Michael Varco v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia, et al.

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”) provides victims’ rights that “crime victims,” under the Act, may enforce by filing a motion in the court “in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime, or if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), (d)(3). Conversely, D.C.’s Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights does not provide enforceable rights. D.C. Code § 23-1901(c). Here, no parties dispute that Petitioner is a “crime victim” under the CVRA and no charges have been filed for the crime that harmed Petitioner. Petitioner sued the Chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), asserting two rights under the CVRA. A D.C. Circuit panel dismissed the first lawsuit because the court decided the D.C. Court of Appeals was the proper appeals court for the case. In the second lawsuit, a D.C. Court of Appeals panel decided that the CVRA does not apply to the MPD. That CVRA interpretation leaves D.C. crime victims without enforceable victims’ rights against the MPD even though MPD officers often are the first officials that victims interact with after a crime. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a person harmed by a D.C. Code offense, who qualifies as a “crime victim” under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A), may assert rights under subsections (a)(1) and (a)(8) of the CVRA against the MPD Chief, in the Chiefs official capacity?

2. Whether CVRA obligations apply to the MPD Chief if no criminal prosecution is underway?