Free At Last

I have been on what can be described as a crusade to criticize the take-over of local police departments by the United States Department of Justice put on steroids by the Barack Obama USDOJ led by former Attorney General Eric Holder. It was nothing more than a nefarious attempt to take control of local policing by coercing cities to agree to federal guidelines.

None of these take-overs had anything to do with police reform. It was unadulterated raw politics that stirred up hatred for the American police officer. Nearly every time the USDOJ under Obama and former President Biden ordered a pattern and practice investigation into an urban police department to find whether an agency was engaging in racially motivated and discriminatory policing, the verdict was guilty as charged.

Using faulty statistical findings led to a misinterpretation of the data collected. No benchmarks were ever set. Cops working in high crime areas in predominantly black neighborhoods are going to encounter more black residents and stop more black motorists than any other demographic. That without more interpretation is not evidence of racially motivated policing.

Finding an agency guilty nineteen times out of twenty pattern and practice investigations under Obama does not pass the eye test. It implies that most police agencies are inherently racist. It is a big lie and did much to harm the trust and relationship that officers work so hard to create. Obama and Biden did not care. They knew that fomenting everything into racial conflict was beneficial for them politically.

When a law enforcement agency succumbs to this intimidation, they allow themselves to be taken over by the USDOJ. A federal monitor who has no experience in urban policing nor other lawful techniques that control crime, is put in charge of overseeing all aspects of operations. Any policy change has to be approved by the monitor before it can be implemented. Copious reporting of all traffic stops and field interviews by officers in the field turn what are supposed to be crime fighters into data gatherers. It keeps them from the streets causing less time spent on preventive patrols and high visibility. These activities prevent and deter crime. Fighting crime becomes secondary as it causes officers to withdraw from assertive policing.

President Donald Trump ran for a second term promising not only to end USDOJ involvement in local policing but to end existing consent decrees. He has kept his word. Recently the Attorney General Pam Bondi led Justice Department said that it will abandon its court approved settlements with departments and cities in Minneapolis where the death of George Floyd began the USDOJ pattern and practice investigation and in Louisville where the death of Breonna Tayor led to an investigation in that city. In fact, it goes further. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillion is retracting accusations made by the Biden administration that officers in those two agencies violated the constitutional rights of Floyd or Taylor. Dhillion called these decrees an experiment of handcuffing cities and police with factually unjustified consent decrees. The Justice Department also said that they are closing pattern and practice investigations in four other cities.

Some people claim without evidence that these decrees lead to improved relations with minority communities. Others claim that they are too costly and burdensome to be effective. The National Fraternal Order of Police Executive Director said that consent decrees can worsen tensions between communities and police. The National FOP President said that the decrees have never worked and never will work. According to Axios news site, “most police agencies in court ordered agreements saw violent crime rates skyrocket immediately.” Other negative impacts of these decrees point out that it has led to a decrease in crimes solved and that it has had a demoralizing impact on officers, lowering their motivation and effectiveness.

There are other examples of the ineffectiveness and cost of consent decrees. The city of Albuquerque, New Mexico recently asked a court to end its federal monitoring of the police department after 10 years. They hired a monitor who received more than ten million dollars and had an office leased to him where the public could call or visit. A report about the office said that when they called, a secretary answered to take a report, but the return call by the monitor was never received. Additionally, the hours of operation were not convenient for the public to submit issues to the monitor. The request for the federal monitoring to end was granted by the judge who presided over the original agreement.

Over burdening police agencies with data gathering reports is not reform. It is important for community elected officials to directly oversee their police agencies and hold them accountable. The residents through elections can then hold politicians accountable. No fact-based report has come out that claim cities are incapable of watching their local police agency or officer behavior at the local and state level. Policing is a Tenth Amendment states right issue. States have a vested interest in controlling crime. In fact. It is the first and highest priority of local government to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. is former Sheriff of Milwaukee Co, Wisconsin, President of America’s Sheriff LLC, President of Rise Up Wisconsin INC, Board member of the Crime Research Center, author of the book Cop Under Fire: Beyond Hashtags of Race Crime and Politics for a Better America. To learn more visit www.americassheriff.com