BALTIMORE _ A federal judge approved the proposed consent decree between Baltimore and the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, turning the police reform agreement into an order of the court.
In issuing the order, U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar denied a Justice Department request Thursday that he not sign the agreement for at least 30 days while new agency leaders under the Trump administration assess the deal _ which was reached in the waning days of the Obama administration.
"The case is no longer in a phase where any party is unilaterally entitled to reconsider the terms of the settlement; the parties are bound to each other by their prior agreement," Bredar wrote in his order. "The time for negotiating the agreement is over. The only question now is whether the Court needs more time to consider the proposed decree. It does not."
The order is effective immediately, Bredar wrote.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in response, said in a statement that he supports reform but has "grave concerns that some provisions of this decree will reduce the lawful powers of the police department and result in a less safe city."
Sessions said the consent decree was "negotiated during a rushed process by the previous administration," and at a time when Baltimore "is facing a violent crime crisis." He cited statistics outlining a drop in arrests and a rise in homicides in the city.
"The mayor and police chief in Baltimore say they are committed to better policing and that there should be no delay to review this decree, but there are clear departures from many proven principles of good policing that we fear will result in more crime," Sessions said. "The citizens of Baltimore deserve to see a real and lasting reduction in the fast-rising violent crime threatening their city."
He wrote that the Justice Department "stands ready to work with Baltimore to fight violent crime and improve policing in the city."
Mayor Catherine Pugh, in her own statement, said the city "will continue to move forward in reforming the Baltimore Police Department and building the bond of trust that must exist between the community and our police officers."
"Our goal is a stronger police department that fights crime while it serves and protects the civil and constitutional rights of our residents," Pugh said. "It will take a collaborative effort among our state and federal partners to achieve our ambitious goals, and I am confident in our mutual commitment to reforms and to the citizens of Baltimore."
Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said in a statement that he was pleased by the decision, which he said "will support and, in fact, accelerate many needed reforms in the areas of training, technology, and internal accountability systems."
"We expect that this process will lead us to the goal we all share: a Baltimore Police Department that leads the progress of the policing profession."
Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has filed a motion to intervene in the case, wrote on Twitter, "This is a true victory _ the result of hard work, tremendous activism and great lawyering."
In a more lengthy statement, Ifill thanked the court for "speedily approving" the agreement, which she said will "help ensure constitutional policing and vindicate the rights of the people of Baltimore."
"The hard work is far from over," she added. "Change does not happen overnight. But this agreement provides the necessary framework to eradicate widespread and systemic police misconduct through sustainable reform."
A federal monitor now must be selected to oversee implementation of the requirements in the consent decree.
Davis said the police department looks forward to "engaging with the community and the court" in that selection process.
Bredar's ruling comes one day after a public hearing in which nearly 50 members of the public spoke, most to register their support for the deal and their opposition to any delay.
John Gore, deputy assistant attorney general in the federal agency's Civil Rights Division, in contrast, asked Bredar to "hold off" on signing the deal for at least 30 days so officials of the new Trump administration could "analyze it and re-engage with the city if necessary."
Bredar had already denied a formal motion by the Justice Department to delay the hearing by 90 days.
In his order approving the consent decree on Friday, Bredar wrote that the Justice Department's motion "could best be interpreted as a request for an additional opportunity to consider whether it wants the Court to enter the decree at all, or at least the current version of it."
That was "problematic," Bredar wrote.
"The parties have already agreed to the draft before the Court," he wrote. "It would be extraordinary for the Court to permit one side to unilaterally amend an agreement already jointly reached and signed."
Bredar noted that at a previous hearing in the case in February, with the Trump administration in place, the Justice Department had "affirmed its commitment to this draft and urged the Court to sign it."
He also noted that Baltimore and the police department, the defendants in the case, wanted the deal to go through.
At the hearing on Thursday, acting city solicitor David Ralph said the agreement was crafted with deep input from the community, careful consideration of public safety and measures to better train and equip police officers.
"We don't believe delay is necessary," Ralph said. "We would like to move forward."
Ralph also said during the hearing that the consent decree provides a mechanism by which the Justice Department could seek amendments to it, and therefore it did not have to scrap or delay the entire deal because of specific concerns.
That could be a way for the Justice Department to change parts of the agreement Sessions feels are "departures from many proven principles of good policing."
The Justice Department declined on Friday to identify specific provisions that Sessions feels are problematic.
"We don't want to get into specific provisions of the Consent Decree _ though in a decree with over 200 pages that was thrown together in such a hurried fashion it's fair to say there are several areas of concern," said Ian D. Prior, a Justice Department spokesman.
The consent decree was reached in January after the Obama Justice Department conducted a sweeping investigation of the Baltimore Police Department and found what it said was widespread unconstitutional and discriminatory policing in the city _ particularly in poor, predominantly black neighborhoods.
The city had invited the Justice Department in to conduct the investigation in 2015 after rioting occurred following the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray from injuries suffered in police custody.
The agreement calls for significant new restrictions on officers, including limits on when and how they can engage individuals suspected of criminal activity. It orders more training on de-escalation tactics and interactions with youths, those with mental illness and protesters, as well as more supervision for officers.
The deal will require the city to invest in better technology and equipment, and for the police department to enhance civilian oversight and transparency.
City officials have said they expect it to cost tens of millions of dollars over the course of several years.
Bredar, in his order Friday, said the report from the Justice Department's investigation of the police department was "deeply troubling."
He wrote that the consent decree is "highly intrusive on the day-to-day operations" of the police department and will cost the city millions, but is also "comprehensive, detailed and precise" and "appears to be balanced and well-calibrated to achieve the parties' shared, jointly-stated objectives."
He wrote it is in the public interest because "there must be effective and constitutional policing in order for the City of Baltimore to thrive."
According to everything presented on the record in the case to date and based on the comments made by the public both in written form and in court on Thursday, Bredar wrote that it was "clear that time is of the essence" in considering the consent decree.
"The problems that necessitate this consent decree are urgent," he wrote. "The parties have agreed on a detailed and reasonable approach to solving them. Now, it is time to enter the decree and thereby require all involved to get to work on repairing the many fractures so poignantly revealed by the record."
