Case: U.S. v. City of Los Angeles

2:00-cv-11769 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Nov. 3, 2000

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 3, 2000, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C. §14141, alleging that the City of Los Angeles, its Board of Police Commissioners and its Police Department (collectively the "LAPD") deprived individuals of their constitutional rights through the use of excessive force, false arrests and improper searches and seizures. The suit was an offshoot of a lengthy internal investigation of the LAPD's Rampart Divisi…

The suit was an offshoot of a lengthy internal investigation of the LAPD's Rampart Division and its anti-gang unit known as "CRASH" (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums). The investigation focused initially on alleged criminal acts of a former LAPD officer Rafael Perez. Perez was charged with possession of cocaine he stole from the LAPD evidence locker and theft. After a mistrial on those charges, Perez cut a plea deal with prosecutors, wherein he agreed to provide information regarding untold corruption and misconduct within the CRASH unit at the Rampart Division. Perez claimed that he and dozens of officers routinely framed suspects, planted and manufactured evidence, lied in court and physically abused suspects on a widespread scale.

Perez implicated over 70 police officers and based upon his allegations of fabricated evidence and perjury by officers, approximately 100 criminal convictions were eventually overturned and thousands of other criminal cases were tainted. In the wake of the Perez testimony, in September of 1999, the LAPD police chief Bernard Parks commissioned a Board of Inquiry comprised of LAPD command staff to investigate the depth of the corruption scandal and analyze departmental failures. In March of 2000, Chief Bernard did away with all of the LAPD CRASH units, and in April of 2000, the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissions formed the Rampart Independent Review Panel, to investigate the scandal.

Eventually, the Department of Justice began its own investigation into the LAPD. On May 8, 2000, the Department of Justice advised the LAPD of the findings of its investigation of the LAPD's pattern or practice of police misconduct, which included: "the unconstitutional use of force by LAPD officers, including improper officer-involved shootings; improper seizures of persons, including making police stops not based on reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause, seizures of property not based on probable cause; and improper searches of persons and property with insufficient cause." The DOJ also advised the LAPD that it intended to file suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141 and seek injunctive and declaratory relief. The DOJ offered to defer the filing of litigation if the LAPD agreed to negotiate in good faith and arrive at a consent decree. LAPD and Los Angeles city officials met with the DOJ and agreed upon a settlement of the government's claims, which included the filing of a formal consent decree.

Contemporaneously with the filing of the government's Complaint on November 3, 2000, the parties filed a joint application for the entry of the consent decree.

In November 2000, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (the "Police League"), the designated bargaining unit for the LAPD officers filed a motion to intervene. The Police League averred that 42 U.S.C. §14141 was unconstitutional and that the proposed consent decree was at odds with the collective bargaining agreement in place between the City and the Police League members. A number of community groups, including the ACLU, and individuals who lived in the community also sought leave to intervene in the underlying action. Along with their motion to intervene, the community interveners filed a complaint in intervention, asserting claims as plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the defendants.

The district court (Judge Gary A. Feess) denied motions to intervene by both Police League and the community groups and individuals, but did grant them amicus status. The intervenors filed notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court refused to stay the underlying proceedings pending the intervenors' appeal.

On June 15, 2001, while the intervenors' appeal was pending, the district court approved and entered the consent decree. The consent decree provides specific guidelines designed to remedy deficiencies and reform the conduct and culture of the LAPD. The reform measures include:

tighter controls on gang units;
strict oversight on use of force;
shift of responsibility for investigations of misconduct complaints;
a sophisticated computerized system to identify potential at-risk behavior (TEAMS II)
data collection relative to pedestrian and motor vehicle stops.

In accordance with the consent decree, the parties agreed upon an independent monitor Michael Cherkasky and Kroll Associates. The monitor was charged with oversight of the implementation of the provisions of the consent decree and provided quarterly reports on the progress made by the LAPD. Through the implementation process the independent monitor has submitted quarterly reports (21 as of the end of 2006) to the court and the parties have also submitted numerous status reports detailing the progress made.

On April 22, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's ruling on the motions to intervene, overturning the denial of the Police League's motion to intervene but affirming the denial of the community group's motion. U.S. v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court of Appeals noted that the Consent Decree had been entered while the denial of intervention motions were appealed, but did not require the district court to rescind the consent decree.

For the next four years, the LAPD worked on continued implementation of the overhauls called for by the consent decree. On January 18, 2006, the parties filed a joint request to extend the consent decree's duration. On March 22, 2006, the Court denied that motion, but issued ordered all parties to show cause why the consent decree should not be extended for a minimum of two additional years as several major tasks called for in the consent decree remained uncompleted.

On April 28, 2006, the parties filed another joint motion to amend the consent decree. On May 15, 2006, the Court denied that motion, but ordered that the consent decree be extended another three years to and including June 15, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the court extended the consent decree to June 30, 2009. On June 29, 2009 the Court extended the consent decree to July 17, 2009.

On July 17, 2009, the Court approved termination of the consent decree and approval of the Transition Agreement. This established a reporting and monitoring structure for the various "Gang Units" in the LAPD through the Office of the Inspector General.

	Document
2:00-cv-11769	Docket [PACER]	May 23, 2013	May 23, 2013 Docket
2:00-cv-11769	L.A. Police Department Board of Inquiry into the Rampart Area Corruption Incident	March 1, 2000	March 1, 2000 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
	Correspondence from Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division to City of Los Angeles notifying of its intent to file suit for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §14141 if Consent Decree cannot be obtained No Court	May 8, 2000	May 8, 2000 Findings Letter/Report
2:00-cv-11769	Confidential Combined Settlement Document	Sept. 8, 2000	Sept. 8, 2000 Settlement Agreement
	Independent Analysis of the Los Angeles Police Department's Board of Inquiry Report on the Rampart Scandal No Court	Sept. 11, 2000	Sept. 11, 2000 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
2:00-cv-11769	Report of the Rampart Independent Review Panel - Executive Summary No Court	Nov. 16, 2000	Nov. 16, 2000 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
	Justice Department and City of Los Angeles Agree on the Appointment of Michael Cherkasky as Primary Monitor in the Los Angeles Police Department Pattern or Practice U.S. v. Los Angeles Police Department No Court	May 18, 2001	May 18, 2001 Press Release
123 2:00-cv-11769	Consent Decree	June 15, 2001	June 15, 2001 Settlement Agreement
130 2:00-cv-11769	Status Report	Oct. 15, 2001	Oct. 15, 2001 Pleading / Motion / Brief
2:00-cv-11769	Report of the Independent Monitor of the Los Angeles Police Department - First Quarterly Report	Nov. 15, 2001	Nov. 15, 2001 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Finding Aid: Traffic Stop Litigation Collection Tessa Bialek	This document is a guide to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse’s Traffic Stop Litigation collection, which gathers information about dozens of large-scale lawsuits challenging traffic stop pol…	Fall 2024	Nov. 26, 2024
Review of the Use of Monitors in Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees Involving State and Local Government Entities Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assoc. AG Vanita Gupta	Today, the Justice Department will begin implementing a set of principles and specific recommendations regarding the use ofmonitors in civil settlement agreements and consent decrees involving state …	9/13/2021	Sept. 13, 2021 https://www.justice.gov/...
Competing Case Studies of Structural Reform Litigation in American Police Departments Stephen Rushin	In 1994, Congress passed 42 US.C. § 14141, which gives the US. Attorney General the authority to initiate structural reform litigation against police departments engaged in a pattern or practice of u…	Fall 2016	Sept. 1, 2019
Structural Police Reform Stephen Rushin	For most of American history, courts and policymakers have relied on a small handful of relatively non-invasive tools to fight police misconduct. These traditional approaches to police regulation mer…	2015	Jan. 1, 2015 http://ssrn.com/...
Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD Christopher Stone, Todd Foglesong & Christine M. Cole	The Los Angeles Police Department is today completing one of the most ambitious experiments in police reform ever attempted in an American city. After a decade of policing crises that began with the …	May 1, 2009	May 1, 2009 https://web.archive.org/...
Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD Christopher Stone, Todd Foglesong, Christine M. Cole	The Los Angeles Police Department is today completing one of the most ambitious experiments in police reform ever attempted in an American city. After a decade of policing crises that began with the …	May 1, 2009	May 1, 2009 https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) Not Issued referred to Discovery Rosalyn M. Chapman (pc) (Entered: 11/07/2000)	Nov. 3, 2000	Nov. 3, 2000 PACER
2	NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by plaintiff USA, defendant Los Angeles City of, defendant Bd of Police Comm, defendant LAPD (pc) (Entered: 11/07/2000)	Nov. 3, 2000	Nov. 3, 2000 PACER
3	JOINT APPLICATION filed to enter Consent Decree ; Lodged Propsd Consent decree (rrey) (Entered: 11/08/2000)	Nov. 3, 2000	Nov. 3, 2000 PACER
4	MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of joint appl to enter Consent Decree [3-1] (rrey) (Entered: 11/08/2000)	Nov. 3, 2000	Nov. 3, 2000 PACER
135	NOTICE by plaintiff USA of related case(s) CV 99-11629 GAF (AJWx) (rn) (Entered: 01/24/2002)	Nov. 3, 2000	Nov. 3, 2000 PACER
5	NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by intvr Los Angeles Police Protective League (rrey) (Entered: 11/09/2000)	Nov. 8, 2000	Nov. 8, 2000 PACER
	Placed in file - not used	Nov. 8, 2000	Nov. 8, 2000 PACER
6	EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by intervenor Los Angeles Police Protective League for relief from Local Rule 7.4.1 ; decl of Terri N Schallenkamp; Lodged Propsd ORd (rrey) (Entered: 11/09/2000)	Nov. 8, 2000	Nov. 8, 2000 PACER
	PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED; (Propsd) Ord Gr intvrs ex parte appl for relief from Local Rule 7.4.1 ldg on 11/8/00 (rrey)	Nov. 8, 2000	Nov. 8, 2000 PACER
7	MINUTES: (In Chambers) granting exparte appl for relief from Local Rule 7.4.1 [6-1] & the mot is Ord fld as of 11/9/00; the hrg on the mot for lv to intervene shall be heard on the following sched: (1) opp to mot to be fld on or before 11/27/00; (2) rply to opp to be fld on or before 12/11/00 ; (3) hrg on the mot on 12/18/00 @ 9:30 IT IS SO ORD by Judge Gary A. Feess CR: None (rrey) (Entered: 11/13/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
8	(AMENDED) PROOF OF SERVICE by intervenor LA Police Protective League on 11/8/00 of ex parte appl for relief from Local Rule 7.4.1; memo of p/a in suppt; decl of Terri N Schallenkamp (rrey) (Entered: 11/13/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
9	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Intervenor Los Angeles Police Protective League on 11/8/00 of ntc of interested parties svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N Mayorkas & Mark Posner by mail (bg) Modified on 11/14/2000 (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
10	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE on 11/8/00 of ntc of motion for lv to intervene as a dft svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N Mayrokas, US Atty & Mark Posner, Special Litigation SEction - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
11	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Intervenor Los Angeles Police Protective League on 11/8/00 of motion for lv to intervene as a dft; memo of p&a svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N mayorkas, US Atty; Mark Posner, Special Litigation SEction - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
12	PROOF OF SERVICE on 11/8/00 of declr of Enrique Hernandez in suppt of mot for lv to intervene as a dft svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N mayorkas, US Atty; Mark Posner, Special Litigation Section - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
13	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Los Angeles Police Protective League on 11/8/00 of declr of Adam L Marangell in suppt of mot for lv to intervene as a dft svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N mayorkas, US Atty; Mark Posner, Special Litigation SEction - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
14	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Intervenor Los Angeles Police Protection League on 11/8/00 of prop ord svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N Mayorkas, US Atty; Mark Posner, Special Litigation Section - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
15	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Intervenor Los angeles Police Protective League on 11/8/00 of answer svd Frederick N Merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N Mayorkas, US Atty; Mark Posner, Special Litigation Section - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
16	Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Intervenor Los Angeles Polcie Protective League on 11/8/00 of prop ord granting ex parte for relief from Local Rule 7.4.1 svd Frederick N merkin, Senior Assist City Atty; Alejandro N Mayorkas, US Atty; Mark Posner, Special Litigation SEction - Civil Rights Div by mail (bg) (Entered: 11/14/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
17	NOTICE OF CHANGE of hearing date re mot for lv by intervenor Los Angeles Police Protective League (rrey) (Entered: 11/27/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
21	MOTION by L A Police Protect to intervene as a deft ; P&A; motion hearing set for 9:30 12/18/00 (lc) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Nov. 9, 2000	Nov. 9, 2000 PACER
18	STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Gary A. Feess; IT IS SO ORD: any opp to the mot of the Police Protective League is hereby cont to be fld from 11/27/00 up to & including 12/4/00 in compliance w/ guidelines set forth in Local Rule 7.6; dfts shal personally serve the Los Angeles Police Protective League w/ the opp (rrey) (Entered: 11/29/2000)	Nov. 27, 2000	Nov. 27, 2000 PACER
19	NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION of Counsel for defendants by attorney Patricia L Glaser, Raymond Paul Katrinak III (rrey) (Entered: 12/05/2000)	Dec. 4, 2000	Dec. 4, 2000 PACER
26	MEMO IN RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to intervene as a dft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 4, 2000	Dec. 4, 2000 PACER
27	MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 4, 2000	Dec. 4, 2000 PACER
28	DECLARATION of Frederick N Merkin by defendants in suppt of opp to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 4, 2000	Dec. 4, 2000 PACER
29	DECLARATION of R Paul Katrinak by defendants in suppt of opp to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 4, 2000	Dec. 4, 2000 PACER
30	AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants on 12/5/00 of ntc of association of cnsl (rrey) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 5, 2000	Dec. 5, 2000 PACER
20	EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by L A Police Protect for order shrt time to strk US opp; to mot o intervene Lodged ord, ord str, mot, decl (lc) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 7, 2000	Dec. 7, 2000 PACER
25	MINUTES: In chambers: LA Police Protective League exparte motion for order shrt time to strk US opp granted [20-1]; crt read & cosidred mot to strk US Opp to mot to intervene, mot Denied; LA Police Protective League 25 pg rply is to bf fld 12/11/00 by Judge Gary A. Feess CR: none (psend) (lc) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 8, 2000	Dec. 8, 2000 PACER
22	NOTICE OF motion to intervene as a deft; 12/18/00 9:30 [21-1] filed by LA Police Protective League (lc) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 9, 2000	Dec. 9, 2000 PACER
23	DECLARATION of Enrique Hernandez in suppt by movant L A Police Protect re motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (lc) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 9, 2000	Dec. 9, 2000 PACER
24	DECLARATION of Adam L Marangell in suppt by L A Police Protect re motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (lc) (Entered: 12/11/2000)	Dec. 9, 2000	Dec. 9, 2000 PACER
31	OBJECTIONS by movant L A Police Protect to the decl of Frederick N Merkin submitted in opp to motion to intervene as a dft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
32	OPPOSITION by movant L A Police Protect to United States exhs submitted in suppt of opp to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
33	EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS by movant L A Police Protect to the decl of R Paul Katrinak submitted in opp to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
34	REPLY by movant L A Police Protect to City of Los Angeles memo of p/a in opp to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
35	REPLY by movant L A Police Protect to United States memo in response to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
36	DECLARATION of Cliff Ruff by movant L A Police Protect in suppt of rply to United States opp to motion to intervene as a deft [21-1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER
37	DECLARATION of Gregory G Petersen by movant L A Police Protect re public posting of incorrect "Consent Decree" (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)	Dec. 11, 2000	Dec. 11, 2000 PACER

Case: U.S. v. City of Los Angeles

2:00-cv-11769 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details