Filed Date: April 28, 2015
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division initiated a civil investigation of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on August 19, 2011. The investigation focused on allegations of unconstitutional conduct by deputies at two stations located in the Antelope Valley cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, California. The DOJ proceeded under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 (Section 14141), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI). These laws authorize the United States to file a legal action when it has reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement agency engages in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. In addition, the investigation was also founded on the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631.
On June 28, 2013, the DOJ issued a findings letter to the LASD explaining that LASD's Antelope Valley stations engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unlawful searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Title VI. The DOJ also found that deputies assigned to these stations had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by targeting certain residents who possessed housing vouchers.
Although the county denied the allegation of unconstitutional conduct, simultaneous to the findings letter being made public, the parties entered a "statement of intent" to reach a comprehensive settlement agreement. The statement of intent explained that "[t]he Agreement to be negotiated is intended to ensure that: 1) LASD personnel in the Antelope Valley engage in practices that comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and 2) the objectives of LASD's Core Values and Trust-Based Policing program are realized in the Antelope Valley community." The statement of intent indicated that the parties intended to reach a final settlement agreement by August 30, 2013.
Settlement negotiations took quite a bit longer. It was not until April 28, 2015, that the DOJ filed this lawsuit and its proposed settlement agreement. The case was filed in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge John F. Walter.
The DOJ brought this action under the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act (42 U.S.C. § 14141) and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act as amended by the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601). The DOJ alleged in the complaint that the county violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act by engaging in the following behavior: (a) detaining individuals without legal authority; (b) engaging in a pattern of unreasonable force; (c) stopping and searching African American and Latino residents on impermissible considerations of race and ethnicity; (d) targeting African American residents participating in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; and (e) failing to create adequate accountability systems to curb unlawful policing. The DOJ requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
Under the terms of the settlement, within four years the county was to do the following:
create procedures to stop the practice of and detect discriminatory stops, searches, and seizures, as well as training on appropriate practices and the terms of the settlement;
ensure bias-free policing through training and monitoring of its practices across the county;
create and implement a housing non-discrimination policy, as well as a mechanism for documenting all incidents involving voucher holders;
enhance its data collection, analysis, and reporting methods to better assess its programs and improvemen;t
enhance community engagement through increased transparency and community feedback mechanisms;
revise its policies on use of force to encourage alternatives and de-escalation, prohibit certain actions, promote reporting on all incidents of use of force, and provide for supervision, training, and analysis;
create and implement policies to ensure accountability through personnel complaint review procedures, analysis of personnel data, and mentorship; and
comply with stipulated monitoring requirements and assessment procedures.
Further, the settlement agreement required the county to pay $700,000 to those harmed by its violations of the Fair Housing Act and $25,000 in civil penalties.
The court approved the settlement agreement on May 1, 2015, and a supplemental settlement agreement on July 21, 2015. The supplemental agreement established the terms and schedule for awarding damages to individuals harmed by the violation of the Fair Housing Act. The supplemental agreement created two categories of individuals harmed: individuals within Category 1 could receive between $1,000 and $10,000 in damage while those within Category 2 could receive between $5,000 and $20,000
On May 24, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation to amend the settlement order after determining that more individuals aggrieved by the county’s FHA violations would qualify for payment under Category 2. The amendment reduced the low end of the range of potential damages awarded to $3,000 to ensure that more individuals would receive damages. The court approved the amendment the next day.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, an independnt monitor has overseen implementation of the settlement’s terms and submitted semi-anual reports measuring LASD’s compliance. As of the 19th semi-annual monitoring report, submitted in January 2025, the county is still working toward sustained compliance. However, the report noted that LASD had made “significant progress toward compliance, especially in those areas and provisions requiring improvements in data analysis.”
Monitoring remains ongoing as of February 2025.
Summary Authors
Marcy Blattner (4/5/2015)
Virginia Weeks (1/23/2017)
Amanda Stephens (4/2/2019)
Jack Hibbard (6/9/2020)
Logan Moore (3/21/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7260448/parties/united-states-v-the-county-of-los-angeles/
Anderson, L. Adelaide (California)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Blasi, Gary Lee (California)
Beach, Paul B (California)
Brann, Joseph (California)
Anderson, L. Adelaide (California)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)
Coromelas, Acrivi (California)
Davis-Denny, Grant A. (California)
Friel, Gregory (District of Columbia)
Friley, Jesselyn K (California)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Hagler, Tamar (District of Columbia)
Hart, Charles W. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Hartz, Alisa Louise (California)
Hayat, Norrinda B. (District of Columbia)
Hull, Joanna Berney (California)
Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)
Ladewski, Kathryn (District of Columbia)
Leung, Michelle (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia)
Monteleone, Robyn-Marie L (California)
Murphy, Emily Rose (California)
Pagnucco, Carrie (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Phillips, Bradley S (California)
Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)
Richardson, Anne K. (California)
Rosenbaum, Mark D (California)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Yonekura, Stephanie (District of Columbia)
Castro-Silva, Rodrigo A. (California)
Chilleen, Michael J. (California)
Dugdale, Robert E (California)
Edwards, Steven G. (California)
Harrison, Dawyn Renae (California)
Hurley, Gregory F. (California)
Jee, Krista MacNevin (California)
Leimkuhler, Bradley J. (California)
Lucero, Richard Austin (California)
Murillo, Tiana J. (California)
Saladino, Mark J. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7260448/united-states-v-the-county-of-los-angeles/
Last updated Aug. 5, 2025, 3:05 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 28, 2015
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
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
Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
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
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Amount Defendant Pays: 725000
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):
Policing: