Legal experts

In the aftermath of the Trump administration Abandoning the Federal Police Reform AgreementDiscussion continues in the city of Minneapolis, about the best path forward in front of the city council on Tuesday afternoon.

The point of disagreement has been confused about how the city was included in the federal rulings that have a similar reform agreement with the state for lawyers watching from abroad, including a former city lawyer, and raised concerns about some of the city.

The city leaders, from Mayor Jacob Fry and President Brian Uhar to the city council, expressed their support to move forward in implementing the unique rulings of the federal agreement. They all recognize the importance of the city in which the George Floyd police killed and did not conclude to both federal and state investigations that were a pattern of racist police by excessive force.

But this is the place where consensus grows mysterious.

Mayor The executive order signed In June, the city’s lawyer directs the determination of the rulings contained in the federal agreement that is not covered by the state agreement and for the matter to proceed with the implementation of these provisions.

Members of the Mininapolis City Council – who were inquiring about it Amending the state agreement legally to include these provisions – He said that was a promising step, but it does not mean anything if it is not the mayor or the mayors in the future.

They have submitted a plan to direct the city’s lawyer to reopen negotiations with the Ministry of Human Rights in Minnesota – which Rebecca Commissioner Lucero said it was open to doing so and offered the city’s interview.

Some council members complained that after months of listening to the fact that the amendment could be a road forward, the city’s lawyer, Christine Anderson, the path without a clear explanation.

“This is the basis for the reason for a need for some transparency,” said Robin Wonsley, a member of the council at a recent meeting. “Six months have happened to the city’s lawyer to give a basis for the reason they do not believe that we should have it. Instead of just saying no, we don’t look to follow how.”

Anderson said in a statement that her office spent months exploring whether this was an applicable option.

“But this is not something we can do on our own; this will require a legal basis for a request and receive the approval of the court,” she wrote in a statement. “At this point, we did not find a legal path forward.”

But it is not clear what is the barrier, as the settlement agreement places a clear path of the amendment: if the two parties agree to the change and the judge signs it, the agreement can be modified. This happened twice before, both of them are related to expanding the timelines in the agreement.

At a meeting last month, the council voted for the lawyer – against its desires – Give the privilege of the customer’s lawyer and make the public memorandum This put the reason for the council to overcome its authority if they were directed to try to amend the agreement.

Those who support they hoped to allow discussion about the best way to move forward in Dais, instead of closed briefing.

The memo – now the public – explains that the mayor or the council may not direct the city’s lawyer to reach a “specific result” – in this case, the inclusion of the decree of federal approval into the state settlement agreement – regardless of the city’s lawyer’s vocabulary.

He also says that since the charter gives the only mayor to the police administration, the Council cannot seek to “control” the police administration in this way, and that the matter is up to the mayor to direct contract negotiations – which will include the settlement agreement.

Jim Rawader, the former lawyer for the city of Minneapolis, said he appears to change the issue of how to follow the mayor.

Radir said that he could not think about a legal barrier to amend the approval decree, unless this barrier indicates the inability to act at the request of the council.

“They can all decide that we are not interested in changing the agreement, and that will be an obstacle – but this is not necessarily legally (an obstacle),” said Rowader. “This is just the position of the city as one side of the equation.”

He said: “Then the question only moves to the mayor: well, so you are the person who gets this call, at least if we go to this road, either you want to walk on the road or you cannot. You can choose to explain yourself in one way or another.”

The mayor publicly did not call this path.

When asked about the mayor’s response to the pressures of the council to legally amend the state agreement, a spokesman for the mayor referred to the MPR line to a line in the Executive Executive Order directing the city’s prosecutor’s office to search in finding a way for Elifa to monitor the unique reforms of the headquarters of federal approval.

It is not clear how this can happen outside the amendment of the settlement agreement legally, as the document prevents the independent screen from concluding any contracts with the city outside the agreement.

Other legal experts noted that the idea of ​​no legal path forward to amend the agreement is meaningless.

“The two parties have a wide latitude to add any rulings they wish to include, as long as both parties agree and agree with the judge,” said Jim Hilbert, a law professor at the Faculty of Law at Mitchell Hamlin and the NAACP law consultant. “It may be more than that the lawyer realizes what I am, but from where I stand, it seems to be a very clear issue.”

“It is not a really complicated legal thing,” said ACLU Minnesota Alicia Granse.

“Federal approval decree is a little more about things,” I noticed. “I do not see them very distinct documents in many ways, but it is certainly important that all the things that the Ministry of Justice reported were in the approval decree, these reforms need to be made as well.”

One of the two parties – the Ministry of Human Rights in Minnesota – was open again to negotiate new changes, and offered the city’s interview to discuss the addition of provisions from the federal agreement in the state approval decree, according to a statement issued by the administration.

The statement emphasizes that the state agreement “already contains most of the guidelines, comprehensive conditions, and even specific provisions” that were in the Ministry of Justice agreement and that the state court will give the city responsible for these changes, but there may be a benefit for folding in some unique conditions.

“To make the necessary transformational changes in the city and MPD, the conditions of the state approval decree may be useful at times, including at the moment when the Federal Court rejected the proposed federal approval decree.”

David Douglas, the lawyer who participated in the Elva leadership, was interrogated about the feasibility during the June Council meeting. Although he was hesitant to issue his opinion, “under the appropriate circumstances, I am sure that it can be achieved.”

“We believe that it will be the favorite path if it is investigating,” he said, noting that he still believes that imposing the unique conditions of the agreement of the Ministry of Justice will be possible without the supervision of the court.

“But it is clear that judicial oversight is better,” he said. “It is especially better in this society where there is a lot of lack of confidence.”