It has been nearly two and a half years since the U.S. Department of Justice initiated an investigation into the City of Phoenix and its police department for alleged misconduct. The focus of the probe includes examining whether officers used excessive force and mistreated individuals experiencing homelessness. Additionally, the investigation aims to determine if discriminatory policing practices exist and if officers have retaliated against individuals engaged in protected First Amendment activities.

Absence of Communication and Transparency

According to a letter from Phoenix city officials, there is a notable absence of communication between Phoenix Police and the DOJ. The letter expresses frustration over the lack of transparency, stating that the DOJ’s investigative team has not shared observations, concerns, or tentative conclusions despite numerous requests. The DOJ has also declined to provide a mid-investigation briefing and refused to share a draft of its findings report before its public release.

Extensive Requests and Data Collection

The city’s letter reveals that the DOJ made over 230 requests during its investigation, collecting a substantial amount of data, including nearly 180,000 documents, 20,000 body camera videos related to the use of force, and 200 recorded 911 calls. Despite this extensive data collection, city officials raise concerns about the effectiveness of the DOJ’s approach, suggesting a need to explore alternatives for law enforcement reforms.

Phoenix Police Chief’s Perspective

Interim Phoenix Police Chief Michael Sullivan, who assumed office in September 2022, emphasizes ongoing department reforms and questions the necessity of federal oversight. Chief Sullivan, with 27 years of law enforcement experience, asserts that significant progress has been made before and during his tenure. He argues against federal oversight, claiming it would impede current reform efforts due to bureaucratic obstacles.

Resistance to Federal Oversight

Chief Sullivan highlights the potential imposition of a consent decree, a legally-binding performance improvement plan enforced by the court and agreed upon by all parties. The Phoenix Police, however, expresses a preference for a ‘Technical Assistance Letter,’ focusing on identifying and addressing weaknesses rather than committing to a consent decree. Chief Sullivan argues that federal oversight would significantly slow down the reform process, citing bureaucratic hurdles.

Unresolved Issues and Future Implications

Despite the ongoing investigation, the lack of communication and transparency between Phoenix Police and the DOJ remains a significant issue. With the possibility of a consent decree looming, the city and its police department continue to navigate the complexities of addressing concerns raised by the DOJ. The ultimate goal remains efficient, effective, and durable law enforcement reforms, but the path forward remains uncertain.