SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 30 2016, 08:30am EDT
Contact:
Email:,press@civilrights.org,Phone: (202) 869-0398
67 Organizations Urge Justice Dept. to Improve Data Collection Mandate on Deaths in Police Custody
67 national and local criminal justice, civil rights, human rights, faith-based, immigrants' rights, LGBTQ, and open government organizations urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to strengthen its proposed rule outlining the process for police departments to collect and report data about people who die while in police custody.
WASHINGTON
67 national and local criminal justice, civil rights, human rights, faith-based, immigrants' rights, LGBTQ, and open government organizations urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to strengthen its proposed rule outlining the process for police departments to collect and report data about people who die while in police custody.
In a letter sent yesterday, the organizations responded to DOJ's proposal for implementing the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act (DICRA), which requires police departments across the country to disclose details to the federal government about custodial deaths. DICRA was signed into law in 2014 in response to a troubling lack of reliable data on these deaths and DOJ is currently collecting comments on its implementation proposal that was published August 4, 2016. The comment period will close on October 3, 2016. Signers include The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the United Methodist Church, the National Immigration Law Center, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the Southern Poverty Law Center, among many others.
In their letter, the organizations list a number of deficiencies in the proposal that are a "departure" from DICRA, including a lack of accountability to ensure state and local police are actually reporting the data; a failure to condition federal funding on adequate reporting; a disturbing reliance on media reports instead of police departments for data; a lack of clarity on how DICRA applies to federal agencies; and the absence of a clear definition of the word "custody."
The groups are especially concerned about the lack of consequences for not reporting accurate data because "voluntary reporting programs on police-community encounters have failed. Only 224 of the more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies reported about 444 fatal police shootings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2014, though we have reason to believe that annual numbers of people killed by police exceeds 1,000."
"The loopholes in these regulations are cavernous," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "You can't fix what you can't measure. Police departments should report deaths in custody when they happen; it should be that simple. But these regulations make it clear that DOJ would rather bend over backwards to accommodate police departments' dysfunction or reluctance. There should be simple procedures so that police can provide complete and accurate data or face clear consequences for non-compliance."
"Relying on news coverage for the data reporting work of departments is especially problematic," Henderson continued. "Newsrooms are shrinking across the country and - now more than ever-- it's the government that should be providing journalists with transparent data, not the other way around."
The groups also want the regulations to include a broader range of potential areas of police misconduct. "To achieve complete and uniform data collection and reporting, the federal government must solicit disaggregated data that is reflective of all police-civilian encounters, including those encounters with people of color, women, and people with disabilities. Data concerning sexual assault and misconduct by law enforcement agents should also be collected and reported," they said.
The letter and a complete list of signers is linked here and pasted below.
--
August 29, 2016
The Honorable Loretta Lynch The Honorable Sallie Yates The Honorable Karol Mason
Attorney General Deputy Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice, OJP
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20531
Re: Proposed Implementation of Deaths In Custody Reporting Act (DICRA)
Dear Attorney General Lynch, Deputy Attorney General Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Mason:
The 67 undersigned national, state, and local criminal justice, civil rights, human rights, faith-based, immigrants' rights, LGBTQ, and open government organizations are writing to express concerns with the proposed implementation of the Deaths In Custody Reporting Act (DICRA). We are also writing to strongly reiterate our request that the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) condition federal criminal justice grants on data collection and reporting on police-civilian encounters.
DICRA was enacted almost two years ago, so guidance on the law's data collection and reporting process is welcomed. However, we have significant concerns with the proposed process published in the Federal Register.[1] Some of the undersigned organizations will submit specific comments by the October 3, 2016 deadline. In the meantime, please consider and address the issues raised below.
First, the proposal is a departure from DICRA provisions that require states receiving federal funding to report deaths in custody to the federal government. The Department of Justice is attempting to shift the data collection and reporting requirements from the states to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) by having BJS collect data on deaths in custody through its Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program instead of states. States and law enforcement agencies, the entities closest to the data being sought, should be responsible for collecting and reporting deaths in custody to the federal government as mandated by law.[2] It will be difficult for DOJ to get an accurate picture of trends in custodial deaths if state and local law enforcement agencies are not held accountable for collecting data after a death occurs.
Second, with BJS assuming responsibility for states' data collection and reporting, the proposal indicates that BJS will rely primarily upon publicly available information ("open-source review") for its ARD program.[3] This means that should The Guardian and the Washington Post decide to continue to invest in this research,[4] those news outlets will continue to be the best national sources for data on deaths in police custody. Certain media outlets have been critical to understanding police-civilian encounters over the past year, but it is unlikely that national media attention and resources can remain on policing indefinitely. Thus, relying on media accounts and statistics is an inadequate method of collecting data to determine the circumstances under which people die while in law enforcement custody.
Moreover, the proposal does not indicate how federal law enforcement agencies will comply with DICRA. The law is clear in its application to federal law enforcement including immigration officials, so the guidance must detail how federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), will comply with DICRA. Also, the proposal does not provide a clear definition for the term "custody," particularly instances where a fatal police shooting has occurred without an arrest.
Additionally, the proposal does not discuss penalties for noncompliance. DICRA gives the Attorney General the discretion to subject states that do not report deaths in custody to a ten percent reduction of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG) funds. The financial penalty is critical to successful implementation of DICRA as voluntary reporting programs on police-community encounters have failed. Reportedly, only 224 of the more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies reported approximately 444 fatal police-shootings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2014[5], though we have reason to believe that annual numbers of people killed by police exceeds 1,000.[6]
Finally, we would like to reiterate our ask that the Office of Justice Programs require state and local law enforcement agencies that benefit from Department of Justice federal grants and programs to collect and report data on incidents of police use of force on civilians and other police-civilian encounters, such as pedestrian and traffic stops. The federal government awards close to $4 billion in such grants annually, and any discretionary grant should be conditioned upon providing data.[7]
Any statutory or formula grant, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG), should require data reporting as part of its existing performance metrics. To achieve complete and uniform data collection and reporting, the federal government must solicit disaggregated data that is reflective of all police-civilian encounters, including those encounters with people of color, women, youth, and people with disabilities. Data concerning sexual assault and misconduct by law enforcement agents should also be collected and reported.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We also respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO
African American Ministers in Action (AAMIA)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA)
Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation
Californians Aware
Call to Do Justice
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Council on American-Islamic Relations
DC Reentry Task Force
Dignity and Power Now
Disciples Justice Action Network
Equity Matters, Inc.
Equality New Mexico
Fitting the Description
Florida Legal Services
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights
Government Accountability Project
Human Rights Defense Center
Human Rights Watch
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Jewish Council For Public Affairs (JCPA)
Justice Strategies
Kino Border Initiative
Lambda Legal
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Metropolitan Community Churches
NAACP
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
National African American Drug Policy Coalition
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigration Law Center
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
National LGBTQ Task Force
No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes
OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates
OneAmerica
OpenTheGovernment.org
Pangea Legal Services
Prison Policy Initiative
Project South
Reformed Church of Highland Park
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES)
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
Society of Professional Journalists
South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
Southern Border Communities Coalition
Southern Poverty Law Center
StoptheDrugWar.org
Sunlight Foundation
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
The United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
Wilco Justice Alliance
cc: Roy Austin, Deputy Assistant, Domestic Policy Council
Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
Sarah Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Denise E. O'Donnell, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
William J. Sabol, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[1] Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 150, DOJ, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested; New Collection: Arrest-Related Deaths Program, Aug. 4, 2016, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-04/pdf/2016-18484.pdf (hereinafter Proposed Collection Comments)
[2] Pub.L. 113-242.
[3] Proposed Collection Comments, supra note 1 at 51490 (stating that the BJS "redesigned methodology includes a standardized mixed method, hybrid approach relying on open sources to identify eligible cases, followed by data requests from law enforcement and medical examiner/coroner offices for incident-specific information about the decedent and circumstances surrounding the event.").
[4] See, e.g., The Guardian, The Counted: People killed by police in the U.S., available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database.
[5] See Federal Bureau of Investigation: Uniform Crime Reporting, 2014 Crime in the United States, available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2010-2014.xls
[6] See John Swaine & Oliver Laughland, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice among those missing from FBI record of police killings, The Guardian, Oct. 1, 2015, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/15/fbi-record-police-killings-tamir-rice-eric-garner. See also Kimberly Kindy, Marc Fisher, Julie Tate & Jennifer Jenkins, A Year of Reckoning: Police Fatally Shoot Nearly 1,000, Wash. Post, Dec. 26, 2015, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/.
[7] Brennan Center for Justice, Success-Oriented Funding: Reforming Federal Criminal Justice Grants (2014), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/SuccessOrientedFunding_ReformingFederalCriminalJusticeGrants.pdf.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society - an America as good as its ideals.
(202) 466-3311LATEST NEWS
Groups Condemn 'Exceptionally Weak' Language on Fossil Fuel Phaseout in COP30 Draft Text
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow," said one campaigner.
Nov 18, 2025
Climate justice organizers on Tuesday expressed some cautious optimism that a draft text out of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil contained "building blocks" of a climate justice package that is needed to draw down planet-heating fossil fuel emissions and help the poorest and least-polluting countries confront the climate emergency—but advocates said that with just three days to go until the summit is over, the document still falls far short of delivering solutions.
The draft text, released by COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago, includes references to a "transition away from fossil fuels," and calls for annual reviews of countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the efforts they pledge to make to reduce their emissions.
But a day after campaigners expressed optimism about 62 countries and country groups endorsing Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's call for a Transition Away From Fossil Fuels (TAFF) Roadmap, 350.org condemned the draft text for mentioning the roadmap only in paragraph 44—and excluding a fossil fuel phaseout from that section of the proposal.
The TAFF Roadmap, according to the draft, would recognize that "finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer are critical enablers of climate action."
The text also calls for "a high-level ministerial roundtable" where countries would discuss national circumstances, pathways to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial temperatures, and approaches to supporting government in developing just transition roadmaps, "including to progressively overcome their dependency on fossil fuels and towards halting and reversing deforestation."
But 350.org condemned that call as an "exceptionally weak," sole reference to a fossil fuel transition, warning that "a mandated ministerial and a report... offer symbolism, not action."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins," said the group in its analysis of the document. "The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns for 350.org, said that "the draft text may contain the right ingredients, but it’s been assembled in a way that leaves a bitter aftertaste."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins. The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow. The COP30 presidency must heed the many parties, including President Lula, calling for a clear transition pathway and put it where it belongs: at the center of the 1.5°C response, balanced with adequate finance," said Sieber. "Without this, the overall effort will fall short.”
The group emphasized that a credible COP30 final text will include "a balanced package that delivers climate finance, strengthened adaptation measures, and a clear road map for phasing out fossil fuels."
"Without all three pillars in place, a durable and effective agreement will not be possible," said 350.org
The text mentions climate finance 26 times, the Guardian reported, and urges wealthy countries to clearly lay out their plans to provide financial assistance to the Global South—at a ministerial roundtable in one option included in the document, or through a "Belém Global De-Risking and Project Preparation and Development Facility," which would "catalyze climate finance and implementation in developing country parties by translating Nationally Determined Contributions and national adaptation plans into project pipelines."
But 350.org noted that pledges made to a global adaptation fund on Monday "once again fell short with only $133 million secured out of the $300 million target."
Fanny Petitbon, France team lead for 350.org, warned that "adaptation has long been forgotten in climate finance," and called on the presidency to ensure it has a central role in the final text.
"Crucially, the call to triple adaptation finance must stay," said Petitbon. "There is no credible ambition without supporting communities already facing the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. The presidency has begun to respond to strong demands for developed countries to pay their climate debt, which is key for rebuilding trust in all negotiating rooms."
"But the text still lacks a plan to fully deliver on the collective climate finance goal agreed upon in Baku [at COP29]—ignoring innovative sources of finance like taxing major polluters and the superrich," Petitibon added, "and fails to guarantee direct access for the most vulnerable, including Indigenous peoples."
At Oil Change International, global policy leader Romain Ioualalen said the options related to fossil fuels presented in the draft were "wildly unacceptable and a blatant dereliction of duty while the world burns."
"We don’t need a COP decision to convene a workshop or ministerial roundtable on fossil fuels. What we need is a clear collective direction of travel on how countries intend to phase out fossil fuels based on equity, and how rich Global North countries will provide finance and support to the countries that need it," said Ioualalen.
"Ministers must fix this mess," he added, "and deliver the progress that we need to make the fair and funded transition away from fossil fuels they promised in Dubai [at COP28] a reality.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Issues New Threats to Mexico and Colombia, Democrats Push to End Unauthorized Aggression
Rep. Gregory Meeks, who introduced a war powers resolution, said Trump’s actions combine the “worst excesses of the war on drugs and the war on terror.”
Nov 18, 2025
As Democrats in the US House of Representatives introduced their latest measure to stop President Donald Trump from continuing his attacks against alleged drug cartels without approval from Congress, the president said he wouldn't "rule out" deploying US ground troops in Venezuela—and warned he could escalate attacks across Latin America, with possible strikes in Mexico and Colombia as well.
Shortly after the Department of Defense, called the Department of War by the Trump administration, announced its 21st illegal airstrike on what they've claimed, without evidence, to be "narco-terrorist" vessels mostly in the Caribbean—attacks that have killed at least 83 people—Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he may soon begin similar operations against drug cartels in mainland Mexico.
“Would I launch strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? It’s OK with me. I’ve been speaking to Mexico. They know how I stand,” he said. “We’re losing hundreds of thousands of people to drugs. So now we’ve stopped the waterways, but we know every route."
Earlier this month, following reports from US officials that the Trump administration had started “detailed planning” to send US troops to Mexico, the nation's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, retorted that "it’s not going to happen."
In his comments Monday, Trump threatened to carry out strikes in Colombia as well, saying: "Colombia has cocaine factories where they make cocaine. Would I knock out those factories? I would be proud to do it personally.”
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has been one of Latin America's fiercest critics of Trump's extrajudicial boat bombings, last week referring to the US president as a "barbarian." Trump, meanwhile, has baselessly accused Petro of being "an illegal drug leader," slapping him and his family with sanctions and cutting off aid to the country.
In response to Trump's threats on Monday, Petro touted the number of cocaine factories that have been "destroyed" under his tenure. According to figures from the Colombian Ministry of Defense, around 18,000 of them have been taken out of commission since Petro took office in 2022, a 21% increase from Colombia's previous president.
Immediately after Trump issued his threat against Colombia, he backpedaled, saying: "I didn't say I'm doing it, I would be proud to do it."
However, reporting from Drop Site News earlier this month has suggested that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "was briefed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on the new list of hard targets inside Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico in early October, and lobbied fellow senators on expanding the war to include drug-related sites in Colombia."
The senator had alluded to the plans on CBS News' "Face the Nation," saying: “We’re not gonna sit on the sidelines and watch boats full of drugs come into our country. We’re gonna blow them up and kill the people who want to poison America. And we’re now gonna expand our operations, I think, to the land. So please be clear about what I’m saying today. President Donald Trump sees Venezuela and Colombia as direct threats to our country, because they house narco-terrorist organizations.”
On Tuesday, a group of Democrats in the US House of Representatives introduced another measure that would stop Trump from continuing his attacks against alleged drug cartel members without approval from Congress.
The measure would require the removal of “United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere,” unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or issues a declaration of war. Previous measures to stall Trump’s extrajudicial attacks have been narrowly stymied, despite receiving some support from the Republican majority.
“There is no evidence that the people being killed are an imminent threat to the United States of America,“ said Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who introduced the resolution.
Meeks added that Trump’s campaign of assassinations in Latin America combines “the worst excesses of the war on drugs and the war on terror.”
Trump's threats of military action come after Hegseth announced what he called "Operation Southern Spear" last week, which he said would be aimed at "remov[ing] narco-terrorists from our hemisphere." In a description that evoked the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, Hegseth wrote on social media that "the Western Hemisphere is America's neighborhood—and we will protect it."
In the Oval Office, Trump declared, without evidence, that with each strike his administration carries out against Venezuelan boats, "we save 25,000 American lives," which experts say is obviously false since Venezuela plays a very minor role in global drug trafficking.
Several international legal experts have said Trump’s strikes constitute a war crime. Earlier this month, Oona A. Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, said that members of the Trump administration “know what they are doing is wrong.”
“If they do it, they are violating international law and domestic law,” Hathaway said. “Dropping bombs on people when you do not know who they are is a breach of law.”
The Trump administration has argued that its actions are consistent with Article 51 of the UN’s founding charter, which requires the UN Security Council to be informed immediately of actions taken in self-defense against an armed attack.
The administration has not provided evidence that its attacks constitute a necessary form of self-defense. But last month, a panel of independent UN experts said that “even if such allegations were substantiated, the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea and amounts to extrajudicial executions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Plan to Privatize Student Loans Denounced as ‘Giveaway to Wealthy Insiders’
"By selling parts of the federal student loan portfolio, the Trump administration may seek to unlawfully strip borrowers of their legally guaranteed protections," wrote a group of more than 40 Democratic lawmakers.
Nov 18, 2025
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers in the US House and Senate warned Monday that the Trump administration's reported push to sell off the federal government's massive student portfolio to the private market would be disastrous for borrowers and a "lucrative giveaway" to predatory corporations.
The lawmakers, led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Senate and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) in the House, pointed with alarm to recent reports indicating that Treasury and Education Department officials have met repeatedly with finance industry executives for the purpose of valuing the federal government's student loan portfolio, which is believed to be worth around $1.7 trillion.
"By selling parts of the federal student loan portfolio, the Trump administration may seek to unlawfully strip borrowers of their legally guaranteed protections," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. "As experts have explained, private investors' 'interest would likely be to squeeze as much profit from the repayment as they could.' Those profits would likely come at the expense of the borrower via fewer protections and less generous benefits."
Politico reported last month that the Trump administration is considering selling at least part of the federal government's student loan portfolio to private companies.
Though small relative to the federal portfolio, the private student loan market has an "outsized" impact on borrowers, the advocacy group Protect Borrowers explained earlier this year.
"While private student loans account for roughly 8% of all student loan debt, more than 40% of student-loan-related complaints submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are about private loans," the group said. "Of these private student loan complaints, roughly one-third are from borrowers who are struggling and can’t afford their monthly payment. This is because, unlike federal student loans, private loans lack critical safeguards for students and parents."
In their letter to McMahon and Bessent, the Democratic lawmakers demanded that the Trump administration "immediately cease any efforts to privatize the federal student loan portfolio," arguing that "this sale would be a giveaway to wealthy insiders at the expense of working-class borrowers and taxpayers."
Warren echoed that sentiment in a statement, saying, "Any way you spin it, this sale would be a massive giveaway to giant companies."
"It'd be a tremendous mistake," the senator added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular