“I strongly believe that good officers do not want to work in systems that allow bad practices. Good officers welcome accountability because accountability is an essential part of building trust with the community, and public safety requires public trust….Building trust between the community and law enforcement will take time and effort by all of us, but we undertake this task with determination and urgency, knowing that change cannot wait.”
-Attorney General of the United States Merrick B. Garland, April 21, 2022
Purpose
This dashboard is designed to provide users with information regarding federal Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and local and state government entities where there are underlying allegations of unconstitutional police practices.
The information in this dashboard is provided as a resource to users interested in learning about this unique form of police reform litigation. Law enforcement leaders may use this information to supplement their ongoing efforts to improve their practices. The dashboard includes information regarding the types of federal pattern-and-practice investigations involving law enforcement agencies, the reforms agreed upon in the civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements, and other information that can help promote meaningful discussion on police reform and organizational improvements.
Pattern or Practice Investigations and Civil Actions
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit State and local law enforcement officers from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct which violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of community members. (See 34 U.S.C. § 12601).
For example, attorneys in the Civil Rights Division are authorized to investigate local law enforcement agencies whose personnel are allegedly involved in using excessive force, conducting unlawful searches and arrests, or engaging in racial or disability discrimination, among other violations. In those cases, attorneys from the Division’s Special Litigation Section can gather evidence to determine whether officers have engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct and whether an agency has unlawful policies, inadequate training, or other deficiencies which contributed to the practice or pattern of systemic violations. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Department issues a report of its findings (sometimes referred to as a “Findings Letter”) and provides the local jurisdiction an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Department also invites the local jurisdiction to work with it to craft appropriate remedies to resolve the identified concerns. If the local jurisdiction and Department have agreed upon a set of reforms to address the alleged violations, they may enter into a Civil Consent Decree or an out-of-court Settlement Agreement as explained below.
Civil Consent Decrees
The Department may file a civil lawsuit seeking a judicial order to require the agency to change its policies, procedures, training or other deficiencies to ensure that the constitutional rights of its community members are protected. In cases where the Department can prove a pattern or practice of illegal conduct by a local or state agency, the parties may negotiate and enter into a formal agreement known as a civil Consent Decree (Consent Decree) which is entered as a court order and overseen by a local federal judge.
The Consent Decree identifies the particular reforms necessary to address the allegations of illegal conduct and an agreement by the local jurisdiction to implement the necessary changes. A court-appointed Independent Monitor measures and reports on progress in implementing the Consent Decree’s requirements and whether the local jurisdiction is in compliance. When the Court finds that the local jurisdiction has complied with the Consent Decree’s provisions, it may end the decree and the terms of the court’s order. If the Court finds that the local jurisdiction is in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree, the Court can find the jurisdiction in contempt and institute penalties.
Settlement Agreements
In some cases, rather than filing a lawsuit in federal court and entering into a Consent Decree, the Department and local jurisdiction may enter into an out-of-court Settlement Agreement. Unlike a Consent Decree, which is directly overseen by the court and an Independent Monitor, in a settlement agreement the parties assess the local jurisdiction’s compliance with the agreement without court involvement. If the local jurisdiction breaches the Settlement Agreement, the Department must file a lawsuit to enforce the agreement’s provisions in court.
Memoranda of Agreement (MOA)
In some cases, the Department may resolve a pattern-or-practice finding by entering into a “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) with the local jurisdiction enforceable in federal court as a contract between the parties. This typically occurs only when the issues to be addressed are relatively narrow and there is significant evidence that the jurisdiction has the capacity to accomplish and sustain the needed reforms without court oversight and can do within a reasonable time period. An MOA may also be a method to address specific issues when the Department does not find a pattern or practice which violates the law but there are problems that both the federal government and local jurisdiction are willing to work together to resolve through technical assistance, training or other methods.
While enforceable in federal court if the Department or local jurisdiction breaches the terms of the MOA, the MOA is not necessarily filed in court. Such agreements, however, may form the basis of the terms of a “Settlement Agreement” which is filed in Court but, unlike a Consent Decree, does not require ongoing Court involvement and oversight.
Technical Assistance (TA)
The Department often makes available technical assistance to the local jurisdiction to address issues identified during a pattern or practice investigation or after a Findings Letter has been issued. The technical assistance is provided through various components of the Department including the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which are separate from the Civil Rights Division, and considered complementary efforts to improve policing in local jurisdictions.
An agreement to provide Technical Assistance may be reflected in a Memorandum of Agreement, Settlement Agreement, or terms of a Consent Decree and do not require a Department finding of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct or violation of federal law.
Post-Judgment Order
A post-judgment order is typically when the court has entered judgment against local jurisdiction and then entered an order requiring the parties to perform a specific actions. These actions may include changes in policies, procedures, hiring practices, or other actions to address the violations found by the judge or jury.
Close Without Agreement
In cases where the Department does not find sufficient evidence of a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct or other violation of federal law, the local jurisdiction is notified and the case is closed without the necessity of a lawsuit, Consent Decree, or other agreement.
Pre-DOJ Investigation – refers to the time period before the DOJ opened an investigation into the agency
Investigation Period – refers to the time in which DOJ conducts a more detailed examination of the agency’s policies, procedures, and actual practices impacting on the areas in which there are allegations of misconduct.
Compliance Period – refers to the time during which the agency is required to perform the specific actions in the Consent Decree, MOA, settlement agreement, or post-judgement order and show compliance with its provisions
Post-Termination – refers to the time after a Court or the parties terminated the Consent Decree, Settlement Agreement, MOA, or other agreement between the parties to perform certain actions
In November 2012, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico opened an investigation into the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) in New Mexico. In April 2014, the Division issued a findings letter identifying a pattern or practice of excessive force, including deadly force. In late 2014, the parties entered into consent decree, which remains in effect.
Baltimore, MD
Yes
In October 2014, city and BPD leadership requested to enter a collaborative reform process with the DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS office). The Civil Rights Division opened a pattern-or-practice investigation in May 2015._x000D_
The Civil Rights Division announced its findings in August 2016. The Division found that BPD made stops, searches and arrests without the required justification; used enforcement strategies that unlawfully subjected African Americans to disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests; used excessive force; and retaliated against individuals for their constitutionally-protected expression. In January 2017, the Division and the City of Baltimore entered into an consent decree to resolve these findings. The agreement remains in effect.
Cleveland, OH
Yes
In August 2000, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) in Cleveland, Ohio. The Division and the City of Cleveland entered into a memorandum of agreement in 2004, which was terminated in March 2005. In March 2013, the Division opened a new investigation into CDP. In December 2014, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force, and raised concerns about search and seizure practices, resulting from insufficient accountability, inadequate training and equipment, flawed policies, and inadequate community engagement. In June 2015, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Detroit, MI
No
In May 2001, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Detroit Police Department (DPD). In March, April, and June 2002, the Division sent letters to DPD identifying areas in need of reform, including reporting and investigating uses of force, officer supervision and discipline, and arrest and detention policies. In July 2003, the court approved a consent decree between the Division and the City of Detroit (on the same day the Division and the City entered into a separate consent decree addressing a related investigation into the conditions of police lock-ups and holding cells). In August 2014, the court terminated the consent decree and the Division and the City of Detroit entered into a separate transition agreement under which the Division would continue to monitor DPD’s efforts to comply with certain provisions of the prior consent decree that had not yet been fully implemented. In March 2016, the Division found DPD in full compliance with the terms of the transition agreement and closed the case.
East Haven, CT
No
In September 2009, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the East Haven Police Department (EHPD) in East Haven, Connecticut. In December 2011, the Division identified a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing against Latinos, particularly in traffic enforcement. In December 2012, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Ferguson, MO
Yes
In September 2014, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) in Ferguson, Missouri. In March 2015, the Division identified a pattern or practice of unlawful stops and arrests, including violations of the First Amendment right to observe and record police activity; excessive force; and discriminatory policing. The Division further determined that FPD and the municipal court focused on revenue generation at the expense of public safety and constitutional law enforcement. In March 2016, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes
In August 2011, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Lancaster and Palmdale stations of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in California. In June 2013, the Division identified a pattern or practice of unlawful searches and seizures, discriminatory policing based on race, and unreasonable force. The Division also found a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act in April 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which remains in effect.
Los Angeles, CA
No
In July 2000, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In May 2000, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force and unlawful stops, searches and arrests linked to inadequate training, supervision, and accountability systems. In November 2001, the parties entered into consent decree. The consent decree terminated in July 2009, although a transition agreement between the Division and the City of Los Angeles remained in effect until May 2013
Maricopa County, AZ
Yes
In March 2009, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) in Phoenix, Arizona. In September 2010 the Division filed suit seeking to compel MCSO to provide information relevant to the Division’s investigation. In June 2011, MCSO settled that litigation by agreeing to provide information in response to the Division’s investigation. In December 2011, the Division identified a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing against Latinos; unlawful stops and arrests; and unlawful retaliation against people who make complaints or criticize MCSO. (The Division also made findings that MCSO failed to provide language access assistance to Latinx people incarcerated in MCSO jails.) In May 2012, after attempts to reach agreement were unsuccessful, the Division filed suit under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (then 42 U.S.C. § 14141). In June 2015, the court granted summary judgment in the Division’s favor on the discriminatory policing claim. In July 2015, the parties entered into a consent decree addressing issues concerning worksite raids and retaliation, and language access requirements in MCSO jails. The consent decree was terminated in 2019. Separately, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement regarding MCSO’s operation of local jails. In August 2015, the Division intervened in parallel private litigation, Melendres v. Arpaio, to enforce an injunction requiring MCSO to reform its discriminatory enforcement activities, which is currently ongoing.
Meridian, MS
No
In December 2011, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Meridian Police Department as part of a broader investigation into the administration of juvenile justice in Meridian, Mississippi. In August 2012, the Division identified a pattern or practice of arresting children in schools without probable cause. In September 2015, the parties entered into a consent decree, which terminated in 2022.
New Jersey State Police
No
In April 1996, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the New Jersey State Police (NJPD). In December 1999, the United States filed a complaint alleging a pattern or practice of unlawful traffic stops, searches and arrests, linked to inadequate policies and training, insufficient supervision, and inadequate systems of accountability. Simultaneously, the parties entered into a consent decree, which terminated in October 2009
New Orleans, LA
Yes
In May 2010, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD). The Division had previously opened an investigation into NOPD in June 1995, which closed in March 2004. In March 2011, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force; unlawful stops, searches and arrests; discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and LGBT status; and gender discrimination in the failure to adequately respond to and investigate violence against women. In January 2013, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Newark, NJ
Yes
In May 2011, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Newark Police Department in Newark, New Jersey. In July 2014, the Division identified a pattern or practice of unlawful stops, searches, arrests and seizures; discriminatory policing; excessive force; and theft by officers. The Division further identified concerns about gender bias in policing, discriminatory policing against members of the LGBTQ community, and failure to protect from harm in police lock-ups. In April 2016, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Pittsburgh, PA
No
In April 1996, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Pittsburgh Police Bureau (PPB). In January 1997, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force; unlawful stops, searches and arrests, linking these findings to insufficient accountability systems and failure to supervise officers. In April 1997, the parties entered into a consent decree. The consent decree was terminated in September 2002, with ongoing monitoring of a backlog of investigations of civilian complaints by the city’s independent auditor through 2005.
Portland, OR
Yes
In June 2011, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) in Oregon. In September 2012, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force against persons with mental illness. In 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement , which remains in effect
Prince George’s County, MD
No
In July 1999, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) in Maryland, focusing on its canine unit. In October 2000, the Division opened a second investigation into broader issues of use of force by PGPD. In January 2004, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) addressing the broader use of force issues and a consent decree addressing the use of canines, which was approved by the court in March 2004. The consent decree was terminated in March 2007 and the MOA was terminated in January 2009.
Puerto Rico
Yes
In July 2008, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Puerto Rico Police Department (now the Puerto Rico Police Bureau). In September 2011, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force, violations of the First Amendment right to observe and record police activity and unlawful searches and seizures resulting from inadequate policies, supervision, training, accountability, and community engagement. The findings letter also raised concerns about patterns of discriminatory policing. In July 2013, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Seattle, WA
Yes
In March 2011, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Seattle Police Department (SPD) in Washington. In December 2011, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force and raised concerns about racially discriminatory policing. In July 2012, the court approved the parties’ proposed consent decree, which remains in effect.
Springfield, MA
Yes
In April 2018, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts opened an investigation into the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department (SPD). In July 2020, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force by SPD’s Narcotics Bureau. In April 2022, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect.
Steubenville, OH
No
In September 1996, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Steubenville Police Department (SPD) in Ohio. In June 1997, the Division identified a pattern or practice of excessive force; unlawful stops, searches and arrests; and witness and evidence tampering linked to inadequate policies and training, insufficient supervision, and inadequate systems of accountability. In September 1997, the parties entered into a consent decree, which terminated in March 2005.
Virgin Islands
Yes
In March 2004, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD). In October 2005, the Division issued a letter identifying needed reforms to VIPD’s general policies and training; use of force policies, including those governing specific types of force; use of force reporting systems; use of force investigation and review; vehicle pursuits; conditions in police lock-ups and holding cells; internal complaint systems; officer disciplinary systems; and internal supervisions systems, including the creation of an early intervention system. In March 2009, the parties entered into a consent decree, which remains in effect
Warren, OH
No
In December 2004, the DOJ Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Warren Police Department (WPD) in Ohio focusing on use of force and strip-search practices. In January 2012, the parties entered into a consent decree. The consent decree was terminated in 2019
City:
Case Ongoing:
Summary:
Link to Federal Consent Decree:
Details with Summaries:
The table includes links to the Consent Decree documents and the details of 22 locations.
Please note that the information available on this site includes data compiled, analyzed, and summarized by the National Policing Institute using publicly-available records. The information presented on this site is neither an official compilation nor representation of the data by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sources:
Agency Identifying Information – Information was sourced from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Law Enforcement Agency Roster (LEAR), Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), and Police Employment (PE) data. This information was supplemented with open-source data collected by the Institute.
Agency Descriptive Information – Information was sourced from data collections conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including: (1) the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey, the (2) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA), and the (3) Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies (SCLEA).
Litigation Records – Information was sourced through a partnership with the University of Michigan's Law School, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (https://clearinghouse.net/about). The Clearinghouse uses a variety of methods to obtain litigation data. Routine searches of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service are used to identify new litigation, and updates to ongoing litigation which is then manually reviewed and coded. Information has also been further supplemented by using publicly available records on the USDOJ Civil Rights Division website as well as non-government sources.
The Consent Decree Database is a product of the National Policing Institute and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Department of Justice or any other government agency.
If you would like to request training and technical assistance to address any of the topics in this dashboard
