Should the DOJ take over Phoenix Police? That depends on these 3 questions

The Department of Justice may release any day now its much-anticipated findings into whether Phoenix Police practices violated civil rights.

That can’t come fast enough.

And not just because the investigation is now well into its third year.

There have been plenty of political pronouncements in recent weeks in anticipation of the federal probe’s conclusion — mostly from Phoenix’s elected officials and DOJ critics.

A majority of the City Council has signaled they would oppose signing a preliminary agreement to avoid a lawsuit before seeing the findings.

Phoenix wants to fact-check the DOJ

At the same time, others have waged a campaign attacking the federal agency’s effectiveness in such investigations, which often have resulted in agonizingly prolonged and costly consent decrees that strip local control of police departments and place it with a court-appointed monitor.

The latest is the revelation that Phoenix twice requested that the Justice Department allow the city to preview the findings so it can essentially fact-check them.

“The purpose of such access would be to identify factual errors in the report rather than contesting DOJ’s interpretation of the facts,” an attorney hired by Phoenix for the investigation wrote.

To which the federal agency essentially responded: Go pound sand.

Councilwoman: I won't give DOJ control of Phoenix Police

Now that the throat-clearing is done, let’s see the findings because the debate to be had indeed will be on DOJ’s interpretation of the facts.

But the facts are already well established

Federal investigations into police departments rely heavily on information provided by the departments themselves and what’s publicly available, including media coverage.

There have been ample stories critical of Phoenix Police practices, including ones by The Arizona Republic in 2020 that examined 10 years of data and found a racial disparity in use of force incidents and a record number of police shootings in 2018 in which a disproportionate number of Black people are shot.

There’s been coverage of police shootings involving subjects with mental health issues and whether more could have been done by the department to avoid the sometimes deadly outcome.

Phoenix Police also have shared oodles of documents and data with the Justice Department, some of which are sensitive and had to be negotiated.

Little of the facts should catch Phoenix officials by surprise.

3 questions about 'patterns and practices'

Rather, it’ll be the conclusions about “patterns and practices” that DOJ draws from the five areas it said it was examining when it launched the investigation in the summer of 2021:

• Use of force, including deadly force.

• Discriminatory policing.

• Response to calls involving people with disabilities, namely mental illness.

• Retaliation against protesters.

• Seizures and the throwing away of homeless people’s belongings.

Three broad questions come to mind:

1. Is use of force a trend or a one-off?

The Republic’s analysis of use of force incidents looked deeply into 2019 figures and found Latino people were subjected to police use of force more than white people, even though the two groups accounted for similar percentages of arrests.

Were the 2019 figures an outlier, or was the disparity more exaggerated?

Similarly, was the spike in police shootings in 2018 and the disproportionate number involving Black suspects an anomaly?

Do those disparities or trend lines hold when taking into account the volume of police calls in the minority neighborhoods where a majority of the use of force incidents occurred versus elsewhere in the city?

Or when taking into account calls involving violence or armed suspects?

2. How much do police reforms count?

Following the announcement of the DOJ investigation, Phoenix Police began revamping its use of force policy, instituting dozens of changes that include standards for officers to report and to intervene when another officer is acting improperly.

Likewise, the department has implemented training on de-escalation tactics and expanded its crisis intervention for calls involving suspects with mental health issues.

Do those actions — or should they — reduce the justification of a consent decree?

Do they merit a less onerous agreement between the two sides, known as a memorandum of understanding, that wouldn’t require the oversight of a court?

3. What about what Phoenix did before?

There’s a fair argument to be made that a police department’s embrace of reforms after a Justice Department investigation is announced should be treated as suspect.

But Phoenix also initiated changes before DOJ ever entered the picture.

Responding largely to community advocates, Chief Jeri Williams directed the department to start producing and posting videos explaining police responses in critical incidents such as police shootings.

The videos, which began in the fall of 2019, include body camera footage, surveillance video and 911 calls.

It followed other reforms Williams authorized, including a ban on carotid holds, or so-called chokeholds, by officers. Williams retired last summer.

And the Phoenix City Council created a civilian office with the power to review and conduct independent investigations into police misconduct. (The state Legislature responded to greatly restrict civilian review boards by requiring members to have extensive police training or experience as a peace officer.)

The pushback by City Council members and others is based on the Justice Department’s record of looking far back into a police department’s practices without accounting for progress being made.

If DOJ presses for a consent decree, it’s a fight the agency should have to justify when it releases its findings. On that front, Phoenix’s preemptive political pronouncements make good sense.

Reach Abe Kwok at akwok@azcentral.com. On Twitter: @abekwok.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix Police deserve answers to 3 questions about DOJ investigation