Cripa Memo of Agreement Between Doj and Prince Georges County Md and Pd 2004

• Topics: Conditions of Confinement, DOJ CRIPA Actions

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between the United States Department of Justice
and
Prince George’s County, Maryland and
The Prince George’s County Police Department
January 22, 2004

INTRODUCTION
A. Background
B. General Provisions
C. Definitions

II.

GENERAL POLICY ON RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING

MENTALLY ILL PERSONS

III.

USE OF FORCE POLICIES
A. General Use of Force Policies
B. Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)

IV.

EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USES OF FORCE
A. General Use of Force Incidents
B. Critical Firearms Discharges and Creation of Firearm Discharge Review Board

TRAINING
A. Management Oversight
B. Curriculum
C. FTOs

VI.

RECEIPT, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW OF

MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
A. Public Information
B. Filing and Tracking Complaints
C. Investigation of Complaints

VII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Early Identification System
B. Oversight
C. Use of Video Cameras

VIII. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Independent Monitor
B. Independent Monitor Reports
C. County Reports and Records
D. Implementation

Prince George’s County Police Department
Memorandum of Agreement
I.

INTRODUCTION

Background

In July 1999, the Department of Justice initiated an
investigation of alleged misconduct by the Canine Section of
the Prince George’s County Police Department. In October
2000, the Department of Justice initiated an investigation
of an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force
throughout the Prince George’s County Police Department.
Both investigations were commenced pursuant to the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C.
§ 14141, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d.
Upon assuming office, County Executive Jack B. Johnson
sought to resolve the issues regarding the two Department of
Justice investigations. The County Executive met with
Department of Justice officials to facilitate Prince
George’s County’s cooperation with the Department of Justice
investigations and craft agreements addressing all the
parties’ concerns. This Agreement, along with the separate
Consent Decree regarding the Canine Section investigation,
is the result of a cooperative effort which evinces a
commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the
Department of Justice; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and
the Prince George’s County Police Department.

General Provisions

The United States and Prince George’s County, a chartered
governmental corporation in the State of Maryland, share a
mutual interest in promoting effective and respectful
policing. They join together in entering this Agreement in
order to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that
deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.

This Agreement is effectuated pursuant to the authority
granted the Department of Justice under the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141
(“Section 14141”), to seek declaratory or equitable relief

to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law
enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights,
privileges or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States.
4.

Nothing in this Agreement or the negotiation process shall
be construed as an admission or evidence of liability under
any federal, state or local law.

Neither Prince George’s County’s entry into this Agreement
nor its decision to implement changes to Prince George’s
County Police Department policies and procedures is an
admission by Prince George’s County, the Prince George’s
County Police Department, or any officer or employee of
either, that any of them has engaged in any
unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise improper activity or
conduct, which Prince George’s County and the Prince
George’s County Police Department specifically deny. The
Department of Justice has conducted an investigation
pursuant to Section 14141 into the Prince George’s County
Police Department’s use of force and related management
practices. At the close of the investigation, the
Department of Justice determined that the jurisdictional
requirements of the statute were sufficiently satisfied to
permit the parties to enter into this Agreement. As a
result of Prince George’s County’s and the Prince George’s
County Police Department’s high level of voluntary
cooperation and the parties’ shared goals and willingness to
implement meaningful change without need for litigation, the
Department of Justice believes this Agreement, rather than
contested litigation, represents the best opportunity to
address the Department of Justice’s concerns regarding the
Prince George’s County Police Department’s use of force and
accountability practices.

The parties enter into this settlement jointly for the
purpose of avoiding the burdens of litigation, and to
support vigorous and constitutional law enforcement.
Moreover, joint entry of this Agreement is in the public
interest since it provides for expeditious remedial
activity, promotes the use of the best available policing
practices and procedures, and avoids the diversion of
federal and Prince George’s County resources to adversarial
actions by the parties.

Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the lawful
authority of Prince George’s County Police Department
officers to use force, effect arrests and file charges, or
2

otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations in a
manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitutions
and laws of the United States and the State of Maryland,
including the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of
Rights (“LEOBR”), Md. Code Ann., Public Safety §§ 3-101 to 113 (2003).
8.

Nothing in this Agreement is intended to: (a) alter the
existing collective bargaining agreements between the County
(as defined in paragraph 17 infra) and Police Department
employee bargaining units; or (b) impair the collective
bargaining rights of employees in those units under state
and local law. The parties acknowledge that the County’s
implementation of this Agreement may require compliance with
the consulting process. The County shall comply with any
such requirement under its collective bargaining agreements
and shall do so with a goal of concluding any such processes
in a manner that will permit the County’s timely
implementation of this Agreement. The County shall give
appropriate notice of this Agreement to affected employee
bargaining units to allow such processes to begin as to the
affected provisions of this Agreement. The County agrees to
consult with the United States in regard to the positions it
takes in any consulting processes connected with this
Agreement.

This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated
agreement of the parties. No prior drafts or prior or
contemporaneous communications, oral or written, shall be
relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the
meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any
other proceeding.

10. This Agreement is binding upon the parties hereto, by and
through their officials, agents, employees, and successors.
This Agreement is enforceable only by the parties. No
person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary
of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any
civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly,
no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a
beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. This
Agreement is not intended to impair or expand the right of
any person or organization to seek relief against Prince
George’s County, the Prince George’s County Police
Department, or any officer or employee of either, for their
conduct or the conduct of Police Department officers;
accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any
such claims. This Agreement does not authorize, nor shall
3

it be construed to authorize, access to any Prince George’s
County or Police Department documents, except as expressly
provided by this Agreement, by persons or entities other
than the United States, Prince George’s County, the Prince
George’s County Police Department and the Monitor.
11. The County agrees to provide necessary support, including
financial resources, to the Police Department and the Chief
of Police to enable each of them to fulfill their
obligations under this Agreement.
12. Prince George’s County and the Police Department affirm
their commitment to their oath of office to support the
Constitution of the United States and the State of Maryland.
Prince George’s County, by and through its officials,
agents, employees, and successors, agrees not to engage in
any activity that would constitute a pattern or practice of
conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States. This
paragraph does not apply to the Prince George’s County
employment policies, practices, or procedures.
C.

Definitions

13. The term “actively resisting” means the subject is making
physically evasive movements to defeat the officer’s attempt
at control, including bracing, tensing, pushing, or verbally
signaling an intention not to be taken into or retained in
custody, provided that the intent to resist has been clearly
manifested.
14. The term “BPR” means the Bureau of Professional
Responsibility.
15. The term “CCOP” means the Prince George’s County Civilian
Complaint Oversight Panel.
16. The term “CID” means the Criminal Investigative Division.
17. The term “County” means Prince George’s County, Maryland.
18. The term “critical firearm discharge” means each discharge
of a firearm by a PGPD officer with the exception of range
and training firings and discharges at animals.
19. The term “deadly force” means any use of force likely to
cause death or serious physical injury, including, but not
4

limited to, the use of a firearm.
20. The term “discipline” means a written reprimand, suspension,
demotion, dismissal, loss of leave, or imposition of a fine.
21. The term “DOJ” means the United States Department of Justice
and its agents and employees.
22. The term “EIS” means the Early Identification System.
23. The term “force” means any physical coercion used to effect,
influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order
from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary,
unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of
chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine.
24. The term “FTO” means a field training officer.
25. The term “including” means “including, but not limited to.”
26. The term “LEOBR” means the Maryland Law Enforcement
Officers’ Bill of Rights, Md. Code Ann., Public Safety §§ 3101 to -113 (2003).
27. The term “less lethal force” means any use of force that is
neither likely nor intended to cause death or serious
physical injury.
28. The term “Monitor” means a person or team of people who
shall be selected, pursuant to paragraph 91, to monitor and
report on the County’s implementation of this Agreement.
29. The term “non-disciplinary corrective action” refers to
action other than discipline taken by a PGPD supervisor to
enable or encourage an officer to modify or improve his or
her performance.
30. The term “PGPD” means the Prince George’s County Police
Department.
31. The term “police officer” or “officer” means any law
enforcement officer employed by PGPD, including supervisors.
32. The term “supervisor” means a sworn PGPD employee at the
rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those
capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight
responsibility for other officers.

II. GENERAL POLICY ON RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING MENTALLY
ILL PERSONS
33. In all appropriate cases involving a mentally ill person,
the responding officer will file a request for an Emergency
Petition for an In-Patient Evaluation. The PGPD will
continue employment of its mental health care professionals
that makes such professionals available to assist the PGPD
with on site interactions with persons who are mentally ill.
The PGPD agrees to continue to provide forty hours training
on crisis intervention and dealing with mentally disordered
individuals as part of its police academy recruit
curriculum. Within six months from the date of this
Agreement, the PGPD will supplement its current police
mobile-based crisis team. This team will, at a minimum,
consist of personnel who are highly motivated and attend
annual in-service training by mental health professionals to
improve their conflict resolution and situational deescalation techniques. The PGPD will make best efforts to
secure the voluntary services of team members who are also
sworn police officers. Members of this team will be
available to respond to assist patrol officers deal with
mentally ill subjects. The team shall have primary
responsibility in dealing with the situation, unless there
is a need for quick action.
III. USE OF FORCE POLICIES
A.

General Use of Force Policies

34. The PGPD will review and revise its use of force policies as
necessary to:
a.
b.
c.

d.
e.
f.

define terms clearly;
define force as that term is defined in this Agreement;
incorporate a use of force model that teaches
disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting
out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in
specialized units as appropriate responses to a
situation;
advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be
allowed to submit to arrest before force is used;
reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject
officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution,
and/or civil liability;
ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are
available to all patrol officers; and

explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar
carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.

Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the
PGPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
B.

Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)

35. The PGPD will revise and augment its OC policy to:
a.
b.

c.
d.
e.

g.
h.
i.

define all terms clearly;
limit the use of OC to only those cases in which such
force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject,
or another party from physical harm, or is necessary to
effectuate the arrest of an actively resisting subject,
or prevent the escape of that subject;
continue to prohibit the use of OC in passive, civil
demonstrations;
reinforce the prohibition against using OC spray in
crowded areas;
provide that OC may be used only when verbal commands
and other techniques that do not require the use of
force would be ineffective, or where issuing verbal
commands would present a danger to the officer or
others;
require, that unless it would present a danger to the
officers or others, a verbal warning to the subject
that OC will be used must be issued prior to use, and
that, where feasible, the officer will defer using OC a
reasonable time to allow the subject to comply with the
warning;
require officers to target only the subject’s face and
upper torso when using hand-held OC canisters;
provide guidance regarding the proper duration of a
burst of OC and the distance from which it is applied;
require that, absent exceptional circumstances,
officers will offer to decontaminate every subject
exposed to OC within twenty minutes of the application
of OC;
require that officers request medical response or
medical assistance for subjects exposed to OC when they
complain of continued effects after having been
de-contaminated, or they indicate that they have a
pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma,
emphysema, bronchitis, heart ailment, etc.) that may be
aggravated by OC;

k.
l.

Require that officers remove a subject exposed to OC
from a face down position as soon as it is safe to do
so; and
provide that OC may be used on a restrained subject
only when, absent the use of OC, the subject or another
person is likely to suffer injury, or escape.

Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these revisions, the
PGPD shall immediately implement the revisions.
36. The parties agree that the PGPD shall continue to require
officers to notify their supervisor whenever they discharge
OC. The PGPD shall continue to require supervisors to
document the incident on a Commander’s Information Report.
In addition, the supervisor shall record the basis for
discharging OC, including the reason for the level of force
used; the duration of the discharge; and an estimate of the
distance at which the discharge occurred.
37. The PGPD will require that all uses of spray against a
restrained person be reviewed by the officer’s supervisor,
who must, where feasible, take tape-recorded statements from
the officer and subject. The PGPD will make best efforts to
take tape-recorded statements from other witnesses and third
parties. These reviews will be evaluated and signed by the
BPR.
38. The PGPD will provide regular in-service training on the
proper amount of OC to use, how to deliver OC effectively,
and the proper anatomical targets for OC.
39. The PGPD will continue to maintain an accounting of the
number of chemical spray canisters annually distributed to
and utilized by each officer. Additionally, the PGPD will
maintain an accounting of OC foam dispensers and ammunition
used in pepperball launchers.
IV. EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USES OF FORCE
A.

General Use of Force Incidents

40. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of
force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive
force. Except for those instances in which the only use of
force is a canine deployment, supervisors will respond to
the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the
subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject
receives needed medical attention.
8

41. Supervisors will review, evaluate, and document each use of
force, and will prepare a Commander’s Information Report
(“CIR”). The CIR will include a precise description of the
facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to
justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the
supervisor will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and
determine whether the officer’s actions were within PGPD
policy. An officer who used force during the incident, or
whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct
leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force
will not be eligible to review the incident.
42. BPR will respond to the scene of all serious uses of force.
Serious uses of force are: all uses of force resulting in
death; all uses of force by an officer resulting in a broken
bone or an injury requiring hospitalization; all uses of
force resulting in a loss of consciousness or creating a
substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or
disability; all incidents where a person receives a bite
from a departmental canine; and all critical firearm
discharges. The BPR will be required to review and evaluate
in writing the supervisor’s performance reviews of such uses
of force.
43. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure to
ask officers or other witnesses leading questions during use
of force reviews that improperly suggest legal
justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions
are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In
each review, the PGPD will consider all relevant evidence
including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as
appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if
feasible. The PGPD will make all reasonable efforts to
resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
The PGPD will train all of its supervisors on the factors to
consider when evaluating credibility.
44. Supervisors shall conduct a performance review of all uses
of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any
officer under their command. In a performance review,
supervisors shall interview all witnesses to a use of force
or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with
the requirements of LEOBR, PGPD supervisors (or BPR as
appropriate) shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide
a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors (or BPR as
appropriate) shall ensure that all use of force reports
identify all officers who were involved in the incident or
9

were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors (or BPR as
appropriate) shall ensure that all reports indicate whether
an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and
whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors
(or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all reports
include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of
all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both
before and after any treatment, including cleansing of
wounds.
45. The District or unit Commander will evaluate each
performance review conducted by supervisors, identify any
deficiencies in those reviews, and require supervisors to
correct any deficiencies. Supervisors will be held
accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate
non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary
action will be taken when a supervisor fails to conduct a
timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend
appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly
implement appropriate corrective action.
B.

Critical Firearm Discharges and Creation of Firearm
Discharge Review Board

46. The PGPD will investigate or review as appropriate all
critical firearm discharges. The PGPD will ensure that the
investigation or review accounts for all shots and the
locations of all officers who discharged their firearms.
The PGPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses,
including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as
appropriate.
47. The PGPD will create a special board to review all critical
firearm discharges. The board will review each BPR
investigation and supervisor’s performance review (if
applicable) of a critical firearm discharge for compliance
with PGPD policy, as well as for tactical and training
implications. The board’s review will include investigative
files and interviews of the principal investigators and/or
supervisors. Following its review, the board will prepare a
report for the Chief of Police. The report will be made a
part of the complete PGPD file regarding the incident, and
it will include a description of the incident (including all
uses of force); a summary and analysis of all relevant
evidence; proposed findings; and analysis to support those
findings. In particular, the board will determine: a)
whether all uses of force during the encounter were
consistent with PGPD policy and training; b) whether the
10

officer(s) involved employed proper tactics; and c) whether
lesser force alternatives reasonably were available.
Membership on the board will rotate, but will at least
include a member of the PGPD command staff, a Training
Academy representative, the affected Bureau Commander and an
attorney from the County Attorney’s office.
48. The PGPD policy that defines the Firearm Discharge Review
Board’s role will:
a.

require the board, absent exceptional circumstances, to
review within 90 days of the end of all criminal
reviews of the incident, all critical firearm
discharges;

set forth the membership of the board;

authorize the board to recommend to the Chief of Police
that non-disciplinary corrective action be taken;

require the board to act as a quality control mechanism
for all shooting or firearm discharge investigations,
with responsibility to return to the investigating unit
all incomplete or mishandled shooting or firearm
discharge investigations and/or supervisor’s
performance reviews;

charge the board with the authority and responsibility
to recommend to the Chief of Police investigative
protocols and standards for all critical firearm
discharge investigations and/or supervisor’s
performance reviews; and

require the board annually to review each critical
firearm discharge to detect patterns and/or problems
and to report its findings and recommendations to the
Chief of Police.

TRAINING

Management Oversight

49. The PGPD will coordinate and review all use of force policy
and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance
with applicable law and PGPD policy. The PGPD will conduct
regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.

50. The Director of the Academy, either directly or through
his/her designee(s), consistent with Maryland law and the
Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission
standards, will:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

f.
g.

ensure the quality of all use of force training;
develop and implement use of force training curricula;
select and train PGPD officer trainers;
develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service
training;
develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol
division roll call protocol designed to effectively
inform officers of relevant changes in policies and
procedures;
establish procedures for evaluating all training
curricula and procedures; and
conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of
force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of the officers being trained.

51. The PGPD will provide training consistent with PGPD policy,
law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only
mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by
instructors. The PGPD will make best efforts to train each
work shift as a team in their use of force training.
52. The PGPD shall keep adequate records of lesson plans and
other training materials, such that the most current
training documents are maintained in a central, commonly
accessible file, and are clearly dated.
53. The PGPD shall maintain training records regarding every
PGPD officer which reliably indicate the training each
officer has received. The training records shall, at a
minimum, include the course description and duration,
curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
B.

Curriculum

54. Either as a subcommittee of the existing Training Committee
or as a stand-alone committee, the PGPD will form a
curriculum and policy committee that will include core
Academy staff, a broad cross-section of field personnel,
PGPD command staff, and a representative of the County
Attorney’s office. The committee will review all use of
force training and use of force policies on a regular basis
to ensure compliance with applicable laws and PGPD policy.
The Chief of Police, in consultation with the County
12

Executive, has
exploring best
committee will
writing to the

decided to charge the committee with
use of force practices and innovations. The
report its findings and recommendations in
Chief of Police on an annual basis.

55. The PGPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers,
supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of
force. Such training will include and address the following
topics:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

i.
j.
k.
l.

the PGPD’s use of force model, as described in this
Agreement;
proper use of force decision-making;
the PGPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional
requirements;
examples of scenarios faced by PGPD officers that
illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of
force decision-making;
the proper amount of OC to use, how to deliver OC
effectively, and the proper anatomical targets for OC;
de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to
make arrests without using force, and instruction that
disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting
out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in
specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the
appropriate response to a situation even when the use
of force would be legally justified;
additional training to its officers on alternate safe
techniques for extracting subjects from stationary
vehicles and disabling such vehicles;
threat assessment;
factors to consider in initiating or continuing a
pursuit; and
appropriate training on conflict management.

56. The PGPD will provide training to all its officers on the
PGPD citizen complaint process, including the role of the
CCOP and the BPR in the process. The PGPD will develop a
protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and
responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train
officers in the protocol.
57. The PGPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of
proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider
when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to
ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are
13

unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The PGPD will
also provide training to supervisors on leadership and
command accountability, including techniques designed to
promote proper police practices. This training will be
provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within
90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will
be made part of annual in-service training.
C.

FTOs

58. Within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the
PGPD will develop a protocol, subject to the approval of
DOJ, to enhance the FTO program. The protocol shall address
the criteria and method for selecting FTOs, the training
provided to FTOs to perform their duties, the length of time
that probationary officers spend in the program, the
assignment of probationary officers to FTOs, the substance
of the training provided by the FTOs, and the evaluation of
probationary officer performance by the FTOs. The protocol
will also set standards that require the appropriate
assessment of an officer’s past complaint and disciplinary
history before an officer is selected to serve as an FTO.
FTO appointments will be subject to review for reappointment
at the discretion of the Director of the Academy or the
Commander of the Training and Education Division. District
commanders will also have discretion, upon consultation with
the Academy staff, to remove an officer from the FTO
program.
59. FTOs will be reviewed when an Academy class graduates, with
re-certification dependent on satisfactory prior performance
and feedback from the Academy and the FTO’s District
Commander.
VI. RECEIPT, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW OF MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
A.

Public Information

60. The County and the PGPD will continue their programs to
inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the
performance of any officer.
61. The County will make complaint forms and informational
materials available at all PGPD district stations,
libraries, the internet, and, upon request, to community
groups and community centers. At each PGPD district
station, the PGPD will permanently post a placard describing
the complaint process and include the relevant phone
14

numbers. The PGPD will require all officers to carry
informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while
on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that
officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make
a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from
making a complaint.
B.

Filing and Tracking Complaints

62. Except for complaints alleging brutality, complaints may be
filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail,
telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. In cases
where a complaint asserts only the individual’s contention
of innocence of a charge, without any allegation of
misconduct by the officer, the complainant will be advised
to seek judicial redress through established court
procedures. In all other cases, the duty officer at the
front desk of each district station will be authorized to
take complaints, including third-party complaints, which
persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake
officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s
demeanor and physical condition, but may not express
opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity.
Complaint forms shall be readily available at all precincts.
A complaint form will be completed each time a person
attempts to file a complaint as described herein. Brutality
complaints will be accepted when they are notarized and
filed within 90 days of the alleged brutality, consistent
with the requirements of LEOBR. The PGPD shall ensure that
at least one employee who holds a valid commission from the
State of Maryland as a notary public is available 24 hours
per day at all times to respond to the complainant’s
location within a reasonable amount of time and notarize the
document.
63. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt at
BPR, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier,
which will be provided to the complainant within 10 business
days. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis
for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy,
improper search, etc.).
64. The PGPD will request that the CCOP forward copies of all
allegations of misconduct filed with the CCOP against the
PGPD within five business days of receipt.

Investigation of Complaints

65. All investigations shall be conducted in accordance with the
LEOBR.
66. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the
evidence standard, for which the County will develop and
implement appropriate training.
67. The PGPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an
incident any officer who used force during the incident,
whose conduct led to the injury to a prisoner, or who
authorized the conduct that led to these reportable
incidents.
68. The parties agree that in each investigation, the BPR will
consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial,
direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make
credibility determinations, if feasible. The BPR will make
efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness
statements. The BPR will train all of its investigators on
the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or
witness credibility. The BPR will prohibit investigators,
during complaint investigations, from improperly asking
officers or other witnesses leading questions that
improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s
conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law
enforcement techniques. Consistent with the requirements of
LEOBR, PGPD investigators will ensure that all officers on
the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the
incident.
69. During an investigation, all relevant police activity,
including each use of force (i.e., the investigation will
not be limited to the force complained about), will be
investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any
searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The
BPR will not close an investigation simply because the
alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical
records or proof of injury; rather, the BPR will continue
its investigation as necessary to determine whether the
original allegation(s) can be resolved.

70. In conducting investigations, BPR will, subject to and in
conformance with applicable law, including the LEOBR, at a
minimum:
a.

continue to tape record or videotape interviews of
complainants, involved officers, and witnesses;

whenever practicable and appropriate, conduct
interviews of complainants and witnesses at sites and
times convenient for them, including at their
residences or places of business;

whenever practical, prohibit group interviews;

notify the supervisors of the involved officers of the
investigation, as appropriate;

interview all appropriate PGPD officers, including
supervisors, in accordance with the requirements of the
LEOBR;

collect, preserve, and analyze all appropriate
evidence, including canvassing the scene to locate
witnesses and obtain the complainant’s medical records,
where appropriate; and

identify and report, in writing, all material
inconsistencies in officer and witness interview
statements gathered during the investigation.

71. At the conclusion of each investigation, the individual
responsible for the investigation will prepare a report on
the investigation, which will be made a part of the
investigation file. The report will include a description of
the alleged misconduct and any other misconduct issues
identified during the course of the investigation; a
summary, and, where appropriate, analysis of all relevant
evidence gathered during the investigation; and proposed
findings and analysis supporting the findings. Absent
exceptional circumstances, BPR will complete all
investigations within 90 days after receiving the
allegations.

72. The complainant will be notified when the complaint is
referred to the CCOP. Upon completion of the investigation
and any necessary hearings required under the LEOBR, the
complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an
appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary
corrective action or disciplinary action was taken, to the
extent permitted by Maryland law.
73. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by
making one of the following dispositions:
a.
b.
c.
d.

“Unfounded,” where the investigation determined no
facts to support that the incident complained of
actually occurred;
“Sustained,” where the person’s allegation is supported
by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident
occurred and the actions of the officer were improper;
“Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to
decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
“Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence
shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not
violate PGPD policies, procedures, or training.

74. District Commanders will evaluate each investigation of an
incident in their command to identify underlying problems
and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be
relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate
PGPD entity.
VII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A.

Early Identification System

75. The PGPD will enhance and expand its Early Identification
System to include a computerized relational database for
maintaining, integrating, and retrieving data necessary for
supervision and management of the entire PGPD. The PGPD
will regularly use this data to manage risk and liability;
and to evaluate the performance of officers across all
ranks, units, and shifts.
76. The new database will collect and record the following
information for PGPD officers:
a.
b.
c.

all uses of force;
the number of OC spray and foam canisters, and
ammunition for pepperball launchers used by officers;
all injuries to prisoners;
18

e.
f.
g.

h.
i.

all instances in which force is used and a subject is
charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police
officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of
justice;”
all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and
off-duty;
all complaints (and their dispositions);
all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all
civil or administrative claims alleging misconduct, and
all civil lawsuits served upon, the County, or its
officers, or agents, resulting from PGPD operations or
the actions of PGPD personnel;
all vehicle pursuits; and
all disciplinary action taken against officers.

77. The database will include, for all incidents in the
database, appropriate identifying information for each
involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and
supervisor) and subject (e.g., race, ethnicity or national
origin).
78. Pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 82, the PGPD will,
within 90 days of the date of this agreement, prepare for
the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a
protocol for using the new database. The County will submit
for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed
modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such
modifications.
79. Pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 82, the PGPD will,
within 90 days of the date of this agreement, prepare for
the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a
plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and
historical data into the risk management system (the "Data
Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to
be included and the means for inputting such data (direct
entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to
be included, the past time periods for which information is
to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and
the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data
Input Plan will include current and complete data in the
risk management system.

80. The protocol for using the database will include the
following provisions and elements:
a.

c.
d.

The protocol will comprise the following components:
data storage, retrieval, and analysis; reporting,
pattern identification; supervisory assessment and
intervention; and documentation and audit.
The protocol will require the automated system to
produce the following information, based on the data:
i.
number of incidents in each data category for each
officer and for all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity in each data category
for each officer and for all officers in a unit;
and
iii. identification of patterns of activity in each
data category for each officer and for all
officers in a unit.
The protocol will require the system to generate
reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data
analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
The protocol will require that PGPD commanders,
managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular
basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and
will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit
activity.
The protocol will require that PGPD commanders,
managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for
individual officers, supervisors, and units based on
appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the
information contained in the database.
The protocol will require that intervention options
include discussion by commanders, managers,
supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and
supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and
strategies designed to modify activity. All
interventions will be documented in writing and entered
into the automated system (appropriate intervention
options will be employed based on the evaluation
described in subsection (e) above).
The protocol will specify that actions taken as a
result of information from the relational database be
based on all relevant and appropriate information,
including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime
trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number
or percentages of incidents in any category of
information recorded in the database.

i.
j.

The protocol will require that PGPD commanders,
managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability
to use the database to enhance effectiveness and reduce
risk.
The protocol will require the PGPD to conduct audits of
the system at reasonable intervals to ensure action is
taken according to the process described above.
The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less
than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of
all relevant risk management system information to
evaluate officer performance Department-wide, and to
evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the
performance of all PGPD units in order to identify any
significant patterns or series of incidents.

81. The County will maintain all personally identifiable
information about a PGPD officer included in the database
during the officer’s employment with the PGPD and for the
maximum length of time permitted by the LEOBR. Information
necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be
maintained indefinitely in the database. On an ongoing
basis, the PGPD will enter information into the risk
management system in a timely, accurate, and complete
manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential
manner.
82. The database will be developed and implemented according to
the schedule below. The PGPD may satisfy the terms of this
Agreement by obtaining necessary modifications to their
existing database (subject to DOJ approval) or by obtaining
a new database.
a.

Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement,
subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the PGPD
will issue the Request for Proposal (RFP), a
preliminary outline of the protocol for using the risk
management system, and a preliminary outline of the
Data Input Plan.
Within 120 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later
with the agreement of DOJ, the PGPD will select the
contractor to create the database or to make
appropriate modifications to an existing database to
bring it into compliance with this Agreement.
Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement,
the PGPD will submit the final protocol for using the
risk management system and the final Data Input Plan to
DOJ for review and approval. The PGPD will share
drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a
21

position described in Section VIII) to allow DOJ and
the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it
develops and to provide informal comments on it.
Within 12 months of selecting the contractor, the
County will have ready for testing a beta version of
the database consisting of the following elements:
i.
server hardware and operating systems installed,
configured and integrated with the PGPD’s existing
automated systems;
ii. necessary data base software installed and
configured;
iii. data structures created, including interfaces to
source data; and
iv. the use of force information system completed,
including historic data.
DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to
participate in testing the beta version using use of
force data and test data created specifically for
purposes of checking the database.
The database computer program and computer hardware
will be operational and fully implemented within 18
months of the selection of the contractor.

83. Prior to implementation of the database contemplated in this
Agreement, the PGPD will maintain and use existing databases
and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify
patterns of conduct by PGPD officers or groups of officers.
84. Following the initial implementation of the database, and as
experience and the availability of new technology may
warrant, the PGPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify
data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned
or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify
standardized reports and queries. The PGPD will submit all
such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before
implementation.
B.

Oversight

85. The PGPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The
protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged
with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a
regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur
with sufficient frequency, and cover all six PGPD districts.

86. The PGPD will conduct the following audits pursuant to the
protocol in paragraph 85:
a.

It will conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits,
covering all six districts, that examine citizen
complaints processed through the CCOP, including
auditing selected samples of complaints that were
resolved through the CCOP, contacting the complainants
to evaluate whether the actions and views of the
citizen were captured correctly in the CCOP report, and
examining whether there is consistency in the CCOP
across districts. It will issue a report on the
results which will be provided to each district
commander. Each district commander will review the
report in regard to all officers under their command
involved in an incident and, if appropriate, the PGPD
will impose disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective
action.

It will conduct semi-annual integrity audits and issue
a report on the investigations conducted by BPR. The
report will evaluate BPR’s investigation of selected
use of force and citizen complaints. The report will
assess the reliability and completeness of BPR’s
canvassing and interviewing of witnesses, preservation
and analysis of the incident scene, and the
appropriateness of BPR’s conclusions.

87. The PGPD will semi-annually solicit in writing from local
prosecutors whether the prosecutors are aware of any issues
with any individual officer or Department-wide performance.
C.

Use of Video Cameras

88. The PGPD will continue to make its best efforts to operate
video cameras in all currently equipped vehicles. The PGPD
is encouraged to continue developing a policy on video
cameras that will require:
a.

mandatory activation for all traffic stops and pursuits
that continues until the motor vehicle stop is
completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the
officer’s participation in the motor vehicle stop ends;

to the extent practical, manual activation for
incidents in which the prisoner being transported is
violent;

supervisors to review the tapes in all cars of all
officers listed in any PGPD report regarding any
incident involving injuries to a prisoner or an
officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and citizen
complaints; and

that the PGPD retain and preserve tapes for at least 90
days, or as long as necessary for incidents subject to
investigation.

89. If an officer actively participates in a motor vehicle stop
and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded
using the video camera equipment, the officer will notify
the shift supervisor of the reason the stop was not
recorded.
90. The PGPD will conduct periodic random reviews of mobile
camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes.
Supervisors conducting these reviews will document their
activity in a log book. In addition, the PGPD will require
periodic random surveys of mobile video recorder equipment
to confirm that they are in proper working order.
VIII.
A.

MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Independent Monitor

91. By 90 days from the date of this Agreement, the County and
the DOJ shall together select an Independent Monitor,
acceptable to both, who shall monitor and report on the
County’s implementation of this Agreement. The parties
recognize that one person, or team of people, may be
selected to fulfill the role of Monitor. The selection of
the Monitor shall be pursuant to a method jointly
established by the DOJ and the County. If the DOJ and
County are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative
method of selection within 90 days from the date of this
Agreement, the DOJ and the County each shall submit two
candidates who have experience as a law enforcement
practices expert or monitor, or as a Federal, state or local
prosecutor or judge, along with
and cost proposals,
to a third party neutral, selected with the assistance of
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The third
party neutral shall then appoint the Monitor from among the
names of qualified persons submitted. The selection of the
Monitor shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures
set forth in this Agreement, and will not be governed by any
formal or legal procurement requirements.
24

92. The Monitor, at any time after the initial selection of the
person or team of persons as the Monitor, may request to be
allowed to hire or employ such additional persons or
entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks
assigned to him or her by this Agreement. Any person or
entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist
in furthering any provisions of this Agreement shall be
subject to the provisions of paragraphs 103 and 106,
governing testifying, conflicting employment and
confidentiality. The Monitor shall notify the County and
the DOJ in writing if the Monitor wishes to select such
additional persons or entities. The notice shall identify
and describe the qualifications of the person or entity to
be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be
performed. If the County, through its Office of Law, and
the DOJ agree to the Monitor’s proposal, the Monitor shall
be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or
entities. The County or the DOJ have ten days to disagree
with the proposal. If the County and the DOJ are unable to
reach agreement within ten days of receiving notice of the
disagreement, a third party neutral selected with the
assistance of the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service
shall resolve the dispute.
93. The County shall bear all reasonable fees and costs of the
Monitor. In selecting the Monitor, DOJ and the County
recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs
borne by the County are reasonable, and accordingly fees and
costs shall be one factor considered in selecting the
Monitor. In the event that any dispute arises regarding the
reasonableness or payment of the Monitor’s fees and costs,
the County, DOJ and the Monitor shall attempt to resolve
such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance
of a third party neutral, selected with the assistance of
the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service, to resolve such
dispute.
94. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and
authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor shall
not, and is not intended to, replace or take over the role
and duties of the County Executive, County Council, or Chief
of Police. In order to monitor and report on the County’s
implementation of each substantive provision of this
Agreement, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews specified
in paragraph 95 infra and such additional reviews regarding
the implementation of this Agreement as the Monitor deems
appropriate. At the request of the DOJ or the County, based
25

on the Monitor’s reviews, the Monitor may make
recommendations to the parties regarding measures necessary
to ensure full and timely implementation of this Agreement.
95. In order to monitor and report on the County’s
implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall
regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the
County and the PGPD have implemented and continue to
implement all measures required by this Agreement.
96. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, the
PGPD will reopen for further investigation any BPR
investigation (including use of force and citizen complaint
investigations) the Monitor determines to be incomplete.
The Monitor will provide written instructions for completing
any investigation determined to be incomplete. The Monitor
will provide binding written recommendations to the Chief of
Police and BPR to reopen an incomplete investigation. The
Monitor will provide these recommendations so that the
directive given by the Chief of Police to implement the
Monitor’s instructions is given within a reasonable period
following the investigation’s conclusion. The Monitor may
not exercise this authority concerning any investigation the
disposition of which has been officially communicated to the
officer who is the subject of the investigation.
97. The parties agree that the PGPD will hire and retain, or
reassign a current PGPD employee or independent contractor,
for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time
PGPD Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator
will serve as a liaison between the PGPD, the Monitor and
DOJ, and will assist with the PGPD’s compliance with this
Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will:
coordinate the PGPD’s compliance and implementation
activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents and
other access to PGPD employees and material to the Monitor
and DOJ as needed; ensure that all documents and records are
maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in
assigning compliance tasks to PGPD personnel, as directed by
the Chief of Police or his designee. The PGPD Compliance
Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting
the information the Monitor requires to carry out the terms
of this Agreement.
98. In monitoring the implementation of this Agreement, the
Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the County and
the Chief of Police as well as the DOJ.

99. The Monitor shall have full and direct access to all PGPD
employees and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems
necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by
this Agreement. The Monitor shall cooperate with the County
and the PGPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable
manner that, consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities,
minimizes interference with daily operations.
100. The Monitor shall have full and direct access to all County
and PGPD documents that the Monitor reasonably deems
necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by
this Agreement, except any documents protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Should the County or the PGPD
decline to provide the Monitor with access to a document
based on attorney-client privilege, the County shall provide
the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the document.
101. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the United
States and its consultative experts and agents shall have
full and direct access to all PGPD employees, facilities,
and PGPD documents, to the extent permitted by law. The
United States and its consultative experts and agents shall
cooperate with the County and the PGPD to access involved
personnel, PGPD facilities, and documents in a reasonable
manner that minimizes interference with daily operations.
Should the County or the PGPD decline to provide the United
States with access to a document based on attorney-client
privilege, the County shall provide the United States with a
log describing the document.
102. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the County or the PGPD
with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents.
Upon such request, the County and the PGPD shall provide the
Monitor and DOJ with copies (electronic, where readily
available) of any documents that the Monitor and DOJ are
entitled to access under this Agreement.
103. All non-public information provided to the Monitor or DOJ,
whether by the County or the PGPD, shall be maintained in a
confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in
this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver
of any privilege or right the County or the PGPD may assert,
including those recognized at common law or created by
statute, rule or regulation, against any other person or
entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.

104. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the Monitor
shall have direct access to all documents in criminal
investigation files that have been closed by the PGPD. The
Monitor shall also have direct access to all arrest reports,
warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained
in open criminal investigation files; where practicable
arrest reports, warrants and warrant applications shall be
obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation
files.
B.

Independent Monitor Reports

105. The Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports
detailing the County’s compliance with and implementation of
each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports
shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests
of individual officers and the interest of the County and
the PGPD in protecting against disclosure of non-public
information. At least ten business days before filing a
report, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft to the
parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made
or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is
disclosed. The Monitor shall consider the parties’
responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before
issuing the report. The Monitor may testify in this case
regarding any matter relating to the implementation,
enforcement or dissolution of this Agreement.
106. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this
Agreement or the parties acting together: neither the
Monitor, nor any member of their staff, shall make any
public statements or issue findings with regard to any act
or omission of the County, or its agents, representatives,
or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to
the Monitor pursuant to the Agreement. Any press statement
made by the Monitor or any member of the Monitor’s staff
regarding their employment must first be approved by DOJ.
Neither the Monitor nor any member of their staff shall
testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to
any act or omission of the County, the PGPD, or any of their
agents, representatives, or employees related to this
Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the
Monitor or their staff may have received knowledge of as a
result of his or her performance under this Agreement.
Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitor
shall not accept employment or provide consulting services
that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s
responsibilities under this Agreement, including being
28

retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or
future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or
claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit
against the County or its departments, officers, agents or
employees. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or
an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by
the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to
public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or
entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist
in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be
liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the
Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. This
paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court
related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for
monitoring this Agreement.
C.

County Reports and Records

107. Within 90 days following entry of this Agreement and no
later than every three months thereafter until this
Agreement is terminated, the County shall file with the
Monitor, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating
the steps taken by the County and the PGPD during the
reporting period to comply with each provision of this
Agreement. The County shall also file such a report
documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of
this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days
before the end of the Agreement’s term.
108. During the term of this Agreement, the County and the PGPD
shall maintain all records necessary to document their
compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all
documents expressly required by this Agreement.
D.

Implementation

109. The County shall implement immediately all provisions of
this Agreement which involve the continuation of current
PGPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining
provisions shall be implemented either by the specified
implementation date or, for those provisions that have no
specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably
practicable and no later than 120 days after this
Agreement’s effective date.

110. In regard to any provision that provides for DOJ “review and
approval,” approval will be granted in a timely fashion
provided that the PGPD action reasonably satisfies the
requirements and standards set forth in the relevant
provision(s).
111. The Agreement will terminate three years after the effective
date of the Agreement or earlier if the parties agree that
the PGPD and the County are in substantial compliance with
each of the provisions of this Agreement, and have
maintained substantial compliance for at least two years.
The burden will be on the County to demonstrate this level
of compliance. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or
temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise
sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to
maintain substantial compliance. At the same time,
temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained
noncompliance will not constitute substantial compliance.
112. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this
Agreement. The parties will notify each other of any court
or administrative challenge to this Agreement.
113. This Agreement is enforceable through specific performance
in Federal Court. Failure by any of the parties to enforce
this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect
to any deadline or any other provision herein will not be
construed as a waiver of its right to enforce other
deadlines and provisions of this Agreement.
114. In the event the PGPD or the County fail to fulfill any
obligation under this Agreement, DOJ will, prior to
initiating any court proceeding to remedy such failure, give
written notice of the failure to the County’s Office of Law.
The County will have 60 days from receipt of such notice to
cure the failure. At the end of the 60-day period, in the
event DOJ determines that the failure has not been cured,
DOJ may, without further notice to the County, file an
action in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland (the “Federal Court Action”) against the County
for breach of contract and any other appropriate causes of
action and may seek specific performance and any other
appropriate form of relief.

115. In connection with the Federal Court Action, the PGPD and
the County agree as follows:
a. The County and the PGPD will stipulate to subject
matter and in personam jurisdiction and to venue.
b. The County and the PGPD agree that service by hand
delivery of the summons, complaint, and any other
documents required to be filed in connection with the
initiation of the Federal Court Action upon the
County’s attorney will be deemed good and sufficient
service upon the County and the PGPD.
c. The County and the PGPD hereby waive the right to file,
and agree not to file or otherwise assert, any motion
to dismiss (except for failure to state a claim or
failure to meet the service requirements of paragraph
115(b)), to stay or otherwise defer, a Federal Court
Action alleging a failure to fulfill any obligation
under this Agreement.
d. The County and the PGPD agree to a trial of the Federal
Court Action alleging a failure to fulfill any
obligation under this Agreement commencing:
i) 180 days after service of the summons and complaint
as set forth above, or ii) the Court’s earliest
availability, whichever is later. The parties agree
that discovery in the Federal Court Action alleging a
failure to fulfill any obligation under this Agreement
may begin within 60 days after service of the summons
and complaint. The parties agree to submit all
discovery requests and to schedule all depositions
within 120 days after the service of the summons and
complaint.
116. In the event the Court finds that the County or the PGPD has
engaged in a material breach of any provision of this
Agreement, the parties hereby stipulate that they will move
jointly for the Court to enter the Agreement and any
modifications as an order of the court and to retain
jurisdiction over the Agreement to resolve any and all
disputes arising out of the Agreement.
117. Nothing in this Agreement will preclude DOJ, after complying
with paragraph 114, from filing an action under Section
14141 or the Safe Streets Act alleging a pattern or practice
of discriminatory policing in addition to or in lieu of the
Federal Court Action described above. In the event that any
such action is filed, the County and the PGPD hereby waive,
and agree not to assert, any defense to that action based on
statute of limitations, laches, estoppel or any objection
31

relating to the timeliness of the filing of such action.
Nothing in this Agreement will preclude DOJ from filing an
action under Section 14141 alleging a pattern or practice of
unlawful conduct other than discriminatory policing.
Nothing in this Agreement will preclude DOJ from filing an
action under any other provision of law.
118. This Agreement will be posted on the web site of the Special
Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ.
119. The County and the PGPD agree that they will not retaliate
against any person because that person has filed or may file
a complaint, provided information or assistance, or
participated in any other manner in an investigation or
proceeding relating to this Agreement.
120. The parties may jointly agree, in writing, to modify this
Agreement.

FOR THE UNITED STATES:

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

THOMAS M. DIBIAGIO
United States Attorney for the
District of Maryland

BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
Civil Rights Division

SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR
Chief
Special Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division

SANDHYA L. SUBRAMANIAN
Special Counsel
Special Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division

GREGORY GONZALEZ
Trial Attorney
Special Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-2941 (telephone)
(202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

FOR Prince George’s County, Maryland,
and the Prince George’s County Police
Department:

JACK B. JOHNSON
County Executive
Office of the County Executive
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3070
(301) 952-4131 (telephone)
(301) 952-3784 (facsimile)

MELVIN C. HIGH
Chief of Police
Prince George’s County Police Department
7600 Barlowe Road
Palmer Park, MD 20785
(301) 772-4740 (telephone)

DAVID S. WHITACRE
County Attorney
County Administration Building, Room 5121
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050
(301) 952-4190 (telephone)
(301) 952-3071 (facsimile)

MARY CRAWFORD
Associate County Attorney
Office of Police Reform
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Suite 300
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050