Filed Date: Jan. 3, 2012
Closed Date: Aug. 12, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation into policing practices in Warren, Ohio. In March of 2006, the DOJ issued a findings letter advising the Warren Police Department (WPD) to revise and update its policies and procedures to be consistent and comprehensive. The DOJ found that many officers did not follow WPD's policies, and among other things suggested that WPD revise its policies governing use of force and retrain its officers on its body-cavity and strip search policies.
On January 13, 2012, the Department of Justice filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the City of Warren, Ohio, and its police department. The United States, represented by the Department of Justice, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and asked the court for a declaratory judgment that Warren Police Department's ("WPD") policing practices--especially the use of excessive force--infringed on individuals' constitutionally-protected rights. The United States also requested an order that the WPD cease such practices by implementing policies to remedy their transgressive effect.
According to the complaint, the WPD's failure to implement adequate policies to guide, train, supervise, and monitor its officers resulted in a pattern of conduct involving the use of excessive force. The complaint also included allegations that the WPD's policy governing the intake and investigation of complaints was inadequate and, furthermore, that it had failed to adequately review incidents involving the use of force and discipline officers who engaged in misconduct.
The parties quickly reached a settlement, which the Court (Judge Benita Y. Pearson) approved January 26, 2012. The agreement required the WPD to adopt new protocols involving the use a force, develop procedures to document and evaluate uses of force, institute systems for tracking and investigating citizens' complaints, and implement training encompassing constitutional policing. In addition, the DOJ reserved the right to monitor the WPD's compliance with the agreement, and the Court retained jurisdiction for at least two years to ensure compliance.
On July 3, 2019, the U.S. filed a motion stating that WPD had "faithfully and fully" complied with the requirements of the settlement agreement. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the settlement agreement. Judge Pearson granted the motion on August 12, 2019. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
David Postel (1/27/2014)
Will McCartney (3/25/2018)
Elizabeth Helpling (3/13/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12905409/parties/united-states-v-city-of-warren-ohio/
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Bharara, Preetinder S. (New York)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Dettelbach, Steven M (District of Columbia)
Geissler, R. Jonas (District of Columbia)
Pearson, Benita Yalonda (Ohio)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Bharara, Preetinder S. (New York)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Dettelbach, Steven M (District of Columbia)
Geissler, R. Jonas (District of Columbia)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Morse, Thomas Jackson (District of Columbia)
Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12905409/united-states-v-city-of-warren-ohio/
Last updated April 10, 2024, 3:04 a.m.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 3, 2012
Closing Date: Aug. 12, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States of America (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 Warren (Warren, Trumbull), 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: 2012 - 2019
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Policing:
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: