Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke Delivers Remarks on Justice Department Findings of Civil Rights Violations by the Minneapolis Police Department and the City of Minneapolis
Remarks as Delivered
Good morning. My name is Kristen Clarke. I’m the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. At the heart of many of the protests that unfolded in this city, and across the nation, was a call for constitutional, fair and non-discriminatory policing and respect for people’s civil rights.
Today we are here to take an important step toward answering that call and committing to the task of building out a core feature of American democracy – an effective, accountable police department that ensures respect for constitutional rights, garners public trust and keeps people safe.
I want to provide further details about the findings of our civil rights investigation that the Attorney General just announced.
First, we found that the Minneapolis Police Department uses excessive force – both deadly and less lethal.
We reviewed MPD’s 19 police shootings and one in-custody death from January 1, 2016, to August 16, 2022. Many of these incidents were unconstitutional uses of deadly force. We found that officers used deadly force without probable cause to believe that there was an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or another person. In one example, an off-duty officer fired his gun at a car containing six people within three seconds of getting out of his squad car.
Neck restraints are lethal force. And we found that MPD officers often use neck restraints without warning, on people suspected of only minor offenses and on people who posed no threat.
We also reviewed less lethal uses of force – tasers, bodily force and pepper spray.
MPD officers’ use of tasers often is inconsistent with MPD’s own policy and occurs without warning. For example, officers sometimes use multiple, successive taser applications without re-assessing the need for further activations, which can be dangerous. They also use tasers for minor offenses, on kids and on people known to have behavioral health issues.
We found that MPD unconstitutionally uses bodily force and pepper spray against people who have committed minor offenses or no offense at all. In addition, we saw repeated instances of excessive force against kids without appropriate attempts to de-escalate the situation. In one instance, an MPD officer wearing street clothes drew his gun and pinned a teenager to the hood of a car for allegedly taking a $5 burrito without paying.
In addition, we found instances where MPD officers did not adequately ensure the safety of people in their custody. For example, after pepper spraying a group of people who were fighting, MPD officers ignored pleas to call an ambulance for one woman who needed help because she had asthma. Disregarding the medical distress of a person who is in custody or after a use of force is unlawful.
And, often, officers who could have intervened to stop the use of excessive force by their colleagues did not do so. This violates the Constitution.
Our second finding is that the Minneapolis Police Department unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities. This is a first-time finding for us – that the police department also discriminates against Native American people in its enforcement activities.
With our statistical experts, we reviewed over five years of MPD data, from November 1, 2016, to August 9, 2022, on roughly 187,000 traffic and pedestrian stops. We also conducted interviews and ride-alongs, and we reviewed other documents and information that the city provided.
As part of this systemic discrimination, we found that MPD disproportionately stops Black people and Native American people.
During stops involving Black and Native American people, MPD performs searches more frequently than during stops involving white people, even when they behave in similar ways.
MPD also uses force during stops involving Black and Native American people more frequently than they do during stops involving white people, even when they behave in similar ways. This too is another “first” – this is the first time we have made a finding that the police department unlawfully discriminates by using force after stops against Black and Native American people.
Starting in late May 2020 – when George Floyd was killed – MPD officers suddenly ceased reporting race and gender in many stops despite MPD policy requiring them to collect this data. We estimate that the percentage of daily stops with known race data recorded dropped over 35 percentage points during this period. Still, our analyses of the reported racial data from May 25, 2020, to August 9, 2022, showed significant racial disparities in searches and use of force.
Working with our statistical experts, we did not find that there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for such different treatment for Black and Native American people during stops or the other enforcement activities that we examined.
We also found that the MPD violates people’s First Amendment rights by retaliating with force against people engaged in protests and engaged in demonstrations. We saw officers push and pepper spray protesters who posed no threat. Where protesters resisted police commands, officers used force to punish them well after any threat had ended. For example, during a protest in March of 2021, officers beat, kicked and shoved protestors even after they were restrained. One officer, used his full body weight, kneed a passive, restrained protester in the neck as he lay face down – an act that amounted to deadly force.
MPD retaliates against journalists and unlawfully restricts their access during protests. Under the First Amendment, the press must be allowed to safely gather and report the news.
In addition, we found that the police department retaliates against people who challenge or question them during stops and calls for service. The Constitution protects the right to criticize officers, even with profanity. We also found that MPD officers retaliate against people who observe and record them, even though they have a right to do so. All of this violates the law.
Our fourth and final finding is that MPD and the City of Minneapolis discriminate against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to calls for assistance.
Many calls for service related to behavioral health do not require a law enforcement response. These calls often involve no violence, weapon or immediate threat. And in these circumstances, a law enforcement-led response can lead to trauma, injury and even death to people experiencing behavioral health issues. But these harms may be avoided by dispatching behavioral health responders where appropriate, and they can be mitigated by sending behavioral health responders with police where a law enforcement response may be needed.
To assess MPD’s and the city’s response to behavioral health calls, we analyzed a random sample of behavioral health-related 911 calls to which MPD responded. And we learned that MPD and the city often send the police unnecessarily and that people are harmed as a result. For the vast majority of the calls we reviewed, the person needing behavioral health attention was not reported to have a weapon or to pose an immediate threat. Only 0.45% of over 100,000 mental health calls resulted in an arrest at the scene – this underscores that the current reliance on police-only responses is unwarranted.
In December of 2021, the city launched a mobile crisis response pilot that provides a behavioral health response in addition to, or instead of, a police response. And that program is a step in the right direction, but that pilot effort lacks the capacity to promptly respond to calls throughout the city, and, as a result, MPD continues to be the primary response to behavioral health calls.
These findings are serious, and we enter the path to reform with a plan to put in place lasting and enduring changes that will ensure the constitutional, fair and non-discriminatory policing to which the people in this great city are entitled.
As I close, I want to extend my gratitude to the Mayor and the Police Chief for joining us today and for their collaboration. And I also want to extend deep appreciation to the people across Minneapolis who worked with us at every step of this process. Thanks to residents, community leaders, civil rights advocates, police officers and many others who used their voice in this process. An enormous and important task lies ahead, and we want this community to hear us clearly – we stand with you at every stage of this process that lays ahead.
I’ll turn the floor over to Ann Bildtsen, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota.
Speaker: Assistant Attorney General Kristen ClarkeTopic(s): Civil RightsComponent(s): Civil Rights DivisionCivil Rights – Special Litigation Section
Updated June 16, 2023 Original Article
