Legislation and Litigation

United States v. City of Buffalo

Citation: Memorandum of Agreement (2002)

Parties: United States, City of Buffalo; New York and the Buffalo Police Department; Police Benevolent Association, Inc.; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 264

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §14141

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: negotiated Memorandum of Agreement

Facts and Holding: The DOJ began an investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 against the city of Buffalo regarding the Buffalo Police Department’s use of chemical agent propellant (“CAP”) spray. At the time of the investigation, the DOJ found that Buffalo Police Department officers were engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force and the improper use of CAP spray.

Terms of Settlement: On September 19, 2002, the city of Buffalo entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. to establish management practices by the City and the Buffalo Police Department that promote the lawful use of CAP spray, specifically in the areas of: Training, Management and Supervision, Complaint and Investigation Process, Reviewer, and Compliance.

Other:

United States v. City of Columbus

Citation: CA No. C2-99-1097 (S.D.Ohio 2001)

Parties: United States Department of Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, City of Columbus, Columbus Police Department

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §14141

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: dismissed

Facts and Holding: The DOJ commenced an investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city of Columbus, alleging that the city and the law enforcement office of Columbus have engaged in a practice of racial profiling and using excessive force against minority citizens at a higher rate than against non-minority citizens. A summary of some of the DOJ's arguments can be found in their brief opposing a motion to dismiss the suit. In September 2002, the Department of Justice accepted a proposal by Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman that included a promise to implement significant changes and improvements to the police department's policies and procedures in exchange for the DOJ agreeing to have the suit dismissed without prejudice.

Other:

United States v. City of Los Angeles

Citation: Civil No. 00-11769 (C.D.Cal. 2000)

Parties: United States, City of L.A., Board of Police Commissioners, LA. Police Dept.

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §14141

Posture: negotiated consent decree

Facts and Holding: Following an investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department, the City and its officials are enjoined from engaging in patterns or practices that deprive persons of rights, priviliege, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Terms of Settlement: The specific provisions relating racial profiling in the consent decree are the prohibition of discriminatory behavior on the basis of race and the requirement that LAPD officers complete a written or electronic report for each motor vehicle or pedestrian stop by November 1, 2001.

Other:

United States v. City of Pittsburgh

Citation: Civil No. 97-0354 (W.D. Pa. 1997)

Parties: United States, City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, Department of Public Safety

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §14141, 42 U.S.C. §3789(d)

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: negotiated consent decree

Facts and Holding: The DOJ brought action against the City of Pittsburgh under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and U.S.C. § 3789(d) upon finding the (1) use of excessive force, false arrests, improper searches and seizures; (2) failure to investigate complaints properly; (3) failure to discipline officers adequately; and (4) failure to supervise officers. The DOJ found that from at least 1990 to the time of the investigation, the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police officers have engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct that subject individuals to uses of excessive force, false arrests, and improper searches and seizures. Defendants have tolerated this conduct through their failure to supervise, train, investigate, and discipline police officers adequately. On April 16, 1997, the United States entered into a consent decree with the City of Pittsburgh.

Terms of Settlement: The consent decree addresses the areas of: Management and Supervision; Community Relationships; Training; Complaint and Investigation Process; Auditor; and Compliance.

Other: Based on the City’s compliance or non-compliance with certain consent decree provisions, the court issued a stipulated order on September 30, 2002, that revised specific sections of the original consent decree.

United States v. District of Columbia

Citation: Memorandum of Agreement (2001)

Parties: United States Department of Justice, District of Columbia, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §14141

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: negotiated Memorandum of Agreement

Facts and Holding: The DOJ began an investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 of the District of Columbia regarding a pattern or practice of use of excessive force by the Metropolitan Police Department, specifically in the areas of: (1) a use of excessive force, (2) an under-reporting of force, (3) a poor quality of use of force investigations, (4) poor practices regarding the use of canines in a “find and bite” policy, (5) an inappropriate force tracking system, (6) an inadequate complaint system, (7) a deficient use of force training, and (8) an inadequate disciplinary system. The DOJ reviewed reported use of force from 1994 through early 1999. The DOJ found that during the period investigated, Metropolitan Police Department officers have engaged in deficient policies, practices, or procedures in the areas of force policies, training, supervision, and disciplinary systems. On June 13, 2001, the DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Department.

Terms of Settlement: The Memorandum of Agreement includes the following provisions: Use of Force Policy Requirements; Incident Documentation, Investigation, and Review; Receipt, Investigation, and Review of Misconduct Allegations; Discipline and Non-Disciplinary Action; Personnel Performance Management System; Training; Specialized Mission Units; Public Information; and Monitoring, Reporting, and Impleme5ntation.

Other: On September 30, 2002, the parties entered into a joint modification of the original Memorandum of Agreement based on the Metropolitan Police Department’s failure to meet timelines specified in the Memorandum of Agreement.

United States v. Highland Park (IL)

Citation: Case No. 00-C-4212 (2001)

Parties: United States, City of Highland Park

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. § 198828 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: negotiated consent decree

Facts and Holding: Two individual plaintiffs, Michael Ledford and Karen Lynn Ledford, alleged individually and on behaf of a class that defendant had maintained policies, practices, and customs that involve racial profiling. On July 27, 2000, the court certified a plaintiff class based upon allegations in the complaint. On October 5, 2000, the City of Highland Park entered into a consent decree with the plaintiffs as well as others in the plaintiff class. The DOJ began an investigation of similar practices as were alleged in the private plaintiffs' suit. At the time of the investigation, the policies, practices, and customs of the Highland Park Police Department were found to target persons on the basis of race or ethnicity for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches. On July 11, 2001, the DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Highland Park that incorporated the terms of the Ledford Consent Decree.

Terms of Settlement: The Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. that resolved the DOJ’s investigation of allegations of discrimination in the provision of law enforcement services by the Highland Park Police Department in the areas of race; incident documentation; video and audio equipment; supervision; civilian complaints; training; record inspections; and dispute resolution.

Other:

United States v. Montgomery County (MD)

Citation: Memorandum of Agreement (2000)

Parties: United States, Montgomery County; Montgomery County Department of Police; Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc.

Claims / Causes of Action: Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: negotiated Memorandum of Agreement

Facts and Holding: The DOJ began investigating the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) in response to a complaint (number 171-13-53) filed with DOJ by the Montgomery County Chapter of the NAACP alleging that officers of the MCPD engage in racially discriminatory conduct. The DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Montgomery County, Maryland, the Montgomery County Department of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., on January 14, 2000.

Terms of Settlement: The Memorandum of Agreement covered areas of: Policy Requirements, Traffic Stop Documentation and Review, Community Relationships, Complaint and Investigation Process, Training, Oversight, Reporting and Recordkeeping, and Implementation.

Other:

United States v. State of New Jersey

Citation: Civil No. 99-5970 (MLC) (no reported decisions) (D.N.J. 1999)

Parties: United States, State of New Jersey, Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §14141, 42 U.S.C. §3789d

Posture: negotiated consent decree

Facts and Holding: The complaint filed by the Department of Justice alleges a pattern or practice of conduct by troopers of the New Jersey State Police that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. On 30 December 1999, the parties filed a joint application for the entry of a consent decree. Information on the ongoing implementation of the consent decree, including the Consent Decree, the State Progress / Status Summary Reports, the Independent Monitors' Reports, and the State Police Review Team Reports, can be found on the Department of Law and Public Safety website devoted to that purpose.

Other:

United States v. Village of Mount Prospect (IL)

Citation: Memorandum of Agreement (2003)

Parties: United States, Village of Mount Prospect

Claims / Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. §14141, 42 U.S.C. §3789d(c)

Remedies Sought: Injunction

Posture: negotiated Memorandum of Agreement

Facts and Holding: The DOJ began an investigation of the Village of Mount Prospect under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c). The investigation came in response to a letter sent by the U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo, in which he referred to allegations of discriminatory treatment of Hispanics raised during an employment discrimination case in his court. At the time of the investigation, the Mount Prospect Police Department was found to have engaged in a pattern or practice an excessive use of force that discriminated against individuals based on race, color, national origin, or ethnicity. The United States entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Village on January 22, 2003.

Terms of Settlement: The Memorandum of Agreement covers the areas of: Policy Requirements and Related Procedures, Documentation, Supervision, Community Relationships, Training, Oversight, Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Implementation.

Other: