SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT United States Department of Justice and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. FOURTH AMENDMENT ACTVITY A. Arrests and Citations B. Investigatory Stops C. Documentation of Fourth Amendment Activities D. Supervision Regarding Fourth Amendment Activities III. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS A. Interrogations B. Documentation of Criminal Investigations C. Community Engagement IV. JAIL OPERATIONS V. POLICIES VI. TRAINING VII. ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT VIII. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING IX. OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS X. MONITORING AND REPORTING XI. AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION XII. DEFINITIONS I. INTRODUCTION 1. The United States (United States or DOJ) has conducted an investigation into the policies and practices of the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office (EPSO) under the authority granted by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 14141). At the conclusion of its investigation, on December 19, 2016, the United States issued a Report…

Investigation of the Ville Platte Police Department and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division December 19, 2016 INTRODUCTION After engaging in a thorough investigation, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that both the Ville Platte, Louisiana Police Department (“VPPD”) and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office (“EPSO”) have engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct.[1] Both VPPD and EPSO have arrested and held people in jail—without obtaining a warrant and without probable cause to believe that the detained individuals had committed a crime—in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. We have additional concerns that these unconstitutional holds have led to coerced confessions and improper criminal convictions. These findings reflect the results of an investigation into both agencies, which have engaged in nearly identical practices within overlapping jurisdictional boundaries. VPPD and EPSO have used…

Agreement in Principle Between The United States and the City of Baltimore Regarding the Baltimore City Police Department This Agreement in Principle (“Agreement”) between the United States and the City of Baltimore (the “City”) (collectively, “the Parties”) reflects the Parties’ commitment to work together and with the many communities that make up the City to ensure that the Baltimore City Police Department (“BPD”) delivers services in a manner that respects the rights of residents, increases trust between officers and the communities they serve, and promotes public and officer safety. Through this Agreement, the Parties commit to negotiate reforms to ensure sustainable, constitutional, and effective policing. The Parties will seek input on these reforms from the various constituencies that make up Baltimore, including residents, community groups, City leaders, local businesses, and BPD officers, to inform the negotiations The United States Department of Justice conducted an investigation pursuant to the Violent Crime…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff; v. POLICE DEPARTMENT OF BALTIMORE CITY and MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, Defendants. COMPLAINT The United States of America (“United States”) brings this action against the Police Department of Baltimore City and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The United States brings this action under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d (“Safe Streets Act”), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE   DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff; v. POLICE DEPARTMENT OF BALTIMORE CITY, et. al., Defendants. Civil Action No. ___ CONSENT DECREE     TABLE OF CONTENTS   INTRODUCTION Background COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT TASK FORCE COMMUNITY POLICING AND ENGAGEMENT Community Policing Community Engagement Community Engagement Assessments STOPS, SEARCHES, ARRESTS, AND VOLUNTARY POLICE-COMMUNITY INTERACTIONS Stops, Searches, Arrests, and Voluntary Police-Community Interactions Principles Voluntary Contacts Between BPD Officers and the Public Involuntary Investigatory Stops and Detentions (Non-Vehicle Stops) Vehicle Stops Searches Arrests Stops, Searches, and Arrests Training Supervisory Review of Stops, Searches, and Arrests Stop, Search, and Arrest Data Collection and Review IMPARTIAL POLICING RESPONDING TO AND INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE WITH BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DISABILITIES OR IN CRISIS BPD Crisis Intervention Behavioral Health Disability or Crisis Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting USE OF FORCE Use of Force Principles Policies on Officers’ Use of Force Training Reporting, Investigating…

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE VILLE PLATTE POLICE DEPARTMENT United States Department of Justice and the City of Ville Platte, Louisiana Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. FOURTH AMENDMENT ACTVITY A. Arrests and Citations B. Investigatory Stops C. Documentation of Fourth Amendment Activities D. Supervision Regarding Fourth Amendment Activities III. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS A. Interrogations B. Documentation of Criminal Investigations C. Community Engagement IV. JAIL OPERATIONS V. POLICIES VI. TRAINING VII. ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT VIII. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING IX. OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS X. MONITORING AND REPORTING XI. AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION XII. DEFINITIONS I. INTRODUCTION 1. The United States (United States or DOJ) has conducted an investigation into the policies and practices of the Ville Platte Police Department (VPPD) under the authority granted by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 14141). At the conclusion of its investigation, on December 19,…

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND Defendant. COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION 1. The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action against the City of Cleveland for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 2. The United States brings this action to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”), an agent of the City of Cleveland, that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 2201. 4. The United States is authorized to initiate this action under…

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant. Settlement Agreement TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST Community Police Commission District Policing Committees COMMUNITY AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING BIAS-FREE POLICING USE OF FORCE Use of Force Principles Use of Force Policies Firearms Electronic Control Weapons Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (“OC Spray”) Use of Force Training Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Reports Use of Force Investigations Investigations of Level 1 Uses of Force Investigations of Level 2 Uses of Force Force Investigation Team and Investigations of Level 3 Uses of Force Force Review Board CRISIS INTERVENTION Mental Health Response Advisory Committee Crisis Intervention Coordinator Crisis Intervention Training Specialized Crisis Intervention Trained Officers Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ACCOUNTABILITY Internally Discovered Misconduct Reporting Misconduct and Preventing Retaliation Investigation of Civilian Complaints The…

Investigation of the Louisville Metro Police Department and Louisville Metro Government United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Kentucky Civil Division March 8, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Louisville Metro Government and LMPD The Louisville Community Recent Events INVESTIGATION LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT AND THE LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT ENGAGE IN A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES 1. LMPD Uses Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment. a. LMPD Uses Dangerous Neck Restraints Against People Who Pose No Threat. b. LMPD Deploys Police Dogs Against People Who Pose No Threat and Allows Dogs to Continue Biting People After They Surrender. c. LMPD Uses Takedowns, Strikes, and Other Bodily Force Disproportionate to the Threat or Resistance e. LMPD Officers Unnecessarily Escalate Encounters, Leading to Excessive Force f. LMPD’s Weak Oversight…