Filed Date: Jan. 12, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the Police Department of Baltimore City (BPD) alleging a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers in deprivation of people's rights under the United States Constitution and federal laws. The DOJ brought the action under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134.
This action was brought following an investigation into BPD opened by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in May 2015 after Baltimore city officials and community members voiced concerns about possible unlawful police practices. On August 10, 2016, the DOJ released its findings, concluding that there was reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated individuals' rights under the First and Fourth Amendments and federal anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the DOJ noted BPD’s use of excessive force, retaliation, and unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests. The DOJ also summarized how BPD’s policies and procedures disparately impacted African Americans. Additionally, the report highlighted how BPD infringed on individuals’ First Amendment right to free expression, engaged in gender-biased policing when investigating sexual assaults, and used unreasonable force against those with mental health disabilities in violation of the ADA. These problems developed from poor training, policies, supervision, and accountability measures. The report emphasized the importance of rebuilding trust within the community and including Baltimore citizens in the reform process.
In response to the DOJ’s findings, BPD and the City of Baltimore entered into an Agreement in Principle to work on creating a judicially-enforced consent decree that would help resolve the problems uncovered during the DOJ investigation. The Agreement in Principle outlined several key areas that the future consent decree should address, including: policies, training, data collection, and analysis; technology and infrastructure; officer support; and community policing strategies. On January 12, 2017, the same day that the DOJ filed its complaint with the district court, the parties filed a proposed consent decree and a joint motion for settlement and entry of the agreement.
The matter was assigned to District Judge James K. Bredar, who held a fairness hearing regarding the proposed consent decree on February 1, 2017. During the hearing, the government, presumably in light of the change in administration, requested additional time to assess whether and how the proposed consent decree interact with newly-issued directives of the President and the Attorney General. The Trump Administration did not want to continue enforcing many consent decrees, a stance that was made official in November 2018 memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Judge Bredar's order entering the consent decree found this "problematic," stating that it, “[a]s between the parties, this case is settled."
The court entered and approved the consent decree on April 7, 2017, retaining jurisdiction over the consent decree until its termination. 249 F.Supp.3d 816.
According to the consent decree's terms, it terminates upon the court's determination that the defendants have achieved full and effective compliance, and have (a) maintained such compliance for one year in the areas of the community oversight task force; interactions with youth; transportation; First Amendment; technology; and coordination with school police; and (b) have maintained such compliance for two years in the areas of community policing and engagement; stops, searches, arrests, and voluntary police-community interactions; impartial policing; responding to and interacting with people with behavioral health disabilities or in crisis; use of force; handling of reports of sexual assault; supervision; misconduct investigations and discipline; and recruitment, hiring, and retention.
On October 3, 2017, the court approved the appointment of Kenneth Thompson to serve as the independent monitor of the consent decree. 282 F.Supp.3d 897. Over the next year, the monitoring team worked with the parties to develop a monitoring plan, and the court held quarterly public hearings and approved certain minor modifications to the consent decree, mostly in respect to deadlines. See, e.g., 290 F.Supp.3d 420.
The monitoring team submitted its first semiannual report on July 18, 2018. Because much of the first year under the consent decree was devoted to establishing an implementation plan and BPD was still in the preliminary, preparatory stage of reform, the report found that it was too early to gauge BPD’s progress toward achieving compliance. The monitor did express a primary concern that BPD may not have the “capacity to implement the linchpin requirements of the Consent Decree." Notable elements of the report included its emphasis on the need for structural reform of BPD's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), with the mintor finding that BPD needed to revamp OPR's basic operational model to improve the fairness, objectivity, thoroughness, and timeliness of its investigations.
The monitor also highlighted the pressing need for a disciplinary system, finding BPD’s system for holding officers accountable for misconduct to be "broken." The report outlined BPD's response in the aftermath of the shooting of a BPD detective, who was found dead in the Harlem Park neighborhood of Baltimore. The monitoring team conducted an independent review of the BPD's response to the shooting, noting that while it was too early to be a reflection on compliance, the BPD's actions did raise some serious concerns and would provide a vital learning opportunity to the BPD going forward. In evaluating the BPD's conduct in establishing and enforcing a perimeter around the neighborhood, the monitoring team had concerns about whether BPD command staff and supervisory officers were adequately ensuring adherence to Fourth Amendment requirements and corresponding consent decree provisions. The monitor found the response to the shooting to confirm the need for a culture change within BPD around stops, searches, and arrests.
In September 2020, the monitoring team filed a "First Comprehensive Re-Assessment," in which it examined the city’s and BPD's progress towards compliance. Overall, the monitor found that the consent decree was working “as designed,” but expressed concern that the city’s and BPD's work had not translated into “consistent, observable change on the street.” The monitor also lauded changes to BPD's training programs, but noted that its accountability for officers and community policing were "challenges" for the department. In particular, the monitor criticized the quality of BPD's internal investigations, noting that many investigations were "poor quality," were not finished in the relevant time frame, and "administratively closed" in violation of the consent decree. However, the monitor expressed confidence in the new Police Commissioner Michael Harrison.
The next semiannual report was filed by the monitor in May of 2021. The monitoring team's top line finding was that achieving compliance was now actually “plausible." The monitor praised BPD's adoption of new technology for a variety of purposes. However, he also noted the hard work ahead of the BPD before compliance could be achieved and described the process towards compliance as a "long arc."
On January 20, 2022, an independent investigation team released a report based on a two-year investigation of BPD’s Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF) Scandal. The scandal came to light when seven members of GTTF were arrested in 2017 for racketeering, robbery, extortion, and fraud, revealing that the GTTF had been transformed into a “a racketeering enterprise.” The report provided additional hiring, training, supervision, and oversight and accountability recommendations for BPD.
Throughout 2022, the monitoring team completed compliance reviews and assessments of particular portions of the consent decree. The team produced a February 2022 report regarding the transportation of persons in custody; a February 2022 report regarding BPD training; a November 2022 report regarding officer assistance and support; and a December 2022 report regarding use of force.
On December 22, 2022, the monitor filed a second comprehensive reassessment of BPD, finding that BPD was on the road to compliance. In each area of the consent decree, BPD reached or was nearing initial compliance.The noted reported that while BPD had successfully implemented the foundational reforms, the “hard part” of “sustainable, tangible improvement” was still ahead. BPD needed to better use data to implement enforcement strategies, implement more supervisory review of uses of force, reduce the amount of time to investigate complaints against officers, and increase record keeping. However, BPD lost more officers to attrition than they hired between 2021 and 2022, which created challenges in meeting all of the standards set by the consent decree.
The monitoring team continued to conduct compliance reviews and assessments of portions of the consent decree throughout 2023 and 2024. The team produced a May 2023 report regarding sexual assault investigations; an August 2023 report regarding recruitment and retention; an August 2023 report regarding community policing and engagement; a February 2024 report regarding crisis intervention; a July 2024 report regarding officer misconduct; a July 2024 follow-up report regarding BPD training; an October 2024 report regarding First Amendment protected activities; an October 2024 report regarding interactions with youth and coordination with the Baltimore City School Police; and a November 2024 report regarding the Community Oversight Task Force.
The monitoring team filed its tenth semiannual report on December 20, 2024, in which they reported to the court that they were in the process of conducting assessments in four areas: (1) use of force (second assessment); (2) sexual assault investigations (second assessment); (3) stops and searches; and (4) impartial policing. The monitoring team also reported that they expected to conduct assessments in several additional areas in the next reporting period: (1) Technology; (2) recruitment, hiring, and retention; (3) the City’s obligations regarding behavioral health; and (4) Supervision.
As of March 2025, monitoring remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Amelia Huckins (2/12/2017)
Sarah McDonald (8/21/2018)
Jonah Hudson-Erdman (9/9/2021)
Sophia Weaver (4/5/2023)
Logan Moore (3/22/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4566943/parties/united-states-v-baltimore-police-department/
Aguirre, Beatriz (District of Columbia)
Astarita, Julianna (Maryland)
Ackerman, Alexa (Maryland)
Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)
Amato, Natalie Rose (Maryland)
Aguirre, Beatriz (District of Columbia)
Cheema, Puneet (District of Columbia)
Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)
Cooper, David G (District of Columbia)
Gore, John M. (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Harris, Curtis (District of Columbia)
Johnston, Maureen (District of Columbia)
Keller, Emily C (District of Columbia)
Moossy, Robert J. (District of Columbia)
Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)
Patrie, Aparna (District of Columbia)
Porter, Forestine Nicole (District of Columbia)
Riaz, Syeda Mehveen (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Shandell, Alexandra L. (District of Columbia)
Songer, Michael J. (District of Columbia)
Steege, Sarah Gabrielle (Maryland)
Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)
Amato, Natalie Rose (Maryland)
Blumer, Kristin Elizabeth (Maryland)
Conroy, Justin Sperance (Maryland)
Davis, Andre Maurice (Maryland)
Gurney, Brent J. (District of Columbia)
Harding, Kay Natalie (Maryland)
McCarty, Elisabeth Walden (Maryland)
Moore, Dana Petersen (Maryland)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4566943/united-states-v-baltimore-police-department/
Last updated May 4, 2025, 4:40 a.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 12, 2017
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: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Baltimore City Police Department (Baltimore, Baltimore City), City
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
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
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Provide antidiscrimination training
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Order Duration: 2017 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Affected Race(s):
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Mental health care, unspecified
Policing: