365 Days and 605 Armored Military Vehicles Later: Police Militarization a Year After Ferguson
Last August, had a lot in common. Those protesting the death of Michael Brown “armored vehicles, noise-based crowd-control devices, shotguns, M4 rifles like those used by forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, rubber-coated pellets and tear gas.” The scene looked more like a foreign warzone than a Midwestern American town, and no one could tell why local police were taking up arms against those they are sworn to protect and serve.
The world was shocked by this highly and dangerously militarized response by local law enforcement. equated Ferguson to combat zones in Iraq and Gaza. from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars expressed horror at the reality that they had been less heavily armed while on active duty abroad. reacted by saying “[t]here is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don't want those lines blurred.”
Ferguson put a spotlight on police militarization, but the concern is not new. Just before the death of Michael Brown, the ACLU released "." The report is a deep dive into police militarization, describing how some law enforcement practices have turned our police into soldiers and our neighborhoods into warzones. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams are routinely engaged in militarized policing to .
The incidents reviewed in our report show that 79 percent of SWAT deployments were not emergency scenarios such as hostage or barricade situations, but rather home searches. More than 60 percent of those cases involved searches for drugs. And 61 percent of all the people impacted by SWAT raids in drug cases were people of color. , professor of justice studies at the University of Eastern Kentucky, estimates that 80 percent of small towns have SWAT teams and 90 percent of larger cities have them. The number of SWAT raids per year has grown from 3,000 in the 1980s to 60,000 today.
"War Comes Home" calls out the federal government for providing military weapons and equipment to local police. The Department of Defense 1033 program, which sells military equipment at a bargain basement price to state and local agencies, is the epicenter of the controversy. And rightfully so. Since 2006, the 1033 program has provided local police departments with 11,959 , 205 , and 605 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (). In response, citizens are voicing their concerns. Over 77,000 people have supported to the federal government to stop funneling billions of dollars into the militarization of local law enforcement.
In response to all of this, President Obama issued in January. The order created a federal interagency charged with investigating police militarization. As a result of the inquiry, the federal government is now banned from giving bayonets and grenade launchers to local police, but MRAPs are still in play. Granted, the working group has to get an MRAP and a few other things. Now, police departments must establish community policing practices, training protocols, and have community approval in place before using federal resources to obtain some military equipment.
But what about holding police departments accountable for the 605 MRAPs already in circulation?
The Obama Administration should make the new requirements retroactive. If a police department wants to keep its MRAP, the local community should sign off. Additionally, anything that is now banned, like bayonets and grenade launchers, should be recalled. And Congress must pass legislation like the so reforms are permanent.
It is critical that the federal government seek an end to our prohibitionist drug policies - the most glaring – and failed – policy resulting in police militarization. The War on Drugs has failed to stem the availability or use of drugs, has cost billions of dollars, has been a key driver of mass incarceration, and has disproportionately harmed communities of color. Beyond this, the Obama Administration must also take a look at the militarization of other branches of federal law enforcement. They should be alarmed by military-style raids by the in search of raw milk or the in response to financial aid fraud. And the ACLU has long been concerned about the militarization of border communities by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – done in the name of immigration enforcement.
The Obama administration has made some progress on demilitarization, but in order to avoid another Ferguson, we must press on and ensure that our law enforcement maintains its pledge to serve and protect rather than occupy and terrorize.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.