Case: State of California v. City of Maywood

In March 2007, the California Attorney General directed the California Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES) to conduct an investigation to determine whether the City of Maywood Police Department (MPD) had engaged in a pattern of conduct that deprives people of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, federal law, and California law. CRES began its investigation into MPD in April 2007 and in August 2008. After the MPD investigation concluded, CRES began monitoring the Maywood City Council (Maywood) and its efforts to reform MPD until February 2009. The investigation into Maywood especially focused on the use of excessive force by MPD. During the course of the investigation, CRES reviewed over thirty thousand pages of documents from MPD, including written policies and procedures, personnel files, use of force reports, arrest reports, citizen complaints, vehicle impound records, and lawsuits from January 2002 - April 2007. CRES also conducted interviews with current and former MPD personnel, Maywood City Council members, attorneys, and victims.

CRES’ report had three major categories of findings. First, CRES alleged that Maywood and MPD had engaged in a routine pattern or practice of civil rights violations. CRES noted that MPD officers’ use of excessive force violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Several MPD officers had a reputation of using excessive force with very little accountability. When there were complaints against these officers, MPD and Maywood rarely ensured the complaints would be properly investigated. After reported incidents of excessive force, Maywood officers rarely wrote “force reports,” leading to several incidents going unreported. Moreover, CRES alleged that Maywood and MPD failed to recruit and retain Chiefs of Police and other officers who were well-suited to be peace officers, which contributed to a culture of excessive force.  Second, CRES alleged that Maywood and MPD’s lack of investigations into citizen complaints violated Section 832.5 of the California Penal Code, which requires that any California agency employing peace officers must establish a complaint procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public. Third, CRES found that MPD’s routine towing and impounding of vehicles also violated residents’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. CRES alleged that MPD maintained a practice of aggressively stopping motorists within the City of Maywood and impounding their vehicles. While MPD cited that this was because of a policy to curb unlicensed driving, CRES alleged that the main motivation of the impoundment practice was for profit. This is because Maywood earned at least $200 per impoundment, thus CRES alleged that MPD unnecessarily conducted traffic stops and wrote citations for profit.

Considering the findings, the Attorney General of California and CRES proposed a Twelve-Point Plan to reform MPD. One salient point was that Maywood had to accept responsibility for the actions of MPD by providing comprehensive and effective oversight and adopting a written hiring procedure in accordance with the California Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission. Moreover, Maywood had to require MPD to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive set of written policies and trainings concerning the use of excessive force, the law on probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and how to respond to citizen complaint procedures. MPD also had to take steps to change the culture of inappropriate sexual innuendos, sexual harassment, and racial insensitivity in the workplace and in the field.

After publishing the report, the California Attorney General and CRES filed a complaint against Maywood and MPD (Defendants) seeking permanent injunctive relief to implement the findings from the report. On June 25, 2009, complaint proceedings between the parties were held in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where CRES sought permanent injunctive relief according to the findings from its report. On December 23, 2010, the court approved a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. Per the agreement, the Defendants agreed to develop and implement written hiring policies and procedures for the hiring process to ensure a community-oriented policing approach in officers. The Defendants also agreed to modify MPD’s current complaint procedure to require credibility determinations of evidence used in warrants and the rationale for any stops and searches. The agreement also included provisions about annual training for all officers on the revised complaint policy, including guidelines to evaluate and audit the complaint procedures. Lastly, the agreement includes that the parties will work together to monitor MPD’s compliance with the terms of the judgment.