Never consent to a consent decree
- Posted in:
- consent decree
- LMPD
- Louisville
In this video, Liz Collins interviews Dr. Travis Yates, a retired police major and author of a new report that explains why a consent decree would be a disaster for Minneapolis. "What the community deserves is a professional police department. They deserve real accountability. They don't deserve this disaster called a consent decree," said Dr. Travis Yates.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
LIZ COLLINS, ALPHA NEWS: A new report reveals the questionable tactics and consequences of DOJ consent decrees and what it could all mean for Minneapolis moving forward. Dr. Travis Yates, a retired police major and author, is my guest. Dr. Yates, good to see you back, thanks for joining me.
TRAVIS: Thanks for having me, Liz.
LIZ: Consent decrees have been making headlines in Minneapolis for years. Let's start with what they are, and why they matter to everyday Americans when it comes to crime and public safety.
TRAVIS: Every citizen in America should expect their law enforcement agency to NOT violate their rights— to be a professional agency. Secondly, it should matter if the current mechanism to do that is actually working. Since 1994 about 30 agencies are still under federal oversight, so that fact alone should make everyone question whether this (consent decrees) actually work.
LIZ: You've recently uncovered in Phoenix (Arizona) some bombshell findings— You allege a 97% rate of false reporting in the DOJ's summary as they've tried to do the same thing to push this exact same thing on the Phoenix Police Department. Tell us about that.
TRAVIS: First I think we would agree that agencies should be held accountable for not violating the rights of citizens. After 30 years of investigations, it's pretty apparent that the DOJ has mishandled this at a level that really cannot be disputed.
In every city that has gone under federal oversight, crime has spiked, particularly violent crime. New Orleans is one of the premier examples: a 100% increase in violent crime, and budgets have imploded; it cost about an average about $10 million a year for a local agencies to comply with these standards, and of course, staffing tanks —morale tanks— There's a lot of issues.
And there was always suspicion, because how this typically works, Liz, is the DOJ comes in and they investigate the agency. They do what they call a summary report— They don't release the investigation. You don't know who did the investigation, you don't know who the authors of that investigation are. But they do a very vague summary report.
I, like many others in law enforcement, have been reading these for years, and when you read them, you sort of think to yourself: This doesn't really paint the whole picture. It literally gives one or two sentences of each example, and they'll typically list less than a hundred examples. Then, they'll say, “We've got to do this to the department.” (That is, tie the hands of the police with a consent decree.)
And obviously, these consent decrees last 10-20-30+ plus years in some instances, but only a few departments have ever questioned the investigation and when they questioned them, which— the remedy is a federal court— it never happened. The DOJ never followed through with it, or they went back to DC, and so the only agencies over the last 30 years that have been under federal oversight have been agencies that just agreed to it.
Now, that's important on a couple of fronts, Liz. The 10th amendment —states rights— prohibits the federal government from running a local police department, and so the only way the federal government would be able to do this, is if they get —what? Agreement!
So what we've seen — we've seen a lot of politicians, a lot of police leaders, a lot of police chiefs who almost welcome them with open arms, which is certainly odd. Once again, we should hold agencies accountable, but we need to make sure that the mechanism holding them accountable is actually accurate. And so what Phoenix did— Phoenix just didn't agree!
Phoenix first asked the city councilors and asked the DOJ—“Well okay, the DOJ said they found some really bad things here— a lot of violations of people's rights. We're concerned. Can you show us the investigation?"
And they —the DOJ—said "No." And they—the city council— actually asked them a second time. The DOJ wanted them to sign it— They said "If you sign this consent decree and let us monitor your agency, we will then show you what we found."
And the city —really in a very transparent mode— not only did they not agree to that, because that would be, of course, insane, but they released a public website and they listed every example. There were about 134 examples listed by the DOJ.
Now keep in mind, over the course of the investigation there were over 5 million calls and 300,000 arrests, so that alone should should cause pause as to what is a ‘pattern and practice.’
Is that a pattern and practice? Because that's a violation of about 0.000025% of the time frame, and what Phoenix did is —They identified 120 of those cases, and they put a public website up that listed the incidents alongside what the DOJ said about them.
And when the department listened to them, saw the body camera videos, and all the reports, really for the first time in three decades— we were able to go through and look and see exactly what the DOJ was doing—
I did a research report on this list, and what I found was shocking. I mean, actually very disturbing! So, in 97% of the cases where the DOJ claimed the Phoenix Police Department was violating the rights of citizens, they didn't even accurately describe the cases, and so, this really calls into question— really, every investigation, Liz.
If a police officer anywhere in America lied and arrested somebody, they would go to prison. Rightfully so. And so, we have this very powerful entity at the federal level, that's been imposing these rules and guidelines on local law enforcement, and when the we were able to first see exactly what they were doing— we found a 97% deception rate. So it's very, very disturbing.
LIZ: So, perhaps it seems obvious now that these consent decrees are problematic. Are there alternatives? I’m guessing, perhaps, this isn't the answer. Just this week, though, the Minneapolis Police Department named two civilians to head the Internal Affairs Bureau.
In their press release, they said: "These historic appointments mark the first time civilians have held such high-ranking roles within MPD." The release goes on to say, "We're committed to evolving as a forward-thinking community-focused department. These new leaders will play a critical role in guiding our progress.”
What should, though, police departments like Minneapolis— what should they be doing?
TRAVIS: Well, first off, they should be ensuring their agency is the best it possibly can be —with professional officers and professional training and cutting-edge technology. Your chief is the highest paid chief in the land. I’m not sure why you can't pull that off, and why he feels like hiring two civilians to do that will help.
This almost sounds like what the Department of Justice has been doing. The Consent Decree monitors that run agencies are civilians. Investigators that investigate agencies are civilians. And what we found in Phoenix when we looked underneath the hood— they don't know a whole lot about police activity, police tactics and case law, and so, what agencies should do is ensure that they're doing everything they possibly can do, to be the best they possibly can be.
The first step in doing that is to never consent to a consent decree! Run your department well. This is not a secret. You don't have to hire all these additional people; you don't have to have civilians come in and all these experts.
A police chief in a major city like Minneapolis —trust me— he knows what best practices are, and so it's very odd to me that they're imposing all these things.
And by the way, the first thing I would ask, Liz, is: ”Why are you doing this? If you're going to tell me it's one incident with the name George Floyd in it, I immediately say— is that really a ‘pattern and practice’ of your agency? Because if you believe what the DOJ said about your agency, you better take a step back based on what we saw in Phoenix.
LIZ: What is your message, then, to police leaders and politicians here in Minnesota? What should voters do?
TRAVIS: Well, we're dealing with taxpayer money here, and the voters should be concerned whether their police department is as good as it possibly can be.
We know through data—it’s not an opinion— we have 30 years of data that a consent decree creates increased violent crime. It leads to less staffing and balloon budgets.
Seattle is at $200+ million at this moment from 20+ years in a consent decree, and I could go on and on, and so we know historically what's about to occur in Minneapolis if they keep down this road.
So first off, run your department —well it's not rocket science— we know what best practices are. We know how we should hire people, we know how we should fire people. We know what policy is, right? So, we make it way too complicated. But then, do have your accountability arm —you should have internal affairs and you should investigate officers— You should review body cameras.
Chief O'Hara at Minneapolis said at one point publicly, that your agency deserved a consent decree. What the community deserves is a professional police department and they deserve real accountability. They don't deserve this disaster called a consent decree.
He's also said at the same time that he trusts Assistant Chief Blackwell to bring these changes to Minneapolis, and you know, I was I thinking, like many people were disturbed, that a defamation lawsuit was filed against Alpha News, and even yourself, Liz, because— we talk a lot of this country about threats to democracy. Well, the First Amendment is a very important aspect of democracy, and so, I thought it was extremely odd that when that happened— it was the right decision by the judge to throw that case out and being a public official as she is, I watched the documentary like everybody else —It is what it was— right?
What she testified to —the policies are the policies— the training is the training. I don't think you can go back and do revisionist history, but I think what we see in Minneapolis is they continue to keep leaning into that, and the more they do that, the less respect and credibility they have, because people who can think critically, know what went on in Minneapolis.
I think they'd be better off by taking a step back and re-evaluating their position.
LIZ: Our audience knows that well, Dr Travis Yates, thank you again for joining me, and thank you for sharing your insights.
Please also read The American Thinker on the Minnesota local CD. An excerpt:
…In my original article I noted the MPD has lost 40% of its officers since the 2020 George Floyd riots burned substantial portions of Minneapolis, damage largely unrepaired five years later. Like many blue cities that defunded their police departments it’s impossible for the MPD to recruit. Remaining officers can’t handle the call load, major felonies go uninvestigated, call response times are unconscionably long when officers can respond at all, and officers hoping to one day earn a pension without being prosecuted do as little as possible, particularly where minority criminals are involved. …Minneapolis will surely implement, through its socialist/communist City Council, the restraints the consent decree would have imposed on the MPD, giving law-abiding Minneapolis residents perhaps a final reason to engage the services of U-Haul.
