FERGUSON, Mo.
(AP) -- The federal government sued Ferguson on Wednesday, one
day after the city council voted to revise an agreement aimed at
improving the way police and courts treat poor people and minorities in
the St. Louis suburb.
Attorney General Loretta
Lynch said Ferguson's decision to reject the deal left the department
no choice except to file a civil-rights lawsuit.
"The
residents of Ferguson have waited nearly a year for the city to adopt
an agreement that would protect their rights and keep them safe. ...
They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait
any longer," Lynch told a Washington news conference.
The
Justice Department complaint accuses Ferguson of routinely violating
residents' rights and misusing law enforcement to generate revenue - a
practice the government alleged was "ongoing and pervasive."
Ferguson leaders "had a real opportunity here to step forward, and they've chosen to step backward," Lynch said.
Ferguson spokesman Jeff Small declined to comment. Messages left with Mayor James Knowles III were not returned.
Ferguson
has been under Justice Department scrutiny since 18-year-old Michael
Brown, who was black and unarmed, was fatally shot by white officer
Darren Wilson 18 months ago. A grand jury and the Justice Department
declined to prosecute Wilson, who resigned in November 2014.
But
a scathing Justice Department report was critical of police and a
profit-driven municipal court system. Following months of negotiations,
an agreement between the federal agency and Ferguson was announced in
January.
A recent financial analysis
determined the agreement would cost the struggling city nearly $4
million in the first year alone. The council voted 6-0 Tuesday to adopt
the deal, but with seven amendments.
Hours
before the lawsuit was announced, Ferguson leaders said they were
willing to sit down with Justice Department negotiators to draw up a new
agreement.
"We ask that if they (the Justice
Department) feel there needs to be some additional changes to the
agreement, we sit down and talk," Knowles said.
That
seemed unlikely from the outset. Within hours of the Tuesday vote,
Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division,
said in a statement that the department would take "the necessary legal
actions" to ensure Ferguson's police and court practices comply with the
Constitution and federal laws.
Knowles said
the seven amendments were formulated after the analysis showed the deal
was so expensive it could lead to dissolution of Ferguson. The analysis
suggested that the first-year cost of the agreement would be $2.2
million to $3.7 million, with second- and third-year costs between $1.8
million and $3 million in each year.
Ferguson
has an operating budget of $14.5 million and already faces a $2.8
million deficit. Voters will be asked to approve two tax hikes in April,
but approval of both would still leave the city short.
A
big part of the cost was the requirement that Ferguson raise police
salaries to attract better candidates, including more minority officers.
Removal of the pay-raise clause was among the seven amendments.
Another
new provision states that the agreement will not apply to any other
governmental entity that might take over duties currently provided by
Ferguson. That means, for example, that St. Louis County would not be
beholden to the agreement if it takes over policing in Ferguson.
St.
Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said if the county were
ever asked to take over policing in Ferguson, "we would consider the
implications of the consent decree before entering into such an
agreement."
Knowles doesn't believe
neighboring municipal departments would agree to cover Ferguson under
the Justice Department's requirements.
Defiance has often defined Ferguson in the 18 months since Brown's death.
Days
after Brown's death, then-Police Chief Tom Jackson released
surveillance video showing Brown's involvement in a theft at a small
grocery store just moments before the shooting, with the burly teenager
pushing the store owner. The video's release only heightened anger among
protesters.
Knowles has vigorously defended
Ferguson. Even as protesters and civil rights leaders called for
reforms, the mayor noted that Ferguson was already making changes to
municipal courts aimed at easing the burden on people accused of minor
violations. In fact, city revenue from court fees and fines has declined
by hundreds of thousands of dollars since the shooting.
It's
not uncommon for local governments to seek changes to agreements even
after negotiations, but the overwhelming majority of investigations
still end up in a settlement.
Samuel
Bagenstos, the former No. 2 official at the Justice Department's Civil
Rights Division, warned that the federal agency "is serious about
bringing a lawsuit if they don't get a deal."
"If
Ferguson insists on making significant changes to the deal they've
already worked out, that's probably not going to work out well for
them," said Bagenstos, now a law professor at the University of
Michigan. "And I think at the end of the day, Ferguson understands that,
and we'll probably see a deal pretty soon."
The
Justice Department has initiated more than 20 civil rights
investigations into law enforcement agencies in the last six years,
including in Baltimore and Chicago. In the last 18 months, the
department has reached settlements with police departments that included
Cleveland and Albuquerque.
There have been occasional disagreements.
In
2012, the Justice Department sued Maricopa County, Arizona, after
failing to reach agreement on allegations that the sheriff's office
targeted Latinos with discriminatory stops and arrests. County officials
voted in July to settle parts of that lawsuit.
The
federal government also sued North Carolina's Alamance County following
an investigation that alleged biased policing practices against Latinos
there. But a federal judge last August ruled in the county's favor,
saying the Justice Department failed to prove the sheriff ordered
deputies to target Hispanic residents. That case is on appeal.
