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, 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.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/law-enforcement-misconduct

This is the agency that I choose below: SR &LG v. Kenton County, et al

d.louisvil Content 1-4242: SEM: CRIM JUSTICE - WR Summaries as of January 2024 At DOJ Case Summaries as of January 20 Survey Compliance Measurement Report (2020) Return to Cases/Matters page. S.R. & L. G. v. Kenton County, et al In October 2015, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in S.R. & L.G. v. Kenton County, et al. The plaintiffs in the case were two elementary school children who alleged that a school resource officer (SRO) violated their rights under the Fourth and 14th Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when the SRO handcuffed them in school, behind their backs, above their elbows, and at their biceps, after the children exhibited conduct arising out of their disabilities, After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest. The purpose of the Statement of Interest, which does not take a position on the merits of the case, was to provide the court with a framework to assess the plaintiffs' claims. The brief explained the requirements to protect the rights of children, particularly children with disabilities, in their interactions with SROs. It emphasized that school resource officers should not handle routine disciplinary incidents that school officials should properly address. It further described the particularized facts and circumstances the court should consider in evaluating whether the SRO's conduct in this case was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Finally, the department confirmed that the ADA applies to SROs' interactions with children with disabilities and that this statute requires SROs to make reasonable modifications in heir procedives when necessary, and requires law enforcement agencies to change policies that iscriminate against children with disabilities. December 2015, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, In its opinion, the court ed on much of the same reasoning and case law that the Department of Justice articulated in ief. In October 2017, the court issued an opinion on motions for summary judgment, ssing the constitutional and ADA issues in the case. In November 2018, the ismissed the complaint because the parties had reached a settlement