U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington DC 20530 January 13, 2017 Honorable Rahm Emanuel Mayor City of Chicago 121 N. LaSalle Street Chicago City Hall, 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Re: Investigation of the Chicago Police Department Dear Mayor Emanuel: The United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois have completed their pattern or practice investigation into the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”). Our investigation was conducted pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. As a result of our investigation, we have concluded that we have reasonable cause to believe that CPD engages in a pattern or practice…

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PROVISIONS III. COMMUNITY POLICING AND ENGAGEMENT A. Community Engagement B. Neighborhood Policing Steering Committee C. Ferguson Youth Advisory Board and Apartment Neighborhood Group D. Community-Oriented and Problem-Solving Policing E. Community Mediation Program F. Ongoing Assessment and Improvement IV. REFORM OF THE FERGUSON MUNICIPAL CODE V. POLICIES AND TRAINING A. Policies Generally B. Training Generally VI. BIAS-FREE POLICE AND COURT PRACTICES A. Requirements of Bias-Free Policing B. Ongoing Assessment and Improvement VII. VOLUNTARY CONTACTS, STOPS, SEARCHES, CITATIONS, AND ARRESTS A. Voluntary Contacts: Social Contacts & Non-Custodial Interviews B. Investigatory Stops and Detentions C. Searches D. Citations and Arrests E. Stop Orders, or “Wanteds” F. Supervision G. Ongoing Assessment and Improvement VIII. FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY A. Right to Observe and Record B. Public Protests and Demonstrations C. Retaliation for First Amendment Activity Prohibited D. Supervision of First Amendment Related Arrests and Seizures…

Investigation of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Departmen U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division October 13, 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. BACKGROUND A. Orange County, California B. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department C. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office D. Events Leading to Our Investigation III. OUR INVESTIGATIONS IV. OCSD AND OCDA OPERATED A CUSTODIAL INFORMANT PROGRAM THAT REPEATEDLY DEPRIVED CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS OF THEIR SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTs A. The Sixth Amendment and Custodial Informants B. The Fourteenth Amendment and Discovery About Custodial Informants C. How the Custodial Informant Program Came to Light: People v. Scott Dekraai D. OCSD’s Special Handling Unit Took Primary Responsibility for Custodial Informant Activities E. As Part of the Informant Program, OCSD and OCDA Engaged in Investigative Strategies that Exacerbated the Risks of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendament Violations 1. OCSD repeatedly placed informants next…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF FERGUSON, Defendant. COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, the United States of America (“United States”), brings this civil action against Defendant, the City of Ferguson (“City”), under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. § 2000d. The City of Ferguson, through the Ferguson Police Department (“FPD”), the Ferguson Municipal Court, and the office of the City Prosecuting Attorney, engages in an ongoing pattern or practice of conduct, including discrimination, that deprives persons of rights, privileges and immunities secured and protected by the United States Constitution and federal law. Ferguson law enforcement officials conduct stops, searches, and arrests without legal justification, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; use excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; interfere…

Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Ohio December 4, 2014 The Honorable Frank G. Jackson Mayor City of Cleveland Cleveland City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 45114 Dear Mayor Jackson: The Department of Justice has completed its civil pattern or practice investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP” or “the Division”). We have concluded that we have reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We have determined that structural and systemic deficiencies and practices—including insufficient accountability, inadequate training, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community—contribute to the use of unreasonable force. Our investigation under the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C.§ 14141 (“Section 14141”) focused…

Special Litigation Section – PHB 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530 August 17, 2015 Via email Ellen Osoinach, Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Ste 430 Portland, OR 97204             RE:     Technical Assistance Regarding Crisis Intervention and Behavioral Health,   United States v. City of Portland, 3:12-cv-02265-SI Dear Ms. Osoinach: This letter provides technical assistance concerning crisis intervention and behavioral health policies, practices, and training of both the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) and the Bureau of Emergency Communications (BOEC).  This letter follows up on our visit to PPB on June 2324, 2015, conducted with counsel for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and our expert consultant Mark R. Munetz, M.D.[1]  While this letter provides technical assistance intended to assist the City of Portland (the City) in its efforts to implement certain terms of our Settlement Agreement in the above-listed case, this letter is not…

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA DJ No. 205-39-12 This settlement agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into between the United States of America and the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota (“Defendant”) on behalf of its Police Department (collectively, “the Parties”). This Agreement resolves a Complaint filed by the United States against Defendant under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117,and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”),42 U.S.C. § 2000ff – 2000ff-11, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, United States v. City of Minneapolis, No. _______ (D. Minn. [Date]) (hereinafter “Civil Action”). The Parties agree that it is in their best interest, and the United States believes that it is in the public interest, to voluntarily enter into this Agreement.  The Parties agree that there has been no adjudication…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT and CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND USE OF FORCE Use of Force Policies and Principles Reporting, Investigating and Reviewing Force Level 1 Supervisor Response Level 2 Supervisor Response Level 3 and 4 Uses of Force Level 5 Uses of Force Use of Force Committee/li> Use of Force Training ACCOUNTABILITY/li> Duties of Conduct and Reporting Misconduct and Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication Complaint Intake Process for Opening Investigations Investigation of Complaints Resolution of Complaints Training for Complaint Investigation Board of Police Commissioners Discipline TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNAL OVERSIGHT Data Collection and Analysis TRAINING Training Plan Field Training Program Training Development and Administration Documentation of Training SUPERVISION Duties and Training of First Line Supervisors Early Intervention System Performance Evaluations and Assignments Officer Wellness BODY WORN CAMERAS POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROTOCOLS IMPLEMENTATION, ASSESSMENT, OUTCOMES,…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT and CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. USE OF FORCE A. Use of Force Policies and Principles B. Reporting, Investigating and Reviewing Force C. Level 1 Supervisor Response D. Level 2 Supervisor Response E. Level 3 and 4 Uses of Force F. Level 5 Uses of Force G. Use of Force Committee H. Use of Force Training IV. ACCOUNTABILITY A. Duties of Conduct and Reporting B. Misconduct and Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication 1. Complaint Intake 2. Process for Opening Investigations 3. Investigation of Complaints 4. Resolution of Complaints 5. Training for Complaint Investigation 6. Board of Police Commissioners 7. Discipline V. TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNAL OVERSIGHT A. Data Collection and Analysis VI. TRAINING A. Training Plan B. Field Training Program C. Training Development and Administration D.…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS POLICE DEPARTMENT and CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS Defendants. COMPLAINT 1. The United States of America brings this action under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, against the Springfield Police Department and the City of Springfield to remedy a pattern or practice of excessive force by Springfield Police Department Narcotics Bureau officers that violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The United States is authorized to initiate this action against Defendants under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601. 3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 2201. 4. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendants…