ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota Respond to DOJ Findings about Minneapolis Police Department
MINNEAPOLIS — The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has found the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) engages in unconstitutional policing.
The two-year investigation by DOJ — prompted by the 2020 police murder of George Floyd — found:
- MPD unlawfully discriminates against Black and Indigenous people, including disproportionately stopping and using force against them. Notably, MPD officers stopped recording required racial data about who they stopped after the murder of George Floyd. Yet from 2020 to 2022, MPD still stopped Black people at 7.8 times the rate of white people, and Indigenous people at 10 times the rate; the rate for searches was even worse.
- MPD uses unjustified excessive force, including deadly force, even when there was no immediate threat or reasonable suspicion. For example, the DOJ cited a police officer drawing his gun on a child and pinning that child to the hood of a car for not paying for a $5 burrito.
- MPD unlawfully discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The vast majority of calls for behavioral health emergencies involved people who were unarmed and posed no threat. However, Minneapolis’ pilot crisis response program “lacks the capacity” to respond promptly, and police are still the default response.
- MPD retaliated against protesters and journalists engaging in First Amendment-protected activities during the demonstrations in response to George Floyd’s murder and journalists covering those protests. The DOJ cited an example of police officers beating, kicking and shoving protesters who were restrained. Additionally, DOJ found MPD retaliates against people who challenge unlawful police stops and who record police doing their jobs.
The ACLU-MN has filed three lawsuits seeking to address several of the unconstitutional MPD practices referenced in the DOJ report. The ACLU-MN settled a $600,000 lawsuit that limits MPD from arresting and attacking demonstrators in lawful protests. A second lawsuit on behalf of journalists arrested and assaulted by law enforcement while covering the George Floyd and Daunte Wright protests was settled against Minnesota State Patrol, but continues against the city of Minneapolis and others. The third lawsuit for the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information that challenges MPD’s policy of hiding disciplinary action by calling it “coaching” is ongoing.
The ACLU and ACLU-MN hope the city will agree to include all of DOJ’s recommendations in the coming consent decree, including policies that limit use of force, identify and reduce racial disparities, increase transparency and accountability, respect the First Amendment, strengthen civilian oversight, and expand the use of behavioral health experts.
As the MPD police chief and Minneapolis mayor acknowledged in a press conference, the police abuses long preceded George Floyd’s murder — an ACLU found similar problems a decade ago. The city, police department, and DOJ have reached an agreement to negotiate a consent decree, and the ACLU and ACLU-MN call on all agencies to fulfill their promise to include community input.
The following statements can be attributed as noted:
Deepinder Mayell, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota:
“The findings of the DOJ’s investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department are troubling, and sadly not surprising. Minneapolis residents — especially Black and Indigenous people, and people with behavioral health disabilities — have long been victim to excessive force and discriminatory treatment at the hands of MPD. Police have treated the people and the First Amendment with blatant disrespect by assaulting protesters and journalists. We hope the coming consent decree finally helps create a community where all people are safe, and police follow the law.”
Yasmin Cader, deputy legal director and director of the ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality
“Every person deserves to be safe — and that includes being safe from police violence. Police violence isn’t limited to the more than 1,000 annual police killings, but also includes the daily violations people of color, low-income people, and people with disabilities face when they encounter police — violations which are rarely recorded or redressed.
“State and local authorities have a responsibility to change police cultures that breed violence. Minneapolis, while unique, is emblematic of national challenges related to policing and police violence. Ensuring that people are safe in their communities — including safe from police violence — requires robust investment in community safety solutions outside of policing while simultaneously holding police accountable to legal norms and the communities they serve.
“This can begin by establishing mechanisms inside and outside the police department that interrupt and prevent police violence, such as: civilian review boards with subpoena power; ensuring the harms from police violence are redressed, including compensation for those who are injured; and reducing reliance on police where armed responders are not needed. More importantly, ending police violence means empowering the impacted community to design accountability measures and define safety on their terms.
“As the DOJ enters negotiations for a consent decree, it is necessary that those closest to the harms of police violence are centered in the process.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.