of Baltimore City and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for declaratory andinjunctive relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, TitleVI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In 2017, parties hadentered into a consent decree. Given that the consent decree has been in place for fiveyears and has not been terminated, the court opined that it was ripe to consider theconsent decree Monitor’s reappointment. The court ordered the Monitor and themonitoring team to be reappointed for a period of two years or until the termination ofthe consent decree, whichever first occurs. Id. at *6-7. First, the court held that that themonitoring team continued to effectively engage the community, despite challenges ofworking in a marginalized community. Second, the court held that the Monitor and themonitoring 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 ofexpeditious achievement of consent decree benchmarks. Third, the court held that thetechnical assistance provided to date has been of immense value to the police reforminitiative in Baltimore. Id. at *6-7.III.Key Settlements In Government Enforcement Litigation170© Duane Morris LLP 2023Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
11
42
55
67
86
98
114
129
144
173
189
209
219
238
244
258
282
293
303
314
330
354
371
381
386
391
422
