The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") initiated an investigation of the Newark Police Department ("NPD") in May 2011, after receiving serious allegations of civil rights violations by the NPD. Such allegations included that the NPD subjected Newark residents to excessive force, unwarranted stops and arrests, and discriminatory police actions.
The investigation was conducted jointly by the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI"), and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d ("Safe Streets Act"). Section 14141 prohibits government authorities from engaging in a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct that violates individuals' constitutional or federal statutory rights. Title VI and the Safe Streets Act together prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by the recipients of certain federal funds.
On July 22, 2014, the DOJ issued its findings. Its report "identified a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in the NPD's stop and arrest practices, its response to individuals' exercise of their rights under the First Amendment, the Department's use of force, and theft by officers. The investigation also revealed deficiencies in the NPD's systems that are designed to prevent and detect misconduct, including its systems for reviewing force and investigating complaints regarding officer conduct. The investigation also identified concerns that do not appear to amount to patterns of constitutional misconduct, but which nonetheless are significant and warrant consideration by the NPD. These concerns relate to the NPD's practices in dealing with potentially suicidal detainees, the NPD's sexual assault investigations, and the impact of the NPD's policing on the LGBT community."
Simultaneously with issuing the findings, the DOJ and Newark announced an "Agreement in Principle"--a partial settlement that would serve as the foundation of a more comprehensive, judicially enforceable agreement. The Agreement required the City to: implement civilian oversight for the NPD; review and revise NPD policies, training, and internal oversight mechanisms, particularly regarding the use of force and stop, search and arrest practices; to train officers about the First Amendment; improve accountability and supervisory practices; revise internal affairs practices; and enhance data collection and analysis.
On March 30, 2016, the United States filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The United States brought the action against the City of Newark for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 14141. The complaint reiterated findings from the 2014 Findings Report and alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct depriving people of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Fourth, First, and Fourteenth Amendments. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in unreasonable stops, searches, and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment; violated the rights of individuals to engaged in protected speech in violation of the First Amendment; used unreasonable force against individuals in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and stole property from individuals in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The same day, the parties submitted notice of a joint motion for entry of a consent decree. On May 5, 2016 the court (Judge Madeline C. Arleo) issued an order approving the consent decree.
The consent decree details action steps the NPD will take regarding policy review and revision; training; community engagement and civilian oversight; stops, searches, and arrests; bias-free policing; use of force; in-car and body-worn cameras; theft; complaint intake and investigation; compliance reviews and integrity audits; discipline; data systems improvement; and transparency and oversight.
More specifically, the action steps include: improving officer training; revising policies, training, and supervision to ensure that stops, searches, and arrests are carried out constitutionally in a manner that takes account of community priorities; integrating bias-free policing principles; reforming use of force policies; and conducting objective, thorough, timely investigations of complaints.
The court will retain jurisdiction until the court determines that the City and the NPD have achieved full and effective compliance with the consent decree and have maintained compliance for no less than two consecutive years. The City and the NPD will aim to reach full and effective compliance within five years of the effective date of the consent decree. The consent decree also provided for an independent monitor, paid for by the City, to assess the City's progress in implementing and achieving compliance with the agreement.
On February 2, 2018, the court issued a stipulated order amending certain paragraphs of the Consent Decree. Since then, the monitor has been filing quarterly reports pursuant to the agreement. In the most recent report, filed with the court on April 16, 2019, the monitoring team found that NPD had nearly completed writing all of its Consent Decree-related policies. It also found that NPD had begun training officers on two of the most critical Consent Decree policies that it had adopted: Use of Force; and Stops, Searches, and Arrests. More specifically, NPD had begun to proactively assess its officers' deployment of in-car and body-worn cameras and to mandate additional training for supervisors who did not carry out their responsibilities consistent with NPD's policies. Still, the monitoring team found that NPD's data systems were still inadequate to meet Consent Decree requirements and noted that the data systems were not capable of producing the information required for the independent monitor to conduct certain audits required by the consent decree. The case is ongoing.
- 03/05/2015
Julie Singer - 03/10/2017
Chris Pollack - 04/18/2019
compress summary
