IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH
BUREAU OF POLICE, and DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 97-0354
On April 16, 1997, this Court entered a Consent Decree between the United States and
the City of Pittsburgh, et al. ("City"). Paragraph 79 of the Decree provides that "[a]t any time
after five (5) years from the date of entry of this Decree, and after substantial compliance has
been maintained for no less than two years, the City may move to terminate this Decree."
As required by paragraph 70 of the Decree, the Auditor has filed comprehensive reports
of the City's compliance with the Decree on quarterly basis. The Auditor's quarterly reports have
found the City to be in operational compliance with provisions of the Decree applicable
specifically to the Bureau of Police since the Ninth Quarterly Report, covering the time period
from August 16, 1999 through February 15, 2002. However, the Auditor's reports have found
that the City has not attained operational compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree
applicable specifically to the City Office of Municipal Investigations ("OMI"), the office
responsible for investigating and deciding complaints of police misconduct. In particular, the
City continues to maintain a substantial backlog of OMI cases in violation of the Consent
Decree. The Auditor's reports also reveal that the City's failure to comply with the provisions
applicable specifically to OMI affects the City's ability to comply fully with certain Bureau of
Police provisions with which they interrelate.
The parties agree, based on their own assessments, and the conclusions and analysis
reflected in the Auditor's reports, that the City has maintained substantial compliance with
certain Consent Decree provisions which apply solely to the Bureau of Police, from August 16,
1999 to date. The parties also agree that the City has not achieved substantial compliance with
certain Consent Decree provisions applicable to OMI, and that this has impacted certain Bureau
of Police provisions with which they interrelate.
In recognition of the Defendants' compliance with provisions of the Consent Decree
pertaining solely to the Bureau of Police, and in consideration for commitments regarding OMI
agreed to by the City herein and the City's agreement to continue to maintain in effect policies
and procedures substantially similar to those developed pursuant to the Consent Decree regarding
(a) the performance assessment and review system and protocols for its use, (b) reporting, review
and aggregate analysis by the chain of command of uses of force, searches and seizures and
traffic stops, and (c) civil rights training programs, the parties stipulate to the following.
Plaintiff, the United States, and Defendants, City of Pittsburgh, et al., jointly move this
Court to order the following:
1. The Court shall terminate Consent Decree paragraphs 10, 13, 14, 18(b), 19(b), 20, 21(a),
23, 24, 25, 26(a) and (c), 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 (except that the City shall
continue to maintain: training records of OMI investigators; and training records of officers who
received training based on OMI complaints), 42 (except that the City shall continue to document
and maintain all mandatory counseling of officers based on OMI complaints) and 43. All other
Consent Decree paragraphs shall remain in effect until termination is effected with regard to
those paragraphs pursuant to Consent Decree paragraph 79.
2. In order to achieve operational compliance with all remaining provisions of the Consent
Decree not terminated by this Stipulated Order, the City agrees to comply with the following
requirements governing the operations of OMI and its successors:
A. OMI has developed and shall continue to maintain an enhanced computerized
relational database that effectively tracks the status of complaint investigations by
case number, allegation, investigator, and status of the investigation.
B. The City shall continue to hire and/or assign an individual to OMI for the
exclusive purpose of assisting OMI in the supervision and management of its
caseload, including any backlog, and accomplishing any modification of policies
and protocols necessary to assure efficient processing of complaints until OMI
has completely eliminated its backlog.
C. The City shall clear OMI's existing backlog of cases open longer than 120 days
by February 28, 2003.
D. Until the backlog is eliminated, the City shall ensure that at all times OMI
maintains a staff of at least 16 investigators. Thereafter, the City shall ensure that
at all times OMI maintains sufficient staff to comply with paragraph 2.E. herein.
E. After eliminating the backlog, the City shall not permit OMI to again develop or
maintain a significant backlog of cases and, thus, agrees that, after February 28,
2003, the total number of cases open more than 120 days shall not exceed 5% of
the total OMI caseload. The 5% limit shall not include cases appropriately
designated by the City as "pending" and which are no more than 180 days old. A
case may be designated as "pending" by the OMI manager and his or her direct
supervisor if each of the following applies: (a) a non-police witness whose
testimony is necessary to determine the disposition of any of the allegations is
unavailable after aggressive efforts have been made by OMI in accordance with
Consent Decree paragraph 61; and (b) all other phases of the investigation have
been completed within the 120 day period. The 5% limit shall apply to all cases
open longer than 180 days.
F. The City shall ensure that each OMI closed case file contains all of the records
necessary to document their compliance with all Consent Decree provisions. Any
file lacking documentation necessary to determine OMI's compliance with the
Consent Decree at the time of the Auditor's review, shall be deemed non-compliant by the Auditor.
G. The City shall ensure that all OMI investigators receive police academy and in-service training, as required by Consent Decree paragraph 46, within six months
of their date of hire, and shall maintain detailed written records substantiating the
training received by each investigator.
H. The City shall provide to the Auditor and the Department, on a monthly basis
until the Consent Decree is terminated pursuant to Consent Decree paragraph 79,
a report listing the following current information: the number of incoming OMI
cases per month, by type; the number of assigned current and backlog cases per
month, by type; the number of unassigned current and backlog cases per month,
by type; the number of staff (current and backlog) per shift on the last day of the
month (including the name, title and start date for each staff member); and the
number of closed cases (current and backlog) per month, by type.
3. The Auditor shall continue to audit, as provided in Consent Decree paragraphs 70 to 76,
all Consent Decree paragraphs that have not been terminated. Consent Decree paragraphs
12, 15, 16, 17, 18(a), 19(a), 21(b) and (c), 22, 26(b), 27, 32, 38, 41, 42 and 43, which
pertain primarily to the Bureau of Police, will be audited only to the extent they cover or
affect OMI's responsibilities pursuant to the Consent Decree and this Order. In addition,
the Auditor shall continue to review and report on all information included in Consent
Decree paragraph 71 (a) through (d).
4. The Auditor shall audit compliance with this Order as part of his audit of the Consent
Decree. The Auditor shall use a 'process audit' approach, as described in the Auditor's September 13, 2002 Supplemental Report to the Court.
5. This Order shall terminate when the entirety of the Consent Decree is terminated pursuant
to Consent Decree Paragraph 79.
For the Plaintiffs:
/s/ Ralph F. Boyd, Jr.
RALPH F. BOYD, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
/s/ Steven H. Rosenbaum
/s/ Donna M. Murphy
/s/ Mary R. Bohan
/s/ S. Nicole Nardone
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM, Chief
DONNA M. MURPHY, Deputy Chief
MARY R. BOHAN, Attorney
S. NICOLE NARDONE, Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
SPL, 601 D Street
Washington, D.C. 20530
For the Defendants:
/s/ Jacqueline R. Morrow
/s/ Susan E. Malie
JACQUELINE R. MORROW, City Solicitor
SUSAN E. MALIE, Assistant City Solicitor
City of Pittsburgh Department of Law
414 Grant Street
313 City-County Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2002.
/s/ Robert J. Cindrich
ROBERT J. CINDRICH
United States District Court Judge