cale a introduction. Discussion Board #1: DOJ At Review the Department of Justice (DOJ) Law Enforcement Case Summaries (attached) and select one agency to study. Review the case summary for your agency and then locate the full DOJ report. After reading the full report, prepare a summary of the investigation and identify the three (3) most important findings from the investigation. Explain how these issues emerged and/or persisted, then examine the impact of these issues on the police and the community they serve. Identify the DOJ recommendations for remediation of each of the 3 key findings. Consult the additional materials (e.g. injunctions, consent decrees, compliance reports/assessments, etc) to determine how the agency responded to the recommendations. Your initial post is due by 9:00 P.M. on 1/20. Peer responses are due by 9:00 P.M. on 1/23.CUE-Spring 2024 CJ-485-51-4242 Course readings DOJ Law Enforcement Investigations Alternative formats Case Summaries as of January 2024 All Chicago Police Department Return to Cases/Matters page. Cleveland Division of Police In March of 2013, following a series of highly-publicized use-of-force incidents that suggested critical flaws exist in use-of-force policies, procedures, and practices within the Cleveland Division of Police ("CDP"), in Cleveland, Ohio, we opened an investigation pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that focused on CDP's use of force, including deadly force. The investigation, which concluded in December 2014, revealed that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We also determined that structural deficiencies and practices, including insufficient accountability, inadequate training and equipment, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community, contribute to CDP's use of excessive force. To address these findings, in May 2015, the Justice Department and the City of Cleveland entered into a court-enforceable agreement, overseen by an independent monitoring team, that requires CDP to implement widespread reforms that focus on building community trust; creating a culture of community and problem-oriented policing; improving officer safety, training, and accountability; and implementing technological upgrades. Executive Summary of Findings Letter (2014, English) | Executive Summary of Findings Letter (2014, Spanish) | Statement of Principles (2014) | Request for Information (2015) | Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (2015) | Orders Approving Consent Decree (2015) | First Semiannual Monitoring Report (2016). | Biennial Community Survey Report (2016) | Second Monitoring Report (2017) | Third Monitoring Report (2017) Fourth Monitoring Report (2018) | Fifth Monitoring Report (2018) | Sixth Monitoring Report (2019) | Seventh Monitoring Report (2019) Return to Cases/Matters page. East Haven Police DepartmentCase Summaries as of January 2024 At Keport (ZU10) | Second Monitoring Keport ( 201 1) | Inira Monitoring Report (201/) | Fourth Monitoring Report (2018) | Fifth Monitoring Report (2018) | Sixth Monitoring Report (2019) | Seventh Monitoring Report (2019) Return to Cases/Matters page. East Haven Police Department The Special Litigation Section opened an investigation of the East Haven Police Department (EHPD) on September 30, 2009 pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. As the investigation progressed, we expanded the investigation to include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We announced the results of our investigation on December 19, 2011. We found that EHPD engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing against Latinos in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In particular, we found that EHPD targeted Latinos for discriminatory traffic enforcement, treated Latinos more harshly than non-Latinos after traffic stops, and intentionally failed to design and implement internal systems that would identify and prevent the discriminatory conduct. On November 20, 2012, we entered an agreement resolving our investigation and asked the Court to make our settlement an order enforceable by the Court. The agreement, which was negotiated with the Town of East Haven and the EHPD, provides a comprehensive framework to remedy the issues we found. Since that time, a Joint Compliance Expert ("JCE") has monitored EHPD's compliance with the agreement, providing periodic reports to the Court. The documents here provide more information about the investigation, our findings, the agreement, and EHPD's compliance efforts. Joint Compliance Expert's 6-Month Compliance Report (2013) | Joint Compliance Expert's 12-Month Compliance Report (2014) | Joint Compliance Expert's 18-Month Compliance Report (2014) | Joint Compliance Expert's 30-Month Compliance Report (2015). Return to Cases/Matters page. Ferguson Police DepartmentCase Summaries as of January 2024 At Keport (ZU10) | Second Monitoring Keport ( 201 1) | Inira Monitoring Report (201/) | Fourth Monitoring Report (2018) | Fifth Monitoring Report (2018) | Sixth Monitoring Report (2019) | Seventh Monitoring Report (2019) Return to Cases/Matters page. East Haven Police Department The Special Litigation Section opened an investigation of the East Haven Police Department (EHPD) on September 30, 2009 pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. As the investigation progressed, we expanded the investigation to include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We announced the results of our investigation on December 19, 2011. We found that EHPD engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing against Latinos in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In particular, we found that EHPD targeted Latinos for discriminatory traffic enforcement, treated Latinos more harshly than non-Latinos after traffic stops, and intentionally failed to design and implement internal systems that would identify and prevent the discriminatory conduct. On November 20, 2012, we entered an agreement resolving our investigation and asked the Court to make our settlement an order enforceable by the Court. The agreement, which was negotiated with the Town of East Haven and the EHPD, provides a comprehensive framework to remedy the issues we found. Since that time, a Joint Compliance Expert ("JCE") has monitored EHPD's compliance with the agreement, providing periodic reports to the Court. The documents here provide more information about the investigation, our findings, the agreement, and EHPD's compliance efforts. Joint Compliance Expert's 6-Month Compliance Report (2013) | Joint Compliance Expert's 12-Month Compliance Report (2014) | Joint Compliance Expert's 18-Month Compliance Report (2014) | Joint Compliance Expert's 30-Month Compliance Report (2015). Return to Cases/Matters page. Ferguson Police DepartmentAlternative formats Case Summaries as of January 2024 [Al 12-Month Compliance Keport (2014) | Joint Compliance Experts 18-Monin Compliance Report (2014) | Joint Compliance Expert's 30-Month Compliance Report (2015) Return to Cases/Matters page. Ferguson Police Department In September 2014, the Department of Justice opened an investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation focused on allegations that Ferguson law enforcement engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution and federal statutory law. On March 4, 2015, DOJ announced the results of the investigation, finding that FPD's police and municipal court practices systematically violate the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. DOJ determined that FPD's approach to law enforcement is unduly focused on revenue generation and that its practices both reflect and exacerbate existing race bias. As a result, Ferguson's law enforcement practices discriminate against African Americans and decrease trust between the Ferguson community and law enforcement, hampering FPD's ability to ensure public safety. On March 17, 2016, the parties jointly filed a proposed consent decree in federal court to address the conduct that DOJ's investigation found. On April 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri approved and entered the parties' jointly-filed consent decree. The documents here provide more information about the investigation, DOJ's findings, and the consent decree. Letter Regarding Name Plates (2014) | Letter Regarding Bracelets (2014) | Findings Summary (2015) | Findings Summary_(Spanish, 2015) | Findings Cover Letter to City. Manager Shaw and Chief Jackson (2015) | Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (2016) | Joint Memo in Support of Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (2016) | Order Setting Fairness Hearing for April 19, 2016 (2016) | Request for Applications to Serve as Monitor (2016) | Applications to Serve as Monitor (2016)_|_Joint Motion For Approval of Consent Decree Monitor Selection | Memo in Support of Joint Motion For Approval ofWR;CUE-Spring 2024 CJ-485-51-4242 Course readings DOJ Law Enforcement Investigations Alternative formats DOJ Case Summaries as of January 2024 Al Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Stations in Antelope Valley Statement of Intent (2013) | Order Approving Settlement Agreement (2015) Return to Cases/Matters page. Louisiana State Police On June 9, 2022, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Louisiana jointly opened an investigation of the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana State Police (LSP) under the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The investigation will assess use of force by LSP personnel. In addition, the investigation will assess whether LSP engages in discriminatory policing on the basis of race. The Department of Justice welcomes information relevant to this investigation. Individuals can contact the Department by email at Community. Louisiana@usdoj.gov, by phone at (202) 353-0684, or by mail at Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530 (attn.: Louisiana State Police Team). Return to Cases/Matters page. Louisville Metro Police Department and Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government On April 26, 2021, the Department of Justice opened a pattern or practice investigation into the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD). The investigation was conducted pursuant to our authority under 34 U.S.C. $ 12601, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The investigation was led by the Department's Civil Rights Division and conducted by career attorneys and staff in the Civil Rights Division and in the Civil Division ofJ Case Summaries as of January 2024 [Al Metro Government On April 26, 2021, the Department of Justice opened a pattern or practice investigation into the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD). The investigation was conducted pursuant to our authority under 34 U.S.C. $ 12601, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The investigation was led by the Department's Civil Rights Division and conducted by career attorneys and staff in the Civil Rights Division and in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky. On March 8, 2023, we released the results of our investigation. We found reasonable cause to believe that: ( 1 ) LMPD uses excessive force; (2) LMPD conducts searches based on invalid warrants; (3) LMPD unlawfully executes search warrants without knocking and announcing; (4) LMPD unlawfully stops, searches, detains, and arrests people during street enforcement activities; (5) LMPD unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities; (6) LMPD violates the rights of people engaged in protected speech critical of policing; and (7) Louisville Metro and LMPD discriminate against people with behavioral health disabilities. We also identified deficiencies in LMPD's response to and investigation of domestic violence and sexual assault, including its responses to allegations that LMPD officers engaged in sexual misconduct or domestic violence. The Department of Justice is now in the process of negotiating a settlement agreement with Louisville Metro Government and LMPD to address our findings. Individuals with ideas about the reform process are encouraged to contact us via email at Community. Louisville@usdoj.gov or by phone at 1-844-920-1460. Individuals can also report civil rights violations regarding this or other matters using the Civil Rights Division's reporting portal, available at www.civilrights.justice.gov. Findings Report (2023) | Agreement in Principle (2023) Return to Cases/Matters page. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office