Filed Date: May 25, 2015
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In March 2013, following a series of highly-publicized use-of-force incidents involving the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP), the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, that focused on the CDP's use of force, including deadly force. This was the second investigation conducted by the DOJ into the CDP's practices in a little over ten years, as the DOJ had previously reached a memorandum of agreement with the City in 2004. (That investigation can be found at 2002 DOJ Investigation of Cleveland Division of Police.) On December 4, 2014, the DOJ issued a findings letter revealing that the CDP was engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the DOJ claimed that structural deficiencies and practices, including insufficient accountability, inadequate training and equipment, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community, contributed to the CDP's use of excessive force.
As an initial step to address these findings, the DOJ and the City of Cleveland signed a statement of principles committing to developing a court-enforceable consent decree. On May 25, 2015, after the City agreed to the finalized terms of the consent decree, the DOJ filed the complaint for this action along with a joint motion for entry of the agreed upon consent decree.
The consent decree outlined a series of reforms that the City of Cleveland and CDP would undertake:
The parties agreed that a monitor would be appointed by the court to implement the consent decree. The parties also agreed that the consent decree would be terminated once the city was in "substantial and effective compliance" with the search and seizure provisions for one year and with all other provisions for two years.
On June 12, 2015, U.S. District Judge Simon Oliver, Jr. granted the motion for entry of the consent decree, finding that the settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate."
On June 29, 2015, various groups including the Cleveland Branch of the NAACP; the Collaborative for a Safe, Fair, and Just Cleveland; and the Ohio Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild moved to file amicus briefs in this action. The parties opposed the motions, indicating that there was no need for amicus assistance at this time, and that the focus should be directed at implementation of the consent decree. In addition, the DOJ noted that community groups were accorded a substantial opportunity to be heard on issues governed by the consent decree. On October 6, U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. denied the motion, reiterating that the consent decree was sufficient and noting that these groups had other, more appropriate methods to communicate their views regarding implementation of the consent decree.
On October 1, 2015, the parties jointly moved to appoint the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) as the independent monitor for the implementation of the consent decree. Judge Oliver granted the order.
On December 1, 2015, the parties jointly moved to modify the consent decree to adjust the deadline for the Community Police Commission's recommendations and to fix a typographical error. Judge Oliver granted this motion on December 8. On December 9, 2015, the defendants filed their first status report, which discussed the steps taken in response to the consent decree. In addition to appointing a monitor, the defendants had appointed a community police commission and created district policing committees, and an office of professional standards and police review board. The defendants had also implemented crisis intervention training, and made changes to recruitment and hiring of police officers.
The status report stated that the CDP would continue to work toward adopting all of the reforms addressed in the consent decree and correct any problems though the City was presently addressing the temporary restraining order entered by the Court of Common Please that delayed the start of training the new recruit class.
The monitor filed its proposed first-year monitoring plan with the court on February 1, 2016. Judge Oliver approved the plan on February 4.
On February 16, 2016, the parties again jointly moved to modify certain deadlines in the consent decree. Judge Oliver granted this motion on February 22.
In June 2016, the defendants filed their second status report. This report discussed the CDP's move to community and problem-oriented policing, which was codified in a new mission statement. It also mentioned the implementation of new polices and training in areas such as use of force and crisis intervention, as well as new equipment and resources to assist the CDP to fulfill its mission and satisfy the requirements of the consent decree.
This status report also addressed issues raised by the monitor in a semiannual report about the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). The monitor was concerned about the efficiency of the office, especially pertaining to the small number of cases that were investigated. The defendants explained in their status report that they would continue to work closely with the monitor and the DOJ to address and resolve these concerns.
As of August 16, 2018, the parties worked to implement the terms of the consent decree. Upon the monitor's recommendations, there were revisions of CDP's use of force policies, including revised use of the canine unit. Implementation of wearable camera systems was underway, and the parties worked to develop new crisis intervention polices and trainings. CDP was developing revised search and seizure policies and implementing a community engagement framework for community and problem-oriented policing and bias-free policing.
On January 1, 2018, the court approved minor modifications to the settlement agreement, removing the prohibition on current or retired law enforcement officers serving as the Superintendent of the CDP's Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”). The City identified a candidate who had prior experience as a prosecutor, and the parties agreed that the agreement's language should be changed to permit the CDP to hire the individual so that implementation of the reforms to the IAU required by the consent decree could begin.
On August 13, 2018, the parties jointly requested that Matthew Barge be appointed independent monitor in place of PARC. Matthew Barge had been the lead monitor for the PARC team, but upon his resignation from PARC in 2018, he wished to continue as independent monitor.
On August 15, 2018, the monitoring team submitted its Fifth Semiannual Report and Comprehensive Reassessment, a more wide-ranging look at progress made and work yet to be done than the previous regular semiannual reports submitted to date. The report found that overall the CDP had made significant progress in a number of critical areas, particularly use of force, which had decreased under the new use of force policies. The report also noted the progress the CDP had made in partnering with the community, as well as its approach to interacting with individuals experiencing behavioral health crises. The report also found areas requiring substantial progress. It noted that the CDP's focus until 2018 had largely been on designing new policies, procedures, systems, and structures for compliance with the consent decree, and with substantial progress--most of the relevant policies or plans contemplated by the consent decree were "well on their way to being completed." However, the report noted that "paper is only relevant when it is put into practice." It identified the areas that would require the most work as being those related to how the CDP functioned, managed its personnel, implemented its strategic initiatives, and tracked its performance. Areas where work remained included the CDP's disciplinary process and accountability measures, including the investigation of civilian complaints.
In subsequent reports, the monitoring team found that the defendants had some distance to go before all areas of the consent decree reached substantial and effective compliance, but highlighted the progress the CDP had made in its initial years under the consent decree.
The court approved a fourth year monitoring plan on March 26, 2019. The parties filed a joint motion to restructure monitoring and approve the appointment of Hassan Aden as Independent Monitor, which was granted on July 17, 2019.
The monitoring team filed a notice regarding the ninth semi-annual report on June 18, 2020. In this notice, they stated that the eighth semi-annual report would be submitted soon, which would cover the period of September 2019 through February 2020 and therefore would not account for circumstances influenced by COVID-19 and the George Floyd protests. The team therefore proposed that the ninth semi-annual report would be a “special edition,” focused on a review of the Cleveland Police’s “preparedness, response, and after-action activities related to the various planned and unplanned protests occurring after the killing of George Floyd.”
The eighth semi-annual report was filed July 13, 2020. It continued the trend of substantial and effective compliance described in prior reports. For example, the report highlighted that “CPD officers have been using less force even as crime was steady or down across all major categories but rape since 2017.” Likewise, the report noted a downward trend in both officer and subject injuries. This “continue[d] to suggest that officers [we]re effectively implementing the new use of force policies on a daily basis, with no compromise” with respect to either crime or officer safety.
The City filed its fifth monitoring plan, the “2021 Monitoring Plan,” on February 18, 2021, which detailed milestones concerning issues including use of force, training, hiring and recruitment, crisis intervention, and instituting a police review board. And on February 24, 2021, the Monitor submitted the ninth semi-annual report. This report had been delayed–with the court’s acquiescence–as the parties accounted for the dramatic impact of both COVID-19 and the George Floyd protests. The report detailed how the City’s response to the protests was inadequate with respect to reporting instances of use of force and properly recording incidents on body-worn cameras. The report then detailed the degree of compliance that the City had demonstrated with respect to specific provisions of the consent decree.
Semi-annual reports continued to be filed by the monitoring team, with the eleventh filed on September 22, 2022. Recent monitoring reports detailed a transition “from technical assistance to assessments” as the parties aspired for the City to engage in sophisticated self-reporting and self-management. Hassan Aden announced that he intended to resign, effective November 8, 2022, requiring the parties to interview new potential monitors while the court appointed an interim monitor. On April 12, 2023, the parties requested that the law firm Hogan Lovells serve as monitor, with a partner at the firm (the former Attorney General of Washington) appointed as lead monitor.
The new monitoring team continued to submit semi-annual reports. The most recent, the thirteenth semi-annual report from October 2023, detailed the City’s progress in complying with the consent decree from January 2023 to June 2023. Overall, the City’s list of action items remained long. It was at least partially compliant with its obligations under the crisis intervention, search and seizure, and accountability provisions of the agreement, but the City was still non-compliant under the community engagement, bias-free policing, use of force, transparency and oversight, and officer assistance provisions. According to the monitoring team, some of the challenges ahead for the City were: embedding rigorous systems into the fabric of the organization, taking on a larger role in overseeing compliance of the consent decree, and analyzing data on force, stops, and searches more deeply, among others.
The monitoring team anticipated conducting a more comprehensive compliance assessment in 2024.
Summary Authors
John He (3/3/2016)
Saeeda Joseph-Charles (10/30/2016)
Sarah McDonald (8/16/2018)
Alex Moody (4/14/2020)
Jack Hibbard (6/11/2020)
Hank Minor (11/25/2022)
Simran Takhar (10/22/2023)
2002 DOJ Investigation of Cleveland Division of Police, No Court (None)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4360576/parties/united-states-v-city-of-cleveland/
Abend, Katherine A. (Ohio)
Abernathy, Terri J (Ohio)
Abreu, Alejandro A. (Ohio)
Acosta, R. Alexander (Ohio)
Acton, June C. (Ohio)
Oliver, Solomon Jr. (Ohio)
Alberts, Jeffrey Ehrlich (Ohio)
Altmeyer, Helen Campbell (Ohio)
Anderson, Daniel Robert (Ohio)
Appenteng, Jeannice Williams (Ohio)
Atkinson, Theodore William (Ohio)
Attorney, Noticing 2255 (Ohio)
Auchterlonie, Jennifer D (Ohio)
Beckman, Samantha Elizabeth (Ohio)
Bengford, Stephanie Carlson (Ohio)
Bhatia-Gautier, Lisa E. (Ohio)
Bickers, Kathleen Louise (Ohio)
Blackwell, Jennifer Leigh (Ohio)
Boeving, James Nicholas (Ohio)
Bowens, Barbara Murcier (Ohio)
Branning, Robert Joseph (Ohio)
Brett, Sharon (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Butcher, Daniel Everett (Ohio)
Carreno-Coll, Silvia L. (Ohio)
Cha-Kim, Stephen Seungkun (Ohio)
Chaudhury, Arastu Kabeer (Ohio)
Clayton, Lindsay Laurie (Ohio)
Cohen, Jonathan Ephraim (Ohio)
Coles-Huff, Doris Denise (Ohio)
Connolly, Christopher Kendrick (Ohio)
Cordaro, Joseph Nicholas (Ohio)
Cowart, Brandon Herbert (Ohio)
Crane-Hirsch, Daniel K. (Ohio)
Dettelbach, Steven M (District of Columbia)
Dimock, Christina Nicole (Ohio)
Doud, Rachael Lightfoot (Ohio)
Dupris, Cheryl Schrempp (Ohio)
Dworkin, Howard Sheldon (Ohio)
Dworkowitz, Gregory Peter (Ohio)
Emden, Christopher John (Ohio)
Erickson-Pogorzelski, Anthony (Ohio)
Fernandez-Gonzalez, Myriam Y. (Ohio)
Fernandez-Torres, Miguel A. (Ohio)
Flannery, Kathleen Marie (Ohio)
Fogelman, Lawrence Heath (Ohio)
Franze-Nakamura, Francis (Ohio)
French_AUSA, Richard J. (Ohio)
Frey, Christopher Douglas (Ohio)
Galler, Brandy Brentari (Ohio)
Georgalis_AUSA, Christos N. (Ohio)
Goldsmith, Michael Lawrence (Ohio)
Gov, Vanita Gupta-Federal (Ohio)
Gov, Anna Purinton-Federal (Ohio)
GOVT, Kevin Christopher (Ohio)
Groat, Monica Christine (Ohio)
Gunston, Emily A. (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Hambrick, Jonathan Holland (Ohio)
Hansen, Jeffrey Michael (Ohio)
Harrington, Quinn Patrick (Ohio)
Harris, Brittney Michelle (Ohio)
Hitchings, Erica Blachman (Ohio)
Hodge, Gwendolyn Dewees (Ohio)
Horwitz, Matthew Joseph (Ohio)
Iannarone, Liberatore Joseph (Ohio)
Jackson_AUSA, Steven L. (Ohio)
Jividen, Betsy Steinfeld (Ohio)
Johnson, Kristin Berger (Ohio)
Josephson, Matthew Allan (Ohio)
Kaminski, Gerald Francis (Ohio)
Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)
Krissoff, Sarah Rebecca (Ohio)
Krivonyak, J. Christopher (Ohio)
Kutcher, Matthew Lawrence (Ohio)
Kwaterski, Laura Schulteis (Ohio)
LA-CR, Assistant 2241-2255 (Ohio)
Laroche, Matthew Joseph (Ohio)
Lawrence, Kathleen O'Malley (Ohio)
Lesperance, Karen Folster (Ohio)
Lillywhite, Jacob Thomas (Ohio)
Lindsey, Marilynn Koonce (Ohio)
Linnett, Kelsey Catherine (Ohio)
Lockard, Michael Dennis (Ohio)
Lomba-Ortiz, Eugenio A. (Ohio)
Lopez-Rivera, Rafael J. (Ohio)
Macchiaroli, Christopher (Ohio)
Magdo, Christine Ingrid (Ohio)
Mahaffey-DOJ, Clayton Ray (Ohio)
Marquez, Jennifer Margolis (Ohio)
McClanahan, Cathryn Dawn (Ohio)
McCullohs, Mary Elizabeth (Ohio)
McKenna-DOJ, Sean Robert (Ohio)
Mermelstein, Rebecca Gabrielle (Ohio)
Middleton, Robert James (Ohio)
Mitchell, Jan Elizabeth (Ohio)
Monteleoni, Paul Michael (Ohio)
Morse, Thomas Jackson (District of Columbia)
Moseley, Kesabii Lagrace (Ohio)
Murphy, Madeleine Sullivan (Ohio)
Nathanson, John Alexander (Ohio)
Nelson, David Christopher (Ohio)
Nurse, Abigail Adrienne (Ohio)
Ogletree, Rashida J (District of Columbia)
Omojola, Aderemilekun A. (Ohio)
Parascandola, Christina B. (Ohio)
Parente, Christopher Vincent (Ohio)
Pellegrino, Louis Anthony (Ohio)
Peterson, Benton Gregory (Ohio)
Phillips, Cristine Irvin (Ohio)
Porter, Nicole (District of Columbia)
Preston, Judy C. (District of Columbia)
Quarcoo, Stephen Chartey (Ohio)
Robinson, Stuart Justin (Ohio)
Robinson-Gaither, Eleanor A (Ohio)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Sandberg, Justin Michael (Ohio)
Sanders, Christopher W. (Ohio)
Sarnell, Bradley Alexander (Ohio)
Schnieders, Kathleen Kelly (Ohio)
Schoenberger, Carina Hyatt (Ohio)
Schonbachler, Katharine (Ohio)
Senier, Amy (District of Columbia)
Simmons-Jones, Monica M. (Ohio)
Soloveichik, Layaliza K. (Ohio)
Songer, Michael Johnson (Ohio)
Southwell, Alexander H. (Ohio)
Stetler, Christopher John (Ohio)
Stripling, Clarence Daniel (Ohio)
Taylor-Phillips, LaQuita J (Ohio)
Torrance, Benjamin Henry (Ohio)
Townshend, Adam Barrett (Ohio)
Tribuiani, Rinku Talwar (Ohio)
Trotter, Richard Walker (Ohio)
Turner, Frederick Harter (Ohio)
Tyminski, Patricia Daffodil (Ohio)
Volosin, Heather Tonsing (Ohio)
Watkins, Susana Elizabeth (Ohio)
Wiethe, Donetta Donaldson (Ohio)
Williamson, Christopher James (Ohio)
Willing-FLU, Patricia A. (Ohio)
Wilson, Alexander Joshua (Ohio)
Wilson, Geoffrey Daniel (Ohio)
Wilson, Bradley Maclean (Ohio)
Witt-USA, Gretchen Leah (Ohio)
Wolverton, Caroline Lewis (Ohio)
Woodliff, Steven Christopher (Ohio)
Wotring, Earnest William (Ohio)
Wu, Elizabeth Catherine (Ohio)
Zapata-Valladares, Teresa S. (Ohio)
Zebrowski, Kathleen Ann (Ohio)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4360576/united-states-v-city-of-cleveland/
Last updated Feb. 23, 2024, 4:47 a.m.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 25, 2015
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Civil Rights Division of the 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
City of Cleveland (Cleveland, Cuyahoga), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
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
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Policing: