Consent decrees are costly, hamper police, and place the public at risk
A consent decree is a term and process feared by law enforcement and law enforcement chiefs, city village managers, and some political leaders. While there may be some legitimate reasons for having consent decrees in some police agencies throughout the United States, I have always believed they are a form of judicial extortion. If you think there is any consent by police agencies in these consent decrees, I hope to enlighten you.
What is a consent decree? For law enforcement agencies, it is a court-ordered settlement between a police department and the Department of Justice (DOJ) that establishes an enforceable plan for sustainable reform. Typically, consent decrees are detailed documents that include specific requirements and deadlines for action. Most consent decrees require an independent monitor as part of the process. A federal judge typically oversees the consent decree and is the individual who appoints an independent monitor.
You may ask yourself which areas of law enforcement are included in a consent decree. Commonly, police consent decrees mandate changes in training, policies, and practices in several areas: the use of force, community policing, which is referred to as impartial policing, training, accountability, officer wellness, data and information system use, and more. The stated goal of consent decrees is to see that police agencies provide constitutional and practical policing that keeps the community members and officers safe and restores the community's trust in the police department. As I mentioned earlier, that is the stated goal.
How do consent decrees come about? They can be initiated through citizen complaints, political leaders' complaints, highly publicized media-alleged misconduct by police, and through lawsuit settlements, which goes against police policy and practice. As previously stated, police executives consider consent decrees legal extortion. I say that because there is no consent in a consent decree. The Department of Justice forces the designated police department to sign a legal agreement that orders the department to be under a consent decree and monitored by a federal appointee and judges.
In some cases, these consent decrees have been continued for over 20 years. If you believe that police agencies consent to these decrees, you are wrong in most cases. If the police agency does not consent, the federal government can file a lawsuit against the agency, forcing it to consent or face profound consequences. For example, all federal funding and federal grants will be withheld from the agency; press releases to increase public scrutiny against the agency will be widely disseminated even when an investigation is conducted, and no filed disposition; and agencies will be forced to cooperate along political affiliations. What I mean by this is when there is Democratic leadership simultaneously on the federal and local levels, the police agency has no choice but to “consent.” The same would hold true for Republican leadership in Washington and local elected offices.
The federal government even runs programs to manage agencies, and the police chief or executive must follow consent decree protocols. These consent decrees are so complicated that they must offer training or mentoring. There are over 30 consent decrees on police agencies throughout the United States. These go from sizeable metropolitan police departments to small suburban and rural agencies, including all agencies, whether state or local law enforcement, university police agencies, and sheriff's offices. Consent decrees can and will affect every police agency in America.
I do not like consent decrees that are used as a political tool against police departments and policing in general. Some of my dislikes about consent decrees are that they are expensive, time-consuming, and burdensome. They impose policy preferences, have ill-defined metrics, lead to rising crime, lower officer morale, increase community dissatisfaction, and make it harder to fill officer vacancies through recruitment and retention. Consent decrees are also undemocratic because they bind police chiefs to the decisions of their predecessors.
You may read this and believe that I am not interested in police reform, that I do not want anyone looking over police departments’ shoulders, and that I do not want to have any binding agreements; however, this is not the case. Police departments should be highly scrutinized, perform to peak performance, and occasionally have outside agencies review their policies and practices. Still, it is police experts and the residents they serve who should be involved in this important, necessary, meaningful, crucial, and critical oversight. Community members pay taxes for police services, and the community knows what type of policing it wants. That kind of oversight is superior to any consent decree.
Consent decrees are extremely expensive; departments must put millions of dollars into these consent decrees and set up special offices, filing systems, recruitment systems, and monitoring systems. It is not cheap, and taxpayers foot the bill. Consent decrees do nothing more than trot out the same tired, old, superficial, and ineffective reforms, such as improving training and wearing body cameras, along with slight policy changes. I believe the community can better address the type of policing they want and determine what good policing is.
In closing, residents have the answer to accountable policing, not the Department of Justice.
Tom Weitzel retired from the Riverside, Illinois, Police Department in May of 2021 after 37 years in law enforcement and 13 years as Chief of Police. Opinions are his own. He can be reached at tqweitzel@outlook.com. Follow him on X @chiefweitzel.
