Case: Becerra v. County of Kern

This case was brought by the Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, on behalf of the people of California, alleging that the Kern County Sheriff’s Office engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state and federal law. The complaint was filed on December 22, 2020, in the Kern County Superior Court of California. The California state constitution empowered the attorney general to take action to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies were uniformly and adequately enforcing the law by bringing a civil action.  

The complaint alleged that California began a civil investigation into the defendant’s actions in 2016. Attorneys from the California Department of Justice investigated allegations involving police practices and accountability in the defendant’s office. As a result of the investigation, the state concluded that the inadequate policies employed by the defendant resulted in a deprivation of the constitutional rights of Californians. The investigation found evidence of excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as state constitutional analogues. The investigation also uncovered evidence of illegal use of deadly force against individuals with mental health disabilities, failure to provide access to resources for individuals with limited English proficiency, failure to provide equal employment opportunities, and failure to maintain a meaningful program for receipt and investigation of citizen complaints. 

The state requested injunctive relief requiring the defendant to implement agreed-upon reforms set forth in the stipulated judgment that was filed concurrently with their complaint. The state asserted that the people of California had already experienced irreparable harm. They also requested that the court exercise continuing jurisdiction over this action to ensure that the defendant maintained compliance with the stipulated order. 

In the stipulated judgment, the defendant agreed to continue revising their use of force policies to uphold the rights protected by the California constitution and the United States Constitution. This included revamping policies to comply with the California Penal Code’s requirement for officer use of lethal force and to include recommendations on the use of de-escalation techniques, crisis-intervention tactics, and other alternatives to the use of force. For all use of force situations, the defendant was required to have a supervising officer initiate an investigation. The defendant also agreed to incorporate a policy prohibiting officers from threatening or discouraging members of the public from recording when they are otherwise acting in accordance with the law.  

The stipulated judgment also required that the defendant establish a Mobile Evaluation Team (MET) to address mental health crises. The MET was required to be trained in de-escalation techniques to aid individuals who are suffering from mental health emergencies and pose no immediate threat of harm to others. 

In regard to their language access deficiencies, the defendant agreed that they would work to develop and implement a language access policy that was consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, the defendant agreed to review and revise their recruitment and hiring program to ensure that they successfully attracted and retained a diverse group of employees. 

In order to monitor compliance with and implementation of the order, the parties agreed to appoint a third-party monitor. The monitor was required to conduct compliance reviews and audits as necessary to determine whether the defendant effectively implemented the stipulated judgment.

On April 12, 2022, the monitor filed their first annual report pursuant to the agreement. The monitoring report stated that the monitor and the defendant had worked together to establish a process for measuring compliance with the stipulated judgment. The report also stated that the defendant had been cooperative and had made progress instituting the reforms required by the stipulated judgment. 

The parties agreed that the stipulated judgment would terminate at any time three years after the effective date if the parties agreed that the defendant had reached full and effective compliance with the material requirements of the agreement. The stipulated judgment is ongoing and is not eligible for termination until December 22, 2023, at the earliest.