On September 4, 1996, attorneys for the NAACP, ACLU and the Police-Barrio Relations Project filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Philadelphia alleging systemic corruption and misconduct by the City's police ...
read more >
On September 4, 1996, attorneys for the NAACP, ACLU and the Police-Barrio Relations Project filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Philadelphia alleging systemic corruption and misconduct by the City's police department. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, the parties filed a settlement and monitoring agreement and stipulation of the parties, which was approved by the District Court (Judge Stewart Dalzell).
The settlement agreement was the product of extended pre-suit settlement negotiations between the City and the NAACP, ACLU and the Police-Barrio Relations Project, who had threatened class-action litigation if wholesale police department reforms were not implemented. The agreed upon reforms included: the appointment of a task force to review policies and procedures; creation of a use of force reporting policy; improvements to the internal affairs division operations; and monitoring for racial bias in police actions.
The agreement called for the appointment of James B. Jordan, Esq. as the Integrity and Accountability Officer (IAO) to assist in implementing the reforms. Additional monitoring of compliance with the settlement agreement was performed by the plaintiffs' attorneys, who provided periodic progress reports to the District Court. The initial monitoring period of two years was extended several times by the District Court to allow for compliance by the police department.
In December 2001, plaintiffs moved for an injunction against the City to prevent destruction or redaction of internal affairs division records. The Fraternal Order of Police moved to intervene so as to address plaintiffs' request for an injunction. The District Court denied both motions as moot on April 9, 2002, for reasons that are not apparent from the docket.
Monitoring continued through 2005, when the District Court ordered the parties to report to the court on the status of the IAO and plans for future monitoring.
The District Court held a status conference on July 21, 2005 and ordered plaintiffs to advise the court whether they believed that the monitoring agreement should continue. No further docket entries were made (as of May 2016), so presumably the action was closed.Kristen Sagar - 04/06/2009