Case: DOJ Investigation of City of Miami Police Department

In November 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida opened an investigation of the Miami Police Department (MPD) under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to determine whether MPD was engaging in a pattern or practice of excessive use of deadly force by firearms. On July 9, 2013, the DOJ submitted a findings letter detailing its rationale for finding that MPD was engaged in such a pattern or practice in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

This investigation marks the second time that the DOJ had cause to investigate MPD within a period of only several years. The first investigation, which began in May 2002, was predicated on allegations that officers used excessive deadly and non-deadly force. Although DOJ did not find a pattern or practice of excessive force in officer-involved shootings during the first investigation, it did note serious deficiencies in MPD's investigative practices. DOJ’s concerns were outlined in a 2003 technical assistance letter. In response, MPD agreed to revise its policies, procedures, and practices. After the DOJ observed a sharp drop in use of force incidents, including an almost two year period in which no officers reported discharging their firearms, DOJ closed its investigation into MPD without a formal settlement agreement in 2006. 

However, this progress was not sustained. According to the DOJ, between 2008 and 2011, there were 33 instances of MPD officers shooting at individuals. In addition, the investigations of those shootings were not conducted in a timely manner, which meant that at least one police officer under investigation continued to shoot civilians in the course of their ongoing duties. In its own internal investigations, MPD found at least three shootings to be unjustified. The DOJ suggested that tactical and training deficiencies were likely the cause of some of the unjustified shootings.

In March 2016, the DOJ and MPD entered into a settlement agreement to improve these conditions. Among other provisions, the settlement provided for enhanced supervision of first-line officers; enhanced training, including de-escalation training; improvements to internal investigations of officer-involved shootings; a more stringent mechanism under which a shooting officer’s return to work is authorized; and a mechanism to ensure community participation in the monitoring process. The agreement was scheduled to remain in effect until March 15, 2020, unless the parties jointly agreed to an earlier termination on the grounds that the city had been in substantial compliance for one year.

The parties jointly selected Jane Castor, the former Tampa police chief, to serve as the independent reviewer, tasked with advising and overseeing the implementation of the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the independent reviewer was required to submit public reports measuring compliance every four months.

By mid 2019, MPD was in full compliance with the settlement agreement. The independent reviewer’s eighth report, covering the period between February-May 2019, concluded that MPD “fulfilled the requirements of the Agreement and that the remainder of time left in the assessment period [should] be utilized to audit specific areas to ensure continued compliance.” Thereafter, the independent reviewer resigned her position to run for mayor of Tampa and the DOJ assumed compliance monitoring duties. The DOJ’s first compliance report, the ninth overall, which covered the period from June-September 2019, concluded that the city and MPD had maintained compliance with the agreement. The tenth and final report, which covered the period from October 2019-March 2020, concluded that the city and MPD had continued to do so.

The DOJ formally closed out this matter on February 12, 2021. In its closeout letter, the DOJ noted that “[d]uring the life of the Agreement, MPD has implemented significant reforms that improved officer-involved shooting investigations, led to a more effective policy development process, improved training, enhanced supervision, and prioritized community engagement.”