Filed Date: March 31, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
After a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights ("MDHR") opened an investigation into whether Minneapolis ("City") and its police department ("MPD") violated a Minnesota state human rights statute because of a pattern or practice of race discrimination. On June 1, 2020, the MN Department of Human Rights filed a charge of discrimination against the city. Four days later, the parties requested a temporary court order from the Minnesota district court for Hennepin County to immediately implement public safety changes outlined in a joint stipulation. The court approved the order on June 8, 2020.
The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis (“Federation”) moved to intervene in the case on December 16, 2021. At a subsequent hearing, the Federation clarified that its primary goal was to ensure that it received notice of filings or actions regarding the court’s June 8, 2020, temporary order. Both parties and the Federation represented to the court that they did not intend to seek changes to the temporary order. And the parties agreed to send copies and notices of any future filings to the Federation as a courtesy. Given these facts, the court concluded in an order filed on March 8, 2022, that there was no reason to determine the intervention issue. Instead, it stayed the Federation’s motion to intervene pending a relevant potential change to the June 8, 2020 order and the status of the case.
More information about the changes made and findings from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigation can be found in this report (also available as a resource). The MDHR published the findings of its investigation on April 27, 2022. It concluded that there was probable cause to believe that the City and MPD engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The report stated that the pattern or practice of discriminatory, race-based policing was caused primarily by the MPD’s organizational culture, and that reforming MPD’s policies, procedures, and training would be meaningless without fundamental change in MPD’s culture. Likewise, it found that existing accountability and oversight systems were insufficient, and in fact contributed to a pattern of discriminatory policing.
The DHR then explained that it would work with the City to develop a consent decree that identified specific changes to be made and timelines for those changes to occur. On March 31, 2023, the parties submitted a lengthy settlement agreement to the court. The settlement requires sweeping organization and cultural change, including: revised use of force, de-escalation, and arrest protocols; establishment of a database to record officer conduct and investigations; partnership with behavioral health and response teams; new oversight; and City funding of an independent monitor. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. A termination evaluation hearing must be held no later than four years, but the City may move for termination of the agreement if it can show compliance for at least 24 months. This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Hank Minor (1/1/2023)
Robin Peterson (4/15/2023)
State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Police Violence Protests
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 31, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff was the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the then-Commissioner of that department, Rebecca Lucero.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Minneapolis (Minneapolis, Hennepin), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
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
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Order Duration: 2023 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Policing:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures