote on the policy Thursday.

Metro Transit Police Chief Ron Pavlik told the board that the move is intended to combat a rise in sex offense reports on Metro. According to the staff report to the board, Metro has seen reported sex offenses double during the pandemic — a Metro spokesperson later clarified that the 89 indecent exposures reported on Metro property in 2021 are double what they were this time in 2019.

In his July 15 presentation, Pavlik attributed that increase to the drop in ridership during the pandemic, which could have emboldened offenders because there were fewer bystanders around to intervene.

“As ridership increases we hope this crime will decrease on its own, but we believe [the rule change] is a step in the right direction,” Pavlik told the board.

That tracks with what Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, a researcher at UCLA who studies harassment on transit, has found: sexual harassment rates change based on environmental conditions. Crimes like groping tend to happen in overcrowded buses or rail cars, she said, while those committing indecent exposure tend to be emboldened when few people are around.

The proposed rule change won’t address the ridership issue, but Metro staff say it would “enhance safety and security to support the region’s post-pandemic reopening.” Here’s what the rule change would do:

How temporary bans would work

If Metro approves this rule change, anyone accused of certain crimes would be “issued an immediate suspension citation” for certain crimes:

• Sex-related crimes, including “crimes of indecency and obscenity;” and
• Weapons-related crimes, including possession or transporting of firearms

Suspensions would be effective immediately and wouldn’t include a refund of unused passes that will expire during the suspension. Suspensions would last:

• 14 days for a first offense;
• 30 days for a second offense;
• And a full year for a third offense in a 12-month period.

Pavlik told the board he could think of about a dozen repeat offenders off the top of his head who are known to law enforcement. Because these crimes are misdemeanors, he said they are usually released the same day they are arrested.

The ACLU issued a statement opposing this rule change, pointing out that it would punish alleged offenders before their court date.

“In our criminal legal system, people are innocent until proven guilty; if they vote for this, WMATA’s unelected board proposes to reverse that presumption and punish people based on accusations alone,” the statement says.

The ACLU statement goes on to say the policy is most likely to increase discrimination of Black and brown riders, and could strip people of access to transit precisely at the time they need it most: for instance, to attend a court appearance or see a parole officer.

Asked to respond to the ACLU criticism, a Metro spokesperson pointed to the appeal process. An appeal could be filed within five days and a final decision would be issued within 15. The suspension would stay in place during the appeal process — meaning for a first offense, even if an appeal is granted, the suspension could already be over by that time.

Another criticism of the policy change is its lack of enforceability. Pavlik told the board that because SmarTrip cards don’t have to be registered, Metro wouldn’t have any way of enforcing the temporary bans unless the person in question commits another crime or otherwise comes to the attention of police. Hypothetically, he said, a banned person could just walk right through the fare gates.

“Seems like a pretty big loophole to me,” said board member Tom Bulger.

Functionally, the major difference under this policy would therefore be that someone accused of a second offense would also be charged with trespassing. It’s not clear whether that would be a major enough deterrent to keep those banned off Metro, or to keep them from committing further crimes. Pavlik told the board if the rule change passes, they could have more data in six months.

What else has Metro done on sexual harassment?

According to a 2018 report, Metro began a campaign to combat sexual harassment in 2012. A public awareness campaign launched in 2019 with ads offering strategies for bystanders to use to interrupt harassment incidents; Metro says the program is still active.

A March 2018 survey by Metro and organizations Collective Action for Safe Spaces and Stop Street Harassment found that 21% of respondents had experienced harassment on transit. It also found that in 2018, half of victims never reported the incident (Due to the pandemic, Metro didn’t release updated data in 2020 as planned).

Loukaitou-Sideris, the harassment researcher, said in a global survey of 12,000 students, 80% of women reported having been harassed on transit in the last three years. That harassment, and fear of harassment, has real implications for mobility, particularly for women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color.

But reporting rates were extremely low: in Los Angeles, for instance, only 10% of victims who responded to the survey reported incidents to officials. Those low reporting rates make Loukaitou-Sideris skeptical of analyzing changes in police-reported rates of sex offenses because those changes could just as easily be shifts in reporting practices.

It’s not clear what the most recent reporting rates in DC are, but news reports have detailed challenges victims face in reporting incidents to MTPD. And even when incidents do get reported, they’re not necessarily documented or investigated — Metro’s Inspector General recently found that MTPD didn’t investigate or document thousands of crimes between 2010 and 2017. Those overlooked crimes included more than 100 sex offenses and cases of indecent exposure.

Asked about Metro’s policy, Loukiatou-Sideris said she was in favor of some kind of action being taken to curb harassment — but that policing shouldn’t be the only strategy, particularly given the potential for misconduct and racial profiling. Other strategies include:

• Better lighting;
• Real-time arrival information at stops and stations;
• Making it easier to report (Metro has a web form);
• Increasing frequency to avoid overcrowding and long waits;
• Training staff and drivers so riders can ask them for help;
• Bystander training;
• And placing bus stops in well-trafficked areas with high visibility.

A Metro spokesperson listed other steps WMATA has taken in recent years on sexual harassment prevention:

• Lighting upgrades to 48 underground stations last year;
• Equipping buses, stations, and newer trains with cameras;
• New CCTV cameras and safety call buttons at stations improved under Metro’s Platform Improvement Project;
• And tracking sexual harassment incidents even when they don’t rise to the level of a crime, using that data to deploy police.

“Through these policing tactics and high tech cameras on buses, trains, and in stations, MTPD has proven successful in identifying suspects and making arrests,” the spokesperson said.