At the end of May, Shadow Senator Paul Strauss suddenly decided to plead guilty to charges stemming from his drunk driving arrest. It was an interesting move considering that he had long fought the charges, even delaying his proceedings in D.C. Superior Court so he could hunt down an expert witness. The incident had proven to be quite an embarrassment for the city official---not just for the drinking-and-driving bust itself but for his conduct with the police (he showed off his senate ID; Third District cops were not impressed).

Strauss has not issued much in the way of a public apology for his conduct. There's been no teary press conference, no photo up with MADD. Other officials have at least gotten with the program and admitted their mistakes when caught over the legal limit (like this guy and this guy). He refused to return calls for comment at the time of his guilty plea. Nor had he offered much in the way of an explanation immediately following his arrest.

City Desk finally caught up with Strauss this afternoon. Strauss could not have been less interested in talking about his DUI guilty plea. Don't expect any Public Service Announcements from the Shadow Senator any time soon. This is a guy who wishes he could just blackout the whole incident.

When asked about how he felt about his guilty plea and his case being closed, Strauss replied: "We're putting it behind me and moving on."

City Desk: Was there any lesson learned?

Strauss: "That's really all....[rambling to the effect of a no comment]."

City Desk: What happened with the Expert Witness?

Strauss: “We just decided to put this behind me and move on. Thank you for your interest.”

The Shadow Senator then hung up.

After his guilty plea, we wrote:

Strauss received a 60-day suspended jail sentence, 11 months of supervised probation, a $300 fine, and $100 fine to be paid to the victims of violent crime compensation fund. As part of Strauss’ supervised probation, the shadow senator must “abstain from the use of hallucinatory or other drugs, and submit to drug testing….,” according to court documents.

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/17/paul-strauss-wants-to-move-past-drunk-driving-arrest/feed/ 7 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/01/shadow-senator-paul-strauss-pleads-guilty-to-dui/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/01/shadow-senator-paul-strauss-pleads-guilty-to-dui/#comments Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:03:52 +0000 Jason Cherkis http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=23141

Last Friday, Paul Strauss entered a guilty plea to his DUI charge in D.C. Superior Court. The guilty plea amounts to a swift change in tactics--some might suggest an erratic change---for the shadow senator. Strauss had maintained his innocence ever since his arrest on October 1, 2008. At a previous court hearing, his attorney successfully sought a delay for his trial until June; he had wanted the time to seek out an expert witness for his case. He had also previously rejected a plea offer.

So what's the upshot of Strauss' plea? The shadow senator has to now pee in a cup.

Strauss received a 60-day suspended jail sentence, 11 months of supervised probation, a $300 fine, and $100 fine to be paid to the victims of violent crime compensation fund. As part of Strauss' supervised probation, the shadow senator must "abstain from the use of hallucinatory or other drugs, and submit to drug testing....," according to court documents.

Strauss did not return a call for comment nor did he answer his cellphone when we called this afternoon.

All of Strauss' fighting seemed a bit off considering the police account of his behavior on the night of his arrest in Adams Morgan. City Desk previously reported:

"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."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

The Board of Real Property Assessment Appeals (BRPAA---pronounced "BURP-uh") has had its share of trouble over the years. The board came in for a harsh review last fall from D.C. Auditor Deborah K. Nichols, who wrote that longtime chair Paul Strauss had "provided a dubious level of service to residents and businesses of the District of Columbia." Earlier this year, the board was again subject to unflattering headlines when one member resigned, publicly citing mismanagement by interim chair Towanda Paul-Bryant. And then, news that tax appeals had cut city revenues by some $100 million led to widespread calls for BRPAA reform.

And reform is what they shall get. Attorney General Peter Nickles says he convened members of BRPAA and the city finance office earlier this month: "I said, you know this agency does not appear to me to be working."

One change is clearly aimed at improving the board's efficiency. Where previously appeals of any size were required to be heard by three-member panels, the new legislation says that appeals on individually owned residences or any other property assessed at under $3 million can be heard by a single board member. Panels of multiple members, under the proposal, can still be used in those circumstances if the owner and city agree to do so. The changes would certainly help the board, which has only 10 of 18 slots filled, move cases through the system.

But here's what is probably the most momentous and controversial change: Except for single-family residences, the city will be able to appeal the board's rulings in the same way that a property owner may: by petitioning the D.C. Superior Court. Under the current rules, the city is impotent to challenge a BRPAA ruling unfavorable to the city. This takes away a clear advantage the property owner has under the current system; under the proposal, in order to get a adjusted assessment, a property owner may be forced to spend much more time and money pursuing a favorable judgment through the courts. Nickles says that Maryland handles their cases the same way.

The proposed legislation also clarifies that the burden of proof lies on the owner to "demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment of the real property does not represent the estimated market value or that the classification of the real property is erroneous." It also streamlines various notice periods and deadlines in order to keep cases moving.

There is one proposal LL thinks everyone can get behind: The board will be statutorily required, for the first time, to post its decisions on the Internet---remedying a longstanding, widespread gripe about the board's operations.

Nickles says, if passed, this legislation might not be the end of BRPAA reform---he takes very seriously suggestions, most prominently from Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans, that the board should be professionalized---taking the decisions away from the current part-time members who make $50 an hour. "You can't just take a hit of a $100 million bucks and say, 'What happened here?'" he says. "It's unacceptable!"

The trial was scheduled for Monday morning in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Marisa J. Demeo, but alas, the drama must wait: Strauss' lawyer filed a motion Monday to postpone the trial. It's been rescheduled for June 3.

In her motion, attorney Claire Morris Clark argued that the city had been tardy with a discovery request---a review of which would be necessary "in order for Mr. Strauss to evaluate his trial strategy and decide whether to proceed to trial or consider attempting to reach a disposition in the matter." Once the discovery was provided on March 6, Strauss sought "potential expert witnesses," but none were available for Monday---thus the continuance request. The government did not oppose.

Clark declines to say what sort of expert witness her client expects to call: "Not going to tell you that just yet," she says.

"I think it's an important civil right for the residents of this city," said Steele, a native of Ward 4. "Having grown up here I understand how important it is to them."

And Steele pumped up the GOP's civil rights history: "We’ve always, as a party, been on the right side of that history so, hopefully, everybody will be there again.”

The bill is now clear for a vote on final passage, but landmines remain. Paul Strauss, one of two "shadow senators," says the worry now is that an opponent of the bill will introduce a divisive amendment that could scuttle the bill's passage. "They'll find something that folks from the more conservative states will have trouble voting against," he said. "Probably something on guns."

Steele was asked about the possibility of one of his fellow Republicans introducing such an amendment. "I haven't heard anything about that," he said. "Hopefully, it'll be a nice clean vote."

The drunk-driving case of Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss moved a bit further along today in D.C. Superior Court.

According to court records, a plea offer was rejected and a non-jury trial was set. The trial is scheduled for March 23, 2009 in courtroom 116.

Cheers.

Intangible Arts has a rundown of some crazy-ass show you missed. Let's focus on the first band:

"BLUE SAUSAGE INFANT: A deliberately short set this time (the audio file clocked in at exactly 13:13, how spooky). A brief sonic buildup followed by a large, stomping, improvised, freeform freakout of distorted electronics and tremolo-chopped wordless howling vocals. It was a childish tantrum of noise, soaked in psychedelic paranoia. It came back down to earth (more or less) with the pulsing Korg and looping chants. So far, the best description of modern-day BSI is "mean-spirited euphoria"... sounds about right."

Meanwhile at Black Plastic Bag, Intern Bobby has some great photos of this past weekend's Dan Deacon show.

The Heights Life is reporting that The Heights restaurant has changed its menu and slashed its prices.

Mount Pleasant still can't sustain a decent blog! Climbing The Mount hasn't posted since early August. Will its last post really be about selling your art at Tonic? Thanks to this blog for pointing it out.

Congress Heights On The Rise has a rundown of community events for the week.

Pop Cesspool invents some awesome new sign language.

Prince of Petworth responds to a reader question: Why didn't you write more about the recent series of shootings? PoP mentions City Paper's excellent coverage--thanks PoP--and then goes on to state something we've long believed. People obsess over crime too much!

PoP writes:

"But of course the real reason I didn’t post about each individual shooting was because I didn’t want to obsess about it. Believe me, I was very upset, frustrated, sad, all the emotions I feel after I hear about a shooting. (And I’ll gladly post anything that one thinks can help the situation).

But the thing is, when I write about shootings people obsess about it. I know that sounds harsh but I can’t count how many times people say Petworth is a crime filled slum or other such tripe after a shooting. The fact of the matter is that the shootings are devastating but number one, thankfully, they are not terribly common and two they don’t represent what day to day life is really like in Petworth for me."

Fair enough. We've made a decision to keep covering the Petworth shootings. Why? A) The shootings are still an under-reported event--we are learning more every day about them; B) Petworth residents seem to genuinely--not freakishly--be concerned about the shootings; and C) D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier promised a beefed-up police presence and attention to the shootings. We need to see if Lanier and the 4D cops are truly showing up and patrolling.

Last night we did some filming in Petworth--talking to residents, staking out one troubled corner and running into a surprising threat. The videos should be up today. So stay tuned.

Strauss sat in the front row with his attorney and listened to McCarthy's preamble.

"Is Unity Healthcare here yet?" McCarthy called out.

If anyone sitting before him, McCarthy explained, doesn't have healthcare, they should get with the Unity people when they arrive. "I think you'll be happy with the results if you take the time," McCarthy said.

McCarthy then mentioned the city's detox programs. If you want to get treatment, help is on the way. "We can have a van here within 20 minutes," McCarthy promised.

McCarthy went on to list job training programs and a mental-health clinic next door.

Strauss just sat in the front row. He did not take advantage of these opportunities. After 4.5 cases were called, Strauss got his opportunity to stand in front of McCarthy.

Strauss promptly pleaded not guilty to the charges stemming from his drunk driving arrest on Oct. 1. Strauss had basically refused comment on his case.

What did Strauss plead not guilty to?

Three charges--DWI, DUI, and "Operating While Impaired." Outside the courtroom, Strauss continued to not comment as he headed for the exits.

"I'm not going to comment on the court proceedings," Strauss said.

I then asked about his huge re-election victory. His lawyer broke in: "You'll have to go through the regular channel."

I gave Strauss a look. He stayed on message: "Political interviews really have to go through the...."

I must have called Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss more than a dozen times on Friday concerning his recent arrest for drunk driving. After LL broke the news, Strauss released a lame statement and generally hid from the press.

I gave him the weekend. He finally picked up his cellphone this morning. He immediately refused to comment on his arrest.

"We're getting ready for tomorrow," Strauss said. "I'm not really focusing on anything but that right now."

He then wanted to know why I was calling and where my reporting would end up. I told him it would end up on City Desk.

I asked if the news of his arrest was some kinda dirty trick. I got this rambling statement:

"Yeah. Look. Not going to comment means not going to comment. I just. You know. So. I don't mean to be rude. But. There's. I issued my statement. It's going to be a historic election. We're going to work for the democratic ticket. Happy to talk at another time. This is not a good time right now. We won't be giving any interviews until after the election. We won't be discussing the other thing until after the court date."

Strauss then went off the record to stamp out a rumor I had asked him about. I then felt I had to ask the elected official one more question.

Do you have a drinking problem? "Come on, Jason. I'm going to end this conversation now."

*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.