Federal Judge Lifts Oakland Police Department’s Consent Decree 

On Tuesday, a federal judge lifted a consent decree on the Oakland Police Department that had been in place for 23 years. 

AP reports that the consent decree was originally issued in 2003. The OPD made headlines in 2000 after a rookie officer spoke out against a group of officers called the Oakland “riders.” The riders were found to have conducted false arrests, planted evidence, and regularly used excessive force while policing the predominantly Black area of West Oakland. 

Three of the riders faced trial, but juries deadlocked, and they were found not guilty. A fourth officer is currently a fugitive, and it’s believed he fled the country. While none of the officers were meaningfully held accountable, the department was placed under federal oversight in 2003 as a result of the case. That same year, the city settled a class-action police abuse lawsuit involving 119 people for $11 million.

In May, San Francisco judge William Orrick signaled he was open to lifting the consent decree after a federal monitor found the department had complied with the 51 mandatory reforms issued in the decree. 

“This is the first time in 23 years that OPD has achieved each of the 51 tasks in the (settlement agreement). No one can say, ‘mission accomplished.’ But I do congratulate the city and OPD for getting this far,” Orrick said during a hearing in May.

“I’m particularly grateful to the men and women of the Oakland Police Department … for achieving substantial compliance,” Orrick said during the hearing on Tuesday. “May it ever be thus.”

A judge removing the consent decree should mean the Oakland Police Department has made sustained, positive changes to its conduct, right? Well, not exactly. The department has seen frequent leadership turnover driven by controversy. 

Former police chief LeRonne Armstrong was fired in 2023 after a probe found he was covering up officer misconduct. It’s hard to believe the department has achieved “substantial compliance” when evidence shows it engaged in wrongdoing as recently as three years ago. 

Additionally, several civil rights groups asked Orrick to delay lifting the consent decree after court-appointed monitor Robert S. Warshaw said this month that the department has fallen behind on completing 85% of its serious misconduct investigations within 180 days.

Orrick heard those concerns but said it was important for the court to “get out of the way.” Get out of the way of what? Allowing cops to engage in misconduct without oversight or consequences? 

Some locals have called for strengthening civilian oversight of the police department through the Oakland Police Commission, established by voters in 2016. “We need more independent oversight, more transparency, and more accountability, not less,” Cat Brooks, executive director of the Anti Police-Terror Project, told AP. 

For their part, Oakland police officers have been celebrating the lifted consent decree. “The next chapter for the City and OPD must be about recruiting officers, rebuilding staffing levels and giving the men and women of OPD the resources they need to keep Oakland safe,” said Cesar Leyva, interim president of the Oakland Police Officers Association.

Honestly, this would be good news if we had several examples of the OPD really cleaning up its act and becoming a police force the people of Oakland can trust. As it stands, it just feels like they got better at sweeping misconduct under the rug. 

SEE ALSO:

Wisconsin High School Students Stage Walkout In Support Of Nolan Wells

Department Of Education Strips Title IX Protections From LGBTQ+ Students