Filed Date: March 30, 2016
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") initiated an investigation of the Newark Police Department ("NPD") in May 2011, after receiving serious allegations of civil rights violations by the NPD. Such allegations included that the NPD subjected Newark residents to excessive force, unwarranted stops and arrests, and discriminatory police actions.
The investigation was conducted jointly by the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI"), and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d ("Safe Streets Act"). Section 14141 prohibits government authorities from engaging in a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct that violates individuals' constitutional or federal statutory rights. Title VI and the Safe Streets Act together prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by the recipients of certain federal funds.
On July 22, 2014, the DOJ issued its findings. Its report "identified a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in the NPD's stop and arrest practices, its response to individuals' exercise of their rights under the First Amendment, the Department's use of force, and theft by officers. The investigation also revealed deficiencies in the NPD's systems that are designed to prevent and detect misconduct, including its systems for reviewing force and investigating complaints regarding officer conduct. The investigation also identified concerns that do not appear to amount to patterns of constitutional misconduct, but which nonetheless are significant and warrant consideration by the NPD. These concerns relate to the NPD's practices in dealing with potentially suicidal detainees, the NPD's sexual assault investigations, and the impact of the NPD's policing on the LGBT community."
Simultaneously with issuing the findings, the DOJ and Newark announced an "Agreement in Principle"--a partial settlement that would serve as the foundation of a more comprehensive, judicially enforceable agreement. The Agreement required the City to: implement civilian oversight for the NPD; review and revise NPD policies, training, and internal oversight mechanisms, particularly regarding the use of force and stop, search and arrest practices; to train officers about the First Amendment; improve accountability and supervisory practices; revise internal affairs practices; and enhance data collection and analysis.
On March 30, 2016, the United States filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The United States brought the action against the City of Newark for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 14141. The complaint reiterated findings from the 2014 Findings Report and alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct depriving people of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Fourth, First, and Fourteenth Amendments. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in unreasonable stops, searches, and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment; violated the rights of individuals to engaged in protected speech in violation of the First Amendment; used unreasonable force against individuals in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and stole property from individuals in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The same day, the parties submitted notice of a joint motion for entry of a consent decree. On May 5, 2016 the court (Judge Madeline C. Arleo) issued an order approving the consent decree.
The consent decree details action steps the NPD will take regarding policy review and revision; training; community engagement and civilian oversight; stops, searches, and arrests; bias-free policing; use of force; in-car and body-worn cameras; theft; complaint intake and investigation; compliance reviews and integrity audits; discipline; data systems improvement; and transparency and oversight.
More specifically, the action steps include: improving officer training; revising policies, training, and supervision to ensure that stops, searches, and arrests are carried out constitutionally in a manner that takes account of community priorities; integrating bias-free policing principles; reforming use of force policies; and conducting objective, thorough, timely investigations of complaints.
The court will retain jurisdiction until the court determines that the City and the NPD have achieved full and effective compliance with the consent decree and have maintained compliance for no less than two consecutive years. The City and the NPD will aim to reach full and effective compliance within five years of the effective date of the consent decree. The consent decree also provided for an independent monitor, paid for by the City, to assess the City's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the agreement.
On February 2, 2018, the court issued a stipulated order amending certain paragraphs of the Consent Decree. Since then, the monitor has been filing quarterly reports pursuant to the agreement. In the most recent report, filed with the court on April 16, 2019, the monitoring team found that NPD had nearly completed writing all of its Consent Decree-related policies. It also found that NPD had begun training officers on two of the most critical Consent Decree policies that it had adopted: Use of Force; and Stops, Searches, and Arrests. More specifically, NPD had begun to proactively assess its officers' deployment of in-car and body-worn cameras and to mandate additional training for supervisors who did not carry out their responsibilities consistent with NPD's policies. Still, the monitoring team found that NPD's data systems were still inadequate to meet Consent Decree requirements and noted that the data systems were not capable of producing the information required for the independent monitor to conduct certain audits required by the consent decree.
The independent monitor continues to file quarterly reports, including publishing the 12th quarterly report on April 27th, 2020. This report found that officers were still not in full compliance with policies regarding use of body cameras, although they were nearing compliance. This case is ongoing as of June 10th, 2020.
The independent monitor continued to file quarterly reports until the twentieth report, which came out on April 28, 2022. After the twentieth report, the parties agreed that the monitor would release reports every six months, rather than quarterly. The twentieth report was the last report issued since then. In the twentieth report, the monitor found that NPD was in full compliance with two categories from the body camera policy for deactivation of the cameras and categorization of the videos, so the monitor will no longer oversee those categories. However, the monitor will continue to oversee compliance with other aspects of the body camera policy and with in-car cameras policy. The monitor also reported that NPD was in compliance with the bias-free policing requirement.
On May 14, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion for pretrial termination. The court granted the motion on the 17th, noting that the City of Newark and NPD had demonstrated and maintained compliance with certain requirements and so termination of those requirements was justified.
On March 31, 2025, Judge Arleo extended the monitoring period until September 30, 2025.
September 8, the independent monitor submitted the final report, reporting that NPD had made “significant strides” during the Consent Decree period, including on outcomes that were most important to the citizens of Newark (e.g., fewer instances of excessive force and improper police stops). However, the monitor reported that additional steps were necessary for NPD to align itself with best policing practices and to operate legally and constitutionally. These include: improving training and oversight of supervisors; implement modern computerized data systems that’d allow supervisors to identify and address isolated misconduct; hire a full-time training director; and develop a youth engagement strategy.
On September 12, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to terminate the consent decree. As of November 18, 2025, the motion is pending before the court.
Summary Authors
Julie Singer (3/10/2017)
Chris Pollack (4/18/2019)
Jack Hibbard (6/10/2020)
Sophia Weaver (3/28/2023)
Avery Coombe (11/18/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4517987/parties/united-states-v-city-of-newark/
Arleo, Madeline Cox (New Jersey)
ABDULALEEM, RAHEEMAH F. (New Jersey)
AKIN, WANDA M. (New Jersey)
AMERICA, UNITED STATES (New Jersey)
AMOROSA, JUDITH A. (New Jersey)
Comizzoli, Sabrina G. (New Jersey)
Florio, Kelly Horan (New Jersey)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Kent, Patrick (District of Columbia)
Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia)
Murray, Jeffrey Robert (District of Columbia)
Ogletree, Rashida J (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Sadlowski, Caroline A. (New Jersey)
Samuels, Jocelyn (District of Columbia)
ABDULALEEM, RAHEEMAH F. (New Jersey)
AMERICA, UNITED STATES (New Jersey)
AMOROSA, JUDITH A. (New Jersey)
BALDON, JUNIS LEE (New Jersey)
BELLAMY, LISA LYNN (New Jersey)
Benjamin, Avion M. (New Jersey)
Beyer, Patricia Nicole (New Jersey)
BISCEGLIE, KYLE C. (New Jersey)
BRICKLIN, SUSAN DEIN (New Jersey)
BROWN, ALLISON R. (New Jersey)
CALHOUN, CHARLES L (New Jersey)
Campbell, Marcus D (New Jersey)
CAMPBELL, BRITTNEY N. (New Jersey)
CHERICO, COLIN MICHAEL (New Jersey)
Chilakamarri, Varu (New Jersey)
COMBS, TAMMY OWENS (New Jersey)
Concepcion, Hilda M (New Jersey)
Conrath, Craig William (New Jersey)
COOPER, LINDSEY W. (New Jersey)
Cosentino, Michael (New Jersey)
CRITCHLEY, MICHAEL D. (New Jersey)
CRUTCHLOW, JOHN T. (New Jersey)
D'ANTON, MICHAEL A. (New Jersey)
DAVID, GREGORY B. (New Jersey)
DEGNAN, DAVID ANDREW (New Jersey)
DELANEY, SHEILA K. (New Jersey)
DEVINE, KATHLEEN S. (New Jersey)
DICKEY, MELISSA L. (New Jersey)
EDELSTEIN, STEPHEN JAY (New Jersey)
Edgar, William C. (New Jersey)
EICHNER, JAMES A. (New Jersey)
ESPOSITO, BETH A. (New Jersey)
FINKELSTEIN, VERONICA JANE (New Jersey)
Fitzpatrick, Amy Ryan (New Jersey)
FRIZZELLE, AMANDA DOWNS (New Jersey)
Fruchter, Daniel Hugo (New Jersey)
FRYE, MARY CATHERINE (New Jersey)
FULLMER, CHARLENE KELLER (New Jersey)
GAMBERT, DAVID N. (New Jersey)
GARRETT, JENIGH J (New Jersey)
GIBSON, VIRGINIA A. (New Jersey)
Gillingham, James Garland (New Jersey)
GIVHAN, ANNETTA FOSTER (New Jersey)
Glazer, David Bernard (New Jersey)
GOGER, KATHLEEN C. (New Jersey)
GOLDSTEIN, ROSS S. (New Jersey)
Harlow, James William (New Jersey)
HEIDRICH, KELLY E. (New Jersey)
Hudson, Eric Alan (New Jersey)
Hunter, Jeffrey L. (New Jersey)
HUTCHINSON, MARGARET L. (New Jersey)
JACK, SYRION ANTHONY (New Jersey)
JACOBUS, RICHARD G. (New Jersey)
JAWORSKI, MYRIAH VALENTINA (New Jersey)
JOHNSON, THOMAS F. (New Jersey)
JOHNSTON, MAUREEN (New Jersey)
Jr, Charles Wendlandt (New Jersey)
JR., WILLIAM BRADLEY (New Jersey)
JR., RICHARD MENTZINGER (New Jersey)
KATINSKY, DAVID MARTIN (New Jersey)
KENNEBREW, DELORA L. (New Jersey)
Kern, Charles Douglas (New Jersey)
Kincheloe, Richard A. (New Jersey)
KINUM, CHRISTOPHER W. (New Jersey)
KREINDLER, MITCHELL R. (New Jersey)
Leonard, Jacqueline Margaret (New Jersey)
LIPSHUTZ, GARY S. (New Jersey)
LLORET, RICHARD A. (New Jersey)
MACKO, MICHAEL S. (New Jersey)
MAGNANINI, ROBERT A. (New Jersey)
MARSH, PAMELA COTHRAN (New Jersey)
MCCABE, BRIAN JAMES (New Jersey)
McGonigal, Alan G. (New Jersey)
MCKEEVER, MICHAEL T. (New Jersey)
McNeil, Ronald M. (New Jersey)
MEEHAN, PATRICK L. (New Jersey)
MICHAUD, MELISSA JULIA (New Jersey)
MURPHY, NICHOLAS ULYSSES (New Jersey)
NANCE, JOHN BOATNER (New Jersey)
OLIVO, STEVEN FRANCIS (New Jersey)
OPPICI, MICHAEL A. (New Jersey)
Parker, Willie L. (New Jersey)
PAVLOCK, JAMES R. (New Jersey)
PENNINGTON, ERIC S. (New Jersey)
Pineda, Christopher D (New Jersey)
PORTUONDO, NURIS ELENA (New Jersey)
POWEL, VIRGINIA R. (New Jersey)
Powell, William J. (New Jersey)
PUTIGNANO, PETER JOSEPH (New Jersey)
Quinlan, Tracy A. (New Jersey)
REID, SCOTT WEBSTER (New Jersey)
ROMERO, JACQUELINE CHRISTINE (New Jersey)
Rosenthal, Herbert A. (New Jersey)
RUSS, JOHN ALBERT (New Jersey)
Saltiel, Steven J. (New Jersey)
SAUNDERS, DARRYL M. (New Jersey)
SAXE, ELIZABETH ANNE (New Jersey)
SCHWARTZ, STEFANI C. (New Jersey)
SELLERS, CATHERINE N. (New Jersey)
SHORE, ELISE SANDRA (New Jersey)
SHUTLER, SHARON K. (New Jersey)
Simpson, W. Scott (New Jersey)
SMITH, STACEY L.B. (New Jersey)
SOTO, ESTEBAN S.M. (New Jersey)
Stewart, Kenyatta K (New Jersey)
SULLIVAN, GERALD B. (New Jersey)
TAYLOR, CLAIRE H. (New Jersey)
TERRY, L. TIMOTHY (New Jersey)
Truong, John Cuong (New Jersey)
TUZZIO, MICHAEL K. (New Jersey)
use), CRAIG CARPENITO (New Jersey)
Valdez, Darrell C. (New Jersey)
Valerino, Gary J. (New Jersey)
Warner, Eric Paxton (New Jersey)
WATSON, JOANNE Y. (New Jersey)
WOLFE, KATHLEEN P. (New Jersey)
WONG, SHERRA TINYI (New Jersey)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4517987/united-states-v-city-of-newark/
Last updated Nov. 18, 2025, 9:11 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 30, 2016
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States
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
Other Dockets:
District of New Jersey 2:16-cv-01731
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Warrant/order for search or seizure
Order Duration: 2016 - 2021
Issues
General/Misc.:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Policing: