Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 171
of Baltimore City and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title
VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In 2017, parties had
entered into a consent decree. Given that the consent decree has been in place for five
years and has not been terminated, the court opined that it was ripe to consider the
consent decree Monitor’s reappointment. The court ordered the Monitor and the
monitoring team to be reappointed for a period of two years or until the termination of
the consent decree, whichever first occurs. Id. at *6-7. First, the court held that that the
monitoring team continued to effectively engage the community, despite challenges of
working in a marginalized community. Second, the court held that the Monitor and the
monitoring team were conducting their work in a cost-effective manner. Id. at *6.
However, the court cautioned that lean staffing should not come at the expense of
expeditious achievement of consent decree benchmarks. Third, the court held that the
technical assistance provided to date has been of immense value to the police reform
initiative in Baltimore. Id. at *6-7.
III.
Key Settlements In Government Enforcement Litigation
170
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
