Bargaining in Blue 

By

Ballotpedia staff

In this month’s edition of Bargaining in Blue: 

  • On the beat: Louisville Metro police union files motion opposing DOJ consent decree regarding police reform
  • Insights: Ballotpedia CBA Dashboard takeaways on the removal of police disciplinary records
  • Around the table: Arguments about federal intervention in local policing

On the beat

Louisville Metro police union files motion opposing DOJ consent decree regarding police reform

The River City Fraternal Order of Police filed a motion in federal court on Dec. 27 to intervene in a consent decree signed by Louisville city officials and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Dec. 9. 

The consent decree requires departmental training and department-wide changes related to the following areas: use of force, the application process for residential search warrants, the execution of residential search warrants, street enforcement, fair and impartial enforcement, protests and demonstrations, individuals with behavioral health disabilities, sexual misconduct, sexual assault, domestic violence, community-based public safety, agency management and supervision, officer assistance and support, hiring practices, misconduct investigations, and discipline.

The union challenged the consent decree arguing it conflicts with the Louisville Metro Police Department’s (LMPD) collective bargaining agreement (CBA). For example, the consent decree requires documents related to use of force and misconduct allegations to be collected, retained, and analyzed, “to identify significant trends, to correct deficient policies and practices, and to improve performance and supervision.” This conflicts with the CBA’s provisions for retaining officer disciplinary records, which require such records be discarded after one year. 

The union argued sections of the consent decree related to misconduct investigations, discipline, training, officer health, and management are topics that should be negotiated in CBAs and cannot be established by the federal government. 

The union stated, “The consent decree conflicts with the collective bargaining agreement between the River City FOP and Louisville Metro Government. This decree runs afoul of language in the CBA and changes the working conditions of our members. The law requires that such changes be negotiated.” 

In a news report about the consent decree, LMPD Chief Paul Humphrey stated, “We are already well on our way to implementing many of the requirements in this consent decree. I felt comfortable signing this because our officers will have clear guidance and goals to meet, the DOJ can’t move the goalposts, and our officers can focus on good police work, not paperwork.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release, “This agreement addresses the serious violations of federal law that we uncovered during our pattern or practice investigation and puts the city of Louisville and its police department on a path to lasting reform.”  

The background

The DOJ began an investigation of the LMPD on April 26, 2021, following the police killing of Breonna Taylor in her Louisville home and the subsequent protests in 2020. The investigation was launched due to the department’s “reasonable cause to believe that the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro) and the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law.”

The investigation was separate from the DOJ’s criminal cases against the former LMPD officers involved in the death of Breonna Taylor.

The DOJ issued a press release on March 8, 2023, detailing its findings. The DOJ reported civil rights violations and patterns of behavior violating the U.S. Constitution and federal law. These violations included excessive use of force, searches conducted based on invalid warrants, unlawful executions of warrants, unlawful stops, searches, detainments, and arrests, and discrimination against Black citizens. 

LMPD cooperated with the investigation and made changes to its operations before the investigation began. In February 2024, the Louisville Metro Government and the DOJ began negotiations to reach a consent decree. This decree was finalized ten months later and signed by Louisville city officials and the DOJ in December.

A consent decree is a legally binding document between two parties to resolve a lawsuit outside of court.

Want to go deeper?

Insights

Ballotpedia CBA Dashboard takeaways on the removal of police disciplinary records

  • Featured dashboard query 
    • Scope: the largest cities by population in the U.S.
    • Topic: process for retaining officer disciplinary records

CBAs and LEOBORs frequently include specific processes and requirements related to officer records. These include the types of records stored, where and how they are stored, accessibility and usage, and timelines for removing or purging records. 

According to our Police CBA Dashboard:

  • 15 states have police CBAs containing provisions related to processes for retaining officer disciplinary records. The following states have provisions requiring records to be removed:
    • Connecticut requires the removal of disciplinary records after one year.
    • Illinois requires the removal of disciplinary records after 15 months.
    • Hawaii, Michigan, Oregon, and Vermont require the removal of disciplinary records after two years.
    • Ohio, Minnesota, and Iowa require the removal of disciplinary records after three years. 
  • 29 of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. have police CBAs containing provisions related to processes for retaining officer disciplinary records.
    • Albuquerque, NM, and Louisville, KY, allow an officer’s record to be expunged after one year.
      • In Albuquerque, the records are removed from the employee’s file but are permanently retained by Human Resources.
    • Six of the 29 cities have provisions related to expunging an officer’s record after two years:
      • Anchorage, AK, requires oral and written reprimands to be expunged after one year and requires suspensions, demotions, and disciplinary transfers to be removed after two years.
      • Honolulu, HI, requires records to be removed after two years and destroyed after four years.
      • Lincoln, NE, allows suspension or dismissal records to be removed upon request after two years.
      • New York, NY, allows records to be removed upon request after two years.
      • San Bernardino, CA, removes what they refer to as derogatory records after two years.
      • San Francisco, CA, prohibits considering formal reprimands after two years.

Around the table

Arguments about federal intervention in local policing

Law professors Barry Friedman, Rachel Harmon, and Farhang Heydari argued the federal government should regulate policing or provide guidance to police departments. They also argued the federal government should do more to fix problems in departments across the country: 

Simply put, the federal government in the main has failed to set rules and standards that local policing agencies either must meet, or at least should aspire to meet. It has not collected or even made possible uniformity in data so that we can identify problems in local policing, and their solutions. If anything became clear in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd—and should have been clear long before—it is that policing needs to be regulated with clear front-end rules, or at least provided with coherent guidance. As we indicated, states have taken up some of the work, but in piecemeal fashion. The federal government could and should—and indeed must—do more to bring needed cohesion and real progress.

Scholar Odinakachukwu Elelleh argued consent decrees are ineffective tools for increasing police accountability because they lack sufficient public involvement:

The preliminary conclusion is that that [sic] the consent decree is an ineffective tool in order to achieve police accountability, due to the lack of measurables and public insight. While the public is involved with the initial investigation writing for the decree, that is largely where their input ends. The public, specifically community leaders and organizers, do not have the ability to actually edit the decree in question. … After twenty years since the first established consent decree, the people of the United States are not reaping significant or tangible change when it comes to police-civilian relationships. This is largely due to the lack of clear accountability that officers and police municipalities have.

Want to go deeper?

Snapshot of expiring CBAs

29 jurisdictions had police CBAs scheduled to expire in 2024

Five states and 24 of the 100 largest U.S. cities had police CBAs scheduled to expire in 2024, according to Ballotpedia’s analysis of police CBAs. Fifteen of those 29 jurisdictions have renegotiated contracts or signed extensions to their CBAs. Fourteen of the jurisdictions have not signed new CBAs or have not made a new contract publicly available as of Jan. 16.