Day of peaceful protests ends in skirmishes, arrests

The Cleveland police department in an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to give officers better training on searches and seizures. In this photo from a demonstration on Saturday, May 23, 2015, police officers pat down a protestor.

(Joshua Gunter, Northeast Ohio Media Group)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Forty-seven years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court used a Cleveland case to define when police could legally stop and search people.

"It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly," Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Terry v. Ohio decision.

Now, a federal court is again about to reestablish those guidelines through the consent decree announced last week by the city and the U.S. Department of Justice.

In word, the department's policy won't change much. But a federal court will now monitor officers' interactions with people, ensuring that the words and the actions are compatible.

A comprehensive look at use-of-force abuses and a lack of accountability throughout the Cleveland Division of Police revealed in a report released in December did not include a thorough study of possible racial profiling and illegal search and seizure.

"...despite the fact that we are making no finding regarding racial profiling, we must report that when we interviewed members of the community about their experiences with the police, many African-Americans reported that they believe CDP officers are verbally and physically aggressive toward them because of their race."

This changed once Cleveland police brass, Mayor Frank Jackson and Justice Department officials began speaking with the community, and ultimately decided that more accountability for police stops was necessary.

"If you listen to the community and what they're talking about, you can't ignore the fact that it was a major concern," Jackson said in an interview last week. "If it could be supported by data or not was not relevant. You address the concern."

Cleveland police policies on stops and searches won't change much under the consent decree revealed last week, but the levels of accountability peppered throughout the agreement could thwart, as some residents hope, unwarranted police interaction.

The 105-page contract between the city and the Justice Department, which still needs approval from a federal judge, would demand that officers conduct stops and searches in a way that protects citizens' rights. But so does current police policy, leaving some Clevelanders skeptical about a reprieve from unjustified stops and searches.

"Without a doubt, some people are stopped because of race," said James A. Sullivan, a 64-year-old black man who for eight years has run a block watch on the West Side. "I hate to say it, but you got some shady cops out there."

Officers, according to the consent decree, would not be able to stop a person based on race, gender, ethnicity, national origin or perceived sexual orientation. The language closely resembles what is found in current police policy, which doesn't include the "national origin" clause, but adds "religion."

Such factors could not be used to establish reasonable suspicion, which would justify a stop. An exception could be made if one of the factors is part of "an actual and credible description of a specific suspect in an investigation that includes other identifying factors," the consent decree states.

The police department's current two-page policy on citizen stops also requires reasonable suspicion to justify a stop.

In the consent decree, a pat-down search would be justified if an officer has "specific and articulable facts" that would evoke a reasonable suspicion to believe a person is armed and dangerous.

The current police policy on frisk searches -- "a limited protective search for concealed weapons or dangerous instruments" -- calls for the same, in so many words.

Marion Williams, a 40-year-old black woman who lives on the city's East Side, said she is leery of police and their reasons for stopping and searching citizens.

"I ain't got nothing to hide, but I feel they should be watched too," Williams said. "Sometimes I question them. I mean are they really here to serve and protect?"

Under the consent decree, officers who conduct stops and searches would be watched with more scrutiny than ever.

Any officer who makes a stop or search would have to document a host of details, including: the perceived race, ethnicity, age and gender of the person being stopped; whether that person consented to a requested search; and clear reasons for the stop and or search. No "canned" language would be allowed, the consent decree states.

The agreement would require supervisors to review all documentation of stops and searches for completeness and adherence to laws and police department policies.

Supervisors then would have seven days to document and report any stops or searches that are not supported by reasonable suspicion, violate department policy or point to inadequate training, policies or tactics.

The consent decree would force supervisors to send their reports to a commander, who would conduct a second review. The commander could then forward the case to Internal Affairs, a department that under the consent decree would be led by a civilian.

All stop and search data would be collected and analyzed.

Robin Adelmann, a 35-year-old woman who lives at a downtown homeless shelter, said she welcomes the layers of accountability.

"The change does sound positive," Adelmann, who is white, said. "Any change we could make at the moment would be positive. Police totally need to be watched, or else they can get away with everything."

Tyrese Morrison, a 14-year-old boy who lives on the East Side, said he would have to witness the changes offered in the consent decree in action before becoming any less anxious about being black near police.

"When I see cops, I just run," Morrison said. "I haven't had any problems with the cops. I just don't trust what they're going to do or how they're going to do it."

The oversight demanded in the consent decree would come with specialized training.

An instructor "with significant experience in Fourth Amendment issues" would teach officers how to conduct stops and searches that do not violate rights or the consent decree, according to the agreement.

The training would include instruction on the differences between speculation, reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Officers would also be schooled in policing with professionalism and courtesy.

Dennis Chisholm, a 56-year-old black man who lives on the East Side, said he shows police respect and is treated with respect in return.

"Police is police," Chisholm said. "They're here to protect us."

Still, he thinks bolstering oversight is a good thing.

"Police need to be reviewed just to see that they're doing their job."