On December 21, 2012, after a thorough investigation, the United States, represented by the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed suit against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its police department pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The Government alleged that the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRDP) violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging in unlawful patterns and practices. Filed along with the complaint was a joint motion for the Court to approve a comprehensive settlement agreement between the parties and also a motion to stay the proceedings.

Specifically, the Government claimed the PRDP engaged in the following practices: using excessive force during routine police activities; relying on unreasonable force in response to public demonstrations; conducting unlawful searches and seizures; and engaging in discriminatory police practices against those who are or appear to be of Dominican origin. The Government further alleged that those practices were the result of longstanding, widespread failures of the department, including inadequate and ineffective investigation and discipline procedures, supervision, and training, as well as officer violence and corruption.

On December 27, 2012, the Court (Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi) granted the motion to stay the proceedings in order to allow the recently elected government to familiarize itself with the agreement and make modifications. And, on January 18, 2013, the Government filed an amended complaint that removed reference to Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of the United States. This was because, under an old line of Supreme Court cases that established what is known as the Incorporation Doctrine, acquired territories were not necessarily protected by the Constitution and were considered not to be a part of the United States: Congress had the power to decide when/whether to incorporate the territory, which would bestow certain Constitutional status upon the territory.

On April 1, 2013, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the proposed settlement agreement, explaining the results of its own investigations in Puerto Rico, endorsing the comprehensive approach of the agreement, and suggesting a few possible improvements. Puerto Rico's Attorney Gregorio Igartua also filed an amicus brief, except he failed to take up the issue of whether Puerto Rico was an incorporated territory. He argued that the Court could not render a decision in the case without declaring Puerto Rico to be an incorporated territory because the United States was imposing upon Puerto Rico the burdens of full obligation to the Constitution while selectively withholding Constitutional rights, such as representation and voting power in Congress and greater ability to claim access to federal funds, such as federal funding for anti-crime policies.

On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a modified settlement agreement along with a joint motion for dismissal. On the same day, the court (Deputy Clerk Carlos Rodriguez) conditionally dismissed the case while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The 101-page agreement provides a comprehensive set of provisions touching on nearly every aspect of the police department ( PN-PR-0001-0007). It calls for the development of policies on, among other things, the use of force, crowd control and public demonstrations, searches and seizures, and equal protection. It requires better pre-service training and education as well as continued training once recruits become police officers. It contains an array of investigatory, supervisory, and discipline obligations, as well as auditing procedures. To address community concerns, the Agreement establishes a commitment to more appropriate community policing and establishes joint boards of police officers and community representatives. In an effort to obtain nondiscriminatory policing, it also requires PRPD to establish the information systems and collect all information necessary to accomplish the goals of the agreement. Under the Agreement, Puerto Rico is required to hire a Technical Compliance Advisor (TCA) to monitor and report on the department's progress in meeting the goals and requirements of the agreement. The Agreement entailed a four year capacity-building period, subject to the development of Action Plans in each of the substantive areas of the Agreement. The Agreement would last at least 10 years, after which time either party could file for termination of the agreement. However, if Puerto Rico filed for termination, it would have the burden of demonstrating that it had fully and effectively complied with the agreement for at least two consecutive years.

On October 30, 2013, upon joint motion of the parties, the court appointed Juan Mattos, Jr. as the Technical Compliance Advisor. However, he did not last very long on the job. Citing personal reasons, he resigned in February of 2014. In his stead, the parties selected Claudio Arnaldo to be monitor. The first compliance report was filed with the court on August 1, 2014 and was ordered to be made public on August 8, 2014. The report noted positive developments.

From 2014 to 2016, the TCA filed status reports every six months assessing the PRDP's progress in implementing the Agreement. Additionally, the PRDP has filed period status reports until the present, delineating the steps taken to implement the Agreement, assessing the status of its progress, and addressing any concerns raised in TCA reports.

On August 1, 2016, the court issued a Transition Order in light of the upcoming presidential election to prevent a transfer of critical personnel that would jeopardize the reform process.

The TCA submitted its fifth biannual report on January 13, 2017. In the report, the TCA noted that the PRDP had made excellent progress in drafting 48 new policies and completed implementation of all 11 substantive areas of the Agreement. The PRDP submitted its Action Plans for each substantive area to the court on June 22, 2017. The report also noted that the PRDP had made important progress in training. However, the report noted three key areas of the Agreement that had not been adequately implemented: promotions, the human resource staffing study, and the reorganization of the Drugs, Vice, and Illegal Firearms Bureau.

The Agreement's capacity-building period ended on October 7, 2018, at which point the compliance period began. In its eighth biannual report covering the period of April through October 7, 2018, the TCA noted several deficiencies relating to the PRDP's implementation of the Agreement. However, in its most recent status report submitted in March 23, 2019, the PRDP countered these allegations of deficiencies and claimed that it has the capacity, power, discipline, and determination to make police reform sustainable. Specifically, the report noted that during the capacity-building period, the PRDP had made significant strides in revising policies and procedures, conducting trainings, acquiring equipment, promoting safety, and providing personnel with the necessary tools to achieve the Agreement's objectives.

On May 4th, 2019, Judge Gelpi filed an order that simply stated that the monitor, Arnaldo Claudio, had resigned from his position. Subsequent interviews in the press indicate that Claudio lost faith in the reform process, claiming that the federal government was insufficiently concerned about the process and that millions of dollars were being misspent on private lawyers, rather than reforming the police departments.

Three months later, on August 8th, 2019, the parties informed Judge Gelpi that Claudio had publicly disclosed confidential and/or work-product information. This may have constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Judge Gelpi announced that further proceedings would be necessary to address the issue. In March of 2020, the court appointed John Romero as the monitor. Romero had been Acting Monitor since Claudio left.

Meanwhile, in January of 2020, the defendants began submitting motions to restrict public access to certain documents created in keeping with the consent decree. For example, defendants wanted to limit public access to community surveys mandated by the consent decree. The judge granted these motions.

However, by April of 2020, the global COVID-19 pandemic had taken precedence. The court ordered the immediate development of a COVID Protocol that would be consistent with the consent decree. The outbreak delayed the filing of the status report that was to be submitted in the spring. As of June 17th, 2020 the report has not been submitted and the case is ongoing.

Kenneth Gray - 07/18/2013
Richard Jolly - 11/29/2014
Sarah McDonald - 08/19/2018
Eva Richardson - 05/27/2019
Jack Hibbard - 06/17/2020


compress summary