PHOENIX, AZ - Just over two years ago, the Phoenix Police Department was subjected to a so-called “pattern and practice” investigation into the agency. Depending on the outcome of that investigation, the Phoenix PD could be placed under a consent decree, which would ostensibly put the DOJ in an oversight function of the police department.
It would also cost the city a lot of money.
Phoenix city officials have twice contacted the DOJ to preview the pattern and practice investigation findings and have been rebuffed twice. If the DOJ’s decision holds, the city won’t find out about the investigation results until the public does, leaving the city with no opportunity to formulate a response or plan of action in advance.
Mind you, the DOJ isn’t outright refusing to preview the results–they just want something in return– ”an agreement in principle to enter into a consent decree with an independent monitor.”
In other words, to quote former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), "You have to pass it to see what's in it." In this case, you have to agree to a consent decree before we'll show you our findings.
Should city officials agree to the DOJ’s arm-twisting, they would lose the ability to litigate the investigation results and “come to an agreement to address the Division’s findings.”
Understandably, Mayor Kate Gallego and four other city council members are refusing to go along, according to AZCentral. Those individuals join residents, political advocacy groups, and the police union in opposition to signing any commitment before being able to read the findings.
A spokesperson for Gallego, Arielle Devorah, responded to the DOJ’s two denials, saying, “For more than 27 months now, the City has been transparent and open with the Department of Justice, providing it with what it needs to complete the investigation. We hope the Department will act similarly and provide the City the opportunity to review its report and provide factual corrections."
District 1 Councilwoman Ann O’Brien slammed the DOJ in a statement, saying, "I’m asking for a minimum of 30 days. Phoenix has been transparent and collaborative; now it’s time for the DOJ to do the same."
Another councilwoman, Debra Stark, said she was “flabbergasted” by the DOJ’s position. “I don’t understand why they’re not willing to share,” she said. “I find it almost offensive.”
The probe started in August 2021 with the DOJ pledging to look into alleged claims of excessive force by city police officers, retaliation against George Floyd rioters, discriminatory police practices, and the department’s response to individuals with disabilities or experiencing homelessness.
The inquiry began after the department was criticized by some in the community about the agency’s use of force and investigations conducted by several media outlets into a believed high rate of police shootings and alleged disproportionate use of force against minorities.
During the 26-month investigation, investigators conducted over 100 interviews and produced some 80,000 documents. It has cost the city $5.5 million as of June, and the city council voted last week to spend an additional $700,000 on legal services and software for the probe.
After the vote, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association blasted the DOJ while highlighting the cooperation the DOJ has received from the Phoenix Police Department. PLEA President Darrell Kriplean noted that according to the police chief, the department has provided over 80,000 documents and more than 20,000 body-worn camera videos.
Kriplean noted the chief said “transparency is key to maintaining trust with the community,” while adding he was “looking forward to any next steps with the DOJ and welcomes further collaboration in this process.”
Kriplean said the PPD has handed over everything requested by the DOJ, including restricted criminal justice information, which he noted police officers are required to recertify every two years to access. He expressed concern that providing that information to the DOJ could “jeopardize our access to NCIC and ACIC.”
Kriplean addressed the DOJ’s actions in other cities hit with consent decrees. “Unfortunately [collaboration] is not their game," he said. "They like the ‘Gotcha, and now we are going to publicly embarrass you’ game. If you look at the other cities that have been hit with consent decrees, you find a common theme.
"They will meet with the mayor, police chief, and possibly a city manager and pressure them into signing an agreement in principle.”
The catch, Kriplean noted, is that the DOJ wants signatures on consent decree agreements before they release the findings to the city in question. He said this is akin “to being told you have committed a crime, but before they tell you what crime or what the sentence is going to be, you must plead guilty.”
He then outlined the “successes” of consent decrees, which are anything but successes.
“For example, Albuquerque has realized an 80.27% rise in violent crime, Baltimore 7.86%, New Orleans 97.45%, Seattle 52.59%, and Chicago 10.24%. Their budgets have had to increase anywhere between 23.67% (Chicago) to 82.72% (New Orleans). The others are in between.”
Consent decrees have also harmed police staffing, which has decreased in all the cities noted above.
“Albuquerque is down 10.51%, Baltimore 14.12%, New Orleans 35.81%, Seattle 15.50%, and Chicago 2.04%. Considering there is a nationwide staffing crisis, losing more on top of the hundreds of vacancies doesn’t lend to quality customer service to the communities.”
Kriplean said that the Phoenix Police Department is currently 600 officers short of the maximum staffing of 3,125, a shortage of roughly 20%.
Moreover, he noted Phoenix officers were surveyed asking how likely they would be to retire or resign if a consent decree was implemented. The response was that 12.57% of respondents said they would definitely retire or resign, and 30.26% said they would strongly consider retiring or resigning, a total of nearly 43%.
Most of those surveyed believe crime will “rise either somewhat or substantially” if a consent decree is implemented.
There is also the issue of so-called “monitors” overseeing the agency’s compliance with consent decrees, which is indeed a lucrative position. For example, in Chicago, AZCentral says federal monitors have billed the city over $14 million alone, while in New Orleans, the cost associated with compliance has surpassed $55 million.
Maricopa County, Arizona, where the sheriff’s office has been under a court order since 2013, has cost over $250 million in compliance costs. Unbelievably, the same investigators and attorneys involved in pattern or practice investigations travel nationwide looking for large (and lucrative) contracts to become federal monitors.
Basically, if a city enters into a consent decree with the Department of Justice, the game is rigged. If, for example, a department develops a solution for a perceived problem raised by the DOJ, it must be approved by the federal monitor and a federal judge. The process can take months to be approved.
In an op-ed in AZCentral, Kriplean noted that the DOJ hasn’t spoken to anyone within the department for information during the pattern or practice investigation in the city. He accused the DOJ of a lack of transparency and, based on the DOJ’s failure in every city where a consent decree had been implemented, asked Phoenix city leadership to reject signing a consent decree.
“We are confident in the work of the Phoenix Police Department and our officers on the street," he wrote. "Given the track record of DOJ, the city of Phoenix should reject any recommendations for a consent decree and focus on reforms that will maintain the integrity of the department and protect Phoenix residents.”
Comments