Yesterday the Justice Department announced the result of a two-year investigation into the Louisville Police Department and the results were devastating.
Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department announced today that the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) and the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro) engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law. The Department also announced that it has entered into an agreement in principle with Louisville Metro and LMPD, which have committed to resolving the department’s findings through a court-enforceable consent decree with an independent monitor, rather than contested litigation.
Specifically, the Justice Department finds that LMPD:
-
Uses excessive force, including unjustified neck restraints and the unreasonable use of police dogs and tasers;
-
Conducts searches based on invalid warrants;
-
Unlawfully executes search warrants without knocking and announcing;
-
Unlawfully stops, searches, detains, and arrests people during street enforcement activities, including traffic and pedestrian stops;
-
Unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities;
-
Violates the rights of people engaged in protected free speech critical of policing; and
-
Along with Louisville Metro, discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to them in crisis.
We are always told when there’s an isolated case where a police officer crosses the line and insults a citizen, assaults a citizen and kills a citizen that it’s not a reflection on the entire department. It’s not the case that there’s a larger problem going on, it’s just one bad officer and we don’t need to be concerned that this is also the behavior of other officers on the force or police around the country in general.
With George Floyd, the problem was just those guys, even though there were three of them who clearly didn’t wake up that morning planning to kill a guy. And yet they did.
With Breonna Taylor, just a few guys falsified the search warrant, broke into the wrong apartment and then recklessly fired wildly killing Taylor, then they attempted to cover up the facts of what they had done.
It’s finally time to stop kidding ourselves here.
What the DOJ describes with the Louisville police is not just a random incident. It’s a clear and obvious pattern. It’s a pathological strategy at play.
Here’s another case where another Louisville officer let his dog maul a 14-year-old boy.
A Louisville Metro Police officer unleashed his police dog on a 14-year-old Black boy who was spotted lying on the ground, leading to severe injuries and hospitalization, according to a report published on Wednesday by the Department of Justice.
The findings are part of the DOJ's broader two-year investigation into the Louisville Metro Police Department and the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government that was launched after Breonna Taylor was killed during a raid by seven officers in March 2020.
The police dog incident occurred during a search for a home invasion suspect, according to the DOJ, which reviewed a video of the encounter. The date of the incident and the name of the officer were not disclosed.
"The officer was leading his dog to search for a person suspected of a home invasion. After searching for several minutes, the officer saw the teenager lying on the ground, face down in the grass," the Justice Department wrote in its report. "Immediately after noticing the teen, the officer deployed his dog off-leash — without giving any warning — and ordered the dog to bite the teen at least seven times."
What the fuck is that shit?
I mean, seriously. How does that happen?
But then, this isn’t just a problem in Louisville, far from it. An Ohio Grand Jury indicted 11 officers from Cleveland for several brutal beatings.
An Ohio grand jury this Wednesday handed down indictments on 11 current and former East Cleveland police officers based largely on several incidents captured on video that revealed "astonishing brutality," Cleveland.com reported.
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office released a 14-minute video clip showing officers beating, tasing, and kicking citizens who did not appear to be resisting.
The indictments come after a two-year investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Cleveland Field Office. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley called the revelations “appalling” and “a sad day for all of law enforcement.”
“Make no mistake, there has been a cancer growing in the East Cleveland police department,” O’Malley told reporters. “We’re doing our best to remove every tentacle of that cancer so that this department can build and grow.”
A “tentacle of cancer” he says. Is that what the problem is?
You can see in the video time after time where officers viciously assault people who literally have their hands in the air. And there are other officers present at the time.
Why exactly weren't the incidents *already* reported? Why wasn’t the incident *already* investigated? Why weren’t these officers *already* placed under indictment? It only happens NOW after the FBI does a 2-year investigation?
So basically, it’s not just that we can’t trust this “tentacle of cancer” we apparently can’t trust any of the other tentacles to do their freaking jobs.
We can’t trust them to arrest criminals. Not if those criminals have a badge pinned on.
During the Obama Administration, the DOJ also did similar investigations of over a dozen police departments. Here’s some of what they found.
Ferguson Police Department
In September 2014, the Department of Justice opened an investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation focused on allegations that Ferguson law enforcement engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution and federal statutory law. On March 4, 2015, DOJ announced the results of the investigation, finding that FPD's police and municipal court practices systematically violate the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. DOJ determined that FPD's approach to law enforcement is unduly focused on revenue generation and that its practices both reflect and exacerbate existing race bias. As a result, Ferguson's law enforcement practices discriminate against African Americans and decrease trust between the Ferguson community and law enforcement, hampering FPD's ability to ensure public safety. On March 17, 2016, the parties jointly filed a proposed consent decree in federal court to address the conduct that DOJ’s investigation found.
Cleveland Division of Police
In March of 2013, following a series of highly-publicized use-of-force incidents that suggested critical flaws exist in use-of-force policies, procedures, and practices within the Cleveland Division of Police ("CDP"), in Cleveland, Ohio, we opened an investigation pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that focused on CDP's use of force, including deadly force. The investigation, which concluded in December 2014, revealed that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We also determined that structural deficiencies and practices, including insufficient accountability, inadequate training and equipment, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community, contribute to CDP's use of excessive force. To address these findings, in May 2015, the Justice Department and the City of Cleveland entered into a court-enforceable agreement, overseen by an independent monitoring team, that requires CDP to implement widespread reforms that focus on building community trust; creating a culture of community and problem-oriented policing; improving officer safety, training, and accountability; and implementing technological upgrades.
Baltimore Police Department
In May of 2015, the Department of Justice opened an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. On August 10, 2016, we released the results of our investigation. We found that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of unlawful stops, searches, and arrests; these unlawful stops, searches and arrests disproportionately harm African Americans in Baltimore, resulting in disparities, along with other evidence of intentional discrimination, that erodes public trust; BPD engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force and discrimination against people with mental health disabilities or in crisis; and BPD routinely suppresses protected speech. We had serious concerns that gender bias may be compromising the effectiveness of BPD’s sexual assault investigations and that BPD’s transportation practices may continue to be deficient despite reforms. We found systemic deficiencies contributed to the violations we observed, including insufficient policies, inadequate training, failures to collect and analyze data, a lack of oversight, and a failure to hold its officers accountable for misconduct. DOJ found that these ongoing violations further a deep divide between BPD and many of the communities it has sworn to serve and protect, and impede legitimate law enforcement activities.
East Haven Police Department
The Special Litigation Section opened an investigation of the East Haven Police Department (EHPD) on September 30, 2009 pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. As the investigation progressed, we expanded the investigation to include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We announced the results of our investigation on December 19, 2011. We found that EHPD engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing against Latinos in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In particular, we found that EHPD targeted Latinos for discriminatory traffic enforcement, treated Latinos more harshly than non-Latinos after traffic stops, and intentionally failed to design and implement internal systems that would identify and prevent the discriminatory conduct. On November 20, 2012, we entered an agreement resolving our investigation and asked the Court to make our settlement an order enforceable by the Court. The agreement, which was negotiated with the Town of East Haven and the EHPD, provides a comprehensive framework to remedy the issues we found. Since that time, a Joint Compliance Expert ("JCE") has monitored EHPD's compliance with the agreement, providing periodic reports to the Court.
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
In March 2009, we opened an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) pursuant to Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). MCSO refused to cooperate with our investigation, and we filed suit under Title VI to obtain the information we needed, which MCSO agreed to provide in June 2011, settling this suit. After completing our investigation, on December 15, 2011, we announced our findings. We found that MCSO engaged in a pattern of misconduct that violated the Constitution and federal law. Specifically, we found that MCSO engaged in a policy of stopping, detaining, and investigating persons of Hispanic ancestry based on their race, in traffic and during worksite raids; failed to provide language access assistance to Hispanic jail inmates with Limited English Proficiency (LEP); and unlawfully retaliated against individuals who complained about or criticized MCSO’s practices.
City of Miami Police Department
On November 17, 2011, the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida opened an investigation of the Miami Police Department (MPD) under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Our investigation focused on excessive use of deadly force by firearms. On July 9, 2013, we notified MPD that our investigation showed that MPD had engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violated the Constitution and federal law. On March 10, 2016, the United States and the City of Miami and MPD entered into a Settlement Agreement with the goal of ensuring that police services are provided to all members of the City of Miami in a manner that complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
New Orleans Police Department
On May 15, 2010, we opened an investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following a comprehensive investigation, on March 17, 2011, we announced our findings. We found that the NOPD has engaged in patterns of misconduct that violate the Constitution and federal law, including a pattern or practice of excessive force, and of illegal stops, searches, and arrests. We found also a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in the Department's under-enforcement and under-investigation of violence against women. We further found strong indications of discriminatory policing based on racial, ethnic, and LGBT bias, as well as a failure to provide critical police services to language minority communities. On July 24, 2012, we reached a settlement resolving our investigation and asked the Court to make our settlement an order enforceable by the Court.
Mount Vernon Police Department
On December 3, 2021, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams announced that the Department of Justice opened a civil pattern or practice investigation into the Mount Vernon Police Department, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The DOJ investigation will assess whether there is reasonable cause to believe that MVPD engages in a pattern or practice of: (1) discriminatory policing, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) conducting unlawful strip and body cavity searches, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; or (4) mishandling evidence, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The investigation will be conducted by a team of career civil attorneys from the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
Newark Police Department
On May 9, 2011, we and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey opened an investigation of the Newark Police Division (formerly the Newark Police Department) (NPD) into allegations that NPD engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct. The investigation focused on allegations of excessive force, unconstitutional stops, searches, arrests, and seizures, and discriminatory policing. On July 22, 2014, the United States announced the results of the investigation, finding that NPD had engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional stops, and that NPD’s law enforcement activities had disproportionately affected black people in Newark. The Department also found a pattern or practice of excessive force, as well as the theft of property by police officers. On April 5, 2016, the United States and the City of Newark jointly filed a proposed consent decree in federal court. On May 5, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved and entered the consent decree.
Phoenix Police Department
In August 2021, the Civil Rights Division opened an investigation of the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Police Department (PhxPD) under the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The investigation will assess all types of use of force by PhxPD officers, including deadly force and force used against individuals with behavioral health disabilities. The investigation will also evaluate whether PhxPD engages in retaliatory activity through arresting or using force against individuals engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment. In addition, the investigation will assess whether PhxPD engages in discriminatory policing on the basis of race, ethnicity, or disability; and whether PhxPD violates the rights of individuals experiencing homelessness.
Seattle Police Department
On March 31, 2011, we opened an investigation of the Seattle Police Department (SPD) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following a comprehensive investigation, on December 16, 2011, we announced our findings. We found that SPD has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the Constitution and federal law. Our investigation further raised serious concerns that some SPD policies and practices, particularly those related to pedestrian encounters, could result in discriminatory policing. We negotiated and filed a consent decree to address these concerns on July 27, 2012, and separately entered into a settlement agreement on related issues on that same date.
Springfield Police Department Narcotics Bureau
In April 2018, we opened an investigation of the Springfield Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, that focused on the Narcotics Bureau’s use of force. As set forth in a July 2020 investigative report, the investigation determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Narcotics Bureau engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the investigation identified evidence that officers punch individuals in the face unnecessarily and resort to unreasonable takedown maneuvers that could reasonably be expected to cause head injuries. The investigation also determined that structural deficiencies within the Department, including ineffective use-of-force reporting policies, insufficient accountability procedures, and inadequate force training, contribute to the Narcotics Bureau’s use of excessive force.
Suffolk County Police Department
On September 1, 2009, SPL and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York opened a joint investigation of the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) into allegations that SCPD engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct. The investigation focused on allegations that SCPD was engaging in discriminatory policing, that it discouraged Latinos from filing complaints, and that it failed to investigate crimes and hate-crime incidents involving Latinos. On January 13, 2014, the United States and Suffolk County entered into a Settlement Agreement resolving the investigation.
Warren Police Department
In December 2004, the Civil Rights Division opened an investigation of the City of Warren and the Warren Police Department (WPD) under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, focusing on excessive force and improper strip and body cavity searches. We issued a technical assistance letter in March 2006. We continued to monitor WPD’s implementation efforts, ultimately concluding that WPD failed to make meaningful progress in implementing our technical assistance recommendations and that WPD had engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. In January 2012, we filed a complaint and settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Yonkers Police Department
In August 2007, we opened an investigation of the Yonkers Police Department (YPD) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. On June 9, 2009, we sent the City a technical assistance letter that identified necessary reforms to YPD practices and policies in the areas of use of force, civilian complaints, investigations, supervisory oversight, and training. After receiving the department’s technical assistance letter, the City and YPD made substantial changes to its policies and procedures. On November 14, 2016, we signed an agreement with the City of Yonkers that implements and further improves those policies and procedures and addresses the department’s remaining concerns.
At some point, we have to admit the reality that this is not just a “few bad apples” here and there. This is a clear repetitive pattern of excessive force and various types of racial and gender bias at play. Over and over again, the systems that are supposed to prevent this bias fail to do so. Over and over again, the systems that are supposed to prevent use of excessive force fail to do so.
Over and over again, all the allegedly “Good cops” who are supposed to be protecting the public — Fail. To. Do. So.
And there are reasons why which we need to admit and confront. It’s not just about the individuals, it’s part of the way the system is designed to function.
Listen to this admission by former Baltimore Officer Michael A. Wood who is one of few of the “good ones” who finally came out and say the truth.
“Those are them. You don’t care what you do to them. They’re the enemy.”
“You have to get stats. You have to get arrests. You can’t arrest the judge’s son. So I would go to Park Heights, into the black neighborhood. And I would get my arrests there so I would make my supervisor happy because we all know I wasn’t going to arrest anyone in Mt. Washington.”
This is the dirty truth. Women, the disabled, the handicapped, Black and Brown people are being targeted — because they’re more likely to be poor or indigent. They’re less likely to be able to afford a good lawyer who can defend them and challenge the justification for the stop, or the arrest, or the beating or their death.
If we reformed the system so that every citizen — regardless of circumstance or income — was guaranteed a strong defense. If the criminal defendant system was as robust and fulsome as prosecutors. If they were required to have an equal number of lawyers, equal pay, their own independent investigators with equal access to all the evidence, police wouldn’t go around looking for easy arrests the way that Wood admits he was doing.
The way that the system required that he acted.
We should remove “qualified immunity’ but also move to codify Tennesse V Garner which was a SCOTUS decision that determined that using deadly force against an unarmed or fleeing suspect was unconstitutional.
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
It should be established that any officer who uses deadly force against an unarmed suspect who does not present a “significant threat of death or serious injury” then that officer should be subject to prosecution for (attempted) manslaughter and/or murder and violating the citizen's 4th Amendment rights.
If we change the system, change the incentives of police from racking up arrests to actually improving the community and keeping the residents safe. If we change the justice system from being a human prisoner mill to actually protecting and ensuring the constitutional rights of citizens from abuse by the government — we could very well make this country a step or two closer to what it has always claimed it was…
the Home of the Free.
But we can’t do any of that until we stop focusing on the “bad apple” and start looking at the entire bushel.