
DC Officer Ordered to Omit Agent Shooting from Report
A Washington D.C. police officer has made a startling admission under oath, revealing he was instructed to deliberately exclude critical details about a federal agent discharging a firearm at a driver during a traffic stop from an official report. This revelation emerges amidst heightened scrutiny over federal agent deployments to various U.S. cities, a practice that gained prominence under the previous Trump administration, and a recurring pattern where charges brought by federal agents frequently face dismissal in court.
Startling Courtroom Revelation
Last week, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Officer Jason Sterling delivered testimony in court that sent ripples through the D.C. legal community. Sterling stated unequivocally that a “team leader” had directed him to withhold information regarding a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent firing three shots at an individual named Phillip Brown. The incident occurred earlier this month in Washington D.C. during what began as a routine traffic stop. This significant disclosure was first brought to light by the Washington City Paper, citing information provided by Brown’s attorney, Quo Mieko S. Judkins.
The affidavit reviewed by the City Paper details Sterling’s account of the events. He and fellow MPD Officer Divonnie Powell were engaged in a joint patrol operation alongside federal agents drawn from multiple agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and HSI.
The Incident Unfolds
According to Sterling’s sworn statement, officers initially observed Brown’s vehicle “traveling at a normal speed.” However, as Officer Sterling activated his emergency equipment to effect a traffic stop, Brown’s car reportedly switched lanes several times. Perceiving this behavior as a potential attempt to evade, Sterling and Powell made the tactical decision to “move out of the way to allow the supporting federal partners to stop the vehicle.”
What transpired next, according to Sterling’s testimony, involved the HSI agent firing three times at Brown. Yet, the official narrative in Sterling’s affidavit, as reviewed by the Washington City Paper, conspicuously omits any mention of the gunfire. Instead, it states: “The engine to the Dodge SUV revved and started advancing towards officers that were on foot and ultimately struck the rear of the Rav4. The driver and sole occupant of the Dodge SUV was removed from the vehicle and detained. The driver … was placed under arrest and transported to the 6th District Station for processing.”
Discrepancies in Official Accounts
This omission was not isolated. Officer Powell’s public incident report, detailing the same event, similarly contained no reference to the federal agent’s use of a firearm. The absence of such a critical detail in official documentation raises serious questions about transparency and accountability within law enforcement operations involving multiple agencies.
Broader Concerns Over Federal Deployments
The incident involving Phillip Brown and the subsequent alleged cover-up by a “team leader” resonate with a broader pattern observed in recent years. The deployment of federal agents to various American cities, often under the guise of restoring order, has frequently been criticized for a lack of clear oversight and accountability. Moreover, a consistent trend has emerged where criminal charges brought by these federal agents are often dismissed once they reach the courtroom, suggesting potential issues with evidence collection, procedural adherence, or the underlying justification for arrests.
This latest admission by an MPD officer underscores the urgent need for clarity and truthfulness in official reporting, particularly when federal agents are involved in incidents of potentially lethal force. The integrity of the justice system and public trust in law enforcement depend on comprehensive and accurate accounts of such events.
Source: The Guardian