The Days of DOJ Consent Decrees are Numbered
The Days of DOJ Consent Decrees are Numbered
The means to end the federal overreach of law enforcement has arrived
What are Consent Decrees?
Consent decrees aren’t bad, rotten, or evil. Instead of a lawsuit demanding exclusively financial damages, consent decrees exist to address issues of discrimination or civil rights law violations by providing a plan to ensure these issues are systematically and permanently resolved. Consider an Americans with Disabilities Act complaint where accommodations are ignored or in compliance exists in a fashion that doesn’t adhere to the purpose of the law. Perhaps all the wheelchair spaces are the closest to the front door but on a severe grade and distant from an access ramp. It’s not criminal; it’s civil, which broadens the possibilities for resolution. In earnest consent decrees, the goal of the settlement is mutually beneficial and avoids the uncertainty of a civil trial.
Department of Justice Consent Decrees
The most visible presence of consent decrees are the settlements between municipal police agencies (and others) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Section 14141, a provision of the 1994 crime bill signed into law by President Clinton granted new authority to the DOJ to both investigate and sue law enforcement agencies for a ‘pattern and practice’ of unconstitutional policing where the agency was violating the civil rights of the citizens it was charged to protect.
The crime bill was passed during the crack cocaine epidemic and in the climate of the federal civil rights convictions of the officers involved in the Rodney King traffic stop who were previously acquitted in state court. The Democratic congressional black caucus was advocating fervently for sentence enhancements on crack cocaine convictions. It would be challenging to convince a young democrat voter of these recent policy stances.
First Consent Decree: Pittsburgh 1997
The City of Pittsburgh Police Bureau was the first victim of a DOJ consent decree. The ACLU and the NAACP played critical roles in creating the negative attention. Two cases were highlighted as benchmarks of bias in the bureau, however, only one was actually involving Pittsburgh officers. In that case, a black man fleeing in a stolen car was shot 44 times. Perhaps I’m insensitive, and I’m no expert on deadly force encounters, especially dynamic situations in the dark with armed suspects moving around, but when the suspect turns the situation into a life and death encounter with the police, there may be an extra bullet fired before the situation is brought under control. However, the second case occurred in the suburb of Brentwood, also with a black man who died of asphyxia in his encounter. The officers involved were charged, tried and acquitted.
As soon as the ink dried on the consent decree, the New York Times writes: ‘Sizing up the investigators, Chief McNeilly — dressed, as usual, in uniform — had one thought he could not get out of his mind: “There was nobody with any police experience.”’
Their agreement, thankfully had an end point in 2002, but following millions of general budget monies spent on now obsolete software and programs, and even today, there are accusation that the reforms ‘did not stick.’ The stain of a consent decree is permanent.
Consent Decrees have earned a bad reputation
Sensible reporters nationwide have united in the practice of calling out the failure of consent decrees in their cities. Increased crime, outrageous cost, lowered levels of service and enhanced retention and recruiting issues result in cities with demoralized officers and deficient staff.
Years ago, I knew of but didn’t fully understand the destructive nature of consent decrees until I found Bob Scales on LinkedIn.
“The only way out of a consent decree is to never agree to one in the first place. DOJ now has Minneapolis, Louisville and Phoenix in their crosshairs. If the Mayors of these cities agree to sign a consent decree, they will be handing over control of their police departments and their community's public safety to DOJ attorneys, federal judges and for-profit monitors. All it will take is for one city to say no to DOJ, and the entire consent decree house of cards will come crashing down.”
Dr. Travis Yates of
provided effective technical assistance to the officers who are organizing against a consent decree in Phoenix. Based on their efforts, the DOJ has dropped back a step, yet persisting to acquire an agreement where there is a degree of federal control over the Phoenix Police Department. We should all be assured that what was thought to be impossible recently, a rejection of intrusive (and incompetent) federal oversight, is now a sane and reasonable conversation.
“In Valor, there is Hope.”
Tacitus c. 56 AD
For the first time in 25 years, the threat of a lawsuit by the Department of Justice does not guarantee that a law enforcement agency will be placed under the thumb of the feds (and a huge number of monitors and vendors in an unholy financial relationship.) Departments and agencies can escape the inevitable toll of increases crime (including loss of life), taxpayer burden in the millions while staff leave at their first opportunity. My first description of consent decrees was to declare the agency racist and demand to increase diversity hiring. Let’s break that cycle!
My associates and I have means to put the threat of consent decrees into the dustbin of history so if you are ready to discuss how we intend to that please reach out at peaceofficer@substack.com. Let us know in the comments your experience with consent decrees in your city or county.
Please keep all our officers in your prayers!
References
The best as far as crime going up and monitors costing thousands.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/us/first-consent-decree-police-abuse-pittsburgh.html
Still, the negotiators groped their way to the first federal “consent decree,” an 83-paragraph court-enforced agreement in 1997 that turned Pittsburgh into a widely emulated model department — for a time, at least.
--
In March 1996, Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, learned about Section 14141 while preparing a class-action suit against the Pittsburgh police. He called the Justice Department and offered up his documents, which led to the federal investigation. The city was offered the chance to avoid a federal lawsuit if it agreed to make certain changes — a consent decree.
The Justice Department had a list of demands — for instance, that every passenger’s race and sex be recorded during traffic stops. Chief McNeilly protested, questioning the practicality and legality of such a requirement. In the end, only the driver’s information was tracked.
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/Pittsburgh_consent_decree.pdf
.