In what can only be described as scandalous, a new analysis of the DOJ Summary alleging Civil Rights Violations by the Phoenix Police Department appears to be fraudulent. In the 36 cases examined by researchers, they found that all 36 were inaccurate and misrepresented the facts of each case.
The analysis was enabled, when the Phoenix Police Department released details on each of the incidents mentioned in the DOJ Summary Report. In what can only be described as unprecedented transparency, the agency located the specific incidents mentioned by the DOJ and placed all documents including videos on a public website.
For three decades, the DOJ Civil Rights Division has been conducting “pattern or practice” investigations on local law enforcement, which typically leads to a consent decree. One of the researchers in this study, Dr. Travis Yates, tells us that a huge concern throughout this time is the failure of the DOJ to be transparent in which incidents they are discussing, with the summary reports typically being vague in nature.
READ THE REPORT
The decision by the Phoenix Police Department to not only identify those incidents but publish them, changed those dynamics, according to Yates.
“For the first time, we were able to compare the actual incidents used by the DOJ with the full details of the incidents,” according to Yates.
Yates calls what he found “a bombshell.”
“Frankly, I was shocked at the mischaracterization of these cases and it makes me wonder how long this has been going on in regard to these investigations,” Yates said.
Yates tells us that the analysis of the report continues and that the troubling pattern, found in the first 36 cases, appears to be continuing throughout the document.
Yates said that he wasn’t sure what the research would reveal but he did not anticipate what he found saying that “the public has certainly been told a story that does not appear to be close to accurate.”
Yates recommends that any community facing any type of investigation, from any entity, demand full transparency in the future.
“Law enforcement should certainly embrace transparency as that is the key to accountability but those accusing law enforcement of wrongdoing should certainly be held to that same standard,” Yates said.
You can read the preliminary report here and watch the breakdown of Case #33 below.
