CLEVELAND — The monitoring team responsible for tracking the Cleveland Police Department’s efforts toward constitutional policing recently released their semiannual report, stating little progress was made between June and December of last year.
Karl Racine, former attorney general of the District of Columbia, took over as monitor for the consent decree last year.
Racine opened the latest report with a letter that briefly praises the police department for their commitment and largely places the blame for slow progress on the city’s administration.
“The reporting period was marked by unwarranted delay and denial of access to documents and databases that the Monitoring Team and Department of Justice (DOJ) need to fulfill their respective responsibilities under the Consent Decree,” Racine said in the letter.
He goes on to say the city started rolling back access to that information in April of last year, something city officials dispute.
“The city has records in the data systems that basically note that we did not remove them from access until Dec. 29,” Leigh Anderson, executive director of the Police Accountability team, said.
In early March, the federal judge presiding over the consent decree, Judge Solomon Oliver, ordered the city to reopen access, which is what city leaders said they wanted.
In that hearing, the city said the reason they denied open access from December to March is because of concerns it would violate state law.
At the time, city law director Mark Griffin said they sought the order from Judge Oliver as protection from any state lawsuits.
In the letter, Racine writes about this issue: “Then, in December 2023, the City cited unfounded reasons for suddenly ceasing all access to documents and databases that are plainly required by the Consent Decree. It was not until Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. specifically ruled on the issue on March 7, 2024 that the Monitoring Team and the DOJ were able to continue their duties. These delays cost the City and its taxpayers time, money, and progress in fulfilling the Consent Decree’s mandate that it police in a constitutional manner.”
Anderson said it’s unfair to characterize this report in such a negative light.
“You can’t move fast on things that are as important as someone’s life and someone’s civil rights, and we don’t want to get that wrong,” she said. “So, yes, if they label it as little progress, then they’re allowed to do that, and we respect that report. But, we just don’t agree.”
There were some good aspects highlighted in this report as well.
To fulfill the requirements of constitutional policing, the department must reach compliance in over 400 benchmarks that span eight categories.
Anderson said in the nearly ten years the city has been under the consent decree, they haven’t gotten close enough in any of the eight categories to be assessed for full compliance.
This year, the monitoring team is ready to assess three: crisis intervention, use of force and search and seizure.
The next hearing for an update on the status of the department’s efforts toward compliance is Monday.
Tuesday evening, the monitoring team will hold a public meeting to get community feedback.