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) engaged in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and § 14141. The DOJ claimed that the APD used excessive force, unreasonable deadly force during arrests and detentions, posed an unacceptable risk to the Albuquerque community, and the city and the APD failed to address these issues. The DOJ requested declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the APD from this unlawful conduct. This lawsuit resulted from a civil investigation conducted by the DOJ beginning in 2012, which was 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. The agreement established a new Civilian Police Oversight Agency to receive and investigate 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. 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, including 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 Of the 23 individual motions, 14 were eventually withdrawn.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. 2015 WL 13747185.
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 in order to avoid delays in the implementation of the agreement and the litigation of the current parties' rights. 2015 WL 13747189. In a separate order also filed on June 2, Judge Brack approved the settlement agreement and entered it as a consent decree. 2015 WL 13747186. 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 stipulated 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 to address several 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 in a stipulated order.
On February 5, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of a stipulated order establishing an external investigation team. The Independent Monitor filed the Thirteenth Monitoring Report on May 3, 2021.
The External Investigation Team submitted their first quarterly report on November 12, 2021. The report contained a partial analysis of investigations.
On December 16, 2021, the District Court found that (1) the stipulated order did not conflict with the CBA Albuquerque Police Officers Association’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and that the Court would not allow the Officers Association to prevent the stipulated order’s implementation, and that (2) there was no reason to decline to enter the stipulated order. 2021 WL 5987797.
The External Investigation Team submitted their second quarterly report on February 16, 2022. The report found that 10.63% of the Use of Force investigations were outside of Use of Force policies and that 34.04% of Use of Force investigations were out of compliance with the Process Narrative, which governed response protocols and was utilized to assess investigations.
The parties filed for a joint motion for order approving amendments to the stipulated order on March 8, 2022. The District Court, on March 21, 2022, approved and entered the amendments to the stipulated order (1) requiring the City to modify its existing contract to enable the external force investigation team to investigate all use-of-force incidents and (2) extending the period that the investigation team to investigate use-of-force incidents for two years.
The External Investigation Team submitted their third quarterly report on May 16, 2022. The report found that less than 10% of Use of Force investigations were outside of Use of Force policies and that nearly 45% of Use of Force investigations were out of compliance with the Process Narrative.
On August 23, 2022, the External Investigation Team submitted their fourth quarterly report. The report found reductions in both Use of Force investigations that were out of compliance with Use of Force policies and Use of Force investigations that were out of compliance with the Process Narrative.
On November 16, 2022, the External Investigation Team submitted their fifth quarterly report. The report found reductions in both Use of Force investigations that were noncompliant with Use of Force policies and Use of Force investigations that were noncompliant with the Process Narrative.
The External Investigation Team submitted their sixth quarterly report on March 1, 2023. The report found a slight increase in Use of Force investigations that were out of compliance with Use of Force policies and a decrease in Use of Force investigations that were out of compliance with the Process Narrative.
On April 12, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of a third amended and restated court-approved settlement.
The External Investigation Team submitted their seventh quarterly report on June 1, 2023. The report found further reduction in Use of Force investigations that were out of compliance with Use of Force policies.
On June 2, 2023, the Court approved this joint motion, which included changes to: (1) reviewing Level 1 use of force, (2) the timeline reflecting the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with APD, and (3) handling crisis intervention.
On September 21, 2023, the External Investigation Team submitted their eighth quarterly report. The report found reductions in both Use of Force investigations that were not compliant with Use of Force policies and Use of Force investigations that were not compliant with the Process Narrative.
As of January 21, 2024, this case is 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)
Andrew Eslich (1/23/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4313132/parties/united-states-v-city-of-albuquerque/
Browning, James O. (New Mexico)
Allen, Steven Robert (New Mexico)
Bechtold, Elisabeth Virginia (New Mexico)
Boyd, John W. (New Mexico)
Brooks, Aja Nicole (New Mexico)
Allen, Steven Robert (New Mexico)
Bechtold, Elisabeth Virginia (New Mexico)
Brooks, Aja Nicole (New Mexico)
Colon, Taina Linda (New Mexico)
Davis, Nicholas T. (New Mexico)
Fields, Melody Joy (New Mexico)
Freedman, David A. (New Mexico)
Hoses, Michael H. (New Mexico)
Keegan, Ruth Fuess (New Mexico)
Koenigsberg, Nancy (New Mexico)
Martinez, Elizabeth M (New Mexico)
Sanchez, Maria Martinez (New Mexico)
Greenwood, Scott T (New Mexico)
Hernandez, Jessica M (New Mexico)
Hults, Samantha M. (New Mexico)
Jacobi, Jenica Lynn (New Mexico)
Jr, Esteban Angel (New Mexico)
Meter, Lindsay Fay (New Mexico)
Pacheco, Carlos F. (New Mexico)
Rahn, Taylor Sauer (New Mexico)
Rigler, Trevor Adam (New Mexico)
Rosebrough, Lindsey A (New Mexico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4313132/united-states-v-city-of-albuquerque/
Last updated July 2, 2025, 10:56 p.m.