Discrimination Hotline 1-833-454-0148
A court enforceable agreement is a legal agreement that is submitted to the court after the parties have reached a settlement. Once approved by the court, the agreement is binding and enforceable on all parties through ongoing oversight by the court.
Court enforceable agreements are also often referred to as court enforceable settlement agreements, consent orders, or consent decrees.
Under the Walz-Flanagan administration, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has entered into several consent decrees.
The U.S. Department of Justice and other state government enforcement entities have similarly entered into court enforceable agreements with cities across the country to address unlawful policing and to provide a roadmap for change.
This is the first time a court will require the City to make transformational changes through a court enforceable agreement. This means that it is only the court who can and will end this agreement only after the City reaches full, effective, and sustained compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Unlike any previous effort to improve public safety in Minneapolis, and with the goal of providing support so that Minneapolis is successful with this work, this agreement also incorporates independent oversight through an independent evaluation team who will support the City and MPD, monitor their progress, and provide regular, public reports.
Since launching the investigation in June 2020, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has prioritized hearing from community members and police officers. That’s why during the investigation the Minnesota Department of Human Rights interviewed and reviewed statements from 2,200 community members and participated in ride-alongs in every precinct with MPD officers and interviewed officers.
This commitment was also carried through in developing the court enforceable agreement.
The agreement contains many provisions that are based on what Minneapolis community members and MPD officers shared during extensive engagement conducted by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights during the summer of 2022.
Learn more about what community members and police officers shared during the engagement:
The court enforceable agreement mandates the City and MPD to make transformational changes that together recognize the humanity and civil rights of community members, address race-based policing, and strengthen public safety.
The court enforceable agreement especially prioritizes organizational culture change to improve public safety by requiring the City and/or MPD to provide training, engagement, accountability, and data collection for all policy changes.
Read what’s in the agreement here.
Hennepin County District Court Judge Karen Janisch will enforce the court enforceable agreement.
The agreement can only be terminated by the Court when the City and MPD have reached full, effective, and sustained compliance with the terms in the agreement.
Judge Janisch can utilize public reports from Effective Law Enforcement for All, the monitoring team, to help determine how the City and MPD are doing towards reaching full, effective, and sustained compliance of the court enforceable agreement.
Effective Law Enforcement for All is the independent team that will monitor the City and MPD's progress, engage with community members and police officers, and provide regular, public reports.
Court documents related to this case can be found through Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO) by following these steps:
On June 16, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) and the City of Minneapolis (City) are in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights found the City of Minneapolis (City) and Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) engage in a pattern or practice of race discrimination that violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
These violations include the following:
This pattern or practice of discriminatory, race-based policing is caused primarily by an organizational culture where:
Read the complete findings here.
The team of investigators conducted a comprehensive investigation that looked at the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department from 2010 to 2020. The comprehensive investigation, includes:
With respect to MDHR’s Findings about MPD’s covert social media use, when MDHR described MPD as “surveilling” individuals and groups through social media, MDHR did not use that term to indicate “hacking into” accounts or private messaging systems or “wiretapping” those individuals or groups. What was meant by “surveillance” was that MPD officers used covert social media accounts to “follow” and “engage with” individuals and groups through their social media accounts. It is common practice for law enforcement agencies to “follow” and “engage with” individuals and groups through their social media accounts to establish a credible undercover social media profile.
All public information is posted on our website, and includes:
This case is not considered closed under Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 6, until after the Court determines that the City and MPD have achieved sustained, full and effective compliance; the agreement is terminated; and the time for any appeal of the Court’s determination has expired.
After the case is closed, you may submit a data request to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. We will review your request and will share any data that we can produce to you at the time, consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
This investigation only focused on the Minneapolis Police Department. If you believe you have been discriminated against, report discrimination online here.
