The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?
Thank you!
Filed Date: Nov. 12, 2014
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 12, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit against the city of Albuquerque in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The DOJ brought this action under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, alleging that officers of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) were engaging in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and § 14141. Specifically, the DOJ claimed that the APD used excessive force unreasonable deadly force during arrests and detentions, posing an unacceptable risk to the Albuquerque community, and that the city and the APD had failed to address these issues. The DOJ requested declaratory and injunctive relief against the APD to enjoin them from this unlawful conduct. This lawsuit resulted from a civil investigation conducted by the DOJ beginning in 2012, documented in a findings letter sent to the Albuquerque city government on April 10, 2014.
On November 14, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion notifying the court that a settlement had been reached. The agreement required the APD to revise and implement force policies, training, and accountability systems to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment and other applicable law. In addition, the agreement established a new Civilian Police Oversight Agency to receives and investigates complaints of misconduct against the APD. The agreement called for the appointment of an independent monitor to assess and report on the implementation of the agreement. Finally, the parties also moved for an opportunity for community members and other stakeholders to express their views as amici curiae to assist the court in the development and execution of the agreement.
On January 21, 2015, District Judge Robert C. Brack held a fairness hearing for interested parties to express their views on the proposed agreement. Seven groups presented their arguments, among them the Albuquerque Police Officers' Association (APOA), the exclusive bargaining representative of the police force. Prior to the hearing, the APOA and 23 concerned citizens filed motions to intervene in this action. Of the 23 individual motions, 14 were eventually withdrawn. On February 19, 2015, Judge Brack granted the APOA's motion to intervene, finding that the APOA had a sufficient interest in this action for intervention as of right. Judge Brack denied the individual motions to intervene, finding that the government (through the DOJ) adequately represented the individuals' interests. In a separate order also filed on February 19, Judge Brack appointed Dr. James D. Ginger as independent monitor to assess and report on whether the APD was fulfilling its obligations under the agreement.
On March 6, 2015, Disabilities Rights New Mexico, the ACLU of New Mexico, and the Native American Voters Alliance Education Project filed a motion to intervene. On June 2, 2015, Judge Brack denied the motion to avoid delays in the implementation of the agreement and the litigation of the current parties' rights. In a separate order also filed on June 2, Judge Brack approved the settlement agreement and entered it as a consent decree. Reviewing amici submitted by community organizations, Judge Brack found that amendments to the agreement adequately addressed the community's concerns. In addition, Judge Brack found no conflicts in the agreement with the APOA's collective bargaining agreement, state, or federal law. Regarding the duration of the consent decree, the parties said that if after six years from the effective date the parties disagree whether the City has been in full and effective compliance for two years, either party may seek to terminate the settlement agreement.
On August 21, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation to modify certain deadlines set forth in the consent decree. The independent monitoring team determined that while the APD had made significant progress, an extension of certain deadlines would be beneficial. On September 24, Judge Brack granted the motion.
Since the settlement began, numerous status reports have been filed without indication of significant noncompliance. As of May 2017, the APD had accomplished most of the "low-hanging fruit" required by the consent decree, such as writing and approving policies and designing and initiating training programs. However, Dr. Ginger identified eight specific actions by the APD that had substantially slowed compliance achievement, such as extended delays in revising the department’s use of force policy and use of covert “Special Orders” to subvert policies agreed upon by the parties and Dr. Ginger. Dr. Ginger also issued over 300 recommendations for the APD.
In 2018, Judge Brack approved a promotional policy for the APD that was proposed by the City of Albuquerque. 2018 WL 3830923. The APD itself asked the court to reconsider part of the opinion, but that request was denied on October 3, 2018. 2018 WL 4815541.
The case was reassigned to Judge James O. Browning on February 27, 2019. Judge Browning issued a lengthy order on June 12, 2020 addressing a couple of issues with the consent decree that the APD challenged. 2020 WL 3129825. Most notably, the APD argued that the court's standard for assessing liability in excessive force instances went beyond the constitutional floor. The court upheld the standard agreed upon in the consent decree because it found the standard to be consistent with the constitutional requirements.
On February 5, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to establish an external force investigation team. The Independent Monitor's Twelfth Status Report noted that the Albuquerque Police Department has continued to have "persistent problems" addressing the issues around excessive force and lack of accountability. To address these problems, the APD had twice revised its investigation policies. But those revisions did not realize the anticipated results. So, to improve the functioning of these investigations, the parties agreed that the city should seek additional resources to ensure that force investigations are adequate and timely to bring the APD into compliance. Judge Browning approved the motion on February 26, 2021.
The Independent Monitor filed the Thirteenth Monitoring Report on May 3, 2021. The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
John He (12/22/2015)
Jake Parker (7/11/2018)
Eva Richardson (11/3/2018)
Alex Moody (5/21/2020)
Jack Hibbard (6/10/2020)
Justin Hill (9/5/2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4313132/parties/united-states-v-city-of-albuquerque/
Brack, Robert C. (New Mexico)
Browning, James O. (New Mexico)
Vidmar, Stephan M. (New Mexico)
Anderson, John C (New Mexico)
Federici, Fred J (New Mexico)
Friel, Gregory (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Hoses, Michael H. (New Mexico)
Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)
Keegan, Ruth Fuess (New Mexico)
Brack, Robert C. (New Mexico)
Browning, James O. (New Mexico)
Vidmar, Stephan M. (New Mexico)
Anderson, John C (New Mexico)
Federici, Fred J (New Mexico)
Friel, Gregory (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Hoses, Michael H. (New Mexico)
Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)
Keegan, Ruth Fuess (New Mexico)
Kent, Patrick (District of Columbia)
Killebrew, Paul (District of Columbia)
Martinez, Damon P. (New Mexico)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Ryals, Stephen (District of Columbia)
Samuels, Jocelyn (District of Columbia)
Sanders, Corey M. (District of Columbia)
Saucedo, Luis E. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Aguilar, Esteban Angel Jr. (New Mexico)
Greenwood, Scott T. (New Mexico)
Hernandez, Jessica M. (New Mexico)
Hults, Samantha M. (New Mexico)
Jacobi, Jenica Lynn (New Mexico)
Pacheco, Carlos F (New Mexico)
Rigler, Trevor Adam (New Mexico)
Rose, Robyn Lee (New Mexico)
Schmehl, Jeramy (New Mexico)
Tebo, Christopher J. (New Mexico)
Tourek, David K (New Mexico)
Van Meter, Lindsay Fay (New Mexico)
Walz, Jerry A. (New Mexico)
Zarr, William W. (New Mexico)
Allen, Steven Robert (New Mexico)
Bechtold, Elisabeth V. (New Mexico)
Boyd, John W. (New Mexico)
Colon, Taina Linda (New Mexico)
Cubra, Peter (New Mexico)
D'Amato, John James Jr. (New Mexico)
Davis, Nicholas T. (New Mexico)
Freedman, David A. (New Mexico)
Howard, Leon F. III (New Mexico)
Koenigsberg, Nancy (New Mexico)
Maestas, Antonio (New Mexico)
Mathewson, Alfred D. (New Mexico)
Mowrer, Frederick M. (New Mexico)
Sanchez, Maria Martinez (New Mexico)
Torres, Stephen M. (New Mexico)
Urias, David (New Mexico)
Coyne, Phil (New Mexico)
Ginger, James D. (New Mexico)
Slauson, William (New Mexico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4313132/united-states-v-city-of-albuquerque/
Last updated Nov. 29, 2022, 3:28 a.m.
State / Territory: New Mexico
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 12, 2014
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Albuquerque Police Department (Albuquerque), City
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
Availably 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
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Content of Injunction:
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Disability:
Mental Disability: