Consent Decree
The Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has been under a Consent Decree since 2015. Following a 21-month long investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the CDP engaged in excessive use of force. The DOJ concluded that the alleged pattern and practice of excessive force was related to structural and operational issues within the Division, and potentially violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
The City of Cleveland and DOJ entered into the Consent Decree to repair community trust and protect the constitutional rights of the people of Cleveland by identifying problems within the CDP and by creating and implementing policies and practices to correct these problems. The Consent Decree identifies multiple problem areas for which the CDP is required to make policy changes, implement new training, or restructure Division practices. These areas include: (1) Community Engagement, (2) Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, (3) Bias-Free Policing, (4) Use of Force, (5) Crisis Intervention, (6) Search & Seizure, (7) Accountability, Transparency, & Oversight, and (8) Officer Assistance, Support, and Supervision.
Cleveland's Filing to Terminate the Consent Decree
On Thursday, 2/19/2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the City of Cleveland jointly filed a motion to terminate the 2015 police consent decree in the case of United States v. City of Cleveland, marking the parties’ recognition of more than a decade-long, successful effort to reform the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP). CDP now has resolved the DOJ’s 2014 findings about constitutional policing. CDP has implemented court-approved policies and training covering use of force, searches and seizures, misconduct investigations, community policing, and other areas — all resulting in contemporary assessments showing CDP now polices Cleveland constitutionally. You can read more about that here.
On Wednesday, 2/25/2026, Chair Brandon Brown of the Civilian Police Review Board spoke on behalf of the entire Board regarding this matter and his comments were summarized as follows:
Chair Brown stated that the CPRB’s authority comes directly from Cleveland voters through Charter Section 115—not from the federal consent decree—and therefore the Board’s work will continue regardless of whether Judge Oliver grants the City of Cleveland and U.S. Department of Justice’s joint motion to end federal oversight. He emphasized that policing in Cleveland remains imperfect and that strong, independent civilian oversight is still necessary to protect transparency, accountability, and constitutional policing. Drawing on national comparisons and NACOLE engagement, he noted that Cleveland has one of the most powerful civilian oversight structures in the country, with the Charter granting the CPRB even broader authority than what the
consent decree required. He cautioned against any backsliding if federal oversight ends and reaffirmed that OPS remains open, the Board remains committed to its duties, and the focus will stay on continuing the work entrusted to them by the public. He closed by encouraging community engagement, inviting residents to CPRB meetings, and stressing the importance of maintaining strong relationships between the public and the police for the safety and well‑being of the city.