Investigation of the

City of Minneapolis and the

Minneapolis Police Department

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division
and
United States Attorney’s Office
District of Minnesota
Civil Division

June 16, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3
A. Minneapolis Government and MPD ........................................................... 4
B. Recent Events ........................................................................................... 5
INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 7
FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 9
A. MPD Uses Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment .......... 9
1. MPD Uses Unreasonable Deadly Force .......................................... 11
2. MPD Uses Tasers in an Unreasonable and Unsafe Manner ........... 16
3. MPD Uses Unreasonable Takedowns, Strikes, and Other Bodily
Force, Including Against Compliant or Restrained Individuals ......... 18
4. MPD Encounters with Youth Result in Unnecessary, Unreasonable,
and Harmful Uses of Force .............................................................. 22
5. MPD Fails to Render Medical Aid to People in Custody and
Disregards Their Safety ................................................................... 24
6. MPD Fails to Intervene During Unreasonable Uses of Force .......... 26
7. MPD’s Inadequate Force Review System Contributes to Its Use of
Excessive Force .............................................................................. 28
B. MPD Unlawfully Discriminates Against Black and Native American People
When Enforcing the Law.......................................................................... 31
1. MPD Unlawfully Discriminates Against Black and Native American
People During Stops ........................................................................ 32
2. After George Floyd’s Murder, Many Officers Stopped Reporting Race
............................................................................................... 41
3. MPD Has Failed to Sufficiently Address Known Racial Disparities,
Missing Race Data, and Allegations of Bias, Damaging Community
Trust ............................................................................................... 42
C. MPD Violates People’s First Amendment Rights ..................................... 48
1. MPD Violates Protesters’ First Amendment Rights.......................... 48
2. MPD Retaliates Against Journalists and Unlawfully Restricts Their
Access During Protests.................................................................... 51
 3.  MPD Unlawfully Retaliates Against People During Stops and Calls for
Service ............................................................................................. 52 
4.  MPD Unlawfully Retaliates Against People Who Observe and Record
Their Activities ................................................................................. 53 
5.  MPD Inadequately Protects First Amendment Rights ...................... 54 
D.  The City and MPD Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act in Their
Response to People with Behavioral Health Disabilities .......................... 57 
1.  Behavioral Health Calls Continue to Receive an Unnecessary and
Potentially Harmful Law Enforcement Response ............................. 58 
2.  MECC Contributes to Unnecessary Police Responses to Calls
Involving Behavioral Health Issues .................................................. 63 
3.  Training on Behavioral Health Issues Does Not Equip Officers to
Respond Appropriately .................................................................... 64 
4.  The City and MPD Can Make Reasonable Modifications to Avoid
Discrimination Against People with Behavioral Health Disabilities ... 65 
CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF VIOLATIONS .............................................................. 67 
A.  MPD’s Accountability System Contributes to Legal Violations ................. 67 
1.  The Complexity of MPD’s Accountability System Discourages
Complaints and Prompts Their Dismissals ...................................... 69 
2.  MPD Fails to Conduct Thorough, Timely, and Fair Misconduct
Investigations ................................................................................... 74 
3.  MPD Fails to Adequately Discipline Police Misconduct ................... 77 
B.  MPD’s Training Does Not Ensure Effective, Constitutional Policing ........ 79 
C.  MPD Does Not Adequately Supervise Officers ........................................ 80 
1.  MPD Does Not Prepare Officers to Be Effective Supervisors .......... 81 
2.  MPD Does Not Provide Supervisors with the Tools and Data to
Prevent, Detect, and Correct Problematic Officer Behavior ............. 81 
3.  MPD’s Staffing Practices Further Undermine Supervision ............... 82 
D.  MPD Wellness Programs Insufficiently Support Officers ......................... 83 
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL MEASURES ................................................................ 85 
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 89 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 21, 2021, the Department of Justice opened a pattern or practice investigation
of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) and the City of Minneapolis. By then,
Derek Chauvin had been convicted in state court for the tragic murder of George Floyd
in 2020. In the years before, shootings by other MPD officers had generated public
outcry, culminating in weeks of civil unrest after George Floyd was killed.

Our federal investigation focused on the police department as a whole, not the acts of
any one officer. To be sure, many MPD officers do their difficult work with
professionalism, courage, and respect. Nevertheless, our investigation found that the
systemic problems in MPD made what happened to George Floyd possible.

FINDINGS
The Department of Justice has reasonable cause to believe that the City
of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under
the Constitution and federal law:

 MPD uses excessive force, including unjustified deadly force

and other types of force.
 MPD unlawfully discriminates against Black and Native
American people in its enforcement activities.
 MPD violates the rights of people engaged in protected speech.
 MPD and the City discriminate against people with behavioral
health disabilities when responding to calls for assistance.

We also found persistent deficiencies in MPD’s accountability systems, training,

supervision, and officer wellness programs, which contribute to the violations of the
Constitution and federal law.

The frustrations with MPD that boiled over during the 2020 protests were not new.
“[T]hese systemic issues didn’t just occur on May 25, 2020,” a city leader told us. “There
were instances . . . being reported by this community long before that.”

For years, MPD used dangerous techniques and weapons against people who
committed at most a petty offense and sometimes no offense at all. MPD used force to
punish people who made officers angry or criticized the police. MPD patrolled

1
neighborhoods differently based on their racial composition and discriminated based on
race when searching, handcuffing, or using force against people during stops. The City
sent MPD officers to behavioral health-related 911 calls, even when a law enforcement
response was not appropriate or necessary, sometimes with tragic results. These
actions put MPD officers and the Minneapolis community at risk.

We reached these findings based on our review of thousands of documents, incident

files, body-worn camera videos, and the City and MPD’s data. Our findings are also
based on ride-alongs and conversations with MPD officers, City employees, mental
health providers, and community members.

We acknowledge the considerable daily challenges that come with being an MPD
officer. Police officers must often make split-second decisions and risk their lives to
keep their communities safe. MPD officers work hard to provide vital services, and
many spoke with us about their deep connection to the City and their desire to see MPD
do better. Still, since the spring of 2020, hundreds of MPD officers have left the force,
and the morale of the remaining officers is low. Policing, by its nature, can take a toll on
the psychological and emotional health of officers, and the challenges of the last few
years have only exacerbated that toll for some MPD officers.

To their credit, the City and MPD have pressed ahead with reform. MPD policy now
prohibits neck restraints, and officers cannot use certain crowd control weapons without
approval of the MPD chief. Following the 2022 death of Amir Locke during a “no-knock”
warrant execution, MPD banned their use. The City has launched a promising
behavioral health response program so that trained mental health professionals will
respond to calls for service that do not need a police response.

The Department of Justice expects to work collaboratively with the City and MPD on the
reforms necessary to remedy the unlawful conduct outlined in this report. We especially
appreciate the cooperation and candor of City and MPD officials during our
investigation. The leaders of the City and MPD know they have a problem. Mayor Jacob
Frey told us, “We need help changing and reforming this department,” and the reforms
“need to permeate the department itself.” Despite the initial steps the City and MPD
have taken toward reform, Mayor Frey was realistic about the challenges ahead.
“Clearly,” he said, “we still have a long way to go.”

2
BACKGROUND
Minneapolis is a diverse, prosperous city marked by stark racial inequality. The largest
city in Minnesota, Minneapolis has a population of approximately 425,000 people. 1
Minneapolis’ population is 63% non-Hispanic white, 18% Black, 10% Hispanic, 6%
Asian, and 1.3% Native American. Minnesota is the state with the most people who
report Somali ancestry and Hmong
MPD Precincts and Black Population ancestry, many of whom settled in
in Minneapolis Minneapolis.2

Minneapolis is part of a regional economic

hub, home to multiple Fortune 500
companies and over two dozen colleges
and universities. Minneapolis has a
higher-than-average proportion of
residents with a four-year college
education, with over 50% of residents
holding a bachelor’s degree or higher
(compared to roughly 33% nationally).

Not everyone in Minneapolis shares in its

prosperity. The metropolitan area that
includes Minneapolis and neighboring St.
Paul—known as the Twin Cities—has
some of the nation’s starkest racial
disparities on economic measures,
including income, homeownership,
poverty, unemployment, and educational
attainment. By nearly all of these
measures, the typical white family in the
Twin Cities is doing better than the
national average for white families, and
This map shows MPD’s five police precincts the typical Black family in the Twin Cities
and the percentage of the population within is doing worse than the national average
each census block group that is Black.
for Black families. The median Black

1 Quick Facts: Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce,

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/minneapoliscityminnesota [https://perma.cc/9Y7V-RJ7H].
2 Immigration & Language, Minnesota State Demographic Center, Department of Administration, State of

Minnesota, mn.gov, https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/immigration-language/

[https://perma.cc/MM5R-ALJJ].
3
family in the Twin Cities earns just 44% as much as the median white family, and the
poverty rate among Black households is nearly five times higher than the rate among
white households. Of the United States’ 100 largest metropolitan areas, only one has a
larger gap between Black and white earnings.

Minneapolis also has one of the nation’s largest gaps between Black and white rates of
homeownership. While the City’s white families enjoy one of the nation’s highest rates
of homeownership (76%), only roughly one quarter of Black families in Minneapolis own
their home, which is one of the lowest Black homeownership rates in United States
cities.

Some researchers have traced Minneapolis’ homeownership gap and other economic
disparities back to the restrictive racial covenants that barred non-white people from
living in many parts of Minneapolis in the first half of the 20th century. Beginning in
1910, local and federal public officials and mortgage lenders embraced racial
covenants, and lenders engaged in redlining by routinely denying loans for properties in
majority Black or mixed-race neighborhoods. The racially restrictive covenants, which
the Supreme Court sanctioned in 1926 but later ruled unenforceable in 1948, 3 funneled
the City’s growing Black population into a few small areas and laid the groundwork for
enduring patterns of residential segregation.

A. Minneapolis Government and MPD

An elected mayor and 13-member city council govern Minneapolis. Mayor Jacob Frey
was elected in 2017 and re-elected in 2021. In November of 2021, voters approved a
city charter amendment that created a “strong mayor” model of governance, designating
the mayor as the City’s chief executive.

MPD is the largest police force in Minnesota. It has an authorized strength of 731
officers. Nine percent of MPD officers are Black. MPD is led by the Chief of Police, an
assistant chief, three deputy chiefs, and five precinct inspectors who command each
precinct. Its five precincts operate with significant latitude to employ neighborhood-
specific crime prevention and community engagement practices, and inspectors
manage the day-to-day operations of their precincts as they see fit.

From 2017 until 2022, Medaria Arradondo served as MPD’s chief—the first Black chief
in MPD’s history. When Chief Arradondo retired, Mayor Frey selected Deputy Chief
Amelia Huffman to serve as MPD’s interim chief. In September 2022, Mayor Frey
nominated Brian O’Hara to be MPD’s next chief. The Minneapolis City Council

3 See Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926); Shelley v. Kraemer, 331 U.S. 1, 20 (1948).
4
confirmed his appointment in November 2022. Prior to joining MPD, Chief O’Hara
served as the Deputy Mayor, Public Safety Director, and Deputy Chief of Police in
Newark, New Jersey. Chief O’Hara’s selection marks the first time in 16 years that MPD
has selected a chief from outside the department.

In 2021, in addition to adopting the “strong mayor” model of governance, Minneapolis

voters approved a charter amendment to create the position of Community Safety
Commissioner—a new role that oversees the City’s police and fire departments, 911
call center, emergency management, and violence prevention efforts. Mayor Frey
selected Dr. Cedric Alexander for the position, who previously served as the Director of
Public Safety and Chief of Police in DeKalb County, Georgia, and as Chief of Police and
Deputy Mayor in Rochester, New York. Dr. Alexander officially began his tenure as
Commissioner in August 2022 and reports to the mayor.

B. Recent Events

On May 25, 2020, MPD officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in broad daylight
and on camera. Three other MPD officers failed to save Mr. Floyd. Widespread protest
followed in Minneapolis, across the country, and throughout the world.

George Floyd was one of several people whose death at the hands of MPD officers
garnered heightened public attention in recent years. For example, in 2015, MPD
officers shot and killed Jamar Clark, a 24-year-old Black man, triggering 18 days of
protests, including an occupation of MPD’s Fourth Precinct station. In 2017, an MPD
officer shot and killed Justine Ruszczyk, a 40-year-old white woman, while responding
to Ruszczyk’s 911 call. In 2018, MPD officers fatally shot Thurman Blevins, a 31-year-
old Black man, following a foot chase. In 2019, MPD officers shot and killed Chiasher
Vue, a 52-year-old Asian man, during a standoff at his home. In 2022, an MPD officer
shot and killed Amir Locke, a 22-year-old Black man, during a no-knock raid on an
apartment. These and other deaths have focused the community’s attention on MPD.

MPD has a strained relationship with the community it serves. One officer told us that
morale “is at an all-time low.” Since 2020, hundreds of officers have left MPD, up and
down the ranks, young and old, patrol officers and supervisors. As of May 2023, there
were 585 sworn MPD officers, down from 892 in 2018. Many others are on extended
medical leave.4 Despite efforts to step up recruiting and hiring, MPD has not been able
to replenish its ranks.

4Policing & Community Safety Initiatives, minneapolis.org, https://www.minneapolis.org/safety-

updates/future-of-public-safety [https://perma.cc/S5RR-E7JY] (last updated May 15, 2023).
5
The four officers involved in Mr. Floyd’s murder faced state and federal criminal
charges. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Chauvin was convicted of murder and manslaughter in
state court. The United States criminally charged all four officers for violating George
Floyd’s constitutional rights. On December 15, 2021, Mr. Chauvin pleaded guilty to
federal criminal civil rights violations, both for the murder of Mr. Floyd and for holding a
14-year-old teen by the throat, beating him with a flashlight, then pressing his knee on
the teen’s neck and back for over 15 minutes in 2017. A federal jury found the three
other MPD officers involved in Mr. Floyd’s death, Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng, and
Thomas Lane, guilty of federal criminal civil rights offenses. Mr. Thao and Mr. Kueng
were convicted of willfully failing to intervene to stop Mr. Chauvin from killing Mr. Floyd.
And Mr. Thao, Mr. Kueng, and Mr. Lane were convicted of failing to render medical aid.
On May 1, 2023, Mr. Thao was also convicted of state charges of aiding and abetting
manslaughter; Mr. Keung and Mr. Lane had previously pled guilty to those charges.

Eight days after Mr. Floyd’s murder, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
(MDHR) filed a state civil rights charge against MPD to determine if MPD had engaged
in systemic discriminatory practices towards people of color. On April 27, 2022, MDHR
released findings concluding that MPD had engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. On March 31, 2023,
MDHR and the City of Minneapolis filed a proposed Settlement Agreement and Order to
address the findings, which is under review by the state court. 5

5 See Proposed Settlement Agreement and Order, State of Minnesota v. Minneapolis Police Department,

No. 27-CV-23-4177, Index #6 (Dist. Ct. Minn., 4th Judicial Dist., Mar. 31, 2023), available at
https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearch (search by case number).
6
INVESTIGATION
The Department of Justice opened our federal investigation of MPD and the City on
April 21, 2021. Unlike criminal investigations that may focus on an individual officer or a
single incident, the goal of our civil investigation was to determine whether MPD and the
City engage in a pattern or practice of violations that are repeated, routine, or of a
generalized nature. Where we conclude we have reasonable cause to believe that MPD
or the City engages in a prohibited pattern or practice, we are authorized to bring a
lawsuit seeking court-ordered changes.6

During our investigation, we heard from over two thousand community members and
local organizations, including many family members of people killed by MPD officers.
We also interviewed dozens of MPD officers, sergeants, lieutenants, field training
officers, training academy leaders, union leaders, all five precinct inspectors, and many
members of MPD’s command staff, including several current and former MPD chiefs.
We also spoke with numerous current and former City employees, including the mayor,
the Community Safety Commissioner, and former Minneapolis City Council members,
as well as members of the Police Civilian Oversight Commission. We talked with local
leaders and advocates, faith leaders, and researchers, and we participated in live and
virtual community meetings and town halls. We also participated in over fifty ride-alongs
with MPD officers, covering every precinct and every shift so we could directly observe
the work officers do and the challenges they face. Alongside mental health clinicians,
we also participated in ride-alongs with behavioral crisis responders.

We also reviewed information we obtained from the City and from outside sources. We
reviewed hundreds of incident files, including viewing body-worn camera footage when
available, and reviewed thousands of documents, including policies and training
materials, police reports, and internal affairs files. We conducted numerous statistical
analyses of the data the City and MPD collected between 2016 and 2022 on calls for
service, stops, uses of force, and other officer activities. Based on this evidence, we
identified patterns of conduct that violate the law, as well as practices that fuel those
violations. This report both identifies those violations and offers examples to illustrate
how they operate in practice.

Our investigative team consists of career civil staff from the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota. More

6 We conducted this civil investigation pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which prohibits law enforcement

agencies from engaging in a “pattern or practice” of conduct that deprives people of rights protected by
the U.S. Constitution or federal laws. The investigation was also conducted pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
7
than a dozen experts assisted us, including law enforcement experts, mental health
clinicians, and statisticians.

We thank the City, MPD officials, the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, and the
officers who have cooperated with this investigation and provided us with insights into
the operation of MPD. We are also grateful to the many members of the Minneapolis
community who met with us during this investigation to share their experiences.

8
FINDINGS
We have reasonable cause to believe that MPD and the City engage in a pattern or
practice of conduct that violates the Constitution and federal law. First, MPD uses
excessive force, including unjustified deadly force and excessive less-lethal force.
Second, MPD unlawfully discriminates against Black and Native American people when
enforcing the law. Third, MPD violates individuals’ First Amendment rights. Finally, MPD
and the City discriminate when responding to people with behavioral health issues.

A. MPD Uses Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment

The use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer violates the Fourth
Amendment. The constitutionality of an officer’s use of force is assessed under an
objective reasonableness standard: “[T]he question is whether the officers’ actions are
‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without
regard to their underlying intent or motivation.”7 To determine objective reasonableness,
one must pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,
including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate
threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or
attempting to evade arrest by flight.”8

The most significant use of force is the use of deadly force because it can result in the
taking of human life. “The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is
unmatched,” as the use of deadly force frustrates not only the individual’s fundamental
interest in their own life, but also the social interests in ensuring a judicial determination
of guilt and punishment.9 Deadly force is permissible only when an officer has probable
cause to believe that a suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to
the officer or another person.10

We evaluated MPD’s use of force practices with the understanding that officers often
face challenging and quickly evolving circumstances that threaten their safety or the
safety of others.11 Encounters may therefore require officers to use force to protect
themselves and others from an immediate threat. These principles guided our review;
our conclusions are not based on hindsight, but rather the contemporaneous
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

7 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989).

8 Id.
9 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9 (1985).
10 Id.
11 See Aipperspach v. McInerney, 766 F.3d 803, 806 (8th Cir. 2014).

9
The following chart shows MPD’s reported uses of force from January 1, 2016, through
August 16, 2022.12

Reported Uses of Force: January 1, 2016, to August 16, 2022

9000
7690
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000 1660
1039
1000 564
197 188 19
0
Bodily Force Chemical Taser Taser Used Neck Restraint Less Lethal Shooting
Irritant Unholstered or Device
Pointed

Our review of the data depicted above showed that roughly three quarters of MPD’s
reported uses of force did not involve an associated violent offense or a weapons
offense.

To evaluate MPD’s use of deadly force, we reviewed incident files for all MPD police
shootings and one in-custody death from January 1, 2016, to August 16, 2022. For less-
lethal force, we reviewed hundreds of incidents covering January 1, 2016, to
September 30, 2021. Our evaluation of a stratified random sample of MPD’s reported
less-lethal force incidents included incidents from every force control option available to
MPD officers, except for incidents where the only force reported was handcuffing or
escort holds. We reviewed hundreds of body-worn camera videos, as well as related
police reports, incident reports, 911 call center information, and supervisory reviews.

Our investigation showed that MPD officers routinely use excessive force, often when
no force is necessary. We found that MPD officers often use unreasonable force

12 This chart summarizes MPD’s reported data on encounters with individuals involving a specific type of
force. We count each encounter where MPD used a specific type of force against a person (whether MPD
used that type of force once or multiple times against that person during that encounter). We count this
way because MPD’s data did not reliably count the number of applications of a specific type of force
during an encounter. In this chart, if MPD used force against multiple people during a single encounter,
each person is counted separately. If MPD used force against the same person across multiple
encounters, each encounter where force was used is counted separately. Finally, if MPD used multiple
kinds of force against a single person during an encounter, like a taser and a neck restraint, that
encounter would appear in each relevant column.
10
(including deadly force) to obtain immediate compliance with orders, often forgoing
meaningful de-escalation tactics and instead using force to subdue people. MPD’s
pattern or practice of using excessive force violates the law.

1. MPD Uses Unreasonable Deadly Force

“Deadly force” is any type of force that risks serious injury or death. Shooting a firearm
is deadly force, and we found that MPD officers discharged firearms in situations where
there was no immediate threat.

Neck restraints are deadly force. Compressing the side or front of a person’s neck in a
way that inhibits air or blood flow is inherently dangerous and poses a significant risk
that the person could be seriously injured or die. 13 Medical experts have concluded that
“there is no amount of training or method of application of neck restraints that can
mitigate the risk of death or permanent profound neurologic damage with this
maneuver.”14 Until 2020, MPD did not consider neck restraints to be deadly force,
instead classifying them as “less-lethal” force. MPD officers frequently used neck
restraints in situations where deadly force was not justified.

a. MPD Officers Discharge Firearms When There Is No Immediate

Threat

We reviewed all of the 19 police shootings that occurred from January 1, 2016, to
August 16, 2022. Although this number is relatively small, a significant portion of them
were unconstitutional uses of deadly force. At times, officers shot at people without first
determining whether there was an immediate threat of harm to the officers or others.
Federal law requires officers to warn when feasible that they are about to use deadly
force,15 but MPD officers routinely fail to provide such warnings. MPD officers also use
deadly force against people who are a threat only to themselves. Despite these
unreasonable uses of deadly force, MPD has failed to respond with effective, systemic

13 National Consensus Policy and Discussion Paper on Use of Force,15 (July 2020),

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_Force%200
7102020%20v3.pdf [https://perma.cc/V7XE-BU56]; see also AAN Position Statement on the Use of Neck
Restraints in Law Enforcement, American Academy of Neurology (June 9, 2021),
https://www.aan.com/advocacy/use-of-neck-restraints-position-statement [https://perma.cc/7R48-3D7L]
(“Because of the inherently dangerous nature of these techniques, the AAN strongly encourages federal,
state, and local law enforcement and policymakers in all jurisdictions to classify neck restraints, at a
minimum, as a form of deadly force.”).
14 See AAN Position Statement on the Use of Neck Restraints in Law Enforcement, supra note 13.
15 Est. of Morgan v. Cook, 686 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir. 2012) (“[W]here it is feasible, a police officer should

give a warning that deadly force is going to be used.”).

11
reforms (such as revised policies and additional training) designed to prevent unlawful
shootings.

MPD officers discharge firearms at people without assessing whether the person
presents any threat, let alone a threat that would justify deadly force. For example, in
2017, an MPD officer shot and killed an unarmed white woman who reportedly
“spooked” him when she approached his squad car. The woman had called 911 to
report a possible sexual assault in a nearby alley, and two officers responded. When the
woman walked up to their squad car, one officer fired his gun past his partner through
the open window, striking the woman. The officer was tried and convicted of third-
degree murder and manslaughter (although a court overturned the murder conviction),
and the City settled with her family for $20 million.

We reviewed incidents in which MPD officers fired guns without regard to people in their
line of fire. In one example, an off-duty officer fired his gun at a car containing six people
within three seconds of getting out of his squad car. The off-duty officer had responded
to a “shots fired” call. Meanwhile, other officers had already responded and instructed a
car full of passengers to leave the area by reversing down a one-way street. The off-
duty officer turned onto the same street, and the car backed into his squad car. The
officer got out of his squad car and, almost immediately, fired a round at the vehicle that
hit near the left rear window. Body-worn camera video shows the officer asking the
driver one question: “You didn’t see me coming here with my lights and stuff?” The City
settled with the six occupants for $150,000. While the officer was acquitted of criminal
charges (which require a higher standard of proof than civil violations), using deadly
force without assessing whether a threat exists is unreasonable.

We also reviewed a case where officers shot a man who was a threat only to himself.
The man was a suspect in a shooting. Officers took him into custody, brought him to an
interview room, and left him in the interview room unrestrained. When an officer
returned, the man was stabbing himself in the neck with a knife in the back corner of the
room. The officer shut the door and talked to the man through the door, ordering him to
put the knife down. When officers opened the door, the man was still in the back corner
of the room, with blood dripping from his neck. One officer immediately fired his taser,
but may have missed. The man raised his hands, still holding the knife, and took a few
slow steps towards the door, his path blocked by two office chairs. Though the man had
a knife in his hand, he did not point it at the officers or wield it in a threatening manner.
Rather than closing the door again, two officers fired four shots at the man, striking him

12
twice. Shooting a man who is hurting himself and has not threatened anyone else is
unreasonable.16

Another example of MPD officers using firearms unreasonably involves the dangerous
practice of shooting at a moving car. Two officers chased a speeding car. When the car
stopped, the officers approached it from opposite sides with their guns drawn, ordering
the driver to put the car in park. Instead, the driver revved the engine and drove forward.
Instead of stepping out of the path of the car—which he had time and space to do—the
officer fired four shots while his partner was in the line of fire, striking the back and side
of the fleeing car. The officer’s partner said he did not shoot because of the crossfire
danger. Firing at a moving car is inherently dangerous and almost always
counterproductive. In addition to the risk of killing the occupants, shooting at a vehicle is
unlikely to disable it and instead can result in a runaway vehicle that endangers officers
and bystanders. The officer’s use of deadly force was reckless and unreasonable.

In another case, an officer created unnecessary danger when he shot two dogs in the
back yard of a home in a residential neighborhood. At least two people were inside the
home at the time, and the home was flanked on both sides by neighboring homes and
other structures. The dogs did not present an imminent threat. 17 Discharging a firearm in
the absence of a threat violates the Fourth Amendment. Although no person was injured
or killed in this incident, any unnecessary discharge of a firearm in a residential area
poses a grave risk to bystanders.

b. MPD Used Neck Restraints, Often Without Warning, On People

Suspected of Committing Low-Level Offenses and People Who
Posed No Threat

Prior to June 9, 2020, MPD defined neck restraints as “compressing one or both sides
of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or
airway (front of the neck).” MPD policy further divided neck restraints into two
categories, depending on the officer’s intended outcome. “Conscious neck restraints”
were those in which an officer did not intend to render the person unconscious; the
officer would apply “light to moderate pressure.” “Unconscious neck restraints” were
those in which the officer intended to render the person unconscious; the officer would

16 See Cole v. Hutchins, 959 F.3d 1127, 1134 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Partridge v. City of Benton, 929
F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir. 2019)) (concluding that a jury could find that an officer’s use of deadly force was
not justified because the decedent was not wielding his gun in a threatening manner).
17 See LeMay v. Mays, 18 F.4th 283, 287 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d

205, 210 (3d Cir. 2001)) (applying the unreasonable seizure standard under the Fourth Amendment to a
case where an officer shot a dog).
13
apply “adequate pressure.”18 We reviewed numerous incidents involving both kinds,
including many incidents with both a conscious and an unconscious neck restraint. We
also reviewed the force that resulted in George Floyd’s death.

MPD officers often used neck restraints in situations that did not end in an arrest. MPD
officers used neck restraints during at least 198 encounters from January 1, 2016, to
August 16, 2022.19 Officers did not make an arrest in 44 of those encounters.

Number of Encounters Involving Neck Restraints by Year: 2016–2021

60
52
49
50
41 40
40

30

20 15

10
1
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

We reviewed dozens of incidents where MPD officers used neck restraints. Most of
these restraints were unreasonable. We found that officers misused this deadly tactic in
a variety of ways. De-escalation, if it occurred at all, was poor; officers shouted
commands, gave multiple conflicting orders, demanded immediate compliance, or
threatened force. Officers made tactical decisions that endangered community
members and officers alike. Officers often used neck restraints on people who were
accused of low-level offenses, were passively resisting arrest, or had merely angered
the officer. And, most troublingly, officers used neck restraints on people who were not
a threat to the officer or anyone else.

MPD officers frequently used neck restraints without warning, in one case sneaking up
behind an unarmed Latino man and choking him until he blacked out. The officer was
responding to a call about the man kicking his car and saying, “I’m going to kill
somebody.” The man initially spoke calmly to the officer, but the man became agitated,
yelling that he was “the creator,” and threatening to “fuck [the officer] up.” The officer
radioed for backup and pointed his taser at the man. Meanwhile, a second officer
arrived. As the man stood talking to the officer with his arms outstretched, one hand

18 MPD Policy & Procedure Manual, § 5-311, Use of Neck Restraints and Choke Holds (effective April 16,

2012).
19 MPD reported 197 neck restraints. We identified one unreported 2021 neck restraint.

14
holding a beer and the other hand empty, the second officer crept up behind him. The
second officer wrapped one arm around the man’s neck until he was unconscious, and
the officers handcuffed him after he slumped to the ground. Squeezing the man’s neck
until he lost consciousness was dangerous and unjustified. It also violated the neck
restraint policy in effect at the time, which did not authorize using an “unconscious neck
restraint” to overcome passive resistance.

Our review revealed several instances where MPD officers applied pressure to the
necks of youth who did not pose a threat. For example, an officer and his partner
responded to a call from a mother who wanted them to remove her teenage children
from the home and claimed they had assaulted her. The officers confronted a Black 14-
year-old, who was lying on a bedroom floor playing with his phone. The officers moved
to arrest the teen, but he pulled away. One officer—Derek Chauvin—struck the teen in
the head with a flashlight multiple times and pinned him to the wall by his throat. He
then knelt on the teen’s back or neck. The mother pleaded, “Please do not kill my
son . . . He’s only fourteen! . . . . You’ve already got him in the handcuffs. Please take
your knee off my son.” Mr. Chauvin kept his knee on the teen’s neck or back for over 15
minutes.

These uses of deadly force—head strikes and kneeling on the teen’s neck—created a
grave risk to the teen. Mr. Chauvin used this deadly force even though the teen did not
pose a threat, was following orders, and was crying from pain. Due to poor supervision
and a failed force investigation, MPD command did not learn what had happened to the
teen until three years later, after Mr. Chauvin killed George Floyd. The City recently
agreed to settle the teen’s lawsuit for $7.5 million.

On June 9, 2020, MPD changed its use of force policy to ban the use of all neck
restraints and chokeholds. 20 This positive step met considerable resistance. We spoke
to officers and supervisors who called the ban an overcorrection, “knee jerk” and
“politically driven.” Some officers continued to see neck restraints as an efficient and
reliable tactic. Officers warned that the ban would lead to an increase in force overall,
because, as one officer put it, “if you can’t touch the head or neck, the result is you
punch ‘em.” These views took hold as MPD did not train officers in alternative tactics
until the year after the ban.

MPD officers have used neck restraints since the ban. In August 2020, two months after
the ban, an officer used a neck restraint on a Black man to keep the man from running

20 See Stipulation and Order, State of Minnesota v. Minneapolis Police Department, No. 27-CV-20-8182,

Index #9 at 4–5, 2020 WL 8288787 (Dist. Ct. Minn., 4th Judicial Dist., June 8, 2020), available at
https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearch (search by case number).
15
away with shoes he stole from a sneaker store. In a separate incident in 2021, an officer
admitted to using a neck restraint on a protestor. MPD officers had ordered people to
leave the protest, and many refused. A fight between protestors and officers ensued,
and officers arrested some of the protestors. One officer explained, “He swung at me
and then, you know, I had him in a neck restraint.” MPD must ensure that its ban on
neck restraints is fully honored.

2. MPD Uses Tasers in an Unreasonable and Unsafe Manner

MPD officers carry two types of “conducted energy weapons,” commonly called “tasers.”
A taser can be activated in two modes—probe
Taser Probes
and drive stun.21 In probe mode, an officer fires
two barbs into a person’s body, piercing the skin
to send incapacitating jolts of electricity. In drive-
stun mode, an officer presses the taser “strongly,
with forceful pressure” against a person’s skin,
pulling the trigger to deliver a burning electrical
charge. In either mode, tasers can cause
excruciating pain. Tasers can also display a warning “arc,” which involves an audible,
visible electric current arcing out of the taser, without firing the probes. 22

Officers do not appear to use tasers consistent with MPD policy. MPD provides that
tasers should generally be used in the probe mode. But we often saw officers use it
inappropriately in drive-stun mode. Drive-stun mode is problematic because it does not
incapacitate the person, and it often escalates encounters or incites a person to fight
back. In several instances, we saw officers deploy multiple, successive activations.
Instead, officers should re-assess the need for further activations after each taser cycle
because exposure to repeated applications of a taser totaling longer than 15 seconds
may increase the risk of serious injury or death.

21 Bachtel v. TASER Int’l, Inc., 747 F.3d 965, 967–68 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Electronic control devices known

as tasers entered the market in 1994 and are commonly used by law enforcement agencies across the
United States. The specific model used by [the officer]—the model X26 ECD—had been introduced by
TASER International, Inc. in 2003. When fired, the X26 ECD deploys two probes which attach to the body
and deliver electrical current into the subject through thin insulated wires. Pulling and releasing the trigger
of the X26 ECD results in a 5 second electrical discharge cycle, although an officer may extend the cycle
by holding the trigger down. The device produces 19 electrical pulses per second, each pulse lasting
about 100 microseconds and delivering a mean current of 580 volts. The electrical current forces the
subject’s muscles to contract, temporarily limiting muscle control and allowing police officers time to
subdue the individual.”).
22 Source for Illustration: Ben Weston, Taser Barb Removal, Milwaukee County (Apr. 2023),

https://county.milwaukee.gov/files/county/emergency-management/EMS-/Standards-of-
Care/PSTaserBarbRemoval [https://perma.cc/28JE-7BCC].
16
MPD officers use tasers frequently and improperly. From January 1, 2016, to August 16,
2022, MPD officers used their tasers 564 times and pointed or unholstered them 1,039
times. We reviewed a sample of these incidents. Many of those encounters involved
people known to have behavioral health issues. In a significant number of encounters,
the associated offense was non-violent or did not involve a weapons-related offense.
Sometimes, the only charge was obstruction of process. The unreasonable uses of
tasers include: (1) using a taser multiple times without justification; (2) using a taser on
people who do not comply with commands but are unarmed and pose no threat; and
(3) using a taser after people submit or are already restrained. These taser practices
are dangerous and unlawful.23

For example, an officer unreasonably used a taser eight times on a white man
suspected of a minor offense—breaking a fence on a public sidewalk—who had initially
complied with their orders. Upon arriving, the officers approached the man. One held
her gun behind her back and the other pointed his taser at the man. They did not try to
talk to the man or otherwise investigate whether he was committing a crime. The man
obeyed the commands to stop, turn around, and show his hands. As the officer moved
to handcuff the man, he tried to turn around to ask if they were police officers. The
officer then lost control of the man’s cuffed wrist, but quickly overpowered him, taking
him to the ground. The officer continued to shout at the man to “put his hands behind
his back.” The officer then punched the man several times in the face before grabbing
his neck. The man repeatedly pleaded for the officer to stop as the two rolled around in
a struggle. The other officer drive stunned him with a taser eight times, for a total of
13.87 seconds, pausing between the seventh and eighth cycle to punch the man in the
face. The officer’s taser use during this encounter was unreasonable. Deploying
successive taser cycles in drive-stun mode without giving the man a chance to comply
is unreasonable.

Similarly, MPD officers often use tasers without providing a warning, even when
warnings are feasible, and at times intentionally target vulnerable parts of the body. For
example, an MPD sergeant pulled over an unarmed Black woman for an illegal U-turn.
The woman approached the squad car distraught and yelling. The sergeant told her
three times to go back to her car, but an apparent language barrier impeded the
communication. The sergeant then pulled a taser and reversed the initial command from
seconds earlier, telling the woman twice to “get over here.” Without warning, the
sergeant fired taser probes into the woman’s chest and jolted her for five seconds. The
sergeant then pushed the woman to the ground and fired the taser again without

23See Shekleton v. Eichenberger, 677 F.3d 361, 366 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding facts establishing a Fourth
Amendment violation where an officer used a taser against an unarmed person who was suspected of a
minor violation, did not resist arrest, did not threaten the officer, and did not attempt to flee).
17
warning, this time into the woman’s neck, for seven seconds as the woman cried “Don’t
kill me! Don’t kill me!” The woman was not an immediate threat, and the sergeant’s use
of force was unreasonable. The force left the woman bleeding and shaken, and she
spent time in jail for an obstruction charge. Meanwhile, MPD towed her car to an
impound lot that sold it. The Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR) dismissed her
complaint because it “did not appear to involve [MPD] officers.”

Officers also unreasonably use tasers in circumstances that create a risk of serious
harm. In one example, officers fired their tasers seven times into a white man having a
behavioral health crisis. The man stood on a sixteenth-floor apartment balcony holding
two knives but did not approach or threaten the officers. Nevertheless, the officers tased
the man despite the risk that he could fall from the balcony. When a taser incapacitates
a person who has the potential to fall from an elevated position, like a balcony, the risk
of harm is so great that MPD policy prohibits taser use in that situation unless deadly
force would otherwise be permitted.

In addition to the taser incidents we reviewed as part of our sample, we also reviewed
an incident that occurred during one of our ride-alongs with MPD officers. During the
incident, an MPD officer used a taser on an unarmed Black man who was yelling and
filming an accident scene. When the man did not follow the officer’s commands to leave
the scene, the officer pointed his taser and threatened to fire it. The man raised his
hands and began walking backward away from the accident scene as he continued to
film and yell at the officers. The officer advanced on the man and shot him with the
taser, causing the man to fall to the ground. The man was following commands to leave
and was away from the scene, so there was no apparent need for the officer to use a
taser.

3. MPD Uses Unreasonable Takedowns, Strikes, and Other Bodily Force,

Including Against Compliant or Restrained Individuals

From January 1, 2016, to August 16, 2022, MPD used bodily force during 7,690
encounters. We reviewed numerous incidents involving takedowns, strikes, and other
bodily force. We found that officers consistently used bodily force when they faced no
threat or resistance.

MPD officers used bodily force in ways that are unreasonable. MPD officers
aggressively confront people suspected of a low-level offense—or no offense at all—
and use force if the person does not obey immediately. Officers sometimes used force
against people who were already compliant or handcuffed. In many instances, MPD
officers shoved adults and teens—including bystanders—for no legitimate reason. Such
uses of bodily force are retaliatory and violate the Fourth Amendment.

18
 a. MPD Uses Force Against Restrained Individuals

In reviewing our sample of less-lethal incidents, we saw that MPD officers frequently
use “gratuitous force.” Gratuitous force is force used on individuals who have already
been restrained, subdued, and handcuffed. It is a “completely unnecessary act of
violence,” and it violates the Fourth Amendment.24

We found MPD officers often use force on people who are not resisting. In one incident,
an officer threw a handcuffed Black man to the ground face-first, claiming he had
“tensed up” during a search while other officers had him bent over the hood of a squad
car. For several minutes before the takedown, the man had been compliant, submitting
to being cuffed and searched. He occasionally lifted his head or torso up from the hood
of the squad car, and officers quickly pressed him down and held him by the neck,
chest, or arms. One of the officers who was pinning him to the squad car said, “You are
going to get thrown on the ground in a minute if you keep this up.” Less than two
seconds later, a different officer hooked the front of the handcuffed man’s neck with his
arm and took him to the ground. The man’s head struck the pavement, and the officer
rolled the man onto his stomach and held him down by putting his knee on the man’s
neck. Body-worn camera footage from this incident shows that the man was compliant
with the search and was not resisting. In fact, after the officers pushed him on the hood,
they took their hands off him while the search continued. There was no reason for the
officer to forcibly take the man to the ground by the neck.

Using force against a handcuffed person creates a risk of serious injury. In one incident,
an MPD officer used force against an unarmed, handcuffed white man reported to have
been trespassing inside a vacant house. When the man attempted to go back inside the
house, the officer grabbed the handcuffed man by the neck, dragged him down several
steps, and threw him on his back. The officer pressed his body weight and palm against
the man’s chest and face, and the man screamed that the officer was “gouging my eye.”
The officer then pressed his knee against the man’s neck, and the man said, “Get your
fucking knee off my head, it hurts.” The officer responded, “No. This is how we operate.”
The supervisor concluded the use of force “follow[ed] policy.”

In another incident, an officer expressed no remorse after using excessive force against
a restrained person. A white man experiencing a behavioral health crisis was
handcuffed to a stretcher. The man spat on an officer, who slapped and punched him in
the face. After the man had been transported to a hospital, the officer said on body-worn

24 Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497, 503 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 880

(9th Cir. 2001) (an officer’s use of pepper spray on an individual who was subdued and handcuffed was a
“[g]ratuitous and completely unnecessary act[] of violence.”).
19
camera: “I’m really proud of myself; I only hit him twice.” The supervisor did not refer the
officer for a misconduct investigation.

b. MPD Uses Unnecessary Force, Including for Failure to Comply

with Orders Immediately

During our review of our sample of less-lethal force incidents, we observed a pattern of
officers using unnecessary force, sometimes because the person failed to comply with
an order immediately. There were many such instances, with officers using force within
seconds of giving a lawful or even an unlawful order. We also saw MPD officers
handcuff people even when officers knew the person was neither a threat nor a flight
risk, which can be humiliating. Below, we describe only a few of the examples we found.

We determined that MPD officers are quick to use force on unarmed people, even
without reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a crime or are a threat. In one
such incident, an officer stopped a driver after seeing him strike a parked car. While the
officer spoke with the driver, the Black passenger leaned against a car looking at his
phone for four minutes. A backup officer arrived and asked the passenger to stand on
the sidewalk, and the passenger complied, still looking at his phone. The backup officer
then told the passenger to put his hands on his head and simultaneously grabbed the
passenger’s left arm from behind. The passenger asked why and pulled away, and the
backup officer took him to the ground. The backup officer wrote in his report that he told
the man to put his hands on his head because he could not see the man’s left hand, but
the body-worn camera shows the man’s left hand is visible and empty. The force was
unreasonable because the backup officer had no reason to believe the passenger was
a threat or had committed a crime.

In another incident, officers used unreasonable force to make a man do something he

had a right to refuse. Two officers were responding to a fight-in-progress call and
confronted a white man who was seated on a bench. One officer asked to examine the
man’s nose because it was bleeding. “Do not touch me,” the man responded. The
officer grabbed the man by the wrist, twisted it behind the man’s back and pinned his
face to the bench. Meanwhile, the other officer grabbed and pulled the man’s ear and
pushed him down. After they handcuffed the man, he asked, “Why are you doing this to
me?” One officer responded, “We didn’t want to go this way, we wanted to go a different
way, but you didn’t want to cooperate.” Because the man posed no threat, using force to
inspect his nose over his objection was unlawful.

We saw many examples of officers unnecessarily handcuffing unarmed people. Casual

use of handcuffing without justification violates the Fourth Amendment. It also violates
current MPD policy, which only authorizes handcuffing during a detention in limited

20
circumstances (for example, when the person is uncooperative, is dangerous, or may
flee). In one instance, officers handcuffed a Black driver whom they knew was unarmed
and not a threat. Officers carefully searched the shirtless, compliant driver for weapons
and found none. An officer then said, “OK, we’re going to hook you up just for safety,
OK?” and handcuffed the driver. The driver objected, but was forced to stand
handcuffed by the side of the road for five minutes before being released. Handcuffing a
person absent an objective safety risk is an unreasonable seizure and violates the
Fourth Amendment.

c. MPD’s Use of Chemical Irritants Like Pepper Spray Is

Unreasonable

Our review of incidents involving chemical irritants (such as pepper spray) revealed that
MPD officers often use chemical irritants without justification. From January 1, 2016, to
August 16, 2022, MPD officers reported using chemical irritants 1,660 times. We
reviewed a sample of incidents. Because MPD officers sometimes spray groups of
people to disperse them and need not summon a supervisor unless someone is injured,
the actual number of people sprayed is higher.

MPD officers use chemical irritants on people in an unreasonable and retaliatory

manner that violates the Fourth and First Amendments. The use of chemical irritants
constitutes “significant force” that can cause prolonged pain. 25 Officers violate the
Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable force when they spray people who
are not acting violently and who pose no threat to officers or others. Spraying such
irritants on people engaged in protected activity, such as criticizing police, also violates
the First Amendment’s prohibition on retaliatory force. See pages 48–56.

MPD officers spray chemical irritants into people’s faces even when those people pose
little to no threat to anyone’s safety. In one incident, an MPD officer responded to a call
that an unhoused Black man was trying to light a fire in a parking garage. The officer
was familiar with the man, who had “been doing this for the last couple of days,” and
seemed annoyed that he was responding to the same issue. By the time the officer
found the man, he was standing in a surface lot across the street from the garage. The
officer shook his pepper spray cannister as he approached the man, saying, “Hands
where I can see them. Sit on the ground. I’m gonna mace ya.” The man raised his hand
with the lit lighter at the same time the officer began spraying him in the eyes. The man
turned his face away in response to the chemicals, and the officer immediately took him
to the ground. The man did not resist the arrest, and EMS transported him to the

25 Tatum v. Robinson, 858 F.3d 544, 548–50 (8th Cir. 2017).

21
hospital “for further treatment.” Because the man was not fleeing and posed no
immediate threat of harm, the use of pepper spray was unreasonable.

We also identified incidents where MPD officers indiscriminately fired pepper spray into
groups of people to break up fights without first issuing warnings, providing
opportunities to disperse, attempting lesser uses of force, or attempting to minimize
injury to bystanders. This practice violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on
unreasonable force by using chemical irritants against people not engaging in violence
or posing a threat to others.

Of particular concern are incidents where MPD officers pepper sprayed people in
apparent retaliation for observing, questioning, or criticizing police activity, in violation of
the First Amendment right to free speech. For example, an officer pepper sprayed two
bystanders to a potential suicide call after they questioned what officers were doing.
The two bystanders, who were friends of the person in crisis, remained a distance away
from the officers and the person, and were not interfering with the police activity.
Nevertheless, an officer walked over to them and sprayed them in their faces in
response to their questions.

4. MPD Encounters with Youth Result in Unnecessary, Unreasonable, and

Harmful Uses of Force

We identified many violations of the Fourth Amendment in incidents involving youth. In

several incidents, officers did not use age-appropriate de-escalation—or any de-
escalation—to avoid the use of force. These officers used force against youth that was
unnecessary and harmful to their physical and emotional well-being.

Adolescence is a key stage of development in which young people tend to be more

impulsive and have more difficulty exercising judgment than adults, especially in
emotionally heightened situations. 26 These normal characteristics of adolescence
increase the chances that encounters with police will involve conflict because, in the
stress of a police encounter, youth may have difficulty thinking through the
consequences of their actions and controlling their responses. Without adequate
guidance about child and adolescent development and how to approach encounters
with young people, officers may be more likely to misinterpret behaviors of youth and
potentially escalate the encounter.27

26 Laurence Steinberg, Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 5 ANN. REV. CLINICAL PSYCH. 459,
466–68 (2009).
27 Denise C. Herz, Improving Police Encounters with Juveniles: Does Training Make a Difference?, 3

JUST. RES. & POL’Y 57, 59 (2001).

22
Within MPD, much of the force officers use against young people results from officers’
failure to de-escalate. MPD policies generally do not emphasize the particular
importance of de-escalation in incidents involving youth, considering their key stage of
development. The use of force policy also fails to meaningfully account for a child’s age,
size, and development with respect to specific use of force tools or tactics. For example,
MPD has no minimum age for handcuffing or guidance on how an officer might exercise
discretion in handcuffing a young person considering the severity of the underlying
offense, the child’s compliance with officer commands, or the risk of physical or
psychological harm to the child or others. Likewise, MPD’s policies provide insufficient
youth-specific limitations on using certain kinds of force, such as bodily force, tasers, or
pepper spray.28 Youth-specific policies are needed to ensure that officers not only
correctly interpret adolescent behavior they encounter, but also that officers know how
to react appropriately using the tools and discretion at their disposal.

In one incident, officers executing a traffic stop for a broken taillight sought to remove a
Black teen from the backseat of the car because he had not been wearing his seatbelt.
The teen requested over 20 times that officers call a supervisor to the scene, and the
driver asked twice. Instead, an officer threatened the teen with a taser to try to get him
out of the vehicle. After the officer arced his taser, the teen repeatedly said, “I’m scared!
I’m scared!” Instead of engaging in an appropriate, de-escalating manner with the teen,
officers forcibly removed him, pinned him to the ground, and handcuffed him. This use
of force was unreasonable.29

A taser poses a serious risk of physical and emotional trauma to a young person,
including cardiac and respiratory injury, burns, musculoskeletal complications, falls,
injury to tissue from taser barbs, triggering of epileptic seizures, and death. 30 MPD’s
taser policy states that a “heightened justification” is required for using a taser on
“young children”31—but the policy does not define the term or otherwise describe the
circumstances when taser use would be justified.

28 See MPD Policy & Procedure Manual, § 5-302, Use of Force Control Options, Section III.B–L (effective

Aug. 21, 2020), https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/MPD-Policy-and-

Procedure-Manual.pdf [https://perma.cc/868T-5W6J].
29 See MPD Policy & Procedure, § 5-304(A), Use of Force Control Options (effective July 28, 2016) (“The

threatened use of force shall only occur in situations that an officer reasonably believes may result in the
authorized use of force.”).
30 See Statement on the Medical Implications of Use of the Taser X26 and M26 Less-Lethal Systems on

Children and Vulnerable Adults, United Kingdom Defence Scientific Advisory Council Sub-Committee on
the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons (DOMILL), 4, (Jan. 27, 2012),
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/44384
2/DOMILL14_20120127_TASER06.2.pdf [https://perma.cc/K2GN-C4T6].
31 MPD Policy & Procedure Manual, supra note 28, § 5-302, Use of Force Control Options, Section

III.H.2(e)(i) (effective Aug. 21, 2020).

23
MPD officers also use unnecessarily aggressive tactics in dealing with young people. In
one incident, officers responded to reports of an assault and aggravated robbery in
progress. When officers arrived, people were across the street and walking in different
directions. Within 10 seconds of exiting his squad car, an officer pointed his gun at two
unarmed Black teens. The officer told them to sit on the curb in the snow, and they
complied. He pointed his gun at them a second time when one of the teens stood up.
The officer continued to point his gun directly at them from a short distance, even once
they had again sat down on the curb. Officers had no reasonable suspicion that the two
teens were armed or posed an immediate threat. Pointing a gun in the faces of two
unarmed teens was unreasonable. When we spoke to one of the teens about what
happened, he told us he experienced sleeplessness, tension, and persistent paranoia
afterward. He told us, “I thought it was going to be my last night.”

Another incident illustrates the consequences of needlessly harsh treatment of youth.

An MPD officer drew his gun and arrested an unarmed Black teen for allegedly taking a
$5 burrito without paying. The officer, who was wearing street clothes, reported that he
followed the teen out of the restaurant, unholstered his gun, and pinned the teen to the
hood of a car. Several witnesses called 911 to report the teen was being accosted by a
“wacko who has a gun.” Other MPD officers then detained the teen in a squad car on
charges of theft and obstructing legal process. Unholstering a gun was an unreasonable
use of force in the absence of a threat. When we spoke to the teen’s mother, she
reported that after the incident her son experienced a sense of “helpless rage,” as well
as feelings of “frustration” and “powerlessness.” The incident illustrates the need for
youth-specific policies and training.

5. MPD Fails to Render Medical Aid to People in Custody and Disregards

Their Safety

MPD officers routinely disregard the safety of people in their custody or people against
whom they have used force, sometimes in violation of the Fourth and Eighth
Amendments and MPD policy. Arrestees have a right to be free from deliberately
indifferent denials of emergency medical care. Such denials are particularly egregious
when the officer “actually knew” that the arrestee had “an objectively serious medical
need” and disregarded the risk to the arrestee’s health. 32 As for injuries that stem from
an officer’s use of force, courts will look to the extent of an individual’s in-custody injury
that results from an officer’s use of force “as evidence of the amount and type of force
used.”33

32 Bailey v. Feltmann, 810 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2016).

33 Karels v. Storz, 906 F.3d 740, 746 n.2 (8th Cir. 2018).
24
Three of the officers prosecuted for their role in George Floyd’s death were convicted of
depriving Mr. Floyd of his constitutional right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. But that was not the only example of
deliberate indifference that we found; we saw incidents where officers minimized
complaints or denied aid, including for people who needed potentially life-saving aid.
After MPD officers shot a Black man in 2018, body-worn camera video shows that no
officer provided medical aid for at least 11 minutes after the shooting, when the video
ended.

Case Study: “I Need Help”

MPD officers arrested a woman (whom they knew from prior contacts) and
transported her to jail. On the way, the woman said she was a Type One
diabetic and that she could not see straight. She asked to see a doctor twice.
The officers did not call for one.
When they arrived at the jail over ten minutes later, the handcuffed woman
was limp in the squad car. The officers pulled her from the car and laid her
on the concrete. As she lay on the pavement moaning, the woman said, “I
need help.” She again told the officers that she was diabetic and that she
could not see. In response, an officer bent down over her and said, “Just so
we’re clear, since you’re playing games, I’m gonna add another charge for
obstruct, okay? So you’re gonna spend more time in the clink. Okay?” As a
nurse from the jail approached to examine her, the officer and his partner
repeatedly undermined the woman's claims that she needed assistance,
claiming, “She does this every time.” One of the MPD officers also told the
nurse that he didn't know if the woman was diabetic, but joked, “She’s got
tons of needles, I know that!”
After the nurse gave a brief examination, the woman laid back down on the
concrete, barely moving. The officers then used a “Wrap” (a full-body
restraint typically used to control combative people) to carry the woman into
the jail.

MPD officers also fail to render medical aid to people in their custody or against whom
they used force because they are skeptical of the person’s claims of distress. “[W]hether
an objectively serious medical need exists [is] based on the attendant circumstances,
irrespective of what the officer believes the cause to be.”34 We found numerous
incidents in which officers responded to a person’s statement that they could not

34 Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir. 2016).

25
breathe with a version of, “You can breathe; you’re talking right now.” In another
incident, after pepper spraying a group of people who were fighting, MPD officers
ignored pleas to call an ambulance for one woman who needed help because she had
asthma. Disregarding the serious medical distress of a person who is in custody or after
a use of force is unlawful.

Officers also disregard the safety of people in their custody and thereby fail to protect
them from harm. We saw several situations indicating that an officer disregarded an
arrestee’s safety, including incidents where officers pushed people who were
handcuffed and restrained with leg ties (called “hobbles”) into their squad cars, then
slammed a car door on their legs or head. Officers did not seatbelt some handcuffed
arrestees, leaving them to slide around in the back seat during transport. We also
reviewed a 2018 incident where officers “hog-tied”35 a compliant Black man, even
though MPD policy has prohibited hog-tying since 2015. Treating a restrained detainee
roughly, in evident disregard of their safety, including during a transport, can amount to
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.36

6. MPD Fails to Intervene During Unreasonable Uses of Force

We observed a pattern of MPD officers failing to intervene to prevent unreasonable

force. Police officers have a duty to “intervene to prevent the excessive use of force.”
When an officer is “aware of the abuse and duration” of unreasonable force and does
not try to stop it, this “permits an inference of tacit collaboration,” and the officer can be
held liable for an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. 37

Throughout our review period, MPD has had a duty-to-intervene policy, and officers
have been trained on it. In recent years, MPD has expanded its training on the duty to
intervene. However, we saw numerous incidents in which MPD officers could have
intervened to stop unconstitutional uses of force, but did not.

Indeed, years before Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, multiple other MPD
officers stood by as Mr. Chauvin used excessive force on other occasions and did not
stop him. In June 2017, an MPD officer failed to intervene when Mr. Chauvin slammed a
handcuffed woman on the ground and held her down with his knee on her back and
neck. The officer helped hold the woman down, then at Mr. Chauvin’s request, helped to
put her in an ankle restraint. In September 2017, an MPD officer did not stop
Mr. Chauvin when he beat a 14-year-old teen with a flashlight and then kneeled on his

35 “Hog-tying” is tying a person’s feet directly to their handcuffed hands behind the back.
36 Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 908 (8th Cir. 2011).
37 Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 565 (8th Cir. 2009).

26
neck or back for more than 15 minutes. At least two other officers responded to the
scene and found Mr. Chauvin kneeling on the teen. They did not intervene either.
Neither Mr. Chauvin nor his partner reported that Mr. Chauvin had knelt on the teen’s
neck. And in May 2020, two officers failed to intervene to prevent Mr. Chauvin from
killing Mr. Floyd.38

We saw other examples as well, which are described elsewhere in our report:

 An officer stood by and told a teenager to “shut up” while another officer held
him in an unreasonable neck restraint. See page 53.
 Multiple MPD officers failed to step in as other officers repeatedly used
unreasonable force against unarmed protesters. See pages 49–50.
 Multiple officers forcibly removed a teen from a car, pinned him to the ground,
and handcuffed him—each with the opportunity to intervene to stop the
unreasonable force. See page 23.
 Multiple officers fired tasers and a 40 mm launcher repeatedly at a white man
who was experiencing a mental health crisis, even though he did not
approach or threaten the officers, yet no officer intervened to prevent this
unreasonable force. See pages 18 and 28–29.
 An officer failed to intervene during transport to prevent a hog-tied man from
sliding and falling from the seat. See page 26.

These failures yielded little accountability. Despite MPD’s policy requiring officers to
intervene, between 2016 and the present, the only officers who were disciplined for
violating the failure-to-intervene policy during that time period were the officers who
failed to stop Derek Chauvin from murdering George Floyd. During that entire period, no
other officer was disciplined for standing by while their colleagues violated someone’s
constitutional rights.

Beginning in the fall of 2021, MPD began to train officers about the duty to intervene
using “Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement” (ABLE) training. ABLE training is
meant to guide law enforcement agencies “in the strategies and tactics of police peer
intervention.”39 In our interviews with Training Division staff, they confirmed that the duty

38 Former Officers Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng, and Thomas Lane were convicted of federal criminal
civil rights violations. Mr. Thao and Mr. Kueng were found to have deprived Mr. Floyd of his right to be
free from unreasonable force by willfully failing to intervene to stop Mr. Chauvin. See Department of
Justice Office of Public Affairs, Three Former Minneapolis Police Officers Convicted of Federal Civil
Rights Violations for Death of George Floyd (Feb. 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-former-
minneapolis-police-officers-convicted-federal-civil-rights-violations-death [https://perma.cc/G892-YLG5].
39 See About ABLE, Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement (ABLE) Project, Georgetown Law Center

for Innovations in Community Safety, www.law.georgetown.edu/cics/able [https://perma.cc/NZ2J-UCJ7].

27
to intervene is a significant part of training. We encourage MPD to continue
emphasizing these essential skills to keep officers and community members safe.

7. MPD’s Inadequate Force Review System Contributes to Its Use of

Excessive Force

Under MPD policy, supervisors only review a subset of force incidents, leaving several
types of force incidents without a meaningful review. Officers must describe force more
serious than an escort hold or taser/firearm display in a police report. MPD requires
supervisor notification only following injuries or certain types of force (even absent an
injury), including tasers and firearm discharges. When notified, supervisors must
respond to the scene, investigate the use of force, and document their findings. Their
assessment should include whether the force appears to have been objectively
reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances. If the force appears unreasonable or
violates policy, the supervisor must refer the incident to internal affairs.

MPD supervisors often do not perform adequate reviews of officers’ uses of force.
Supervisors frequently fill out a yes/no checklist of tasks but then do not assess the
reasonableness of the force at all. When supervisors fulfill some obligations (such as
interviewing the person who was subjected to force), they accept the officers’ version of
events without obtaining or considering—and sometimes outright dismissing—other
evidence. Supervisors miss serious policy violations and do not identify officer
misstatements. The lack of proper force review is dangerous. Where officers are not
held accountable for misconduct, MPD loses the opportunity to correct officers’
problematic tactics. Officers who use unreasonable force can go undetected, putting
community members at risk.

In the incident involving the man whom an officer tased eight times without pausing,
described above on page 17, the supervisor reasoned that the fact that the officers used
force meant the man must have been resisting. The supervisor found no policy
violations and did not mention the excessive use of drive stun, stating only that the
officer “attempt[ed] drive stuns.” When the supervisor interviewed the man after the
force, the man insisted he “did exactly what [the officers] said.” The supervisor
responded, “[I]f you weren’t resisting, they wouldn’t have had to strike you.”

Supervisors do not conduct meaningful force reviews even in situations involving life-
threatening force. In the example described above where officers fired a taser and a 40
mm projectile launcher at a man who was experiencing a mental health crisis, the
officers created a grave risk to the man when they cornered him on an exterior sixteenth
floor balcony. See page 18. The responding sergeant deliberately turned off her body-
worn camera to have a “professional conversation” with the involved officers. The

28
sergeant did not determine whether the force was reasonable or complied with policy,
and the file contains no documentation of further review of the dangerous and
unreasonable force.

Supervisors often take an officer’s word for what occurred even when the video shows
something different. In the incident involving the limp woman, described in the case
study on page 25, officers used a “Wrap” to move her instead of rendering medical aid.
The woman was limp and not combative. Nevertheless, the officers told their supervisor
that they were using the Wrap because the woman was “uncooperative” (which would
suggest to a supervisor that the woman was actively resisting) and “refused to comply
with their orders.” The supervisor accepted the officers’ account notwithstanding video
showing that the woman was not combative and that using a Wrap was inappropriate.
The supervisor also should have noted from the video that the woman had told the
officers she was diabetic, could not see, and wanted a doctor, but they instead
threatened to criminally charge her and mocked her. Indeed, the supervisor in this
incident committed his own policy violation by failing to conduct a proper on-scene
investigation. He did not interview the jail staff witnesses because “they had already
returned to their work assignments,” and he did not interview the woman because “she
had already been processed and booked into jail.”

The inadequacies in supervisors’ force reviews may be due in part to insufficient

training. MPD does not provide adequate specialized training to supervisors in
conducting force reviews. Instead, MPD provides supervisors with an overview of policy
requirements, including a sample force review. The sample itself does not evaluate
whether the force was reasonable and within policy.

MPD recently adopted an additional process called “Secondary Force Review.” In a

secondary review, another supervisor duplicates the work of the original supervisor,
including review of “the information available . . . including BWC recordings made during
the on-scene Supervisor Force Review.” The secondary supervisor then “perform[s] an
additional, separate review of whether the use of force was consistent with MPD policy.”

Although MPD is to be commended for recognizing that supervisor force reviews have
been inadequate, the secondary review process is unlikely to be a sufficient
improvement. Without clear policies and effective training, the second supervisor is
unlikely to do a better force review than the first. An MPD commander told us that force
review requires “much more attention than a supervisor just signing off on it.” It requires
a full-time, dedicated investigative unit staffed with people who have experience and
skill in evaluating force.

29
 * * *

Unreasonable uses of force undermine trust in MPD and take an immeasurable toll on
the Minneapolis community. We heard from people who lost loved ones in encounters
with MPD. Even beyond the use of force itself, some spoke of other indignities they
endured. One father told us MPD did not call to tell him an MPD officer had killed his
adult child; instead, he learned his child had died when the coroner called to ask for
their dental records. A surviving parent going through unimaginable pain described the
attitude of MPD officers as, “You don’t matter, I matter.” Another father who lost a child
told us MPD made his child “seem like a savage.” For him, three words expressed his
views: “Enough is enough.”

30
B. MPD Unlawfully Discriminates Against Black and Native American
People When Enforcing the Law

We have reasonable cause to believe that MPD engages in racial discrimination in

violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Safe Streets Act.40 These
statutes prohibit law enforcement practices that have an unjustified disparate impact
based upon race. Police practices that disproportionately affect people based on their
race are unlawful unless there is a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory
justification.41

Our conclusion is based on the following:

 MPD disproportionately stops Black and Native American people and patrols
differently based on the racial composition of the neighborhood, without a
legitimate, related safety rationale.
 MPD discriminates during stops when deciding who to search, conducting
more searches during stops involving Black and Native American people than
during stops involving white people who are engaged in similar behavior.
 MPD disproportionately uses force against Black and Native American
people. MPD discriminates during stops by using force more frequently during
stops involving Black and Native American people than stops involving white
people engaged in similar behavior.
 The percentage of stops for which MPD officers documented race sharply
declined following George Floyd’s death, and MPD failed to take appropriate
action to address these policy violations.
 Though MPD has long been on notice about racial disparities and officers’
failure to document data on race during stops, and was made aware of
expressions of racial bias by some MPD officers and supervisors, MPD has
insufficiently addressed these issues.
These practices undermine community trust and violate federal law.

4042 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI); 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (Title VI); 28 C.F.R. § 42.203 (Safe Streets Act).
41See N.Y. Urb. League, Inc. v. New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1036 (2d Cir. 1995); Georgia State Conf. of
Branches of NAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1417 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Texas Dep’t of Hous. &
Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 524 (2015).
31
 1. MPD Unlawfully Discriminates Against Black and Native American
People During Stops

Though common, stops are not a small matter. Even low-level stops can be degrading
to people and diminish their trust in law enforcement. Stops can result in uses of force,
lasting physical and psychological effects, and legal consequences. 42 The harms of
stops are particularly acute for people who experience repeated interactions with police
and understand they are being stopped because of their race.

Our review showed that MPD disproportionately stops Black and Native American
people and employs different enforcement strategies in neighborhoods with different
racial compositions. During stops involving Black and Native American people, MPD
conducts searches and uses force more often than it does during stops involving white
people engaged in similar behavior.

a. MPD Stops Black and Native American People at Disproportionate

Rates

We reviewed over five years of MPD data covering roughly 187,000 traffic and
pedestrian stops from November 1, 2016, to August 9, 2022, to determine whether
there were racial disparities.43 We estimate these stops involved about 334,000
people.44 We excluded highway stops from our analysis, as the race of people stopped
on highways is less likely to reflect the racial composition of the neighborhood.

MPD stops Black and Native American people disproportionately compared to their
shares of the population. MPD reported roughly 64,000 stops of Black people and 4,800
stops of Native American people, which we estimate involved 112,000 and 10,000
people, respectively. We estimate that MPD stops Black people at 6.5 times the rate at
which it stops white people, given their shares of the population. Similarly, we estimate
MPD stops Native American people at 7.9 times the rate at which it stops white people,
given population shares.

42 See Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 252–55 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (citing Gabriel “Jack”

Chin, The New Civil Death: Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Conviction, 160 U. PA. L. REV.
1789, 1805 (2012); James B. Jacobs, The Eternal Criminal Record 33-51 (2015); Kathryne M. Young &
Joan Petersilia, Keeping Track: Surveillance, Control, and the Expansion of the Carceral State, 129 HARV.
L. REV. 1318, 1341–57 (2016)).
43 MPD did not track data on ethnicity in a way we could analyze across our review period. As a result, we

could not assess whether MPD’s enforcement activities disparately impact Latino people.
44 MPD’s data collection structure created some challenges for our analysis. For example, MPD’s data

does not always clearly identify how many people were involved in a stop, so we estimated the number of
people stopped per capita with help from statistics experts. Similarly, MPD’s data does not always link
specific searches to specific people. We still found significant racial disparities, as described in this report.
32
MPD’s stops identified as “traffic law enforcement” and “suspicious vehicle” stops have
similarly skewed per capita rates. We estimate MPD stopped 97 people during vehicle
stops per 1,000 Minneapolis residents. But Black and Native American people were
more likely to be stopped. Our estimates show MPD stopped 30 white people per 1,000
white residents during vehicle stops, but stopped 192 Black people per 1,000 Black
residents and 126 Native American people per 1,000 Native American residents.

Per Capita Rates of Stops: Stops of White People Compared to Stops of Black
and Native American People, Adjusted for Population Shares
November 1, 2016, to August 9, 2022
White Black Native American

All Stops   

Traffic Stops*   
*Includes traffic law enforcement and suspicious vehicle stops.

b. MPD Employs Different Enforcement Strategies Based on the

Racial Composition of the Neighborhood

We further analyzed MPD traffic stops, taking into account the racial composition of the
neighborhood and the offenses officers reported following stops. 45 Within each
neighborhood, we examined the proportion of traffic stops that were for only minor
reasons, based on the offenses reported (like excess sound, parking violations, or
failure to signal), and the proportion of traffic stops where the offense could only have
been discovered by MPD or could have only taken place after the traffic stop had
already been initiated (like no proof of insurance or providing false information to an
officer). For the purposes of this analysis, we refer to these collectively as “minor”
violations or stops.

From November 1, 2016, to August 9, 2022, MPD initiated a significantly larger

proportion of its traffic enforcement stops that resulted in minor violations in
neighborhoods with fewer white people. When comparing the types of stops across
neighborhoods, as the percentage of the white population in a neighborhood increased,
the percentage of stops MPD conducted for minor reasons decreased almost

45For the purposes of this analysis, “neighborhood” means a census block group. There are 403 census
block groups in Minneapolis. As before, we excluded stops and crashes on highways, as drivers on
highways are less likely to reflect neighborhood demographics.
33
proportionally. Predominantly white neighborhoods saw far fewer minor traffic stops
than neighborhoods with fewer white people. Stops in predominantly white
neighborhoods targeted more serious activity.

Traffic Stops: Minor or Post-Stop Offenses Compared to the Racial Composition

of the Neighborhood*

*Excluding stops on highways.

These racial disparities were not a result of traffic safety needs. Though we might
expect to see MPD conduct more traffic enforcement in places with more accidents or
fatalities, when we compared minor stops in neighborhoods with comparable traffic
accident rates, we found that traffic safety did not explain the disparity. Even when
traffic accident rates were the same in different neighborhoods, MPD initiated a larger
portion of its stops for minor reasons in neighborhoods with fewer white people.

MPD has often used a strategy known as “pretext” stops to address crime. When police
use this strategy, they stop cars and pedestrians—typically for minor violations—then

34
use the stop as an opportunity to look for evidence of some other crime, like possession
of an illegal weapon.

Pretext stops are highly discretionary. To conduct a stop, an officer only needs
reasonable suspicion to believe a person has violated a law. Even low-level ordinances
that prohibit things like obstructing the sidewalk or being out after curfew can legally
justify a stop. Pretext stops do not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment. 46 But
because so much everyday conduct can amount to a minor legal violation, officers are
constantly exercising their discretion to decide who gets stopped, and that discretion
creates opportunities for biased enforcement. Some officers told us they were given
insufficient guidance about how to carry out MPD’s enforcement priorities. While some
supervisors said they were worried about micromanaging, officers would benefit from
clear guidance and additional support. Further, MPD leaders told us no one at the City
or MPD is responsible for regularly assessing MPD’s data to ensure MPD is not
pursuing enforcement strategies that result in unwarranted racial disparities.

MPD’s focus on minor and/or pretextual stops has also led to inefficient use of limited
resources. MPD leadership has persistently encouraged using traffic enforcement and
stops of “suspicious” people and vehicles as a way to reduce violent crime and get guns
off the street. One MPD presentation we reviewed described traffic law enforcement
stops as the “top tactic used by MPD for illegal gun recovery.” But only a small
percentage of MPD’s traffic stops resulted in recovering guns. For example, in 2018,
MPD conducted roughly 32,000 vehicle stops, but recovered only 97 guns—meaning
just 0.3% of traffic stops resulted in MPD recovering a gun.

Moreover, from November 1, 2016, to August 9, 2022, MPD data showed no record of a
citation or arrest of any kind for 71.7% of traffic stops. The burden of these stops fell
most heavily on Black and Native American people. MPD stopped but did not cite or
arrest Black people at 5.7 times the rate at which it stopped but did not cite or arrest
white people, given their shares of the population. And Native Americans were stopped
but not cited or arrested at 5.9 times the rate.

These kinds of stops consume officer time. We conservatively estimated that from 2017
to 2019, when MPD relied heavily on low-level stops, officers spent thousands of hours
per year on stops that did not result in a citation or arrest. Thus, while MPD’s use of
stops created stark racial disparities that violate the law, it also yielded few gains to
public safety.

46 See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996).

35
In 2018, the Hennepin County public defender raised concerns that Black drivers were
stopped more than drivers of any other race, disproportionately to the racial
demographics of Minneapolis. MPD limited some low-level stops starting in January
2020, when it changed its policy and directed officers to stop ticketing drivers for
specific equipment violations related to inoperable headlights, turn signals, rear lights,
rear license plate lights, or parking lights. Instead of ticketing people, officers were to
give drivers vouchers for repairs. But officers were still allowed to make traffic stops for
those equipment violations, and could use those violations as a pretext to stop drivers
for other reasons. In October 2021, MPD further modified the policy to prohibit officers
from conducting stops for inoperable license plate lights, expired tabs, or an item
dangling from the rearview mirror (unless it posed a safety risk). Today, MPD can still
stop people for pretextual reasons for other low-level offenses, including other
equipment violations that were not specifically enumerated in the policy. In 2021 and
2022, MPD conducted a dramatically smaller number of stops, and the percentage of
traffic stops for minor offenses was more comparable across neighborhoods with
different racial compositions. However, while there were smaller disparities in traffic
stops, these policy changes did not reduce racial disparities in MPD’s stops overall.
From 2020 to 2022, we estimate MPD stopped Black pedestrians and drivers at 7.8
times the rate at which they stopped white people, given their shares of the
population.47 And for Native American pedestrians and drivers, the rate was 10 times
higher.

c. MPD Unlawfully Discriminates When Searching Black and Native

American People During Stops

When MPD conducts traffic and pedestrian stops, MPD searches Black and Native
American people far more often than white people, compared to their shares of the
population. MPD searches people during stops involving Black people at 12.8 times the
per capita rate at which it searches people during stops involving white people. MPD
searches people during stops involving Native Americans at 19.7 times the rate for
white people. Similarly, MPD conducts vehicles searches during stops involving Black
people at 16.5 times the per capita rate at which it conducts vehicle searches during
stops involving white people. And MPD conducts vehicle searches during stops
involving Native American people at 14.4 times the per capita rate.

To account for possible race-neutral explanations for these disproportionate searches,

like possible differences based on how people of different races behave when stopped
by police, we compared MPD’s reported stops involving Black or Native American

47 Excluding highway stops.

36
people with similar stops involving white people.48 To do this, we used statistical models
to estimate differences in stop outcomes across different racial groups, adjusting for
numerous factors. We compared stops that occurred from November 1, 2016, to
August 9, 2022, during the same year, month, and time of day (using a four-hour
window), and that were identified by MPD as the same type of stop (like “suspicious
person” or “curfew violation” stops) and offense category (like drugs or alcohol, traffic, or
disorderly conduct). We also controlled for whether MPD reported certain behaviors as
an offense (like assaulting an officer, violent or disorderly behavior, fleeing police, or
possessing a weapon). In addition to looking at stops across the whole time period, we
also looked separately at stops that occurred within our time period before and after
May 25, 2020, to isolate MPD’s more recent practices and determine whether there
have been any changes.

When controlling for all these factors, we found striking racial disparities in MPD’s
searches, suggesting that MPD applies a different, lower standard when searching
Black and Native American people.

During our review period, MPD officers

conducted person searches during roughly Compared to white people
behaving similarly, Black
20,400 stops, including roughly 13,300
people stopped by MPD are
searches during stops involving Black people subjected to:
and 1,500 during stops involving Native
American people.49 We found racial disparities  22% more searches
in search rates during our entire review  37% more vehicle searches
period. From May 25, 2020, to August 9,  24% more uses of force
2022, for example, MPD searched people
22% more often during stops involving Black
people than during stops involving white
Compared to white people
people at similar times, for similar reasons,
behaving similarly, Native
and who were behaving similarly—at roughly American people stopped by
1.22 times the rate. Similarly, MPD searched MPD are subjected to:
people 23% more often during stops involving
Native Americans than during stops involving  23% more searches
 20% more uses of force
white people in similar circumstances—at
roughly 1.23 times the rate.

48 For stops involving two or more people, MPD’s data does not clearly identify which specific individual

was the subject of a specific post-stop outcome. Therefore, the analyses of post-stop outcomes in this
report measure whether there is discrimination in outcomes of stops involving a person of a specific race.
49 The totals presented here and in the next paragraph exclude searches during highway stops.

37
MPD also conducted approximately 12,900 vehicle searches during our review period,
including roughly 8,500 vehicle searches during stops involving Black people. Even
when controlling for similar types of stops, at similar times, involving similar behavior,
we found MPD disproportionately searched people’s vehicles during stops involving
Black people. For example, from May 25, 2020, to August 9, 2022, MPD searched
vehicles during stops involving Black people 37% more often than during stops involving
white people—at roughly 1.37 times the rate. We estimate that in that period alone, over
1,000 vehicle searches during stops involving Black people would not have otherwise
occurred if the stop involved white people instead. MPD’s discriminatory searches
violate the law.

d. MPD Unlawfully Discriminates Against Black and Native American

People When Using Force During Stops

MPD reported using force (excluding handcuffs and escort holds) 50 at significantly
higher rates against Black and Native American people than white people, compared to
their shares of the population.

MPD used force during over 15,000 encounters with individuals, including stops and
other encounters. However, MPD used force against Black people at 9 times the rate
that it used force against white people, given their shares of the population. MPD used
force against Native American people at 13.9 times the rate. For almost every type of
force, Black and Native American people experienced it at higher per capita rates than
white people. Some of these disparities were extreme. For example, MPD reported
using neck restraints during 197 encounters from January 1, 2016, to August 16, 2022.
As we describe above, many of the neck restraints we reviewed were unjustified,
regardless of race. However, MPD used this dangerous tactic on Black and Native
American people at per capita rates that were 9.6 and 12.2 times the rate for white
people, respectively.

We also found that MPD used force in over 1,000 encounters involving people under
the age of 18. MPD used force against Black youth at a rate 12 times the per capita rate
for white youth. And for Native American youth, the rate was 14 times higher. The use
of force rates are different in another way, as well: while MPD used force on Black and
Native American youth at lower rates per capita than they did on Black and Native
American adults, they used force against Black and Native American youth at
significantly higher rates than against white adults. We found striking disparities when

50 MPD started documenting handcuffs and escort holds as uses of force in late 2020, following the death
of George Floyd, and did so through 2022. Because they were not tracked for the whole period, we
analyzed handcuffs and escort holds separately.
38
looking at specific types of force used Per Capita Rates of Force: Force Used
against youth. For instance, MPD Against White People Compared to Black
used bodily force against Black and and Native American People, Adjusted for
Native American youth at rates 11.4 Population Shares
and 10.5 times higher per capita than January 1, 2016, to August 16, 2022
they did against white youth, and at Native
rates 1.8 and 1.7 times higher than White Black American
they did against white adults. And All Types*   
MPD officers unholstered or pointed  
guns at Black and Native American 
youth at rates 13.5 and 19.6 times
higher per capita than white youth, Neck   
and at rates 4.7 and 6.8 times higher Restraints  
than white adults. 
Given these racial disparities in
Chemical   
MPD’s reported use of force data, we
Irritants 
next considered whether MPD 
discriminates when deciding to use 
force against Black and Native Tasers   
American people in similar situations,  
or whether instead there were 
possible race-neutral explanations for Canines   
the racial disparities. Because MPD
 
requires officers to report the race of
 
people who are stopped, which allows

us to compare similar encounters, we 
focused on MPD’s use of force during
stops. Stops in which MPD used force Unholstering   
account for roughly 14% of all or Pointing  
incidents where MPD used force. To Firearm  
control for possible factors that might 
result in the need for force, we 
compared stops involving white 
people with similar stops involving Bodily Force   
Black or Native American people,  
where the people involved reportedly 
behaved similarly, to see whether *Excludes handcuffs or escort holds.
MPD discriminated when deciding
whether to use force. We compared

39
stops reported by officers that occurred from November 1, 2016, to August 9, 2022,
during the same year, month, and time of day, and that were identified by MPD as
involving the same type of stop, offense category, and civilian behaviors, like assaulting
an officer, violent or disorderly behavior, fleeing police, or possessing a weapon. We
also looked at how MPD used force during stops that occurred from May 25, 2020, to
August 9, 2022, to isolate MPD’s more recent practices.

After controlling for all these factors, we found MPD discriminates when using force
during stops. For example, between May 25, 2020, and August 9, 2022, MPD used
force during stops involving Black individuals 24% more often (at roughly 1.24 times the
rate), than it did during stops involving white people at similar times and who reportedly
engaged in similar behavior.51 During stops involving Native American individuals, MPD
used force 20% more often (at roughly 1.2 times the rate).

Our analyses found even starker discrimination in certain parts of Minneapolis. For
example, from May 25, 2020, to August 9, 2022, in the Third Precinct—where many
Native Americans live and where supervisors told us the “cowboys” want to work—MPD
used force 49% more often during stops involving Black people and 69% more often
during stops involving Native American people than they did during similar stops
involving white people. And during that same period, officers in the predominantly white
Fifth Precinct used force against Black people 44% more often than against white
people during similar stops. Our analysis shows that these precinct-level disparities are
not explained by differences in people’s behavior, the reason MPD documented for the
stop, the offenses, the demographic makeup of the precinct, or even possible
differences in policing strategies in different precincts. Indeed, Black and Native
American people in Minneapolis face a higher risk of having force used against them
during stops throughout the City.

The racial disparities we found are unlikely to be based on race-neutral factors. MPD
unlawfully discriminates against the Black and Native American people it stops by using
force disproportionately.

51We did the same kind of analysis for handcuffs and escort holds and found similar disparities. From
May 25, 2020, to August 9, 2022, for both Black and Native American people, MPD reported using
handcuffs and escort holds 21% more often (at roughly 1.21 times the rate) than it did during stops
involving white people at similar times and who reportedly engaged in similar behavior.
40
 2. After George Floyd’s Murder, Many Officers Stopped Reporting Race

Starting in late May 2020, officers suddenly stopped reporting race and gender in a
large number of stops, despite MPD policy requiring officers to collect the data. We
estimate the percentage of daily stops with known race data recorded dropped from
about 71% just before May 25, 2020, to about 35% afterwards, a drop of roughly 36
percentage points. This sudden decrease in MPD officers recording racial data
continued throughout the next two years.

Completeness of Data on Race in MPD Stops Over Time

Each dot represents the percent of recorded MPD stops with data on civilian race on a
specific day.

We are not aware of MPD taking any action to address this widespread policy
violation—a policy violation that can make it more difficult to detect and counter
discrimination.

Still, our analyses of the reported racial data on or after May 25, 2020, showed
significant racial disparities in searches and use of force, as described above.

41
 3. MPD Has Failed to Sufficiently Address Known Racial Disparities,
Missing Race Data, and Allegations of Bias, Damaging Community Trust

MPD and City leadership have been on notice about the kinds of racial disparities and
missing race data we identify above for years. They have also been on notice about
other complaints of discrimination, including expressions of bias by supervisors. The
community, oversight officials, public defenders, government entities, researchers, and
the press have been vocal about these issues, filing complaints and sharing detailed
reports, qualitative analyses, and historical reviews. Nevertheless, MPD has not
adequately addressed the issue of biased policing.

This report is not the first to identify racial disparities in MPD’s law enforcement
activities. Over the last decade, multiple reports have identified racial disparities in
MPD’s data on stops, searches, and uses of force similar to those we identify in this
report—including, for example, the 2018 Hennepin County Public Defender report
described above on stops and searches (see page 36), a 2021 presentation by a
Hennepin County public defender on 2020 stops and searches (showing that Black
drivers were more likely to be searched, but also more likely to be let go following a
search because nothing was found), and a 2015 ACLU report analyzing data from 2012
to 2014 on low level arrests (showing Black and Native American people were more
likely than white people to be arrested for low-level offenses). 52 Several reports
contained recommendations for MPD to better track, assess, and reduce disparities.

City and MPD leaders admit they have known about MPD’s shortcomings in this area.
Mayor Frey told us after reviewing MDHR’s 2022 report that “[w]e knew, and continue to
know, there is disparate treatment” of communities of color. Despite this knowledge,
however, MPD has not sufficiently addressed the racial disparities in MPD’s
enforcement practices, as discussed above. Perhaps more troubling, neither the City

52 See, e.g., Jay Wong, A Look at Racial Disparities in MPD Traffic Stops and Searches in 2020 (Apr. 22,
2021), https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download/Agenda/1960/PCOC%20Traffic%20Stop%20Presentatio
n.pdf/55573/2396/PCOC%20Traffic%20Stop%20Presentation; Picking Up the Pieces: A Minneapolis
Case Study, American Civil Liberties Union (2015), https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-
criminal-justice/picking-pieces [https://perma.cc/D5T8-HD74]; see also Libor Jany, Hennepin County
Report Finds Stark Racial Disparities In Traffic Stops, STAR TRIBUNE (Oct. 5, 2018),
https://www.startribune.com/hennepin-county-report-finds-stark-racial-disparities-in-traffic-
stops/495324581 [https://perma.cc/N5XF-P3WV]; Andy Mannix, Black Drivers Make Up Majority of
Minneapolis Police Searches During Routine Traffic Stops, STAR TRIBUNE (Aug. 7, 2020),
https://www.startribune.com/black-drivers-make-up-majority-of-minneapolis-police-searches-during-
routine-traffic-stops/572029792/ [https://perma.cc/3P23-Y7AR]; Brandon Stahl, A.J. Lagoe, Steve Eckert,
KARE 11 Investigates: New Data Shows MPD Searches Black Drivers at 29 Times the Rate of Whites
After Minor Stops, KARE11.COM (May 6, 2021), https://www.kare11.com/article/news/investigations/new-
data-shows-mpd-searches-black-drivers-at-29-times-the-rate-of-whites-after-minor-stops/89-7d1498a6-
5fe3-4a9b-b1f9-a9dc72600829 [https://perma.cc/DAV5-MV3H].
42
nor MPD has tasked anyone with regularly and systematically assessing MPD’s
enforcement data to identify and take action to avoid unwarranted disparities.

MPD has also known about problems with MPD’s data collection regarding race. MPD
was put on notice of this issue at least eight years ago when the Police Conduct
Oversight Commission (PCOC) reported that MPD recorded race for only 11% of 2014
suspicious person stops that did not lead to booking, and recommended MPD improve
its collection of demographic information.53 Other reports over the years made similar
recommendations. However, as described above, MPD did not identify a person’s race
for roughly 30% of stops occurring from 2017 until just before George Floyd’s death in
2020, and did not identify a person’s race for 65% of stops just after Mr. Floyd’s death.
This was even after a change to a new records management system in 2018. These are
not isolated omissions. Supervisors should have caught and addressed this issue long
ago. MPD leadership also should have done more to address this issue, especially in
light of 2021 reports by investigative journalists finding that the share of stops for which
MPD reported race as “unknown” had risen significantly since 2016. 54 MPD has long
failed to sufficiently improve data collection on race.

MPD and City leadership have also been on notice about disturbing incidents involving
expressions of bias by officers. For years, community members have filed complaints
alleging bias, filmed and shared videos documenting officer misconduct, and published
detailed reports, including those summarizing MPD’s history and explaining how Black
and Native American people’s negative experiences with MPD have resulted in distrust
in MPD.55

During our investigation, we found evidence that some MPD officers, including
supervisors, field training officers, trainers, and even a former member of MPD’s
command staff, have made discriminatory statements and committed discriminatory
acts. As one officer told us, there is a lot of overtly racist conduct by MPD members.

53 Investigatory Stop Detention Review, Police Conduct Oversight Commission (Apr. 17, 2015) at 9–11,

https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/departments/Investigative-
Stops-Documentation-Review.pdf.
54 See, e.g., Stahl et al., supra note 52; Brandon Stahl, A.J. Lagoe, Steve Eckert, KARE 11 Investigates:

Race Increasingly Listed as ‘Unknown’ in MPD Use of Force Reports, KARE11.COM (July 8, 2021),
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-race-increasingly-listed-as-
unknown-in-mpd-use-of-force-reports/89-2439f86f-0d19-4a0c-8bfa-e9be7b099979
[https://perma.cc/TGL6-75YZ].
55 See, e.g., Michelle Phelps, Amber Joy Powell, Christopher Robertson, Over-Policed and Under-

Protected: Public Safety in North Minneapolis, Center for Urban & Regional Affairs, University of
Minnesota (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.cura.umn.edu/research/over-policed-and-under-protected-public-
safety-north-minneapolis [https://perma.cc/V7YE-2E9M].
43
For example, during a May 2020 protest following the murder of George Floyd, a
lieutenant was caught on camera expressing racist assumptions about Black people:
“I’d love to scatter ’em but it’s time to fuckin’ put people in jail and just prove the mayor
wrong about his white supremacists from out of state. Although, this group probably is
predominantly white, ’cuz there’s not looting and fires.” Another officer agreed. The
lieutenant oversaw MPD’s use of force training—a position where he had enormous
influence.

One officer told us that MPD officers make degrading comments to Black detainees
about their intelligence or their family, or by invoking racially charged stereotypes with
statements like “we’ll get you Popeyes in a minute.” Similarly, when an officer in
plainclothes held a Black teen at gunpoint for allegedly stealing a $5 burrito (as
described on page 24), in response to questions about whether he was a police officer,
the officer responded on camera, “Really? How many white people in the city of
Minneapolis have you run up against with a gun?” He also reportedly said of the teen
words to this effect: “If he doesn’t steal today, he will steal tomorrow.” Statements like
these undermine the community’s faith in MPD, which in turn undermines public safety.

Some officers we spoke with aired fears and grievances about being perceived as
racist, even as they made comments to us that themselves suggested bias and
contempt for the people they are supposed to serve. For instance, one officer we rode
with said of a young Black man standing on the side of the road, apparently waiting for a
ride, “He’s so guilty.”

We heard from several MPD employees that some officers also express bias directly to
other officers. One Black officer told us about statements by officers condoning
disrespectful racial stereotypes and tropes, such as calling Black people “ghetto,” and
saying, “Black people don’t work,” and “you don’t have to worry about Black people
during the day ’cuz they haven’t woken up—crime starts at night.” This officer told us
that they try not to appear offended and refrain from reporting comments like this for
fear of retaliation. The officer recalled not receiving backup on dangerous calls after
reporting misconduct, impacting public and officer safety and MPD’s effectiveness.
When a permissive culture—furthered by expressions of bias by supervisors and other
MPD leaders—results in some officers being afraid to serve their community because
they cannot rely on their peers, the breakdown in supervision becomes mission critical.

It would not be challenging for MPD to identify expressions of bias like these. In fact, in
the incidents we heard about, officers made little effort to hide them. Some officers act
as though they are unconcerned about being held accountable for even egregious
discriminatory misconduct. For example, in late 2020, a woman called MPD to ask
about a man she believed was putting flyers threatening Black Lives Matter supporters

44
onto vehicles. She told us that the officer who answered said Black Lives Matter was a
“terrorist” organization and stated: “We are going to make sure you and all of the Black
Lives supporters are wiped off the face of the Earth.” He said, “I think you should file a
complaint, and I want you to do it well, so let me spell my first and my last name so you
get it right. Then I’ll give you my badge number.” The woman asked to speak to a
supervisor, but the officer refused to transfer her or take her contact information.

The woman filed a complaint the next day but was not interviewed for seven months.
Though she described the officer’s threat to us as a “discriminatory comment, mostly
against Blacks or people of color,” MPD did not investigate for bias. Instead, the
investigation was for failure to engage in “professional policing.” The investigation
concluded in February 2022 with a finding of “no merit” and no discipline or coaching.
The officer had been the subject of at least nine previous complaints since 2017
(including at least one about racial profiling that was dismissed for unclear reasons).
The woman told us the officer “sure felt like he was above any repercussions,” and he
was. He still works for MPD.

That was not the only racial bias complaint that was treated as something else. As
discussed later in this report, in 2020 MPD failed to investigate a Black woman’s explicit
complaint of discrimination and unlawful arrest after she called 911 for help for her white
partner, instead investigating only potential failures to adhere to MPD’s body camera
policy and engage in “professional policing.” See page 72.

In incidents where we found MPD did hold officers accountable for biased conduct, it
was often only after public outrage, and even then, MPD failed to communicate a clear
message to officers, supervisors, and the public. For example, in 2015, MPD officers
stopped a car carrying four Somali-American teens. According to an arbitrator assigned
to review discipline, an officer approached the car with his gun drawn and ordered a
teen to get out, threatening: “If you fuck with me, I’m gonna break your leg before you
even get a chance to run.” When the teen asked why he was being arrested, the officer
replied, “Because I feel like arresting you.” Later, when one of the teens told the officer,
“[Y]ou’re a racist, bro,” the officer responded: “Yep, and I’m proud of it.” He added, “Do
you remember what happened in Black Hawk Down when we killed a bunch of you folk?
I’m proud of that . . . . We didn’t finish the job over there . . . if we had . . . you guys
wouldn’t be over here right now.” None of the other officers present intervened or
reported their colleague, according to news reports. It was not until weeks later, when
cellphone footage went viral, that MPD opened an investigation, eventually firing the
officer. Afterward, the City did not release evidence of the most troubling comments until
required to by a public records lawsuit, nearly five years later. MPD thus missed the
opportunity to send a strong message to officers, the Somali community, and the
broader public that MPD does not tolerate or condone this behavior.
45
Fourth Precinct Christmas Tree In another example, in 2019, two
MPD officers put racist decorations
on a Christmas tree in the lobby at
the Fourth Precinct station, including
a pack of Newport cigarettes, malt
liquor cans, Funyuns, police tape,
and a Popeyes cup: “Trash, literally,”
as Mayor Frey described it to us.
“Super racist stuff.” The officers were
fired and the inspector of the precinct
was demoted after the community
found out about the tree. The
inspector of the precinct was seen on
video walking by, laughing at it, and
failing to take action, showing a
failure of supervision and suggesting
there would have been no discipline
if the community had not seen the
tree.

The tree sent a clear message to the community. In the aftermath of the incident, one
protestor explained, “[I]n essence, they’re calling us trash . . . This incident is a direct
reflection of how officers that work in the Fourth Precinct view and feel about the
community.” Even here, where City and MPD leadership took decisive action, any
message that MPD takes these issues seriously was lost on some uninvolved
supervisors, who described the incident to us as a “joke” and told us the reaction was
overblown. If MPD meant to convey that biased behavior is at odds with MPD’s core
values, and that supervisors needed to help push that message down through the
ranks, the message was apparently not received. These examples illustrate supervision
failures and apparent efforts to appease the public when they happen to learn of
misconduct, rather than a holistic effort to reform MPD’s culture.

MPD and City leaders have acknowledged that MPD has contributed to “historical and
present day trauma.” One leader put it succinctly: “We haven’t done right by people.”

When policing strategies produce racial disparities, cities should consider alternative
approaches to public safety that do not generate unequal and harmful impacts on
people of color. To its credit, in recent years, Minneapolis has pursued approaches to
addressing crime other than through policing. For example, the City has been working
with teams of violence interrupters—trained community members who use informal
mediation and non-physical conflict resolution to prevent violence. In January 2023, the
46
City created a Neighborhood Safety Department to prevent and address violence from a
public health perspective. Among other strategies, the Neighborhood Safety
Department manages violence interrupters, provides hospital-based support for victims
of violent assaults, and operates a Violence Prevention Fund to invest in community-
proposed solutions to issues related to violent crime.

Both Mayor Frey and Chief O’Hara expressed a desire to engage with community-
based responses to violence like violence interrupters and hospital-based interventions.
However, as Chief O’Hara acknowledged, law enforcement officers can be resistant to
these approaches. At times, we saw MPD officers express open resentment for violence
interrupters. For example, at a protest in October 2020, a sergeant who was preparing
to make a mass arrest learned that violence interrupters were present. He responded,
“Oh good. They’ll get arrested too.”

* * *

MPD engages in unlawful racial discrimination that has taken a toll on its relationship
with the community. The result is diminished public safety and a breakdown of
community trust in MPD, not just of those who have directly experienced discrimination,
but also of those who learn MPD is not protecting and serving all Minneapolis residents
equally.

47
C. MPD Violates People’s First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment” to the principle that
“debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” 56 Police
retaliation against speech is antithetical to this commitment: “The freedom of individuals
verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the
principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” 57

To assess MPD’s conduct at protests, we reviewed hundreds of body-worn camera

videos from 22 different protest events that occurred between 2016 and the present. We
reviewed thousands of documents, including MPD’s protest planning materials, as well
as its internal policies and trainings related to protests and crowd-control tactics. We
spoke to scores of individuals who had information about MPD’s protest response,
including protesters, journalists, community advocates, attorneys in relevant litigation,
and MPD supervisors and line officers. We also reviewed publicly available evidence,
including evidence submitted during relevant litigation and videos and accounts from
citizens and journalists.

We found that MPD violates the First Amendment in four ways. First, MPD officers
retaliate against protesters. Second, MPD officers retaliate against journalists and
unlawfully restrict their actions during protests. Third, MPD officers penalize people who
challenge or question them during stops and calls for service. Fourth, MPD officers
unlawfully interfere with individuals’ right to observe and record police activity.

1. MPD Violates Protesters’ First Amendment Rights

Police cannot deliberately interfere with free expression or punish protesters for their
protected speech.58 Nevertheless, MPD officers regularly retaliate against people for
their speech or presence at protests—particularly when they criticize police.

This retaliation frequently manifests as force. For example, at a June 2021 protest of a
police shooting, an MPD officer pushed a protester so hard that she fell backward, hit
the pavement, and lay unconscious for three minutes. Other officers had told the
protester to move back, and she did; she was walking backwards when one of them
pushed her on the shoulder. When she responded, “Don’t fucking push me, asshole,”
the officer pushed her again, this time so hard that he knocked her to the pavement.
The woman needed 12 staples in her head, spent two days in the hospital, and suffered

56 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
57 City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 463 (1988).
58 Nieves v. Barlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1722 (2019).

48
a traumatic brain injury. That protester was not the only one shoved that day. At the
same protest, another MPD officer ran up behind a protester who was walking away
and shoved him forcefully in the back. Another officer shoved a man who was standing
on the sidewalk recording the police.

Crowds of peaceful protesters sometimes include people who are breaking the law.
When this happens, the proper response is to address “those who actually engage in
such conduct,” and not “suppress legitimate First Amendment conduct as a prophylactic
measure.”59 However, MPD officers frequently use indiscriminate force, failing to
distinguish between peaceful protesters and those committing crimes. For example,
MPD officers regularly use 40 mm launchers—firearms that shoot impact projectiles,
like rubber bullets—against protesters who are committing no crime or who are
dispersing. In one incident, an MPD officer shot several times toward a distant crowd,
even though he had no clear target, limited visibility, and was—according to MPD
training—too far away to ensure accuracy. Around the same time, a nearby journalist
was hit by a rubber bullet and lost her eye.

In other protests we reviewed, we saw MPD officers throw blast balls—rubber grenades
that cause a loud, bright explosion and can contain tear gas or pepper spray—and other
gas munitions into crowds of protesters who were not committing any crime. At times,
officers celebrated this behavior. During the George Floyd protests, one officer
encouraged another to throw a flash bang grenade into a crowd of protesters: “Think
you can get it right in that crowd, bro?” The officer responded, “You mean throw one? I’ll
just fucking throw it. They’ll scatter real quick.” Shortly afterward, the officers
congratulated one another for hitting fleeing protesters with rubber bullets: “You hit him!
Nice!” These indiscriminate uses of force suggest that officers’ true purpose is not to
prevent criminal activity, but to retaliate against protesters for their constitutionally
protected speech.60
At times, if protesters break the law or do not comply with officers’ lawful commands,
officers may have a basis to use force. But in those situations, MPD officers frequently
respond with more force than is reasonable and continue using force after any
resistance or threat has passed.

For example, in March 2021, a group of protesters threw snowballs, tore down caution
tape, and blocked the street with their bikes to prevent police from assisting in clearing

59Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir. 1996).

60See, e.g., Black Lives Matter Seattle-King Cnty. v. City of Seattle, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1214 (W.D.
Wash. 2020) (finding that “the use of indiscriminate weapons against all protesters—not just the violent
ones—support[ed] the inference that” police had a retaliatory motive); Don’t Shoot Portland v. City of
Portland, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1155–56 (D. Or. 2020) (same).
49
an encampment for unhoused people. They also verbally taunted the police. When
officers arrested them, some protesters physically resisted. But even after protesters
were restrained, officers beat, kicked, and shoved them. One officer repeatedly
punched a protester in the abdomen while he was restrained. Another officer, using his
full body weight, kneed a passive, restrained protester in the neck as he lay face
down—an act that amounted to deadly force.

Retaliation need not rise to the level of physical force to offend the First Amendment.
Any action—including a threat of harm—that would discourage the average person from
exercising her right to speak or protest can constitute a violation. 61 But MPD officers
routinely threaten to use unjustified force against peaceful protesters because of their
protected speech. In one 2021 case, an officer pointed his 40 mm projectile launcher at
a protester after the protester cursed at another officer. In response, another protester
shouted: “Don’t aim at him! He can use words!” The protester was right, and this sort of
police intimidation strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

40 mm Launcher

61 Black Lives Matter Seattle-King Cnty., 466 F. Supp. 3d at 1213.

50
 2. MPD Retaliates Against Journalists and Unlawfully Restricts Their
Access During Protests

The press has a distinct and essential role in maintaining our democracy. When
reporting on government conduct, the press serves as “surrogates for the public,” 62 and
their work gathering and sharing information “enable[s] speech.”63 Accordingly, reporting
is a constitutionally protected activity, and the First Amendment prohibits retaliation
against individuals for gathering the news.64

Regardless, MPD officers regularly retaliate against members of the press—particularly

by using force. For example, in October 2020, an MPD sergeant repeatedly pushed a
journalist who was actively filming, verbally identified himself as press, and had a press
credential around his neck. In the police report, the sergeant falsely claimed that the
journalist was leaning against a business owner’s truck and that the sergeant had
simply “moved the media member off the vehicle.” Body-worn camera footage clearly
shows that the journalist was standing at least a foot away from it.

Pepper Spraying of Journalist

62 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980).

63 Quraishi v. St. Charles Cnty., 986 F.3d 831, 838–839 (8th Cir. 2021).
64 Id. (citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681 (1972)).

51
In another case, on May 30, 2020, officers encountered journalists who were sheltering
at a gas station. An officer, pointing a 40 mm launcher, approached a journalist who
was filming, holding up his press credential, and shouting, “I’m press!” The officer
forcefully pushed the journalist’s head to the pavement. As he lay on the ground, the
journalist held up his press credential. In response, an MPD sergeant pepper sprayed
him directly in his face, then walked away.

MPD officers also interfere with newsgathering by unlawfully limiting journalists’ access
to public spaces where protests take place, and thus their ability to report on police
activity. The First Amendment requires that any restrictions on when, where, and how
reporters gather information “leave open ample alternative channels” for gathering the
news.65 Blanket enforcement of dispersal orders and curfews against press violates this
principle because they foreclose the press from reporting about what happens after the
dispersal or curfew is issued, including how police enforce those orders.

However, MPD regularly enforces general orders to disperse against members of the
press. For example, at a 2021 protest, two officers approached a journalist who was
standing on a sidewalk recording police and repeating, “I’m media! I’m media.” Both
officers told him that he had to leave. One of the officers then said, “Time to go!” and
forcefully shoved the man down the sidewalk.

During the George Floyd protests in May 2020, Governor Tim Walz imposed an 8 p.m.
curfew with an explicit carve-out for press. MPD officers enforced the curfew against the
press anyway. In one case, officers approached a group of journalists who identified
themselves as press and carried cameras and microphones. An MPD sergeant
screamed at the journalists to “fucking go!” As the journalists packed to leave and tried
to open a large gate to exit, two officers pepper sprayed them at close range.

3. MPD Unlawfully Retaliates Against People During Stops and Calls for
Service

MPD’s retaliatory conduct is not limited to protests. During stops and calls for service,
officers retaliate against people who question or criticize them. This violates the law:
“Criticism of officers, even with profanity, is protected speech.” 66 Nevertheless, MPD
officers routinely respond to protected speech with arrests and with force.

65Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).
66Laney v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:18-cv-1575, 2021 WL 4439252 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 28, 2021) (citing
Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979, 985 (8th Cir. 2019)); see also City of Houston v. Hill, 482
U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (yelling obscenities and threats at a police officer is still protected under the First
Amendment).
52
For example, in 2017, MPD officers responded to a disturbance call about a college
party. A 19-year-old yelled, “Fuck the police!” as he walked past two officers. One of the
officers grabbed him and asked him whether he had said, “Fuck the police.’” The teen
responded (correctly) that he had the right to say it. “No,” the officer replied, “You can’t.”
Another officer put the teen in a neck restraint, and the teen screamed, “I can’t breathe!”
The officer then pulled the teen, still in a neck restraint, backwards towards the patrol
car. Once the teen was in the back seat, another officer approached the car to weigh in:
“Hopefully you can tell your friends when you say, ‘Fuck the police,’ now you
understand that’s actually not legal unless you’re in a riot or a display of protest.”

That officer was wrong. The First Amendment protects criticism, including
profanity, directed to police officers. Nevertheless, we saw MPD officers repeatedly
retaliate against people who criticized them. In one case, after a man said he planned to
file a complaint against police officers, an officer shoved him so hard that he fell and
struck his head on the sidewalk. In another case, during a trespassing call, an officer
followed a man for two blocks and repeatedly shoved him after he had already left the
property because the man had verbally antagonized him. This conduct violates the First
Amendment.

4. MPD Unlawfully Retaliates Against People Who Observe and Record

Their Activities

MPD officers also retaliate against people who watch or question them. This violates the
law. So long as it does not actively interfere with police conduct, people have the right to
observe police officers’ conduct and express views about it, even if it causes an officer a
momentary distraction.67

But MPD officers regularly arrest and use force against people who exercise these core
First Amendment rights. For instance, in one case discussed on page 22, two
bystanders attempted to observe an interaction between MPD officers and a man who
was having a mental health crisis. When they verbally objected to the officers’ actions,
one officer pepper sprayed both of them in the face.

Just as people have a right to observe public police interactions, people have a right to
record officers’ activities as well.68 However, both during protests and in everyday
interactions, MPD officers interfere with individuals’ right to record police activity by

67 Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that if an officer arrested a person

“solely for distracting him from [a] stop through the use of his protected expression, then the arrest was
unlawful”); see also Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020); Walker v. City of Pine
Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 992–93 (8th Cir. 2005).
68 Chestnut, 947 F.3d at 1090.

53
arresting them, destroying their recording equipment, and retaliating with force. For
example, during a May 2020 protest, officers approached a man who was standing on
the side of a roadway on a bridge, recording police. One officer tried to grab his phone
and screamed at him to move. Another officer pepper sprayed the man’s face. When
the man refused to leave, an officer grabbed his phone and threw it off the bridge.

MPD officers also retaliate against people who record them outside of the protest
context, during regular stops and calls for service. In one 2019 case, two officers
responded to a call about a domestic disturbance. As the officers were removing a man
from the home, a bystander tried to record the police activity. In response, one of the
officers pepper sprayed him.

MPD policy makes clear that people have a right to record police activities. Officers
seem to know this: They frequently tell people they are free to record. In practice,
however, they often use force against or arrest people who record. For instance, in
January 2017, a man told two officers that he intended to record them. One officer told
him that he could record all he wanted, but that he had to move across the street. When
the man began to move away, the other officer followed him, told him he was under
arrest, and threw him onto the ground. As that officer held the man’s face down on the
pavement, the first officer confiscated his phone.

5. MPD Inadequately Protects First Amendment Rights

MPD officers’ First Amendment violations are the predictable consequence of MPD’s
broader failure to protect speech and guard against unlawful retaliation.

To start, MPD’s policies and training on First Amendment issues have been seriously
deficient. When widespread protests began in May 2020, MPD’s only policy on the
issue was its civil disturbance policy, which was four sentences long and had not been
updated since 2007. After the protests, MPD made a series of positive changes to their
policies, including adding limitations on the use of less-lethal projectiles and chemical
agents and additional requirements for reporting and reviewing uses of force during
protests. Nevertheless, MPD’s policies still fail to clarify basic First Amendment
requirements, including details about the scope of First Amendment protections and
how to handle media at protests. Likewise, MPD’s trainings on police response to
protests refer broadly to First Amendment rights without sufficiently explaining what
those rights include.

MPD also fails to hold officers accountable for violating First Amendment rights. Despite
the repeated police misconduct that we observed at protests between 2016 and the
present, MPD has only disciplined officers for their conduct at protests in connection

54
with five incidents over that seven-year period. Notably, although the reviews in those
cases considered issues like the use and reporting of force, they ignored the question of
whether officers violated protesters’ First Amendment rights.

Moreover, even when officers have seriously injured protesters, supervisors often
accept their accounts with little scrutiny, and associated complaints linger for years
without resolution. For example, the officer who pushed a peaceful protester and
caused a traumatic brain injury falsely claimed that he gave the woman a “slight push”
because she “walked towards [him] with her right hand up and clinched.” Other officers
who were present echoed this false account, claiming the woman had refused to comply
with commands and advanced on officers. The body-worn camera footage shows this is
not true. Both times the officer pushed her, the woman was walking backward, away
from the police line, and both times, he gave her a forceful shove. Regardless, the
supervisor who reviewed the incident claimed that the officers’ accounts “appear[ed] to
match” the footage. Nearly two years later, the complaint against the officer remains
unresolved. He is still on the force.

We also observed repeated expressions of contempt for First Amendment rights by line
officers, supervisors, and members of the SWAT team. For example:

 During protests in May 2020, an officer saw a sergeant indicate a group of

protesters yelling at police from behind a fence. The sergeant told an officer,
“I’ll give you a pack of beer if you hit them with a 40 mm round.”
 At a protest in October 2020, a sergeant encouraged officers to hit protesters
with their 40 mm rounds “in the junk.”
 In 2021, an MPD SWAT team officer assisting at a protest in the neighboring
city of Brooklyn Center aimed his 40 mm launcher at protesters from his
rooftop position. He joked, “What if I can get ’em?” He then repeatedly
pointed his weapon at the peaceful protesters below, apparently for his own
entertainment.
These remarks—and the many others like them we identified—show disrespect for First
Amendment rights, not mere confusion about what those rights protect. And when
supervisors regularly express this attitude, they send a message throughout MPD that
protesters are adversaries, and First Amendment rights need not be protected.

* * *

The First Amendment protects the public’s right to expose truths and express their
views—even when the focus of protected speech is the police themselves.

55
Safeguarding speech is essential so that “falsehoods may be exposed.”69 In
Minneapolis, this principle has special resonance. The day after George Floyd was
murdered, MPD issued a press release about it. The press release, entitled “Man Dies
After Medical Incident During Police Interaction,” stated that officers had handcuffed the
man and “noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.” Because a 17-year-old
girl filmed that day, the nation learned what really happened.

69 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95 (1940).

56
D. The City and MPD Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act in
Their Response to People with Behavioral Health Disabilities

Our investigation showed that the City and MPD violate the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) by discriminating against people with behavioral health disabilities when
providing emergency response services. The ADA prohibits discrimination against
people with disabilities, including by excluding them from participation in or denying
them the benefits of city services, programs, and activities. 70 People with behavioral
health disabilities must be able “to participate in or benefit from” the City’s services,
programs, and activities to an extent “equal to that afforded others” and that is equally
“effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result.” 71 The City must make
“reasonable modifications” to policies, practices, or procedures, if necessary to avoid
discrimination against people with disabilities.72 Many behavioral health-related calls for
service do not require a police response, but MPD responds to the majority of those
calls, and that response is often harmful and ineffective. This deprives people with
behavioral health disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from the City’s emergency
response services.

In December 2021, the City launched a mobile crisis response pilot that provides a
behavioral health response in addition to, or instead of, a police response. The program
has been a positive development. But it lacks the capacity to promptly respond to calls
throughout the City and, as a result, MPD continues to be the primary response to
behavioral health calls. The City itself has unanswered questions about whether the
program is on track. While a recent report reflected a promising start, Mayor Frey
acknowledged the lack of important information about the program’s performance. 73

70 42 U.S.C. § 12132; Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 209 (1998).
71 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii), (iii).
72 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); see also Title II Technical Assistance Manual § II-3.6100.
73 In assessing the City’s and MPD’s compliance with the ADA, we analyzed a variety of forms of

evidence the City provided. Aided by experts in forensic and clinical psychiatry, behavioral health
services, crisis response, co-response models, and dispatch, we analyzed thousands of records from
MPD’s computer-aided dispatch and records management systems from 2016 to 2022, as well as
reviewed body-worn camera and squad car footage. In addition, we joined ride-alongs with MPD and
mobile crisis responders, observed trainings, and reviewed training materials and policies. We
interviewed dozens of MPD officers; county emergency medical services (EMS) responders; Minneapolis
Emergency Communications Center (MECC) call takers, dispatchers, and supervisors; Behavioral Crisis
Response (BCR) responders and supervisors; City and MPD officials and leadership; and people with
behavioral health issues who had experienced an MPD response, along with their family members,
community members, activists, and others.
57
 1. Behavioral Health Calls Continue to Receive an Unnecessary and
Potentially Harmful Law Enforcement Response

Many behavioral health-related calls for service in Minneapolis do not require a law
enforcement response. These calls often involve no violence, weapon, or immediate
threat of harm. For example, MPD responded to a call from a man who wanted to tell
officers stories about his life and had to be advised by officers that “911 was for
emergencies,” a call about a woman with schizophrenia who believed people were
stealing her identity, and a call from a grandmother about her grandson who had
depression and was upset due to a family issue. Such calls could be safely resolved
with a behavioral health response, such as a mobile crisis team. 74 Other calls may
present public safety concerns that may require a joint response involving police and
behavioral health responders.

MPD responded to well over one million emergency and non-emergency 911 calls
between January 2016 and August 9, 2022. Almost 10% of these calls directly related to
a behavioral health issue. For the vast majority, MPD was the primary, if not the sole,
responder, mostly due to the unavailability of a behavioral health response. We
analyzed a randomly selected sample of certain behavioral health-related 911 calls to
which MPD responded. For the vast majority of these calls, the person in need of
behavioral health attention was not reported to have a weapon or pose an immediate
threat to themselves or others. Only 0.45% of over 100,000 mental health calls resulted
in an arrest at the scene, underscoring that the current reliance on police-only
responses is unwarranted.

The treatment of people with behavioral health needs stands in stark contrast to the
experience of people in need of medical assistance. A person in medical need receives
a response from trained Emergency Medical Services (EMS) professionals; due to
insufficient mobile crisis team capacity, the person with behavioral health needs
typically receives a response from an armed police officer with often inaccurate and
ineffective training in behavioral health. We include here just a few examples showing
the harmful, and even fatal, results when officers lead the responses to situations
involving behavioral health issues.

In one example, MPD responded to check the welfare of an unarmed white man. Notes

74 A mobile crisis team includes trained behavioral health staff who respond to individuals in need of

urgent behavioral health assistance wherever the person is located. The team can resolve the immediate
need and connect the person with ongoing behavioral health services as appropriate.
58
of the call advised that the man was “talking to himself and . . . crawling on sidewalk.” 75
A responding officer encountered the man with his pants partially undone, appearing
“agitated,” and “moving around at a fast pace.” As officers spoke to him, the man grew
increasingly agitated and tried to move away. There was no indication that he was a
threat to officers or others. Nevertheless, an officer told him he was going to “get cuffed
up.” The officer reported that “to prevent him from leaving,” the officer grabbed his arm,
put him in a neck restraint, and pinned him to the ground. Officers restrained him face-
down in the snow with a knee on his back for several minutes as they waited for EMS,
resulting in the man having a bloody nose. EMS sedated him and took him to a hospital.
Dispatching a mobile crisis team, instead of MPD, would have been appropriate and
could have addressed the man’s apparent behavioral health needs while avoiding the
use of force.

When MPD officers respond to behavioral health calls, they often fail to use appropriate
de-escalation techniques, such as giving the individual extra space and time, speaking
slowly and calmly, and actively listening.76 We identified numerous examples of MPD
officers unnecessarily escalating situations and in many cases using avoidable force
against people with behavioral health disabilities.

One officer responded to a report in 2016 of a naked Latino man walking down a quiet
residential street using a long branch as a walking stick. The officer drove next to the
man in his squad car, asking him where he was going. The man ignored the officer but
appeared disoriented and calm. The officer exited his squad car, grabbed the man’s
wrist, pulled him towards the vehicle, and subdued him with a neck restraint. Another
officer arrived, and they pinned the man to the pavement for over 13 minutes. EMS
sedated him, and he later had to be intubated.

In a 2017 incident, officers used a taser on an unarmed white man experiencing

behavioral health issues. The man was shirtless, shoeless, and wearing pajama pants
in his front yard. Neighbors told officers that he was having a mental health episode,
had bipolar disorder, and was unmedicated. Although agitated, at times pacing around
his yard and yelling, the man was compliant with officer orders to sit on his front steps.
At a quiet moment during the encounter—the man was seated, unarmed, and not

75 Some MPD sources use all uppercase letters. For readability, we use lowercase letters when quoting
these sources.
76 The ADA requires that a public entity must “take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with

applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as
communications with others.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(1). When an individual is experiencing a behavioral
health issue and officers do not use well-known tactics for communicating with that individual, the law
enforcement agency may not have taken appropriate steps to ensure that communications with
individuals with disabilities “are as effective as communications with others.”
59
posing a threat to anyone—an officer fired his taser without warning. After the man
stood up in pain, he fell to the ground, officers handcuffed him, and EMS eventually
sedated him. The unnecessary police-led response escalated the situation, and a
behavioral health-led response may have avoided the use of force entirely.

A behavioral health-informed response is uniquely important when responding to

children. In a 2020 encounter, MECC dispatched MPD and EMS to a call that an 11-
year-old Black girl had taken an unknown kind and quantity of pills. The child’s brother
told responders that the girl “possibly took like 6 or 7 pills, Tylenol, aspirin, ibuprofen,
that type of combination.” The girl ignored responders when they tried to engage her
and continued lying quietly on her bed. After the girl kicked and hit responders when
they physically tried to move her, EMS personnel sedated her and MPD officers
handcuffed her arms behind her back. An officer suggested, “If we’re going to carry her
out, might as well handcuff the legs, too.” Responders handcuffed her ankles and
wrists, carrying her face-down out of the home. A behavioral health-led response may
have avoided handcuffing of the child’s wrists and ankles, minimizing the trauma
suffered and assisting EMS to better manage this child’s behavioral health and medical
issues. Also noteworthy is that the child received services from qualified medical
personnel for her medical need, but from police for her behavioral health issue.

Even if a police presence is appropriate, missed opportunities to bring in an alternative

response can have deadly consequences. In one 2018 incident, MPD was dispatched
without any behavioral health responders after a man’s girlfriend called the non-
emergency response line. The man reportedly told his girlfriend that he would kill
himself and had sought to buy a gun “a few months ago.” Without mentioning that
timeframe, dispatchers relayed to MPD that he “was looking to buy a gun.” A supervisor
directed the officers not to force entry given that the man was alone and not a threat to
others, and suggested the officers call the man’s girlfriend to try and convince him to
voluntarily leave the home. Officers were standing close to the home, however, looking
in windows and calling to the man to come out. The man, agitated, then opened the
front door holding a knife, yelling, “OK then, let’s do this!” He initially advanced on the
officers quickly and did not comply with multiple demands to drop the knife. An officer
shot and killed the man. A well-coordinated joint response with behavioral health
professionals and law enforcement would have been warranted here. Responders could
have taken more time to understand and de-escalate the situation, such as by allowing
the man to stay inside the home, engaging in dialogue, attempting to gather other
information from the girlfriend or other sources, and having officers on standby. Such
strategies may have avoided the use of force that ended the man’s life.

60
Not only is a police response unnecessary in many behavioral health-related
situations—and harmful for that reason alone77—it can increase the stigma associated
with behavioral health issues, contribute to distrust of public services, and cause trauma
for some individuals.78 Communities of color in Minneapolis are particularly impacted by
unnecessary police encounters. People with serious mental illness in these
communities are already less likely than their white counterparts to use mental health
services, and they are more likely to report stigma as a reason for not doing so. 79

One recent survey of Minneapolis residents found that a majority of respondents of

color believed that a police response was unhelpful in situations involving a mental
health crisis. We reviewed incidents that demonstrated this dynamic. A mother called
911 to report that her adult daughter, a Black woman who had a bipolar disorder, was
attempting to hurt herself by lying in the road. Two MPD officers responded. One ran up
to the daughter, who was by then calmly walking through a park. The officer exited the
squad car and immediately grabbed her arm. The daughter became agitated, saying, “I
didn’t do nothing illegal, I’m walking through the park like y’all walking through the park,”
and began yelling. The second officer also grabbed her. She pulled away, and officers
put her in a neck restraint. Watching the incident unfold, her mother said, “Don’t choke
her like that!”

77 When dispatched to behavioral and physical health calls, EMS personnel frequently wait outside until
MPD arrives on scene to declare the situation “Code 4,” meaning under control and safe, before EMS
personnel enter the scene and begin to administer services. According to community members and City
employees interviewed, this practice is particularly pronounced in North Minneapolis’ Fourth Precinct, and
we observed this dynamic during our investigation. This practice absorbs MPD resources and places
officers at scenes where a police response is not needed and may even be harmful, creating
opportunities for the negative outcomes discussed in this section.
78 National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care: Best Practice Toolkit Executive Summary,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 8–10,

https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/national-guidelines-for-behavioral-health-crisis-services-
executive-summary-02242020.pdf [ https://perma.cc/4QNM-565A].
79 Racial/Ethnic Differences in Mental Health Service Use Among Adults and Adolescents (2015-2019),

Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, SAMHSA, Tables 5.2, 5.7, pages 36, 41,
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt35324/2021NSDUHMHChartbook102221B.pdf
[https://perma.cc/J89N-WY2D].
61
In December 2021, the City launched the mobile Behavioral Crisis Response (BCR)
pilot. Mayor Frey described it as “a huge day for the City of Minneapolis, and a move
toward safety beyond policing, recognizing that not every 911 call requires response
from an officer with a gun.” BCR is a 911 first-responder entity, like MPD, EMS, and
Fire. MECC call takers dispatch BCR units when available. Mental health practitioners
staff two mobile units dispatched to calls involving certain behavioral health issues
during set hours. Several months into the pilot, the BCR team expanded its hours, but
significant coverage gaps persist. After BCR’s first year of service, the City reported it
was either the primary or secondary response to thousands of incidents, but its limited
capacity still leaves MPD as the primary responder to behavioral health calls. While the
service is designed to be City-wide, launched with only two vans, BCR has been unable
to provide timely City-wide responses. The two vans BCR has had access to have also
experienced frequent mechanical problems, significantly lengthening response times
across the City. While the City has had plans for some time to add vehicles to the fleet,
BCR currently remains unable to respond to large numbers of calls for which it is
needed. And because BCR does not track response times, improvements will be
difficult to measure without improved data collection and analysis. As recently as March
2023, BCR was still not able to provide 24/7 coverage due to unfilled overnight weekend
shifts. MPD continues to handle a large volume of behavioral health calls.

Case Study: A Compassionate Alternative Response

During a ride-along with a BCR team in November 2022, we observed the
BCR team provide timely, compassionate, and impactful services to a
person in crisis. Responders were dispatched to a pharmacy to assist a
patient, a Black woman experiencing hallucinations of bugs eating her
ears. She had sprayed Raid insect spray into her ears, causing injuries.
The BCR responders calmly and caringly engaged the woman in
conversation. Recognizing the need for urgent medical care to treat her
wounds, BCR responders encouraged her to allow them to transport her
to the hospital. The woman resisted and expressed fear of involuntary
commitment for mental health issues, but BCR responders continued to
patiently engage with her, discussing the situation with her at a relaxed
pace. She eventually consented to be seen at the hospital. BCR
transported her in their van, offering her food on the way. BCR entered
through an ambulance bay entrance and left the woman with emergency
room nursing staff.
When it is able to respond, the BCR program can provide a
compassionate alternative to a law enforcement response.

62
In part due to its capacity limitations, BCR has also been unable to regularly connect
community members to ongoing support services that would help prevent future crises.
Likewise, coordination of BCR, MECC, or MPD with the recently launched 988 Suicide
and Crisis Lifeline80 has been minimal. These challenges have compromised BCR’s
ability to achieve its emergency crisis response mission and continued the City’s
reliance upon MPD for many first responses.

2. MECC Contributes to Unnecessary Police Responses to Calls Involving

Behavioral Health Issues

The City’s failure to provide a meaningful police alternative also stems from issues with
dispatch. In 2021 alone, MECC received nearly 18,000 behavioral health calls. MECC’s
operations therefore have a substantial impact on how—and by whom—behavioral
health calls are handled.

MECC lacks the ability to adequately assess and appropriately dispatch behavioral
health-related calls for service. New training is limited, particularly around behavioral
health diagnoses, and response protocols remain unclear. MECC staff themselves
identified the need for clarity about the “gray areas” of call taking and dispatching in
response to behavioral health calls. One dispatcher told us they are “trained to err on
the side of caution and to oversend” police, and another feared personal liability for
improperly dispatching BCR. And, as with MPD officers, the concept of excited delirium
persists at MECC among some staff. Finally, MECC’s quality assurance program does
not review behavioral health calls, further undermining the City’s ability to ensure
appropriate response to behavioral health calls.

Even when a call is identified as requiring a behavioral health-led response, certain

MECC processes result in MPD responding anyway. Dispatchers reported that many
calls appropriate for BCR are diverted to MPD if BCR has not responded in as little as
10 minutes. This is true even for situations in which callers specifically said not to send
police.

Some of the most frequent callers for service (such as shelters for people in the
unhoused community, short-term mental health stabilization, acute and long-term care
facilities, and walk-in behavioral support clinics), receive police responses for calls
known at dispatch to involve behavioral health issues. That service providers designed
to serve people with behavioral health disabilities are frequently calling for MPD

80 The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline “is a national network of local crisis centers that provides free and

confidential emotional support to people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.” See 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, SAMHSA, https://988lifeline.org.
63
assistance—a teenager living at one care facility had 11 MPD contacts in just over 3
months, for example, all for calls relating to attempted suicide or self-harm—presents an
opportunity for the City to set expectations regarding the unique skillsets and roles of
MPD and BCR. MECC must ensure training, call scripts, and protocols are updated to
dispatch BCR where appropriate.

3. Training on Behavioral Health Issues Does Not Equip Officers to

Respond Appropriately

Our investigation showed that a law enforcement-led response can cause real harm in
the form of trauma, injury, and death to people experiencing behavioral health issues,
as well as other impacts. These harms may be avoided by dispatching behavioral health
responders rather than law enforcement where appropriate, and they can be mitigated
by sending behavioral health responders with police where a law enforcement response
is needed, as well as by appropriate training of law enforcement officers. Officers will
inevitably come into contact with people experiencing behavioral health issues and, as a
result, they must be prepared to interact
appropriately with them. MPD’s training in
this area, however, is at best inadequate; “If we don’t deal with the crazy
at worst, it is factually inaccurate and naked guy, who will? It’s not the old
days. Can’t lasso them. Best way to
biased. While we observed encounters in
deal with them is to put them on the
which some officers displayed compassion ground and handcuff them. And
and kindness for people with behavioral police are the only ones who are
health needs, the training may contribute justified in doing that . . . I don’t
to prejudice among MPD officers against know a better way.”
people with behavioral health issues.
– MPD Officer During Ride-Along
Since at least 2017, all MPD officers have with DOJ Investigator, July 2021
received basic Crisis Intervention Team
(CIT) training, but the training program suffers from serious flaws. Training materials
contained concerning messaging, including inaccurate medical information. One MPD
crisis intervention trainer told trainees that responding to behavioral health calls “could
be dangerous because they think you’re coming to rob them.” Likewise, training
materials provided by outside consultants on behavioral issues among youth were
problematic: a slide on autism stated that a child with the condition “will power struggle
with you to the death.” Also unclear are what quality standards, competency
requirements, or monitoring apply to the curriculum or trainers as part of MPD’s CIT and
other behavioral health-related trainings. Our investigation showed that current training
is not sufficient to educate officers about behavioral health issues, with officers
underestimating the need for training at all. One officer told us he did not need training

64
to know someone is “off their rocker.” And despite a laudable City directive to stop
training officers on excited delirium, training given to MPD officers referred to “severe
agitation with confusion (delirium)” in an obvious attempt to skirt the City directive.
Some officers continue to mention “excited delirium” in call comments and reports. 81
This reflects the importance of confirming the quality and accuracy of training before it is
delivered and the need for proper oversight following trainings.

4. The City and MPD Can Make Reasonable Modifications to Avoid

Discrimination Against People with Behavioral Health Disabilities

The ADA requires public entities to “make reasonable modifications in policies,

practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination
on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the
modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” 82
Whether a particular modification is reasonable and not a fundamental alteration
includes a fact-based assessment of a particular jurisdiction.

Expand and Improve BCR as an Alternative Response. BCR is an important step

toward creating a meaningful alternative to police for calls involving behavioral health
issues. Resources in sufficient quality and quantity are critical to its ability to provide
appropriate services and prevent unnecessary police responses. Increased
collaboration and coordination with other City and county programs can further enhance
BCR’s efficacy. Deeper connection between BCR and other first-responders and
providers, particularly COPE, as well as the recently-launched 988 Suicide and Crisis
Lifeline, is essential. Minneapolis’ network of mental health treatment and support
resources is largely untapped given the City’s current siloed approach.

Modify MECC to Dispatch an Alternative Response Where Appropriate. MECC

must also ensure accurate identification of and responses to behavioral health calls and
engage in robust quality assurance. City policies must better delineate the
responsibilities of MPD, BCR, and other first responders in behavioral health calls,
including joint responses involving more than one agency, so that MECC can accurately

81 In light of the well-documented connection of the use of excited delirium to racial bias, the persistent
presence of this concept is troubling. See Brooks Myrick Walsh, Isaac K. Agboola, Edouard Coupet, Jr.,
John S. Rozel, Ambrose H. Wong, Revisiting “Excited Delirium:” Does the Diagnosis Reflect and Promote
Racial Bias? 24(2) WESTERN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE 152–59 (Mar. 2023) (electronically
published Jan. 31, 2023).
82 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). The City need not provide a reasonable modification if the person requiring

the modification poses a direct threat to the safety of an officer or others. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(a). A
direct threat is “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a
modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.” 28
C.F.R. § 35.104.
65
assess calls for service and deploy the right responder(s) in accordance with the unique
missions and skillsets of MPD, BCR, EMS, and Fire.

Ensure Quality and Impact of MPD Behavioral Health Training. MPD can make
changes to its CIT program to ensure that when calls related to behavioral health do
need a police response, appropriately trained officers respond. Training related to
behavioral health issues must ensure that when MPD officers respond to situations in
which behavioral health issues are present, they do so appropriately. It is critically
important that behavioral health-related training for MPD, including cross-training with
BCR, be updated, accurate, and impactful.

* * *

Expanding BCR to ensure that the City can provide services tailored to residents with
diverse behavioral health needs holds much promise. As Mayor Frey told us, being able
“to have someone show up without a gun and with the right skillset” is critical.
Coordination and continuous assessment will be essential in this next phase to make
sure all people in Minneapolis receive appropriate responses when they call for help.

66
CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF VIOLATIONS

A. MPD’s Accountability System Contributes to Legal Violations

Effective police accountability requires timely, thorough, and objective investigations

into alleged officer misconduct, as well as meaningful discipline. People deserve to
have their misconduct complaint investigated fairly. Community trust in law enforcement
suffers when officer misconduct is tolerated.

MPD’s accountability system is fundamentally flawed. 83 It consistently fails at its core

purpose: to find, address, and prevent officer misconduct. Instead of a clear,
straightforward accountability system, MPD’s system is an opaque maze, with multiple
dead ends where meritorious complaints are dismissed without investigation and often
for no discernable reason. Significant allegations in complaints are mischaracterized or
ignored. Officers who commit serious misconduct are diverted to coaching or retraining,
and sometimes, the coaching or retraining never happens. If MPD does investigate a
complaint, obvious misconduct is often overlooked or excused. By the end, the
investigation often has taken so long that the complaint becomes stale, leaving
problematic officers to continue committing misconduct for years.

To investigate MPD’s accountability system, we conducted dozens of interviews of City

leaders, union officials, Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR) staff, MPD command,
civilian police conduct review panelists, and community members. We studied a random
sample of over 400 complaints that the OPCR closed after 2016. We focused on closed
cases to account for the inordinate delays in processing complaints, particularly those
placed into investigation. Indeed, of OPCR cases opened after 2016 and placed into
investigation, 53.1% remain unresolved for at least one year, and 26.1% remain
unresolved for at least two years. To ensure we could evaluate complaints from
beginning to end, we assessed MPD’s performance when resolving cases during our
review period, regardless of when the alleged misconduct occurred. Our case review

83 On December 14, 2022, the City amended provisions of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances that

relate to police conduct oversight, effective April 2023. Pursuant to these amendments, MPD and the
Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights adopted a revised Police Misconduct Complaint Process Manual
on April 20, 2023, that will govern how complaints of police misconduct will be allocated, investigated, and
processed by the two departments. See Minneapolis Code of Ordinances § 172.30 (amended
12/14/2022); Ordinance No. 2022-058,
https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/11490/1190830/pdf
[https://perma.cc/53BN-HGZ9]. The revised manual identifies a transitional period to effectuate these new
policies that concludes 120 days after the effective date of a settlement agreement between the City and
the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. As a result, this report details our review of the City’s
accountability systems prior to the enactment of ordinance amendments in late 2022, and revised policies
in April 2023.
67
included a random sample of approximately 80 OPCR complaints that were placed into
investigation, as well as complaints dismissed or diverted on various grounds (for
example, no basis, no jurisdiction, failing to state a claim, or referred to coaching). We
also reviewed OPCR complaint files related to conduct we learned of through
community outreach, news reports, interviews, and other documents. 84

MPD officers’ misconduct costs the City dearly. Between 2018 and 2022, the City paid
out $61,502,925 to settle claims of police misconduct. Apart from the $47 million in
settlements for the deaths of Justine Ruszczyk and George Floyd, the City paid
$14,502,925 for 69 claims or lawsuits from 2018 through 2022. In April 2023, the City
approved additional settlements of $7.5 million and $1.375 million for misconduct
related to arrests by Derek Chauvin occurring in 2017. In May 2023, the City approved a
settlement of $700,000 related to the allegedly unlawful detention of three children while
their father was killed during a police shooting. Sometimes, MPD pays for the repeated
misconduct of certain officers. For instance, MPD paid $344,000 to settle claims related
to one officer’s uses of force over a 12-year MPD career. This includes settlements of
$140,000, $82,000, and $62,500 for the officer allegedly choking an 18-year-old
developmentally disabled student unconscious, punching a woman in the face and
knocking her unconscious, and beating a man unconscious outside of a bar.

Our review shows that MPD frequently fails to address police misconduct, which allows
officers’ serious violations of people’s rights to go unpunished. MPD’s flawed
accountability system contributes to the unconstitutional and unlawful patterns or
practices we found.

84As noted above, we evaluated OPCR’s handling of misconduct complaints for those complaints where
the resolution fell within our review period (beginning in 2016). It is not possible to fully assess how a
complaint is processed and investigated until the complaint investigation is completed and the officer has
exhausted appeals and other rights; as a result, our sample includes cases that were filed before 2016.
Nevertheless, the older complaints suffer from the same deficiencies that we highlight regarding the more
recent complaints in our sample, and these deficiencies are contributing causes of the violations of
federal law.
68
 Case Study: “Far Outside the Norm”
In 2014, an MPD officer responded to a report that a man had committed
retail theft. The OPCR investigator noted that store surveillance video
showed the officer punching the man “multiple times in the face with a
closed fist while [the man] is handcuffed behind his back.” The force
review supervisor completed the force review without viewing the
surveillance footage that would have revealed the misconduct, and MPD
did not investigate further at the time.
The officer continued working and continued using unreasonable force.
He had eight uses of force requiring a supervisory force review from
March 31, 2016, to May 30, 2016. In one of those incidents, the officer
kicked a man in the face after the man was already on his hands and
knees. The man suffered a traumatic brain injury and a displaced nasal
bone. MPD settled with the man for $150,000, and the officer was
convicted of assault.
MPD’s 2016 internal review of the officer’s force showed that from
February 2012 to June 2016, he had 68 force incidents, a number that
OPCR noted was “far outside the norm for an MPD officer.”

1. The Complexity of MPD’s Accountability System Discourages

Complaints and Prompts Their Dismissals

Minneapolis has a combined civilian and MPD internal accountability system to review
and process allegations of police misconduct. This consists of MPD Internal Affairs (IA)
and OPCR. OPCR handled the overwhelming majority of complaints during our review
period. IA may have handled a complaint alone or jointly with OPCR. 85

During our review period, the Commander of IA and Director of OPCR (collectively the
Joint Supervisors) together processed every complaint of police misconduct within
OPCR’s subject matter jurisdiction.86 The Joint Supervisors could decide to dismiss a

85 For simplicity, we use “MPD” to refer collectively to actions and investigations of MPD Internal Affairs,
the Joint Supervisors, and OPCR.
86 To fall within OPCR’s jurisdiction before the December 14, 2022, amendment, a complaint must have

been filed within 270 days of the misconduct and allege excessive use of force; inappropriate language or
attitude; harassment; discrimination in the provision of police services; theft; failure to provide adequate or
timely police protection; retaliation; or criminal misconduct. Minneapolis Code of Ordinances § 172.20

69
complaint on the merits (referred to as “no basis”), for lack of jurisdiction, or for failure to
state a claim, among other reasons. The Joint Supervisors could also refer it for
coaching of the officer, or for formal investigation. After a complaint was investigated,
the Joint Supervisors decided whether to dismiss it on the merits or refer it for review by
a panel of MPD and civilian panelists for a merit or no-merit recommendation to the
Chief of Police.

MPD’s accountability system has been needlessly complex. A complaint traveled

through numerous steps before the MPD Chief of Police could issue a final decision and
potential discipline. We found several opportunities to dismiss or divert a complaint
before it reached the MPD Chief. During our investigation, MPD produced an eight-page
flow chart that illustrates the number of steps, decision points, and mandatory delays
built into the accountability process.

In one case we reviewed, an MPD investigator discouraged a man from pursuing a

complaint based on the complexity of the system itself. The man filed a complaint in
2013 alleging that he was in an altercation at a bar and was escorted out. He stated that
he was compliant and walking away from bar security when an MPD officer “reached
around his shoulder and sprayed him in the eyes with pepper spray.” When we spoke to
the man, he said the MPD sergeant assigned to investigate the complaint had said the
process would take a lot of time, he would have to show up in court, and there would
likely not be a consequence for the officer. In March 2016, OPCR dismissed the
complaint as “Failure to Cooperate.” The man told us he would have pursued the matter
had he believed the officer would face consequences.

a. MPD Wrongfully Dismisses Complaints at Intake

By City ordinance, MPD must assess and review every OPCR complaint at intake.
Before the recent amendments to Minneapolis law, complaints could only be dismissed
during intake if the complaint failed to allege a violation on its face or for lack of
jurisdiction. Although MPD could refer lower-level complaints (for example, improper
attire/appearance, failure to properly inspect vehicle) for coaching, the law required that
“[a]ll other qualifying complaints shall be formally investigated.”

Nevertheless, over the time period of our review, MPD investigated only 13.6% of the
non-duplicate complaints OPCR received. 87 At intake, MPD dismissed approximately
65.7% of misconduct complaints, which included 19.8% of the complaints on the merits

(repealed per 12/14/22 amendment). IA handled police misconduct complaints filed outside of the 270-
day window and complaints against civilian employees.
87 Nearly 23% of all OPCR complaints were dismissed as duplicates.

70
without any investigation,88 and referred 18.3% of the complaints for coaching in lieu of
a formal investigation.

A dismissal at intake can occur even when the misconduct is captured on video. For
example, MPD dismissed as “no basis” a 2019 complaint involving clear policy
violations captured on body-worn camera. The complainant saw officers breaking up a
party at her neighbor’s home. She stated in her complaint that officers used profanity
and one officer repeatedly shoved a young person in the chest. Body-worn camera
footage confirms her account. An officer can be seen pushing a young person down the
street. Another officer stated, “Pull your pants up boy . . . it’s disrespectful to show your
ass . . . you know what that actually means in prison.” That same officer used profanity
as well, saying “[F]ucking move, get the fuck out, right fuck me, right get the fuck out of
here.” The dismissal does not mention the shoving or the profanity, which are both
policy violations.

We learned of an instance where MPD dismissed a complaint as “no basis” and

suggested to the complainant that there was an investigation when there was none. In
2018, MPD dismissed a man’s complaint of unlawful detention. He alleged that officers
detained him for six hours, took his money, took his motorcycle, strip-searched him
“more than one time,” and took DNA swabs. Finding nothing, the officers did not arrest
him. The man said in his complaint that he “felt violated.” The OPCR file does not reflect
any investigation or provide an explanation for the dismissal. Nevertheless, MPD
advised the complainant that “an appropriate investigation” took place.

Even when an officer’s misconduct potentially injures someone, MPD may not
investigate. When an unarmed man said he was planning to file a complaint, an MPD
officer pushed him backward so hard his head struck the sidewalk. The officer searched
and handcuffed the man, who remained compliant and seated as he waited for EMS to
respond. MPD did not investigate whether the use of force was retaliatory or excessive.
Rather, MPD referred the officer for non-disciplinary training.

MPD even declined to investigate a May 2018 case of serious force referred to it by the
Minneapolis City Attorney. The referral included a video taken by a City worker that
shows an MPD officer placing his knee and full body weight on an arrestee’s head and

88 MPD also dismissed complaints at intake for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to
cooperate, as well as complaints that were deemed to be duplicates or withdrawn. Under the Complaint
Process Manual in place at the time, misconduct complaints could also be dismissed any time when the
focus officer stopped working for MPD, or when no MPD policy covered the alleged misconduct. OPCR &
MPD, Complaint Process Manual, 2016, at Section IV, https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-
assets/www2-documents/departments/OPCR-Complaint-Process-Manual-(PDF).pdf
[https://perma.cc/S9A5-WDVH].
71
neck area. The video also depicts a concerned community member walking up to the
officers and stating, “[H]ey sir, treat him with respect.” MPD received the complaint and
video on July 5, 2018. Either due to MPD failing to timely refer the complaint to OPCR
or OPCR failing to timely log in the complaint, MPD erroneously dismissed the
complaint in October 2019 for “lack of jurisdiction.”

b. MPD Misclassifies Complaints and Ignores Explicit Misconduct

Allegations

MPD frequently misclassifies complaints and fails to identify obvious misconduct that
should trigger an investigation. This tends to occur when MPD identifies only a subset of
a complainant’s allegations for investigation or substitutes its own allegations for the
complainant’s, thereby distorting the complaint. The result is that the specific allegations
that most troubled the complainant, often involving severe misconduct, are dismissed
without the complainant’s knowledge. Indeed, MPD does not document any notice to
complainants of what allegations will proceed through the intake process.

In one incident, a woman alleged that two officers failed to take action against a
dangerous driver, but MPD ignored her allegations. The woman called MPD about “a
man with a smashed car, broken headlights, front bumper missing, hood bent blocking
visibility from windshield, and smoke coming from the engine.” She said that officers did
not appear to conduct a sobriety test, but instead told the man to move his car out of the
street. When he did so, he drove it into a parked car. The officers then let the man drive
away. She wrote that the officers’ actions made her “fear for my safety and the safety of
others.” The form that documents coaching referrals has a space for “Complainant’s
Description of Employee’s Action,” and the form identifies a violation of MPD’s body-
worn camera policy. The form is silent about the officers’ dereliction of duty.

At times, MPD bypasses the allegations that seem most upsetting to the complainant.
For example, in 2020, after a Black woman called 911 seeking help for her white
partner, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, officers forced entry into the
house, arrested the Black woman on suspicion of domestic abuse, and transported the
white woman for a mental health examination. Officers held the Black woman overnight,
even after the white woman (who had been holding a butcher knife when officers
arrived), subsequently admitted to an officer on scene that she was the physical
aggressor. When the Black woman later filed a complaint alleging discrimination and
unlawful detention, the City and MPD did not process, let alone investigate, her
allegations of discriminatory policing and unlawful detention. Instead, eight months later,
it was handled as relating only to body camera usage and “professional policing,” and
the officers were referred for coaching.

72
As another example, a different Black woman alleged in 2019 that she and her fiancé
experienced an unlawful search, discriminatory policing, and use of excessive force.
She alleged that MPD officers came to her home to investigate domestic violence,
which she denied. She claimed they beat on her door, used profanity, entered her home
without consent, and drew their firearms and tasers. They then pushed her fiancé into a
wall, handcuffed him, and conducted a warrantless search of her home without
permission while her three-year-old child watched. Body-worn camera footage confirms
her account, including an officer shouting “open the fucking door” and “I will kick this
fucking door in.” The woman sued, and a federal court held that the officers were not
entitled to qualified immunity, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and
found the officers liable for an unlawful search. The court noted that, “This was a highly
charged situation, due mainly to the Officers' aggressive manner . . . . If anything, the
Plaintiffs were the ones who remained as calm as possible throughout the interaction
with the Officers escalating the situation.”89

Despite the unlawful and degrading treatment of the family, MPD did not address the
allegations of an unlawful search. Instead, MPD focused only on whether the officers
violated MPD policy by failing to completely investigate potential domestic abuse, and
whether one officer engaged in unprofessional policing. After a preliminary investigation,
MPD found no violation of the MPD domestic abuse policy and referred one officer for
coaching for use of profanity.

c. MPD Diverts Complaints Involving Serious Misconduct for

Coaching, and the Coaching May Never Happen

MPD has used coaching as a non-disciplinary corrective action tool to address low-level
misconduct. Low-level misconduct includes infractions such as improper attire or
appearance, and failure to properly inspect a vehicle. Most coaching referrals occur at
intake. At that point, the officer’s supervisor would investigate the alleged misconduct,
decide whether the officer violated MPD policy, and provide coaching. Fewer than one
in four OPCR complaints referred for coaching at intake actually resulted in coaching.

We found that MPD refers for coaching many allegations that are far from “low-level.”
For instance, MPD referred for coaching a 2019 complaint that alleged an officer
smacked, kicked, and used a taser on a teen accused of shoplifting. The video showed
egregious misconduct: The officer failed to de-escalate, used excessive force, called the
teen a “motherfucker,” conducted a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings,
and questioned him after he asked to speak with his mother. The complaint file does not
indicate whether the officer’s supervisor investigated the incident or coached the officer.

89 Cotten v. Miller, No. 20-1588 (JRT/JFD), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139360 at 5–6 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022).
73
MPD dismissed the case one year later with the designation “Reckoning Period
Expired.”90

In another example, MPD improperly referred an officer for coaching after he detained a
group of people at a Starbucks about a missing $5 bill. A customer told the MPD officer
that he dropped the money and an unidentified youth picked it up. The officer then
confronted a girl, who said she did not have the money and that the customer had been
sexually harassing her. The officer detained eight other people (many of them minors)
and arrested the girl, even though someone had offered to reimburse the customer. A
man used his phone to photograph the officer’s badge number, and the officer knocked
the phone to the ground, breaking it. The officer released the girl after a bystander gave
$5 to the customer. At intake, MPD referred the complaint for coaching.

There appears to be little follow-up to ensure that recommended coaching ever

happens. In one case, an investigation revealed that an MPD sergeant used her
personal cell phone to communicate with a sexual assault survivor (a policy violation)
and inadvertently sent a picture of a partially unclothed man. The survivor filed a
complaint, and the sergeant was referred for coaching. There is no indication that the
coaching occurred, and MPD dismissed the complaint four years later with a
designation of “Reckoning Period Expired.”

We also found inexplicable delays in follow-through when officers are recommended for
coaching. According to OPCR staff, the coaching process is expected to be completed
within 45 days of the referral. However, we reviewed case files where coaching
documents were not completed for up to almost two years after the OPCR complaint
was filed.

2. MPD Fails to Conduct Thorough, Timely, and Fair Misconduct

Investigations

When MPD does investigate a complaint, the investigations often skip key investigative
steps and are significantly delayed. Complaints languish for no legitimate reason,
sometimes for years. Under OPCR policy, investigators delay interviewing involved
officers, if they interview officers at all. Open investigations are abruptly closed and
dismissed with designations of “Reckoning Period Expired,” “Failure to Cooperate,” and
“No Basis.” Case files often do not contain documentation explaining the basis for these

90MPD uses the designation “Reckoning Period Expired” to dismiss complaints for dubious reasons.
Reckoning periods pertain to union grievances, which have nothing to do with complaint intake and
investigation. MPD told us that the term is sometimes mistakenly used to mean “lack of jurisdiction.” In
many cases, however, “Reckoning Period Expired” appears to be a tool to close older cases
inappropriately.
74
dismissals, which sometimes appear to reflect the length of the delay itself rather than a
decision on the merits.

Investigations of MPD officer misconduct—even serious misconduct—are inexcusably

slow. We reviewed the OPCR database to determine how long complaints opened and
placed into investigation remain open. We found significant delays:

 92.2% of cases remained unresolved at least 90 days

 87.7% of cases remained unresolved at least 120 days
 78.5% of cases remained unresolved at least 180 days
 53.1% of cases remained unresolved at least 1 year
 26.1% of cases remained unresolved at least 2 years
Lengthy delays undermine efforts to hold officers accountable for misconduct. A
commander told us that “discipline takes way too long. . . . That is a huge problem
here.” A union leader pointed out that lengthy delays in imposing discipline benefit the
officer, who can argue that the misconduct couldn’t have been that serious if the
department waited so long to act.

We found several files in which it appears there was no investigation at all. For instance,
in 2019, MPD dismissed a timely two-year-old complaint that alleged an officer used
excessive force by shoving and pepper spraying a person who was retreating. The
investigator never interviewed the complainant, witnesses, or the officer. Nevertheless,
MPD closed it as “Reckoning Period Expired”—an improper basis for dismissing a
timely complaint.

If there is an investigation, it often omits obvious and essential steps. For instance, MPD
dismissed a timely complaint that an unidentified officer used excessive force at a
barbecue. One witness saw an officer kick a compliant man in the back of the leg, drop
him to the ground, and knee the man’s spine, and saw another officer kick dirt toward
the man’s face. Another witness reported that officers kicked the man in the gut and
shoved his face in the dirt. The investigator did not interview any of the eight officers
who were at the scene. Instead, the investigator recommended dismissal because “this
case has passed the reckoning period during which any potential action could be taken
against any of the involved officers.” MPD dismissed the complaint on the merits over
two years after it was filed.

We also found investigations in which the investigator’s conclusion bore little

resemblance to what actually occurred. In 2017, an MPD officer threw an intoxicated
woman to the sidewalk for jaywalking. Video footage shows the officer after he exited
his vehicle and followed the woman down a busy sidewalk after she had crossed
75
against the light. The officer grabbed her arms from behind and stated, “Stop! You’re
under arrest.” She turned toward him and said, “Huh?” The officer replied, “You play
stupid games, you get stupid prizes,” as he pulled her arms behind her back. She said,
“What do you mean?” while turning toward him. The officer then yelled “Stop,” and
threw her down, slamming her face into the curb.

The investigator never interviewed the officer. Nevertheless, he concluded that the
woman attempted to evade the officer by “speeding up,” and resisted the officer by
saying, “No.” None of that is captured on the body-worn camera footage. MPD
dismissed the complaint and referred the officer for non-disciplinary training. In the
woman’s federal lawsuit, the court denied the officer qualified immunity. The court
concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the woman was not attempting to flee or
resisting arrest, but confused and perhaps trying to pull away from someone she
thought was attacking her from behind.91

Investigators also tend to draw inferences in favor of officers that the evidence does not
support. As discussed on page 13, two officers responded to a home security system
false alarm. While one officer went to the front door, the second officer scaled a six-foot
privacy fence and shot the resident’s two dogs. The dogs’ owner sued, and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed both the district court’s refusal to
grant qualified immunity to the officer and the district court’s denial of defendant’s
motion to dismiss plaintiff’s unlawful seizure claim. The appellate court concluded that
the video evidence was not entirely inconsistent with the complaint, which described the
first dog as walking “toward [the officer] wagging his tail in a friendly manner to greet
[him]” just before he was shot, and the second dog as presenting himself in a “non-
threatening manner.”92

The investigator saw things differently. Without interviewing the officers, the investigator
agreed with the officer’s threat assessment. The investigator wrote, “[B]oth dogs ran
towards him. The first dog growled at him. Growling is an indicator a dog may bite.” The
body-worn camera footage had no sound when the officer shot the first dog, and there
is no indication of the second dog growling. MPD referred the shooting officer for non-
disciplinary training and paid $150,000 to settle the lawsuit.

91 Gaines v. City of Minneapolis, No. 18-838, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221596, at *8 (D. Minn. Dec. 26,
2019).
92 LeMay v. Mays, 18 F.4th 283, 286 (8th Cir. 2021).

76
 3. MPD Fails to Adequately Discipline Police Misconduct

After investigation, the Joint Supervisors could dismiss complaints or approve them to
be presented to a police conduct review panel, a group of civilian and sworn panelists
who make recommendations to the Chief of Police on whether a complaint has merit.
Between 2015 and 2020, approximately 37.3% of complaints originally referred for
investigation were ultimately presented to a police conduct review panel.

Discipline for MPD officer misconduct is rare. Between 2016 and 2021, approximately
2.9% of non-duplicate OPCR complaints resulted in a letter of reprimand, suspension,
demotion, or termination. When limited to non-duplicate complaints that OPCR deemed
to state a claim within its jurisdiction, this figure is approximately 4.2%.

Even when officers admit policy violations, they may not be held accountable. For
example, someone turned in a teenager’s lost wallet at an MPD precinct front desk.
When the teen’s mother came to retrieve the wallet, it was gone. During an MPD
investigation, the desk officer admitted that he had failed to inventory and secure the
wallet. Nevertheless, MPD dismissed the complaint as “no basis,” and never presented
the investigation to a police conduct review panel. Even though MPD knew the name of
the desk sergeant, someone crossed out the name in the investigative file and replaced
it with “unknown officer.”

Official OPCR Complaint Form: “Unknown Officer”

Our review also showed inconsistent practices with respect to review panel referrals. In
some instances, MPD refers only a portion of allegations in a complaint, and frequently
without explanation. MPD advised at least one complainant that a review panel found
no merit to her complaint, but there is no record in the case file that a panel review ever
occurred.

OPCR also does not ensure that panelists collectively review and follow all instructions
when deliberating. For example, panelists are instructed during their training that they
must consider only evidence contained in the investigative file, and may not base
conclusions on information regarding the matter or the persons involved if that
77
information is not part of the investigative file. Nevertheless, civilian panelists told us
that during deliberations, MPD sworn panelists sometimes provide character
evaluations of the subject officer, describe the physical location of the event, explain
MPD policies at issue, and provide insight on the law enforcement response. This
structure provides sworn panelists considerable opportunity to influence a panel’s merit
or no-merit recommendation.

If the Chief of Police does issue discipline, the discipline may be reversed. Post-
discipline arbitration often overturns discipline determinations. As discussed on page
46, in 2019, the former chief terminated two officers for racially derogatory and offensive
decoration of a Christmas tree in the Fourth Precinct. In October 2020, the arbitrator
vacated one officer’s termination, and imposed a 320-hour unpaid suspension. The
other officer settled with a medical retirement after filing his grievance.

Case Study: Eleven-Count Indictment

MPD allowed an officer to remain on active-duty status for two years after
it learned that he was conducting potentially illegal searches and seizures.
In October 2017, the officer pulled a suspected hit-and-run driver out of
her vehicle, then improperly searched the vehicle, including opening and
reading letters he took from the glovebox and center console. In
November 2018, MPD found the officer was “overly aggressive and very
disrespectful,” conducted an improper search, and failed to document the
search.
MPD let the officer continue working, and he continued his unlawful
behavior. He accumulated ten complaints over two years, including
allegations of harassment, unlawful arrest, unlawful search and seizure,
and excessive force. For example, in July 2019, the officer removed a man
and his 5-year-old daughter from their vehicle and unlawfully searched it
in a store parking lot.
MPD did not suspend the officer until October 2019. The lack of timely
adjudication of the 2017 misconduct case permitted the officer to engage
in a continuing pattern of constitutional violations resulting in the officer
ultimately being charged in a November 2020 11-count federal
indictment. In November 2021, the officer was convicted in federal court
of abusing his position from September 2017 through October 2019 to
obtain controlled substances for his own use by deception and
conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures.

78
 * * *

MPD’s failure to investigate and address officer misconduct has taken a toll on
community trust. People in Minneapolis have reason to question whether making a
complaint to MPD was worth the trouble. Our investigation found that all too often it
wasn’t.

B. MPD’s Training Does Not Ensure Effective, Constitutional Policing

Our investigation uncovered systemic deficiencies in MPD’s training programs that

contribute to the pattern or practice of violations we found. We identified a wide range of
problems across MPD’s recruit, in-service, and field training programs, including the
qualifications of instructors, poor training materials, and chronic understaffing at the
Training Division. These problems have plagued MPD for several years, resulting in
deficient and inadequate training. For example, officers and supervisors alike told us
that they were confused after MPD changed its use of force policy.

We found numerous problems with the way MPD delivers training to officers. Instructors
do not have formal training certifications, and MPD has not established criteria for
selecting instructors or implemented mechanisms to evaluate how well instructors are
performing. We found that many members in the Training Division lacked an
understanding of best training practices and did not have strong training skills. Training
materials generally failed to succinctly identify learning objectives and state what
performance criteria would be used, making it difficult to assess what skills were taught
and what students learned. City and MPD leaders were candid in their assessment of
MPD’s training programs, saying, “[W]e have had a lot of problems.”

Our review of MPD’s training also revealed an overreliance on using force during
encounters. We found that MPD staff favored training on defensive tactics over training
on de-escalation options. We also found that MPD provided insufficient opportunities for
scenario-based training so officers could practice de-escalating stressful encounters
and avoiding the need to use force.

We paid particular attention to MPD’s field training program. A new officer’s first few
months in the field are where they learn agency culture. A top City official told us, “[I]f
the first thing an officer hears on the street is ‘forget what you just learned, I’ll tell you
how to be a cop,’ . . . that screws up everything we just did.”

When MPD recruits graduate from the Academy, they enter five months of field training
where they are paired with a Field Training Officer (FTO). The FTO should regularly
evaluate the new officer. And MPD should regularly evaluate the performance of the

79
FTO. FTOs must model MPD values and ethical conduct, and officers with poor skills or
poor disciplinary histories should not serve as FTOs. Allowing unsuitable officers to
serve as FTOs risks spreading bad tactics and bad attitudes throughout the agency.

MPD officers and training staff expressed a wide variety of concerns about the FTO
program. An FTO told us that MPD was using inexperienced FTOs, and “somebody
who only has one to two years on the job” should not be an FTO. There is a “lack of
consistency between FTOs.” One FTO wrote that the biggest challenge of being an
FTO is “watch[ing] other FTOs, who suck at their job, train a recruit, who now will
pass . . . and suck at their job.”

We are aware of officers serving as FTOs even while under investigation for serious
misconduct. For example, one officer served as an FTO following a 2016 incident in
which he punched a handcuffed man in the face multiple times. While the incident was
being investigated, he told us, he was initially suspended without pay, then brought
back, first to “limited duty” then to patrol, where he served as an FTO. The officer was
later fired, but the termination was overturned after appeal.

We also found incidents where FTOs violated a person’s rights while training a new
officer. In an October 2017 incident, an FTO and recruit were transporting a 15-year-old
teen to a detention center, and the FTO told the teen to remove his shoes so the recruit
could search them. The FTO then told the recruit not to return the shoes to make it
more difficult for the teen to leave the detention center—an unlawful seizure with no
legitimate law enforcement purpose. In a separate incident in 2020, an FTO used a
taser to drive stun a man eight times in 30 seconds, not assessing the need for force
between each drive stun. See pages 17 and 28. Ensuring that FTOs teach right from
wrong is essential to ensuring that recruits abide by the policies and values of MPD.

C. MPD Does Not Adequately Supervise Officers

Robust supervision of officers is essential to safe and effective policing. Sergeants—the

first-line supervisors in a police agency—play a crucial role. Sergeants serve as
mentors, respond in the field to uses of force, and ensure officers comply with the law
and policy. Sergeants often set the tone at the precinct level. They brief officers daily,
conveying organizational changes, enforcement priorities, and community concerns in
their precincts. Supervisors at all levels have a role in enforcing policies and upholding
standards among their subordinates; supervisors who fail to do so should be held
accountable for misconduct and performance deficiencies.

Supervision at MPD is inadequate for several reasons. First, MPD inadequately trains
its supervisors. MPD supervisors, in turn, struggle to understand policy and effectively

80
communicate changes to officers. Second, MPD does not empower supervisors with
tools and data that could reveal problems needing prompt corrective action.
Accordingly, supervisors do not perform tasks that other agencies commonly require to
improve officer performance. Third, staffing practices at MPD inhibit good supervision.
MPD’s scheduling system prevents officers from having a consistent supervisor, and its
secondary employment (or “off-duty” employment) system undermines supervisory
authority.

1. MPD Does Not Prepare Officers to Be Effective Supervisors

MPD does not train supervisors effectively to guide and supervise officers. MPD does
not provide adequate specialized police training in how to review a force incident.
Several sergeants confirmed to us that they did not receive specialized supervisory
training in force review. We heard from a supervisor who felt MPD’s training for
supervisors did not prepare them to review a force incident or a critical incident. Instead,
MPD leaves sergeants to learn on the street how to assess whether force complies with
policy.

MPD also does not support supervisors in preparing officers to understand changes in
MPD policy. Clear policies that are consistently enforced ensure good order. But MPD
policies often confuse officers. They are cumbersome and difficult to navigate.
Sometimes, MPD issues new policies and delays training officers on them, leaving it to
supervisors to explain the policies to officers. That process often fails in practice. As one
MPD commander explained, it is insufficient “to just send an email with a 60-plus page
document and expect people to understand it.”

2. MPD Does Not Provide Supervisors with the Tools and Data to Prevent,
Detect, and Correct Problematic Officer Behavior

Functional police agencies require that first-line supervisors stay informed about the
activities of officers and review their reports to ensure compliance with policy and the
law. Prompt, accurate reporting of officer activity facilitates effective supervision. Well-
run agencies also require sergeants to review reports on stops, searches, and arrests,
and to actively supervise officers to guide their enforcement efforts in the field.

However, MPD does not require officers to file a police report for all stops or searches.
For many stops, instead of filling out a police report, officers use a CAD form, which
lacks useful detail. And an officer need not record the fact or nature of some encounters
with the public at all. MPD gives sergeants no specifically expressed role in reviewing
investigatory stops or traffic stops unless there is a use of force. Without clear,
complete, consistent documentation, supervisors cannot meaningfully review police

81
actions. The result is that supervisors cannot identify and address trends or problematic
conduct, such as unlawful or improper stops, racial profiling, harassment, theft, and
sexual misconduct.

MPD can and should collect and use this data consistently for organizational
improvement. Data analysis can, for example, help decisionmakers assess whether
enforcement strategies are reducing crime, improving public safety, or disparately
impacting specific groups. MPD could use search-related data to determine how often a
search leads to guns or other contraband. If certain types of searches frequently find
nothing criminal, MPD could explore whether to train officers to use different indicia of
probable cause to justify a search. But MPD cannot learn in this way when officers are
not required to complete police reports for searches unless they result in an arrest.
MPD’s failure to collect and use data about meaningful police activity seriously impedes
effective supervision and prevents MPD from operating as a learning organization.

MPD also underuses body-worn cameras (BWCs) to improve performance. BWCs are a
vital supervisory tool. BWC footage may reveal problems that would otherwise go
undetected, such as dangerous tactics, policy violations (including failure to activate the
BWC), ineffective de-escalation, or mistreatment of community members. Supervisors
should routinely check BWC footage of officers they supervise. But MPD does not
require patrol supervisors to review BWC footage other than in connection with use of
force reports. Instead, a two-person group of analysts conducts random audits of BWC
footage for the entire department. 93

MPD also lacks a functional Early Intervention System (EIS). EIS is a data-based
supervision tool to identify as soon as possible those officers who may benefit from
supervisory counseling. Once an officer has tripped certain objective indicators, such as
a number of complaints or force incidents, an effective EIS should flag the officer so the
supervisor can intervene to help the officer. In October 2021, the City received a
$500,000 grant to begin developing an EIS, but work was stalled until recently.

3. MPD’s Staffing Practices Further Undermine Supervision

Effective supervision requires “unity of command,” meaning that the same sergeant
consistently supervises the same officers. Unity of command enables sergeants to
develop deeper relationships with the officers under their commands. That familiarity

93 MPD recently began a pilot to require sergeants to check in with officers monthly and view at least
three of the officer’s videos. This is a positive step.
82
allows sergeants to more effectively supervise officers. Officers, in turn, can perform
better when subject to consistent management styles and expectations.

MPD’s staffing practices undermine effective supervision. MPD allows officers to select
their work schedules even if it results in a disunity of command. Every four weeks, MPD
officers choose the days and shifts they prefer to work. Because officer preferences can
vary, officers do not have an assigned sergeant. As one high-ranking supervisor put it,
this system is akin to “tak[ing] a bunch of names and throw[ing] them into the air, and
whatever it lands, that’s who the supervisor is and where they are working.” MPD’s
scheduling approach inhibits sergeants from developing mentoring relationships with
officers and makes it more difficult for sergeants to address officer problems.

Off-duty employment also undermines supervision at MPD. Private entities can hire off-
duty MPD officers to provide security. In Minneapolis, these jobs can pay significantly
more than overtime at MPD—up to $150–175 per hour, according to a commander.
MPD allows officers to use its squad cars (and gas), and the officer keeps all the
compensation. The City gets nothing. Some patrol officers manage these opportunities,
deciding who gets the lucrative work. Because MPD allows patrol officers to control
whether supervisors get off-duty employment opportunities, supervisors have ample
disincentive to hold officers accountable. MPD’s off-duty employment practices impede
effective supervision.

D. MPD Wellness Programs Insufficiently Support Officers

Policing, by its nature, can take a toll on the psychological and emotional health of
officers. Officers encounter stressful situations, see people in their worst moments, and
witness tragic events, including deaths. At times, they face long hours and uncertain
conditions. And officers face public criticism about the profession and scrutiny around
how they do their jobs. As one MPD sergeant told us, “If officers are sick, community
members will suffer.” Without appropriate support, these factors can affect behavior,
influence decision-making and judgment, and lead to stress and burnout, resulting in
officers having a diminished ability to serve the community in the way it deserves. 94 We
heard from some officers that they felt inadequately supported.

The importance of practices and programs to support officer resilience and help officers
cope with challenging situations has long been recognized. However, resources for

94 Deborah L. Spence, Melissa Fox, Gilbert C. Moore, Sarah Estill, and Nazmia E.A.

Comrie, Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act: Report to Congress, U.S.
Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services, March 2019,
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p370-pub.pdf [https://perma.cc/P7EW-NPR2].
83
officer wellness have not been sufficiently prioritized at MPD. MPD leaders almost
universally recognized the need to better prioritize the health and wellness of officers,
but they told us the resources currently available to MPD officers—including a peer-to-
peer program and a counselor support program accessible through a mobile
application—were inadequate.

Failing to provide adequate officer support has real consequences. Just before George
Floyd’s murder, only 2.1% of sworn employees were on continuous leave. By the end of
2020, that number had grown to 18.6%. Similarly, the City paid out huge sums for MPD
workers compensation claims for post-traumatic stress disorder. For injuries claimed in
2020 alone, for example, the City paid over $27 million. Officers need support, and
failing to provide it carries enormous psychological, physical, professional, and financial
costs.

MPD has taken initial steps to better address this issue. As of May 2023, MPD reported
that it had developed a wellness program and a partnership with an external provider of
certain psychological and other wellness-related services, in addition to its “Peer
Support” network, wellness app, and various debriefings after a traumatic event. It
remains unclear, however, to what extent those services are helping officers and
affecting the conduct we observed during our investigation. Given the considerable
challenges of the last several years in the Minneapolis community—from the COVID-19
pandemic to the widespread trauma and unrest following George Floyd’s tragic
murder—providing officers with emotional and psychological support is important to
ensure that officer stress and fatigue do not contribute to constitutional violations.

84
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL MEASURES
We commend the City and MPD for beginning the hard work ahead necessary to make
improvements. The remedial measures we recommend below provide a foundation for
changes that the City and MPD must make to improve public safety, build the trust of
the Minneapolis community, and comply with the Constitution and federal law.

Use of Force
1. Improve Use of Force Policies, Reporting, and Review Procedures to
Minimize the Use of Force. Revise force policies to emphasize avoiding force
and increasing de-escalation and require officers to consider less-intrusive
alternatives before employing force. Implement force reporting and review
systems to ensure that officers report all uses of force and that MPD conducts
timely, thorough force reviews. Ensure that supervisors’ performance reviews
evaluate the quality of their force reviews.
2. Improve Use of Force Training. Provide clear guidance to officers about when
it is appropriate to use different force options, including scenario-based training
and testing that reinforces these concepts. Stress the importance of the duty to
intervene to prevent force and the duty to render medical aid.
3. Enhance Force-Related Accountability Mechanisms. Require supervisors to
conduct use of force supervisory reviews and identify violations of policy or law.
Ensure that supervisors promptly refer evidence indicating misconduct or criminal
conduct to the appropriate investigative unit or agency. Take appropriate
corrective or disciplinary action when officers violate force policies.
4. Improve Data Collection and Assessment of Force. Assess data to identify
trends and develop policies, training, and recommendations to reduce the use of
force. Ensure that supervisors and command can effectively review force data.
5. Develop Force Policies Appropriate for Youth and People with Behavioral
Health Needs. Recognize the unique characteristics of youth and people who
have behavioral health needs. Develop policies addressing those characteristics.
Identifying and Reducing Racial Disparities

6. Improve Documentation of Police Activity. Ensure public safety data

collection allows for analysis of racial disparities, including for stops, searches,
search warrant applications, warrant executions, citations, arrests, force, and
investigative activities. Ensure data captures the basis for enforcement action,
including reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause for stops and
searches, the basis for consent searches, and the results of each search.
Differentiate between traffic and pedestrian stops.

85
 7. Analyze Data from Enforcement Activity. Develop capacity to analyze data
about racial disparities in enforcement activities overall, and to assess the impact
of any specialized units, initiatives, or programs.
8. Reduce Unjustified Disparities. Where unjustified racial disparities exist, take
steps to reduce or eliminate them within MPD.
Protecting First Amendment Rights

9. Improve Policies and Training Related to Protests and Demonstrations.

Revise policies on responding to civil disturbances and disorderly conduct to
improve planning for protests; emphasize First Amendment freedoms; protect the
right to gather and report the news; limit the use of less-lethal weapons; and
provide daily after-action reports about force, officer wellness, and effectiveness.
Training should address the challenges of protecting public safety and First
Amendment rights during demonstrations critical of law enforcement.
10. Improve Accountability for First Amendment Violations. Ensure that force
reviews and reviews of misconduct complaints assess whether an officer’s
conduct violated the First Amendment. Develop an after-action review process
following protests to evaluate the performance of officers and commanders.
Responding to People with Behavioral Health Issues

11. Expand BCR’s Capacity, Training, and Coordination. BCR should become a
permanent 24/7 program with appropriate capacity, clinical oversight,
comprehensive training, and continuous quality improvement processes,
including enhanced data-collection and reporting capabilities. BCR should
develop relationships with COPE and other mental health services to better serve
individuals experiencing behavioral health issues, and BCR should cross-train
with MECC, MPD, EMS, and Fire.
12. Ensure MECC is Dispatching Appropriate Responder(s). MECC should work
closely with BCR, MPD, Fire, and EMS to update protocols for calls for service
involving behavioral health issues. MECC must also coordinate with first
responders, as well as City and Hennepin County entities, around the recent
launch of the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Prioritize MECC staffing issues,
training on calls involving behavioral health, and quality assurance processes to
assess call-taking, dispatches, and responses to such calls.
13. Develop and Implement Appropriate Policies and Training Relating to
Behavioral Health and Assess Their Impact. Provide clinically informed
training including community perspectives for MPD officers and supervisors.
Develop policies and trainings specific to youth experiencing behavioral health
issues. Ensure trainings address coordinating responses with other key actors
(EMS, BCR, and COPE), avoid topics such as “excited delirium,” and ensure
86
 oversight of such training material and presentations. Implement after-action
reviews of calls involving behavioral health issues, including debriefings for
system and officer improvement.
Accountability

14. Identify, Address, and Document All Allegations Raised in Misconduct

Complaints. Ensure all allegations of misconduct are comprehensively reviewed
and resolved with appropriate documentation explaining decision-making. Hold
supervisors accountable for failing to report or address misconduct.
15. Require Officers to Report Misconduct. Where officers do not report known
misconduct, ensure they are held accountable. Ensure protections against
retaliation for officers who report the misconduct of other officers.
16. Facilitate Civilians’ Access to the Complaint Process. Ensure that when any
officer encounters a person who wants to make a complaint, the officer puts the
person in contact with a supervisor, internal affairs, OPCR or otherwise enables
them to complain through appropriate means. Provide training to all officers on
the appropriate procedures and on reasons for facilitating civilian complaints.
17. Improve Civilian Complaint Investigations. Ensure that when people make an
allegation of MPD misconduct to any member of OPCR, MPD, or a City
employee, the allegation is documented and reviewed, the allegation is fully
investigated consistent with the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances § 172.30
(amended 12/14/2022) and state law, and the complainant is kept up to date on
the complaint status. Train OPCR and MPD internal affairs investigators on
investigative practices and the particular challenges of police investigations.
18. Fully Staff OPCR and MPD Internal Affairs Units. Ensure that OPCR and MPD
internal affairs units are fully staffed with enough qualified, well-trained
investigators to complete all investigations in a timely and consistent manner.
Ensure that investigations are thorough, interviews are conducted appropriately,
all evidence is appropriately weighed, and sound determinations of credibility of
witnesses are made where there is conflicting evidence.
19. Improve the Review Process for OPCR and MPD Internal Affairs
Investigations. Streamline the review process for administrative investigations
to facilitate their timely resolution. Establish time limits for each stage of review,
set firm expectations to ensure the process moves forward expeditiously, and
document all decisions.
20. Improve Quality of Data and Civilian Oversight. Cooperate with the
Community Commission on Police Oversight to promote robust and even-handed
civilian oversight. Prioritize transparency in its internal affairs practices, including
reporting to the public about the nature of complaints received, misconduct

87
 findings made, and discipline imposed. Ensure IA and OPCR cases can be easily
linked with police files.
Transparency

21. Ensure Accuracy of Public Statements. Ensure City and MPD leaders provide
timely, accurate information about public safety, including after critical incidents.
Supervision

22. Require Consistent Activation, De-Activation, and Review of Body-Worn

Cameras. Require officers to consistently activate body-worn cameras to
document interactions with the public. Require supervisors to review footage to
monitor officer performance and ensure compliance with MPD policies.
23. Require Review of All Stops. Require supervisory review of the reasonable
articulable suspicion for any stops and frisks, the probable cause of any
searches, and the basis for any consent searches. Require periodic analysis of
the efficacy of certain practices where officers have more discretion, such as
pretext stops or consent searches.
24. Revise Staffing Practices. Ensure that staffing practices achieve unity of
command and that off-duty employment policies are consistent with officer
wellness and effective supervision. Train supervisors to improve force incident
review and to better communicate policy changes to officers.
Training

25. Improve Training Department-Wide. Use qualified instructors, best practices in

adult learning, and outside experts and community-based instructors. Involve
training officials in after-action evaluations of force incidents.
26. Improve Training for Supervisors. Train supervisors to promote effective and
constitutional police practices by leading subordinates, monitoring and assessing
their performance, evaluating written reports, investigating uses of force, building
community partnerships, and de-escalating conflicts.
27. Reform the Field Training Officer Program. Improve standards for training and
selection of field training officers so that they will consistently model and support
MPD values and standards. Standardize the Field Training Officer program to
ensure all officers and recruits are evaluated consistently and fairly.
Wellness
28. Ensure Effectiveness of Health and Wellness Programs. Ensure that officers
are accessing effective support services and develop a comprehensive Early
Intervention System to establish support for officers who need it.

88
CONCLUSION
The Department of Justice has reasonable cause to believe that MPD and the City
engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the
Constitution and federal law. MPD uses unreasonable force, infringes on First
Amendment rights, and discriminates based on race and disability. MPD also lacks the
systemic safeguards that can prevent or address those abuses, such as effective
accountability, rigorous training, robust supervision, and appropriate officer support.

City and MPD leadership have been forthcoming about the need for reform. We
recognize that they have negotiated a proposed Settlement Agreement and Order with
MDHR that includes comprehensive reforms. We hope the remedial measures we
propose will be the foundation for a productive conversation with the City and the
Minneapolis community about the future of public safety.

89