During a nighttime traffic stop that resulted in drunk-driving charges, Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss repeatedly brandished his U.S. Senate badge to police officers, court documents say.

The records also indicate that Strauss' blood-alcohol level was at twice the legal level of intoxication after his Oct. 1 arrest, which was first reported two weeks ago by City Desk. The details of the arrest come from a police officer's sworn affidavit [PDF; images below], which was recently filed in Superior Court.

Last week, Strauss pleaded not guilty at his first court appearance—two days after winning a third six-year term as shadow senator with over 80 percent of the vote. His office comes with few of the privileges enjoyed by full-fledged senators, but one perk he does have is official identification, which gives him access to members-only parts of the Capitol (but not the Senate floor).

The stop took place after D.C. cops Jose Rodriguez and Andrew Zabavsky clocked Strauss' car going 49 mph westbound over the Duke Ellington Bridge between Adams Morgan and Woodley Park; the speed limit is 25 mph.

While speaking to Strauss, Rodriguez—who gave the affidavit—noted that his breath smelled of alcohol and that he "had a blank stare, blood shot eyes and appeared confused." Strauss had "difficulty retrieving" his driver's license, according to the officer's account, but he had less difficulty producing another form of identification: While handing over his license, Strauss "displayed his US Senate ID with his right hand...[and] continued to hold the US Senate ID the entire time" until he was told to get out of the car.

"Is this necessary?" Strauss asked.

It became immediately apparent why he might have wanted to remain seated: Strauss, Rodriguez wrote, was "very unsteady on his feet...swaying from side to side and back and forth." He walked to the rear of the car, grasping it for support, and again pulled out his Senate ID.

His badge did not sway police.

The cops had Strauss perform standard field sobriety tests. After failing a horizontal gaze test, Strauss asked permission to call his lawyer, whom he wasn't able to reach. After he refused to cooperate with further tests, he was placed under arrest.

Strauss was then taken to 3rd District headquarters. There he was observed by a third officer, who also recorded signs of intoxication and noted that Strauss "had food stains on his shirt and pants."

At that point, Strauss reached the lawyer, and the two talked for about a half-hour. Afterward, Strauss consented to a breath test, which revealed a blood-alcohol level of 0.16 percent. Under District law, a person is considered intoxicated at 0.08 percent and above.

Strauss declined to comment on Thursday night, referring questions to his attorneys at Schertler & Onorato. Lawyer Dave Schertler issued this statement:

"Because this matter is currently pending in Court, we cannot comment on the specifics of Mr. Strauss’ case at this time other than to note that we dispute some of the factual allegations in the Affidavit.  We await the swift and favorable resolution of this matter in Court, and Mr. Strauss looks forward to continuing to serve the people of the District of Columbia in this new term."

During the traffic stop, Zabavsky asked Strauss where he had come from.

"Adams Morgan," he said.

Zabavsky asked him to be more specific. At a restaurant?

Strauss replied, "What do you want me to give you, an exact address?"

The cop then asked the shadow senator how much he'd had to drink.

"Nothing," Strauss said.

—Jason Cherkis and Mike DeBonis

Click images to enlarge

Strauss Gerstein Page 1

Strauss Gerstein Page 2

It's been approximately 23 hours since LL contacted Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss for comment on his Oct. 1 drunk driving arrest. After LL left a message on his cell phone, Strauss texted back: "What?" LL replied, "Obtained court docs today regarding oct 1 arrest. Want to get your side." No response ever came.

Since then LL has left several messages on his cell phone and at his law office, before and after the item was posted this morning. A person answering the phone at his law office says a written statement was forthcoming earlier this afternoon, but still nothing has arrived.

You've got LL's number, senator!

UPDATE, 5:05 P.M.: Hamil Harris at the Post got him on the phone earlier today, however briefly. He said: "I can't comment at this time because it is pending in court, but I do expect that this matter will be resolved favorably in court," Strauss said. Incidentally, there is no law saying you can't answer questions about a pending court case—whether you're standing for election or not.

UPDATE, 5:35 P.M.: Strauss responds to LL in an e-mail: "Because this matter is currently pending before the Courts, I can not comment on anything at this time. I expect that this matter will be resolved favorably in Court, and I look forward to continuing to serve the people of the District of Columbia in the future."

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

The arrest took place on the 2000 block of Calvert Street NW, on or near the Duke Ellington Bridge between Woodley Park and Adams Morgan. Records contain few further details regarding the circumstances of the arrest.

Strauss, an attorney by trade, was charged with driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated, and operating while impaired—three offenses with different definitions under District law, yet routinely charged together after drunk-driving arrests. According to the court documents, this is the first time Strauss has been charged with DWI. He is due to be arraigned on Thursday, Nov. 6.

It's not his first arrest, though. In July 2005, he was detained on a disorderly conduct charge after "confronting officers as they arrested another man," according to a contemporary account. Regarding that arrest, Strauss told a previous LL, "I was just trying to be helpful," Strauss says. "I was asking basic questions like 'Where are you taking him?'"

Strauss, a Democrat, is seeking, and is likely to win, a third six-year term in next Tuesday's election. LL left a phone message for him last night; Strauss sent a text message in response asking about the nature of the inquiry. LL sent a text message back telling Strauss he was asking about the Oct. 1 arrest. No response came.

Readers may wonder: Why is LL breaking this story a month after the incident in question and days before the election? That's because LL was informed of the court proceeding by an anonymous tipster on Wednesday. Strauss' name had been entered into the Superior Court docket system as "STRAVSS," which would have foiled any earlier attempts at due diligence.

With the help of friends and D.C. Libertarians, he got his name on the ballot. Now he's in negotiations with Strauss to hold a debate. Strauss seems willing to cooperate. In August, he told the City Paper he would participate in a battle of words with Ober if the whippersnapper got himself on the ballot. Updates can be found here.

It was all boring stuff, no doubt. So LL is tickled to note that someone noticed.

Yesterday, Robert Kabel, chair of the D.C. Republican Committee, dispatched a letter to the OSC asking them about the special case of Paul Strauss. The alleged conflict lies in Strauss' concurrent service for the past decade as an elected partisan "shadow senator" and as chair of the city's Board of Real Property Assessment Appeals, aka BRPAA (pronounced "BURP-uh," FYI).

That, in light of LL's disclosure of the Griffis letter, raises this issue: "The positions of Chair of [BRPAA] and Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals are analogous. The Mayor appoints members of both Boards with the advice and consent of the Council. Both officials are paid on a per diem basis by the D.C. Government. If OSC found that the Hatch Act applies to Mr. Griffis' position, it would also seem logical that it applies to Mr. Strauss' position."

Strauss says that the OSC has already ruled on the matter. The issue, he says, first came up in 2006, amid his run for the Ward 3 council seat. At the time, the OSC rendered an opinion that his service in elective office and his service to BRPAA are not incompatible.

Kabel's letter asks that the OSC release both the Griffis letter and the 2006 Strauss letter. It does not ask for an additional review of the matter.

OSC spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi says that his office will not release the letters, as they are "advisory opinions" narrowly focused, rather than decisions dealing with a broader scope of law. "They're just FYIs to interested parties," he says.

The 2006 Strauss decision still holds, he says, because there was a differing interpretation of the types of service each board position entails. In the OSC's analysis, he says, the BZA head serves on a regular basis than the BRPAA head, who is forbidden from political activity only while discharging his board duties.

Why would the Republicans be pressing the issue? Strauss is running for re-election as a Democrat on Nov. 4; he has Republican competition, in Nelson Rimensnyder.

In any case, Strauss says, he's nearing the end of his BRPAA service. His term expired in July and he has not requested reappointment by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. Whenever Hizzoner gets around to naming a replacement, he says, he's out.

The GOP letter is pasted after the jump.

September 29, 2008

Scott J. Bloch, Esq., Special Counsel
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, NW, Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036-4505

RE: REQUEST SPECIAL COUNSEL TO RELEASE HATCH ACT DECISIONS INVOLVING D.C. APPOINTEES AND POLITICAL CANDIDATES

Dear Mr. Bloch:

Paul Strauss, District of Columbia, Shadow Senator, is presently campaigning for reelection, having won the Democratic nomination for this position in the September 9 primary. He is also the Chairman of the Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals. Occupancy of both positions may put him in violation of the Hatch Act. A recent decision, reported in the media, by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in the case of another District of Columbia appointee, former Board of Zoning Adjustment Chairman Geoffrey Griffis will most likely clarify the situation regarding Mr. Strauss. Further, Mr. Strauss has publicly claimed that OSC previously exonerated him of any Hatch Act violations. Presumably, your office rendered a written decision.

It is in the public interest for the Office of Special Counsel to make public now any decisions your office has made in regard to these two District of Columbia officials.

Mr. Strauss is completing his second six year term as Shadow Senator. He has also been a member of the Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals for, at least 10 years, having been first appointed to the Board by former D.C. Mayor Marion S. Barry, Jr.

According to a recent article in the Washington City Paper, Loose Lips column, an attorney for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Hatch Act Unit, determined that in the case of a Geoffrey Griffis, former chair of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, "… '[M]embers of the BZA, including the Chairman, are covered by the Hatch Act,'…" The attorney was identified as Mariama Liverpool. This article was posted by Mike DeBonis on July 30, 2008. This article can be found online at the City Paper Website at www.washingtoncitypaper.com.

Further, at a recent political forum on September 5, at the David A. Clarke School of Law, Mr. Strauss, in response to a question from the audience regarding the issue of a possible Hatch Act violation, said that this issue was brought to the attention of OSC, some years ago, and he was cleared.

The positions of Chair of the Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals and Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals are analogous. The Mayor appoints members of both Boards with the advice and consent of the Council. Both officials are paid on a per diem basis by the D.C. Government. If OSC found that the Hatch Act applies to Mr. Griffis' position, it would also seem logical that it applies to Mr. Strauss' position.

Unfortunately, there has been no public disclosure by OSC of either purported decision.

However, it should be evident that it is in the public interest that any such decisions involving appointed and elected officials be made public. The Mayor needs the decisions to guide him in making appointments, and the Council needs them in exercising its "advice and consent" powers in approving mayoral appointees. Further, the public needs the decisions in evaluating the fitness of a candidate to be elected to a partisan political office.

It is my understanding, that it is a matter of policy for the Office of Special Counsel not to release the full text of its decisions to the public in order to protect the privacy of alleged violators. But, the Office of Special Counsel has also indicated that this is only the "default position" of the Office. OSC does make exceptions to the default position, as the following case illustrates:

In the matter of Kelvin J. Robinson, Chief of Staff of former D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who was publicly faulted for violating the Hatch Act, in 2002, the OSC issued a press release, dated July 12, 2004, saying it was filing a complaint for disciplinary action against him. The press release quotes you as saying,

"This Office will prosecute Hatch Act violations in an even handed and vigorous fashion. As we enter the 2004 national election cycle, it is important for all Hatch Act covered employees to be well aware of its provisions, which include prohibitions on partisan candidacy, coercion of partisan support and engaging in political activity while on duty." (Emphasis added)

On March 21, 2005, OSC issued another press release stating that because Mr. Robinson announced his voluntary resignation as Chief of Staff on July 7, 2004 and agreed not to seek or accept employment with the District for a period of two years, in return, "…OSC moved to dismiss its complaint against Mr. Robinson." Both these press releases are to be found on your Website, at www.osc.gov.

If it is as you stated in the above press release that "it is important for all Hatch Act employees to be aware of its provisions" is not it equally, if not more important, that the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Council be aware of the Office of Special Counsel's decisions regarding government appointees?. Further, does not the public have an equal right to know OSC's decisions regarding partisan political candidates for office?

Certainly, the public's right to good government trumps the right of privacy of public officials. Indeed, it should be evident that public officials, whether elected or appointed, have no right to privacy with regard to what they do in their public lives. The Office of Special Counsel should not be withholding its decisions regarding public officials and their public activities. OSC owes the public transparency and accountability in reporting its decisions. Principals of good government dictate that the decisions be released, immediately

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that there is nothing in law prohibiting OSC from making public its decisions. And as has been previously laid out, it is definitely in the public interest for OSC to release any decisions it has made regarding Mr. Griffis and Mr. Strauss, immediately. Further, Mr. Strauss has waived any possible, so called privacy rights by publicly stating that he was exonerated by OSC. In fact, his statement was recorded by the local radio station WPFW and was subsequently broadcast to the public in a program about the political forum.

Again, I request that you, as Special Counsel, release to the public, by posting on your Website, any decisions the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has rendered with regard to Hatch Act violations by Paul Strauss and Godffrey Griffis. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.

Respectfully yours,

Robert J. Kabel, Chairman
District of Columbia Republican Committee

Late Wednesday, LL's endorsements for the Sept. 9 primary were posted on this Web site. In them, regarding the Democratic shadow senator race, he gave a chilly endorsement to incumbent Paul Strauss, declining to endorse challenger Philip Pannell due to "his record of quitting in a huff every organization he's ever joined."

That was an exaggeration and a reference to Pannell's oft-deployed sense of outrage, which has led in recent years to his separation from groups including D.C. Vote (over Eugene Dewitt Kinlow's decision to depart the shadow race), D.C. for Democracy (over a lack of Ward 7 representation among Barack Obama delegates), and the D.C. Democratic State Committee (leading to claims that he was "riding into the sunset" and "done with local politics"). Those are all groups that a shadow senator needs to have effective working relationships with.

Early Thursday morning, while LL was sleeping, Pannell called and left a voice mail. In the morning, when he listened to the message, he heard Pannell in full bloom of outrage, with the Anacostia activist saying he would cease any further communications with LL or City Paper.

LL tried to mend fences with an e-mail, but he received in reply, "What you did goes beyond politics and is nothing more than the destruction of my reputation. You publicly degraded me. Please, please cease any further communication with me."

As easy as it would be to ascribe such a reaction to that oft-deployed sense of outrage, Pannell has a point.

Pannell has earned better than the one-sentence slam LL dished out. Here's a guy who has labored tirelessly for decades advocating for east-of-the-river causes, the gay community, and good governance among dysfunctional local Democrats. He's attended innumerable neighborhood meetings, shown up at just about every political event, and organized countless protests, all with little remuneration. That deserves more respect than what he got from LL this week.

LL isn't going to change his recommendation—he still thinks Kinlow, with his unmatched record on voting-rights advocacy, would have been the best choice for the job.

But Pannell's record isn't something to be mocked; he has done too much good and has been a pain in the asses of too many people who deserve it. Pannell needs to keep doing what he does—cataloging those east-of-the-river snubs and hammering the Nationals on their gay-rights record, for instance—but the shadow senator seat is not the place to do it.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Panettiere is buds with Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss, whom she met earlier this year while lobbying Congress on saving the whales. She taped a short YouTube voting-rights PSA with Strauss at the time.

More to come.

UPDATE, 12:24 P.M.: Strauss, moments ago, promised LL there would be two additional big name "Hollywood guests." He has printed up hand cards advertising the shindig.

UPDATE, 12:38 P.M.: LL's aggressive coverage of this issue continues. Shadow Sen. Michael D. Brown reports one of the as-yet-unnamed guests was in Officer and a Gentleman and the other was in the West Wing. And, he says, there's a fourth possible guest "bigger than the other three combined," but that's not confirmed yet.

UPDATE, 2:21 P.M.: The fourth big shot? Dan Rather! He hasn't shown yet, but he is said to be on the way. Brown reports he will accompany Rather to Mile High Stadium tonight for Barack Obama's acceptance speech.

UPDATE, 3:19 P.M.: Hayden is in the house, just delivered her remarks. The other celebs are David Keith of An Officer and a Gentleman and The Great Santini, and Melissa Fitzgerald from West Wing. No Debra Winger! Dan Rather is due within minutes.

"I did not have the time to put into an effective citywide campaign," Brannum told LL, citing a need to stay "close to home in Ward 5." Collecting the hefty 2,000-signature requirement for nominating petitions, he says, was not an issue.

That leaves Ward 8 activist Phil Pannell as the lone remaining challenger to Strauss for the Democratic shadown senator nomination. Brannum says he's throwing his support, such as it is, to Pannell, citing a need for "someone who is able to bring a new dynamic to the cause."

Brannum's electoral ambitions have not been completely foiled: He told LL he's planning a run for the State Board of Education, against incumbent Lisa Raymond for the nonpartisan seat representing Wards 5 and 6.

UPDATE, 2:44 P.M.: Brannum won't be challenging Raymond, actually—the makeup of the board changes next year, with one member elected from each ward plus an at-large member, rather than the current hybrid of mayoral appointees and elected members from two-ward districts. Raymond, who lives in Ward 6, is planning to run for that ward's spot, LL assumes.

LL was at the Board of Elections and Ethics' door bright and early this morning, and the scuttlebutt was soon flying that Kinlow would be filing. LL didn't see him before leaving around noontime but was able to reach Kinlow at his office at D.C. Vote this afternoon; he says he plans to pick up his ballot petitions before the end of the day.

Kinlow isn't the only one challenging Strauss; Ward 5 rabble-rouser Robert Vinson Brannum was in shortly after 9 a.m. to pick up his petitions for the Democratic primary. Longtime activist Nelson Rimensnyder also showed to file for the Republican primary.

Kinlow brings a lot more cred to his campaign against the 12-year incumbent than the others; he's outreach director for the District's most prominent voting-rights organization, is a member of one of D.C.'s most prominent political families, and has close ties to the local Democratic organization.

"I think that first of all, I've got a lot of interest in all things Washington D.C.; I've been interested in voting rights and statehood all my life," Kinlow says explaining his decision to run.

Kinlow says he and Strauss are good friends—a relationship that goes back to their college years—but he says it's time for a change in the shadow ranks. "He's had 12 years to do what he can do," Kinlow says. "I think I can do more. I think can do a better job."

Cinch that tie up, next time, Senator.

(BTW, I'm getting really good at spelling "Hayden Panettiere.")

The footage was shot back in January, Strauss says, when Panettiere was in town to lobby Congress on whaling issues. Strauss met her at the Barack Obama rally on Jan. 28.

"She was lobbying the Senate on whale issues as part of her Save the Whales campaign....I assured her that she would get my vote, but, hey, I don't get one." Over lunch in the Senate dining room, Strauss says, he explained "what I could do for whales and how much more I could do if I got a vote....She saw the injustice and agreed to help us out."

Lucky for Strauss, a camera crew documenting Panettiere's whale work was following her around and they agreed to shoot a quick PSA after their lunch.

But why wait until less than a week before tax day to drum up support for a tax-form check-off?

Strauss says getting a hold of the tape was a bit tricky: "The guy who had the footage was out on a boat chasing whales in the Dominican Republic....He was tough to track down."