Case: DOJ Investigation of Easton Police Department

No Court

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

According to a local newspaper, on August 3, 2005, Easton's Mayor requested to the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the Easton Police Department (EPD)'s pattern of excessive force established in federal civil rights lawsuits settled for nearly $5 million from 2002-2005. One of the cases was Cuvo v. De Bias, where the plaintiff received a $2.5 million police brutality settlement from Easton.The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice conducts its broad “pattern or pract…

According to a local newspaper, on August 3, 2005, Easton's Mayor requested to the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the Easton Police Department (EPD)'s pattern of excessive force established in federal civil rights lawsuits settled for nearly $5 million from 2002-2005. One of the cases was Cuvo v. De Bias, where the plaintiff received a $2.5 million police brutality settlement from Easton.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice conducts its broad “pattern or practice” investigations of local law enforcement agencies under a 1994 law that took shape after the beating of Rodney King by white officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.

That statute, known as 14141 after its section of the U.S. Code, allows the Justice Department to investigate almost any report of police actions that suggest a pattern of violations of citizens’ constitutional civil rights. Where the allegations are upheld, the department can seek agreement with local governments on policing reforms or – as it has done more aggressively under President Barack Obama – go to the federal courts to force changes under closely monitored consent decrees.

In October 2005, the DOJ opened an investigation of allegations of a pattern of police brutality including less-lethal weapons, vehicle pursuits, and canines pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

On December 6, 2005, the EPD wrote back to the DOJ submitting revisions to the EDP's General Orders and also declining some recommendations. On January 9, 2006, the DOJ wrote to the EDP stating that declining the recommendations was problematic.

In the letter, the DOJ re-emphasized the soundness of its proposal to explicitly limit officers' emergency response driving speeds to 20 MPH over the speed limit. Also, the EDP has chosen to authorize pursuits for misdemeanors of the first degree or higher as established by the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. The DOJ stated this may result in potentially high speed vehicle pursuits in situations where the threat may not be serious enough to warrant such risk to officers or the public. The DOJ also stressed the City review the General Order and resolve these potentially confusing inconsistencies; specify the number of rounds the department authorizes its officers to carry, in addition to specifying the authorized ammunition officers may carry; include a discussion or list of susceptible populations to protect those most vulnerable citizens and provide officers with clear guidance that could prevent needless injuries or deaths.

On June 13, 2006, the DOJ provided the preliminary assessments of the following proposed Easton Police Department policies: (1) Arrest Procedures; (2) Mobile Video/Audio Recording Equipment; and (3) Administrative Investigations.

Specifically, the DOJ recommended that EPD re-write the policy to clearly outline the proper circumstances under which it is appropriate to make an arrest, and include citations to relevant statutes or cases; discuss the policy with counsel to ensure that the policy complies with the law but is no more restrictive than necessary; consider specifying two additional goals: officer safety and enhancement of officer performance; all EPD officers be trained to use the equipment; recording equipment be used to record all encounters with witnesses or 'suspects to the extent permitted by Pennsylvania law.

On January 21, 2010, the DOJ sent out a notice recommending a further technical assistance for the EPD's policies and practices. The technical assistance centered on Use of Force reports, use of force, investigation, and resolution of complaints, application of use of force statistics, and training. The DOJ found that the Use of Force reports needed more detail, better consistency among officers' reports, and better supervisory review.

Specifically, regarding use of force, the DOJ found that officers' drawing of firearms was statistically high and that the policy needed clarification on "low-ready" drawings,

that officers needed to attempt to verbally de-escalate situations before employing

force, that taser warnings were ineffective, and that officers needed to articulate

better why they deemed vehicle stops "high-risk." Regarding investigation and

resolution of complaints, the DOJ found investigations untimely, disorganized, and

lacking in basic protocols. Regarding training, the DOJ found that EPD officers were not consistently following policies and recommend that training be provided to reinforce certain policies and practices. Regarding use of force statistics, the DOJ found that the EPD's average number of uses of force incident to arrest possibly was dependent on inaccurate data. However, the DOJ acknowledged of the overall substantial improvement by the EPD during the course of the investigation.

On August 2010, the DOJ and EPD entered into a memorandum of agreement, which continued to monitor to ensure compliance until July 2015. The agreement contained provisions on the use of force reporting and review, de-escalation techniques, Taser use, high-risk stops, and investigations.

This case is probably closed, but the Clearinghouse does not have further information following the 2010 agreement.

Summary Authors

Ginny Lee (3/23/2017)

People


Attorney for Plaintiff

Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)

Gregg, Tammie (District of Columbia)

Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Murphy, William K. (Pennsylvania)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Findings Letter Re: General Orders: Code of Conduct (1-2); Use of Force (4-14); and Police Response and Pursuit Procedures (5-1)

Jan. 9, 2006

Jan. 9, 2006

Findings Letter/Report

Findings Letter

June 13, 2006

June 13, 2006

Findings Letter/Report

Re: Department of Justice Investigation of the Easton Police Department

Nov. 26, 2007

Nov. 26, 2007

Findings Letter/Report

Re: Investigation of the Easton Police Department

Jan. 21, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010

Findings Letter/Report

Agreement

Aug. 6, 2010

Aug. 6, 2010

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:47 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

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: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Easton Police Department, City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Special Case Type(s):

Out-of-court

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Order Duration: 2010 - 2015

Content of Injunction:

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Required disclosure

Training

Issues

General:

Aggressive behavior

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Pattern or Practice

Policing:

Excessive force

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment