Filed Date: Dec. 21, 2012
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 21, 2012, after a thorough investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its police department pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Government alleged that the Puerto Rico Police Bureau (PRPB) violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging in unlawful patterns and practices. Filed along with the complaint was a joint motion for the court to approve a comprehensive settlement agreement between the parties and a motion to stay the proceedings.
Specifically, the Government claimed in its complaint that the PRPB was using excessive force during routine police activities, relying on unreasonable force in response to public demonstrations, conducting unlawful searches and seizures, and engaging in discriminatory police practices against those who are or appear to be of Dominican origin. The Government alleged that the pattern or practice of illegal activity was the result of longstanding, widespread, and ongoing failures of the PRPB to provide necessary guidance, trailing, and tools, as well as a deficit of supervision.
On December 27, 2012, District Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi granted the motion to stay the proceedings in order to allow the recently elected government in Puerto Rico to familiarize itself with the settlement agreement and make any necessary modifications. On January 18, 2013, the Government filed an amended complaint removing references to Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of the United States. This reference was relevant because, under an old line of Supreme Court cases that established what is known as the Incorporation Doctrine, the full breath of constitutional protections were not afforded to residents of acquired territories unless and until incorporated by Congress.
On April 1, 2013, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the proposed settlement agreement, explaining the results of its own investigations in Puerto Rico, endorsing the comprehensive approach of the agreement, and suggesting a few possible improvements. Puerto Rico's Attorney Gregorio Igartua also filed an amicus brief in which he argued that the court could not render a decision in the case without declaring Puerto Rico to be an incorporated territory. He reasoned that because the United States was imposing upon Puerto Rico the burdens of full obligation to the Constitution while selectively withholding constitutional rights, such as representation and voting power in Congress and greater ability to claim access to federal funds, such as federal funding for anti-crime policies, the settlement agreement was invalid.
On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a modified settlement agreement along with a joint motion for dismissal. On the same day, the court conditionally dismissed the case while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The 101-page agreement provided a comprehensive set of provisions touching on nearly every aspect of the PRPB. It called for the development of policies on, among other things, the use of force, crowd control and public demonstrations, searches and seizures, and equal protection. It required better pre-service training and education as well as continued training once recruits become police officers. It contained an array of investigatory, supervisory, and discipline obligations, as well as auditing procedures. To address community concerns, the agreement established a commitment to more appropriate community policing and establishes joint boards of police officers and community representatives. In an effort to obtain nondiscriminatory policing, it also required PRPB to establish the information systems and collect all information necessary to accomplish the goals of the agreement.
Under the agreement, Puerto Rico was required to hire a Technical Compliance Advisor (TCA) to monitor and report on the PRPB’s progress in meeting the goals and requirements of the agreement. The agreement included a four-year capacity-building period, subject to the development of Action Plans in each of the substantive areas of the agreement, to allow for the creation and establishment of the infrastructure needed for compliance with the reform efforts. The agreement was slated to last at least 10 years, after which time either party could file for termination of the agreement. However, if Puerto Rico filed for termination, it would have the burden of demonstrating that it had fully and effectively complied with the agreement for at least two consecutive years.
On October 30, 2013, upon joint motion of the parties, the court appointed Juan Mattos, Jr. as the TCA. Citing personal reasons, he resigned in February of 2014. In his stead, the parties selected Claudio Arnaldo to be TCA. The TCA submitted his first six-month compliance report on February 9, 2015, in which he characterized the PRPB as an “organization with a commitment to change.” On August 1, 2016, the court issued a Transition Order in light of the upcoming presidential election to prevent a transfer of critical personnel that would jeopardize the reform process.
The TCA continued submitting biannual reports throughout the duration of the capacity-building period. In its fifth biannual report, on January 13, 2017, the TCA noted that the PRPB had made excellent progress in drafting 48 new policies and completed implementation of all 11 substantive areas of the agreement. The PRPB submitted its Action Plans for each substantive area to the court on June 22, 2017. The report also noted that the PRPB had made important progress in improving training. However, the report noted three key areas of the agreement that had not been adequately implemented: promotion reform, a human resource staffing study, and the reorganization of the Drugs, Vice, and Illegal Firearms Bureau.
The agreement's capacity-building period ended on October 7, 2018, at which point the compliance period began. In its eighth biannual report covering the period of April through October 7, 2018, the TCA noted several implementation deficiencies. In a status report submitted on March 23, 2019, the PRPB countered these allegations of deficiencies and claimed that it had the capacity, power, discipline, and determination to make police reform sustainable. Specifically, the report noted that during the capacity-building period, the PRPB had made significant strides in revising policies and procedures, conducting trainings, acquiring equipment, promoting safety, and providing personnel with the necessary tools to achieve the agreement's objectives.
On May 4th, 2019, Judge Gelpi filed an order that stating that the TCA, Arnaldo Claudio, had resigned from his position. Subsequent interviews in the press indicated that Claudio lost faith in the reform process, claiming that the federal government was insufficiently concerned about the process and that millions of dollars were being misspent on private lawyers, rather than reform efforts.
Three months later, on August 8, 2019, the parties informed Judge Gelpi that Claudio had publicly disclosed confidential and/or work-product information which may have constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Gelpi announced that further proceedings would be necessary to address the issue.
In March 2020, the newly-appointed TCA, John Romero, submitted the first report monitoring compliance with the settlement agreement since the capacity-building period ended. The report covered the period of October 2018 through June 2019 and assessed compliance in three substantive areas of performance: policies and procedures; use of force, including office-involved shootings and PRPB response to a May 2019 mass demonstration; and information technology. The report stated that the PRPB was in substantial compliance with the requirement to draft new policies but was only in partial compliance with reform goals regarding the use of force and informational technology. The TCA praised the creation of a Force Investigation Unit but noted “very serious concerns” with the thoroughness of its investigations and the accuracy of its conclusions and found its investigative practices to lack objectivity. The TCA also found that the PRPB remained “appreciably behind” other comparably sized police agencies concerning its information technology capabilities as indicated by its failure to deploy “transformational systems” such as Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management Systems that would allow the PRPB to “capture and analyze operational policing data in near real-time.”
By April 2020, the global COVID-19 pandemic had taken precedence. The court ordered the immediate development of a COVID protocol that would be consistent with the consent decree. On August 27, 2020, the court denied a request to grant the health department powers of arrest for violations of COVID-19 regulations but made clear that PRPB could make arrests for failure to wear a mask, social distance, or follow any other health and safety rules. On October 6, 2020, the court issued an order that, consistent with the agreement, proposed police promotions must be reviewed by the DOJ and certified by Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Public Safety, Commissioner of Police, and Governor’s Personal Representative. The Special Master filed a motion on December 7, 2020, with recommendations regarding PRPB’s COVID-19 Protocol. The DOJ requested clarification that PRPB be ordered to implement the recommendations, which Judge Gelpi granted after receiving no input from PRPB.
The TCA submitted his second monitoring report in December 2020, covering the period of July 2019 through March 2020. In this report, the TCA noted that the PRPB had “generally developed policies consistent with requirements of the Agreement and with generally accepted police practices” and had “demonstrated a commitment to reform.” However, the TCA also noted that implementation was lagging and that “significant reform efforts lie ahead.” The report outlined deficiencies in compliance with respect to the use of force; search and seizure policies; equal protection and non-discrimination efforts; the recruitment, selection, and hiring of officers; personnel training; supervision and management; civilian complaints, internal investigations, and officer discipline; community engagement and public information; and information technology.
On January 15, 2021, the Commonwealth requested a stay of proceedings due to a transition in Governorship and an active investigation into the murder of three police officers. The court denied the request on the grounds that a blanket stay would be counterproductive to the progress that the parties had made.
The third monitoring report, submitted in March 2021, covered the period between April 2020 and September 2020. This report covered the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which the report noted had significant impacts on law enforcement activities and the monitoring process. Overall, the TCA gave the PRPB lower compliance ratings in the third report than in its second report, pointing specifically to deficiencies in knowledge management and information technology capacities. Specifically, the TCA found “numerous issues with PRPB’s capacity to identify, collect, disseminate, and analyze, valid data on its performance.”
The fourth monitoring report, submitted in July 2021, covered the period between October 2020 and March 2021. This report was the first submitted under the administration of a new governor, Pedro Pierluisi, who installed a new PRPB Commissioner. In the fourth report, the TCA found that compliance levels had decreased compared to the second monitoring report and that the data issues noted in the third report persisted. The TCA noted that the issues surrounding data were especially true regarding use of force, which was a central issue in the consent decree.
The fifth monitoring report, submitted in December 2021, covered the period between April 2021 and September 2021. In it, the TCA found the PRPB to have made “significant progress” in developing new policies and procedures but noted that “much work remains to be done” in training staff on and applying those policies and procedures. Otherwise, the PRPB made only minor progress in achieving compliance.
The sixth monitoring report, submitted in June 2022, covered the period between October 2021 and March 2022. The TCA reported that his assessment demonstrated “stalled progress” in achieving compliance. Alarmingly, the TCA also found “repeated issues” with issues such as poor documentation of probable cause and the use of boiler plate language on arrest reports, failures in supervision to issue corrective actions, and exceeding timelines in investigations and evaluations of use of force. The monitor did note some progress being made, particularly with respect to internal audits and a Field Training Officers (FTO) program.
The seventh monitoring report, submitted in December 2022, covered the period between April 2022 and September 2022. The TCA found achievements toward partial or substantial compliance had remained the same, finding that “no progress” had been made in dozens of areas during the reporting period. Moreover, the TCA found that compliance in the area of training had regressed. In fact, the TCA found that “little to no training” was conducted during the reporting period due to the lack of a virtual training platform and COVID-19 restrictions, as well as limited staffing and poor management. The TCA again noted the same “repeat issues” cropping up as were noted in the previous report.
The eighth monitoring report, submitted in June 2023, covered the period between October 2022 and March 2023. In this report, the TCA found “minimal progress” had been made in toward partial or substantial compliance. Many of the “repeat issues” were again noted, along with several new concerns such as the lack of resources and staffing in several key PRPB divisions and units. Additionally, compliance with training requirements continued to regress. Despite this, the report indicated the TCA was “encouraged” by the Commonwealth’s and PRPB’s progress in a number of areas, including, improvements to the accuracy in use of force tracking and reporting, the promotion of over 500 sergeants, progress on an IT needs assessment and corrective action plan, finalizing a training plan, and an openness to collaborate in drafting implementation plans for domestic violence and sexual assault investigations and arrests and searches and seizures.
The ninth monitoring report, submitted in December 2023, covered the period between April 2023 and September 2023. The TCA noted that achievements toward partial or substantial compliance “significant improved” in large part due to the completion of various tasks and initiatives related to the use of force, professionalization, and supervision and management. Other areas of progress noted by the TCA included movements forward in procuring a new record management system and incremental improvements to stop and arrest reports, community engagement and the publication of crime data, the quality of domestic violence and sexual assault investigations, and the initiation of in-service training in related areas. Many of the “repeated issues” were again noted as areas of continuing concern.
The tenth monitoring report, submitted in June 2024, covered the period between October 2023 and March 2024. The TCA again noted significant improvements toward compliance. However, several areas were improvements were needed to achieve substantial compliance were identified, including the implementation of a new records management system; the integration of computer-aided dispatch and data specific dashboards; supervisory training on performance evaluations; the establishment of an early intervention system; community policing strategies, activities, and tracking of these activities; establishment of an associate’s degree program within the police academy; and increases in staffing to key departments.
The settlement agreement remains in place and compliance monitoring remains ongoing as of November 2024.
Summary Authors
Kenneth Gray (7/18/2013)
Richard Jolly (11/29/2014)
Sarah McDonald (8/19/2018)
Eva Richardson (5/27/2019)
Jack Hibbard (6/17/2020)
Robin Peterson (5/24/2023)
Logan Moore (11/21/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6513308/parties/united-states-v-commonwealth-of-puerto-rico/
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Annexy-Guevara, Beatriz (Puerto Rico)
Abesada-Aguet, Roberto (Puerto Rico)
Andreu-Fuentes, Jose A. (Puerto Rico)
Arraiza-Navas, Fermin Luis (Puerto Rico)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)
Castillo, Jorge Martin (District of Columbia)
Chamblee-Ryan, Katherine A. (Puerto Rico)
Garcia, Lynda (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Zazy I (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)
Saucedo, Luis E. (District of Columbia)
Annexy-Guevara, Beatriz (Puerto Rico)
Bandas-Del-Pilar, Raul E. (Puerto Rico)
Barreto-Sola, Rafael E. (Puerto Rico)
Cepeda-Diaz, Alejandro J. (Puerto Rico)
Concepcion-Cintron, Valeri (Puerto Rico)
De Jesus Annoni, Gerardo A. (Puerto Rico)
Del-Valle-Cruz, Carlos A. (Puerto Rico)
Dominguez-Victoriano, Maria (Puerto Rico)
Garcia-Sola, Arturo J. (Puerto Rico)
Lopez-Del, Sonia M. (Puerto Rico)
Marxuach Torros, Gilberto J (Puerto Rico)
Micheo-Marcial, Javier (Puerto Rico)
Penagaricano, Gabriel A. (Puerto Rico)
Penagaricano-Brown, Susana I. (Puerto Rico)
Portela-Fernandez, Lizzie M. (Puerto Rico)
Rivera-Ruiz, Marta L. (Puerto Rico)
Sanchez Betances, Luis (Puerto Rico)
Torres-Ortiz, Joel (Puerto Rico)
Abesada-Aguet, Roberto (Puerto Rico)
Andreu-Fuentes, Jose A. (Puerto Rico)
Arraiza-Navas, Fermin Luis (Puerto Rico)
Bazan-Gonzalez, Antonio R. (Puerto Rico)
Castellanos-Bayouth, Alfredo (Puerto Rico)
Claudio, Arnaldo (Puerto Rico)
Diaz-Castro, Jorge (Puerto Rico)
Gonzalez-Ortiz, Josue (Puerto Rico)
Hernandez-Denton, Federico (Puerto Rico)
Igartua, Gregorio (Puerto Rico)
Igartua-De-La-Rosa, Gregorio (Puerto Rico)
INACTIVE, Antonio R. (Puerto Rico)
Inserni-Milam, Frank D. (Puerto Rico)
Lindblom, Marjorie P. (New York)
Martinez-Chevres, Jose M. (Puerto Rico)
Ortega-nunez, Miguel J. (Puerto Rico)
Pereles-Velez, Hector A. (Puerto Rico)
Petrowski, Thomas (Puerto Rico)
Ramirez-Hernandez, William (Puerto Rico)
Rivera, Henry Escalera (Puerto Rico)
Serrano-Negron, Oscar J. (Puerto Rico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6513308/united-states-v-commonwealth-of-puerto-rico/
Last updated March 20, 2025, 8:59 a.m.
State / Territory: Puerto Rico
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 21, 2012
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States government, following an investigation by the Department of Justice of the polices and practices of the Puerto Rico Police Department.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Order Duration: 2013 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Policing: