August, 30 2016, 08:30am EDT
For Immediate Release
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
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular