On August 29, 2017, the state of Illinois filed this lawsuit against the City of Chicago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The state brought this action on behalf of the people of Illinois to ensure that the City enacted comprehensive, lasting reform of the Chicago Police Department (CPD), the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), and the Chicago Police Board (Police Board). It sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert.

The state claimed that, through acts and omissions, the City and its agents maintained policies, customs, or practices of police officers that violated the Fourth Amendment. The complaint alleged that some of these policies, customs, or practices had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos in violation of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 and the Illinois Human Rights Act. It further contended that these policies, customs, or practices were reflected in, and caused by, the City’s failure to effectively train, supervise, and support law enforcement officers, and the City’s failure to establish reliable programs to detect officer misconduct and administer effective discipline.

On August 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings in order to continue settlement negotiations. The parties stipulated that, if successful, the result of the negotiations would take the form of a consent decree. On September 5, 2017, the court granted the joint motion.

On June 6, 2018, the Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge No. 7 (FOP), the police union, filed a motion to intervene in the action. The FOP argued that it had a substantial interest in the subject of the litigation, as it could impair or impede its ability to protect the collective bargaining interests of the Chicago police officers that it represents. Both the State and the City opposed intervention.

Meanwhile, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations from June through August of 2018 to draft the terms of a consent decree. On July 27, 2018, the State and the City released a draft consent decree for public review, inviting comments prior to submitting a proposed consent decree to the court. The parties received more than 1,700 comments and suggestions. The draft consent decree covered a broad range of topics, including: community policing; impartial policing; crisis intervention; use of force; recruitment; hiring and promotion; training; supervision; officer wellness and support; accountability and transparency; data collection, analysis and management; and implementation, enforcement and monitoring.

The FOP opposed the draft consent decree. It thought that certain provisions interfered with the collective bargaining agreement statutory rights. However, on August 16, 2018, the court denied the FOP's motion to intervene. 2018 WL 3920816. The court held that, in light of the FOP's delay in moving to intervene, prejudice to existing parties, and prejudice to the FOP, the FOP's motion to intervene was not timely and therefore must be denied. The FOP subsequently appealed the court's decision to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit later (on January 2, 2019) upheld the decision to deny the FOP's motion to intervene. 912 F.3d 979.

On September 13, 2018, the State and the City reached an agreement on a final consent decree and filed a joint motion for the court's approval. On September 19, 2018, the court set a public fairness hearing for the end of October 2018 and opened a written comment period. Throughout October, various parties submitted written comments on the proposed consent decree.

On October 12, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a statement of interest opposing the proposed consent decree. The DOJ argued that the consent decree would function like an earlier November 2015 settlement agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union to curb stop and frisk abuses, which it argued has excessively restrained the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and significantly contributed to the rise in homicides and violent crime from 2015 to 2016.

The DOJ cited four main problems with the consent decree:

(1) it went beyond remedying specific violations of federal law cognizable in federal court and micromanaged police department procedures and policies;
(2) it stripped the superintendent of his duty and ability to administer the CPD;
(3) it turned over long-term budgetary control of the CPD to the federal court and the monitor through vague mandates that there must be sufficient funding and staff to fulfill the consent decree and implement programs; and
(4) it said that the court would retain jurisdiction until the City had fully complied with the consent decree for two consecutive years, but did not give clear guidelines as to what constituted compliance.

The DOJ expressed concern that such consent decrees stripped local government officials of the flexibility required in addressing evolving law enforcement issues and deprived citizens of their ability to control policies through the democratic process. To this end, the DOJ expressed concern that the consent decree would be signed by an outgoing mayor who was not seeking reelection. In this statement of interest, the DOJ further announced that it would send five additional federal prosecutors to Chicago to establish a new Gun Crimes Prosecution Team.

The court held a fairness hearing on the proposed consent decree on October 24 and 25, 2018. After the fairness hearing, the court received and reviewed additional briefing from the parties, and the FOP addressing the oral and written comments submitted in connection with the fairness hearing.

On January 31, 2019, the court approved the proposed consent decree. 2019 WL 398703. Although the parties made some changes in response to comments from various entities, the consent decree largely covered the same areas of reform as the agreement originally proposed. Under the terms of the consent decree, the City would endeavor to achieve full and effective compliance within five years of the effective date. The agreement would terminate once the City had maintained compliance for either one or two years, depending on the area of reform (one year with respect to recruitment, hiring, and promotions; training; and office wellness and support; two years with respect to community policing; impartial policing; crisis intervention; use of force; supervision; accountability and transparency; and data collection, analysis, and management).

On March 1, 2019, the Court appointed Ms. Maggie Hickey to serve as the independent monitor and expressed its intention to appoint Hon. David H. Coar to serve as a Special Master. On the same day, the Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago moved to amend the consent decree, arguing that it conflicted with established statutes and ordinances in a number of ways:

First, Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) was not certified for the required investigations under the Consent Decree even though certification was required by the Police and Community Relations Improvement Act (PCRIA).

Second, there was no distinction between a criminal investigation and an administrative one. COPA was not a law enforcement agency and therefore did not have a right to perform any kind of investigation of such officer-involved death cases under the PCRIA.

Third, the Consent Decree violated a state statute requiring that videos recorded by body-worn cameras be retained for no longer than 90 days unless they were flagged for particular reasons stated in the law.

Fourth, two municipal ordinances were compromised by the Consent Decree.

The motion asked the Court to amend the Consent Decree to bar the use of non-State certified COPA investigators in the investigation of officer-involved deaths, prohibit the CPD from reviewing unflagged videos that have been stored for more than ninety days, bar the use of anonymous complaints in non-criminal matters that did not involve residency allegations or medical roll abuse, and require the City to reveal to officers the name of the complainants prior to the officers’ interrogation.

The case is ongoing.

Jake Parker - 06/04/2018
Eva Richardson - 10/15/2018
Eva Richardson
Averyn Lee - 03/10/2019


compress summary