By Steve Pomper
I can’t ignore any story about the DOJ inflicting another bogus consent decree on undeserving American cops. I understand what that feels like, as I was serving in the Seattle Police Department (SPD) when, in 2010, the DOJ targeted us for a similar investigation and eventually a bogus consent decree. This influenced my retiring at least a decade before I’d planned.
That’s also why I’m confident a guilty finding was never in doubt when the cop-hating DOJ slithered into Phoenix in 2021 to “investigate” the Phoenix Police Department (PPD) for racism and civil rights violations.
The three-year waste of time, otherwise known as a DOJ investigation into the PPD, concluded that—what else? The PPD has a “pattern and practice” of violating people’s civil rights—oh and is racist.
In my 2018 book, De-Policing America: A Street Cops View of the Anti-Police State, I wrote, “Liberal federal administrations use consent decrees to bludgeon police departments into ‘reforming’ into a progressive view of how they believe policing should be done. These are contracts entered into by the federal government and local agencies, overseen by a federal judge, and monitored by a federal appointee. Some of these consent decrees can stretch on for years.”
Back in my day it was the contemptuous of Congress, presidential wingman, U.S. AG Eric Holder who inflicted a bogus consent decree on the SPD (and others). Today, the cynical assault on good cops continues with cities like Phoenix (and others), at the DOJ guillotine. Only this time, it’s another Congress contemptible, thumb on scale, AG Merrick Garland.
This assault is a part of a radical federal government’s persistent attempts to quasi-federalize local law enforcement. Remember, when these ideologically biased DOJ officials come to town to root out “police corruption,” they can’t rely on a traditional definition of “corruption.” They’d be defining themselves.
First, the radicals tweak the definition of corruption to conform to their anti-police mythmaking. Then, when they say, “the police are corrupt,” it’s based on their pretend definition of corruption designed to arrive at their preordained conclusions.
I also wrote in De-Policing, “former U.S. Attorney, Andrew C. McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, says, ‘They’ve [DOJ] had their thumbs on the scales from the beginning.’… ‘McCarthy cited a string of federal civil-rights investigations into some 20 police departments, including Ferguson, Missouri’s, which he said the Justice Department has approached with a presumption of racial guilt.’”
Seattle University Criminal Justice Associate Professor Matthew J. Hickman had quickly debunked the DOJ’s flawed study condemning the SPD. Professor Hickman had previously worked at the DOJ as a statistician, making him the consummate expert to comment on the matter.
The Prof. penned “a bold editorial titled, ‘Special to the Times: Department of Justice owes the Seattle Police Department an apology’ (Seattle Times, Feb. 8th, 2010). In it, he advised the SPD command staff to, ‘Call the DOJ’s bluff and demand an apology.’”
Seattle city leaders surprisingly vacillated but only briefly. In the end, the Seattle government tossed the great men and women of the Seattle Police Department into a federal inferno. Refreshingly, it appears that, unlike Seattle, Phoenix is fighting back.
During a press conference, the Arizona Police Association (APA) and its lawyer, Rachel Mitchell, stated, “at best, this report is nothing more than a politically-driven document prepared by a federal agency focused on undermining local law enforcement.”
Mitchell also said, “Oversight of the Phoenix Police Department should remain with Chief Michael Sullivan and the city council, which answers to the voters. The men and women of Phoenix Police, who put their lives on the line every single day for us, deserve our gratitude and not our condemnation.”
The APA president, Justin Harris, said, “Thirty years of failure is what the Department of Justice represents. I’ve heard a lot about defunding the police; how about we defund the Department of Justice and send them back to D.C. They destroy cities.” (Yes! I’m a one-man standing ovation over here). But, as I just alluded to, it’s not only the cops’ union objecting to the bogus decree.
Jenna Curren at Law Enforcement Today nailed it, writing, “Phoenix city officials oppose a consent decree, suggesting they would not sign one. Mitchell and Harris don’t want to see PPD experience a similar fate of other cities like Seattle and New Orleans, cities they say have seen spikes in violent crime after the DOJ got involved with overseeing their police departments” .
The DOJ report supposedly found the PPD engaged in “excessive force” and—wait for it— “racism.” These are the DOJ’s default settings while under radical, anti-police administrations. I challenge anyone to find a law enforcement agency investigated by these radicals who they didn’t accuse of excessive force and racism.
Morgan Loew and Cody Lillich, at KOLD 13 TV News, reported results from an investigation of the investigators. “Arizona’s Family Investigates review of the Department of Justice Investigation report into the Phoenix Police Department shows misstatements, errors in fact and events that were mischaracterized by DOJ investigators.”
“‘It doesn’t give a fair assessment because if you start with bad facts, you’re going to get bad conclusions,’ said Steve Serbalik, an attorney who represents police officers across Arizona.”
No surprise there. Similarly slimy, the DOJ has never revealed the methodology it used to fabricate its findings in Seattle.
Defending the indefensible, “Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke on June 13 after releasing the findings,” said, “Our findings today reveal very significant and severe violations of the federal law and the Constitution.” Well, we know she can read a script. Even a cursory look into A/AG Clarke’s history (and present) shows enormous bias against the police.
Clarke’s blatant anti-police bias makes it obvious she should never have been confirmed. John McCormack at National Review wrote about Clarke’s confirmation hearings to be put in charge of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. He said that in 2020 the nominee wrote an op-ed for Newsweek “in which Clarke endorsed proposals to ‘defund the police.’” Did Clarke fib when she told a U.S. senator that she did not support defunding the police? Judge for yourself.
As the senator noted, in her article, Clarke mentions three times “investing less in police.”
Clarke wrote,
“We must invest less in police and more in social workers. …”
“We must invest less in police and more in social supports in our schools. …”
“We must invest less in police and more in mental health aid.”
Doesn’t “invest less in police” sound suspiciously like “defund the police?”
So, what do you think? Did she fib?
How can any law enforcement agency expect fair treatment with people like Clarke and, in Seattle, future Seattle Mayor Jenny “Summer of Love” Durkan, the then head lawyer for the DOJ in the Northwest, who inflicted a bogus consent decree on the department she would one day oversee?
The answer is the DOJ won’t treat the PPD fairly. To paraphrase Prof. Hickman, The PPD command staff, mayor, and city council should join the APA and “Call the DOJ’s bluff and demand an apology.”
They won’t get one, but I still appreciate the sentiment.
