Filed Date: Oct. 16, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involved alleged incidents of police misconduct by officers in the Vallejo Police Department (“VPD”). On October 16, 2023, the California Attorney General filed suit to further reform the VPD following the department’s failure to fully comply with an earlier agreement. Brought in the County of Solano Superior Court, the lawsuit named the VPD and the City of Vallejo (“City”) as defendants. Under California state law, the Attorney General was empowered to sue police departments that allegedly deprived individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by state or federal law. The Attorney General sought court approval of a stipulated judgment agreed to by the City and the VPD.
However, the judge assigned to the case, Judge Stephen Gizzi, did not immediately approve the agreement. According to Open Vallejo, on November 3, 2023, he ordered the Attorney General to defend the propriety of the stipulated judgment. After this setback, the Attorney General chose to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit on April 9, 2024, opting to proceed through a voluntary settlement with the City and the VPD. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and on April 8, 2024, the parties signed the private settlement.
This private settlement instructed the VPD to implement the remaining recommendations from the earlier agreement and included other recommendations governing the use of force, bias-free policing, stops, searches, and seizures, interactions with those in crisis or those with behavioral health disabilities, management and supervisory oversight, community policing, and personnel complaint review.
The agreement specified that it would be overseen by a third-party evaluator. In addition to monitoring responsibilities, the evaluator was instructed to author an annual report detailing the VPD’s progress implementing and achieving compliance with the agreement.
Although the agreement was not a court-enforced consent decree, it did specify that the California Department of Justice could enforce the terms of the agreement by initiating judicial proceedings. The agreement was set for a timeframe of five years, with early termination only available after three years.
As of April 5, 2025, there was no docket activity.
Summary Authors
Maddie Turk (4/5/2025)
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 16, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is the California Attorney General on behalf of the people of California suing in response to alleged legal violations by the Vallejo Police Department.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Vallejo (Vallejo, Solano), 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
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General/Misc.:
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Policing:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects