2024_09_11_cae5dab673750fcde5a1g

Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department
弗格森警察局调查

United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
美国司法部公民权利处

March 4, 2015 2015 年 3 月 4 日

TABLE OF CONTENTS 目录

I. REPORT SUMMARY ..... 1
I.报告摘要 .....1
II. BACKGROUND ..... 6 II.背景 .....6
III. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON
III.弗格森执法工作的重点是
GENERATING REVENUE ..... 9
创收 .....9
IV. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES VIOLATE THE LAW AND
IV.弗格森执法行为违反了法律，并且
UNDERMINE COMMUNITY TRUST, ESPECIALLY AMONG AFRICAN
破坏社区信任，特别是在非洲人中
AMERICANS ..... 15 美国 .....15
A. Ferguson's Police Practices ..... 15
A.弗格森警方的做法 .....15

FPD Engages in a Pattern of Unconstitutional Stops and Arrests in Violation
FPD 违反宪法的拦截和逮捕模式
of the Fourth Amendment ..... 16
.....16
FPD Engages in a Pattern of First Amendment Violations ..... 24
FPD 频繁违反第一修正案 .....24
FPD Engages in a Pattern of Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth
FPD 过度使用武力，违反了《第四公约》。
Amendment ..... 28 修正案 .....28
B. Ferguson's Municipal Court Practices ..... 42
B.弗格森市法院的做法 .....42
Court Practices Impose Substantial and Unnecessary Barriers to the
法院的做法对《国际刑事法院罗马规约》设置了实质性的、不必要的障碍。
Challenge or Resolution of Municipal Code Violations ..... 43
质疑或解决违反市政法规的问题 .....43
The Court Imposes Unduly Harsh Penalties for Missed Payments or
法院对漏缴或未缴款施加了过于严厉的处罚
Appearances ..... 54 出场 .....54
C. Ferguson Law Enforcement Practices Disproportionately Harm Ferguson's
C.弗格森的执法行为对弗格森人造成了不成比例的伤害
African-American Residents and Are Driven in Part by Racial Bias ..... 62
非裔美国居民，部分原因是种族偏见 .....62
Ferguson's Law Enforcement Actions Impose a Disparate Impact on African
弗格森的执法行动对非洲人造成了不同程度的影响
Americans that Violates Federal Law ..... 63
违反联邦法律的美国人 .....63
Ferguson's Law Enforcement Practices Are Motivated in Part by
弗格森执法行为的部分动机是
Discriminatory Intent in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Other
违反第十四修正案的歧视意图及其他
Federal Laws. ..... 70 联邦法律。.....70
D. Ferguson Law Enforcement Practices Erode Community Trust, Especially Among
D.弗格森执法行为削弱了社区信任，尤其是在以下人群中
Ferguson's African-American Residents, and Make Policing Less Effective, More
弗格森的非裔美国居民，并使警务工作变得更有效率、更有成效
Difficult, and Less Safe ..... 79
困难重重，安全系数较低 .....79
Ferguson's Unlawful Police and Court Practices Have Led to Distrust and
弗格森警方和法院的非法行为导致了不信任和
Resentment Among Many in Ferguson ..... 79
弗格森许多人的怨恨 .....79
FPD's Exercise of Discretion, Even When Lawful, Often Undermines
FPD 行使自由裁量权，即使合法，也经常损害
Community Trust and Public Safety ..... 81
社区信任与公共安全 .....81
FPD's Failure to Respond to Complaints of Officer Misconduct Further
FPD 未对有关官员不当行为的投诉作出回应的问题进一步恶化
Erodes Community Trust ..... 82
埃罗德社区信托基金 .....82
FPD's Lack of Community Engagement Increases the Likelihood of
FPD 缺乏社区参与增加了发生以下情况的可能性
Discriminatory Policing and Damages Public Trust. ..... 86
歧视性警务和损害公众信任。.....86
Ferguson's Lack of a Diverse Police Force Further Undermines Community
弗格森缺乏多元化警力进一步损害了社区
Trust ..... 88 信托 .....88
V. CHANGES NECESSARY TO REMEDY FERGUSON'S UNLAWFUL LAW
V.纠正弗格森非法法律所需的变革
ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES AND REPAIR COMMUNITY TRUST ..... 90
执法实践和修复社区信托 .....90
VI. CONCLUSION ..... 102 VI.结论 .....102

I. REPORT SUMMARY I.报告摘要

The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice opened its investigation of the Ferguson Police Department ("FPD") on September 4, 2014. This investigation was initiated under the pattern-or-practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d ("Safe Streets Act"), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ("Title VI"). This investigation has revealed a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law.
美国司法部民权司于2014年9月4日开始对弗格森警察局（"FPD"）进行调查。此次调查是根据1994年《暴力犯罪控制与执法法》（Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994）（42 U.S.C. § 14141）、1968年《犯罪控制与安全街道综合法》（Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968）（42 U.S.C. § 3789d）（"《安全街道法》"）以及1964年《民权法》（Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964）（42 U.S.C. § 2000d）（"《民权法》第六章"）的模式或做法条款启动的。本次调查揭示了弗格森警察局内部的非法行为模式或做法，违反了《美国宪法》第一、第四和第十四修正案以及联邦成文法。

Over the course of the investigation, we interviewed City officials, including City Manager John Shaw, Mayor James Knowles, Chief of Police Thomas Jackson, Municipal Judge Ronald Brockmeyer, the Municipal Court Clerk, Ferguson's Finance Director, half of FPD's sworn officers, and others. We spent, collectively, approximately 100 person-days onsite in Ferguson. We participated in ride-alongs with on-duty officers, reviewed over 35,000 pages of police records as well as thousands of emails and other electronic materials provided by the police department. Enlisting the assistance of statistical experts, we analyzed FPD's data on stops, searches, citations, and arrests, as well as data collected by the municipal court. We observed four separate sessions of Ferguson Municipal Court, interviewing dozens of people charged with local offenses, and we reviewed third-party studies regarding municipal court practices in Ferguson and St. Louis County more broadly. As in all of our investigations, we sought to engage the local community, conducting hundreds of in-person and telephone interviews of individuals who reside in Ferguson or who have had interactions with the police department. We contacted ten neighborhood associations and met with each group that responded to us, as well as several other community groups and advocacy organizations. Throughout the investigation, we relied on two police chiefs who accompanied us to Ferguson and who themselves interviewed City and police officials, spoke with community members, and reviewed FPD policies and incident reports.
在调查过程中，我们采访了市政府官员，包括市经理约翰-肖（John Shaw）、市长詹姆斯-诺尔斯（James Knowles）、警察局长托马斯-杰克逊（Thomas Jackson）、市法官罗纳德-布罗克迈尔（Ronald Brockmeyer）、市法院书记员、弗格森市财务总监、一半的弗格森警察局宣誓警官以及其他人。我们总共在弗格森现场度过了大约 100 人天。我们与执勤警官一起参与了骑行活动，查阅了超过 35,000 页的警方记录以及数千封电子邮件和警察局提供的其他电子材料。在统计专家的协助下，我们分析了弗格森警察局关于拦截、搜查、传票和逮捕的数据，以及市法院收集的数据。我们观察了弗格森市法院的四次开庭，采访了数十名被指控犯有地方罪行的人，并查阅了第三方关于弗格森市和圣路易斯县市法院做法的研究报告。在所有的调查中，我们都力求让当地社区参与进来，对居住在弗格森或与警察局有过互动的个人进行了数百次面谈和电话采访。我们联系了十个邻里协会，并与每个作出回应的团体以及其他几个社区团体和倡导组织进行了会谈。在整个调查过程中，我们依靠陪同我们前往弗格森的两位警察局长，他们自己也采访了市政府和警方官员，与社区成员进行了交谈，并审查了弗格森警察局的政策和事件报告。

We thank the City officials and the rank-and-file officers who have cooperated with this investigation and provided us with insights into the operation of the police department, including the municipal court. Notwithstanding our findings about Ferguson's approach to law enforcement and the policing culture it creates, we found many Ferguson police officers and other City employees to be dedicated public servants striving each day to perform their duties lawfully and with respect for all members of the Ferguson community. The importance of their often-selfless work cannot be overstated.
我们感谢市政府官员和普通警员对此次调查的配合，并向我们提供了有关警察局（包括市法院）运作的见解。尽管我们对弗格森的执法方式及其创造的警务文化有所发现，但我们发现许多弗格森警官和其他市政雇员都是尽职尽责的公务员，他们每天都在努力合法地履行职责，并尊重弗格森社区的所有成员。他们的工作往往是无私的，其重要性怎么强调都不为过。

We are also grateful to the many members of the Ferguson community who have met with us to share their experiences. It became clear during our many conversations with Ferguson residents from throughout the City that many residents, black and white, genuinely embrace Ferguson's diversity and want to reemerge from the events of recent months a truly inclusive, united community. This Report is intended to strengthen those efforts by recognizing the harms caused by Ferguson's law enforcement practices so that those harms can be better understood and overcome.
我们还感谢弗格森社区的许多成员与我们会面，分享他们的经历。在我们与来自全市的弗格森居民的多次交谈中，我们清楚地看到，许多居民，无论是黑人还是白人，都真心拥护弗格森的多样性，并希望从最近几个月的事件中重新崛起，成为一个真正包容、团结的社区。本报告旨在通过承认弗格森执法行为所造成的伤害来加强这些努力，从而更好地理解和克服这些伤害。

Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson's police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson's police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson's own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson's police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.
弗格森的执法实践是由该市对收入的重视而非对公共安全需求的重视所决定的。这种对收入的重视损害了弗格森警察局的制度特征，导致了违宪的警务模式，同时也影响了市政法院，导致其程序引发正当程序问题，并对弗格森社区成员造成不必要的伤害。此外，弗格森警方和市法院的做法反映并加剧了现有的种族偏见，包括种族成见。弗格森自己的数据证实了明显的种族差异，这对非裔美国人造成了不利影响。证据显示，歧视性意图是造成这些差异的部分原因。随着时间的推移，弗格森警方和市法院的做法在部分社区和警察部门之间埋下了深深的不信任种子，特别是在非裔美国人中破坏了执法的合法性。

Focus on Generating Revenue
注重创收

The City budgets for sizeable increases in municipal fines and fees each year, exhorts police and court staff to deliver those revenue increases, and closely monitors whether those increases are achieved. City officials routinely urge Chief Jackson to generate more revenue through enforcement. In March 2010, for instance, the City Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that "unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year. . . . Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, it's not an insignificant issue." Similarly, in March 2013, the Finance Director wrote to the City Manager: "Court fees are anticipated to rise about 7.5%. I did ask the Chief if he thought the PD could deliver 10% increase. He indicated they could try." The importance of focusing on revenue generation is communicated to FPD officers. Ferguson police officers from all ranks told us that revenue generation is stressed heavily within the police department, and that the message comes from City leadership. The evidence we reviewed supports this perception.
市政府每年都会在预算中大幅增加市政罚款和费用，敦促警方和法院工作人员实现这些收入增长，并密切监督这些增长是否实现。市政府官员经常敦促杰克逊局长通过执法创造更多收入。例如，2010 年 3 月，市财政局局长写信给杰克逊局长说："除非在今年年底前大幅增加开罚单的数量，否则明年将很难大幅提高税收。. . .. 鉴于我们的销售税缺口很大，这不是一个无关紧要的问题"。同样，2013 年 3 月，财务总监致函城市经理："法院费用预计将上涨约 7.5%。我确实问过局长，他是否认为警察局可以实现 10% 的增长。他表示可以尝试"。注重创收的重要性已传达给弗格森警察局的警官。弗格森各级警官告诉我们，警察局内部非常强调创收，而且这一信息来自市领导层。我们审查的证据也支持这种看法。

Police Practices 警务工作

The City's emphasis on revenue generation has a profound effect on FPD's approach to law enforcement. Patrol assignments and schedules are geared toward aggressive enforcement of Ferguson's municipal code, with insufficient thought given to whether enforcement strategies promote public safety or unnecessarily undermine community trust and cooperation. Officer evaluations and promotions depend to an inordinate degree on "productivity," meaning the number of citations issued. Partly as a consequence of City and FPD priorities, many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson's predominantly AfricanAmerican neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue.
市政府对创收的重视对 FPD 的执法方式产生了深远影响。巡逻任务和日程安排都以积极执行弗格森市政法规为目标，而没有充分考虑执法策略是促进公共安全还是不必要地破坏社区信任与合作。警官的评估和晋升在很大程度上取决于 "工作效率"，即发出传票的数量。部分由于市政府和弗格森警察局的优先考虑，许多警官似乎将一些居民，尤其是居住在以非裔美国人为主的弗格森社区的居民，视为需要保护的选民，而不是潜在的违法者和收入来源。

This culture within FPD influences officer activities in all areas of policing, beyond just ticketing. Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority. They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence. Police supervisors and leadership do too little to ensure that officers act in accordance with law and policy, and rarely respond meaningfully to civilian complaints of officer misconduct. The result is a pattern of stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation for protected
FPD 内部的这种文化影响了警官在所有警务领域的活动，而不仅仅是开罚单。即使在没有法律授权的情况下，警官们也期望并要求人们遵守规定。他们倾向于将行使言论自由权解释为非法抗命，将无辜的举动解释为人身威胁，将精神或身体疾病的迹象解释为好战。警察主管和领导层很少确保警官按照法律和政策行事，也很少对平民投诉警官行为不当做出有意义的回应。其结果是在没有合理怀疑的情况下进行拦截，在没有正当理由的情况下进行逮捕，这违反了《宪法第四修正案》；侵犯了言论自由，并对受保护的言论自由进行报复。
expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
在这一问题上，他还违反了《宪法第一修正案》中的 "言论自由 "条款；违反了《宪法第四修正案》中的 "过度使用武力 "条款。

Even relatively routine misconduct by Ferguson police officers can have significant consequences for the people whose rights are violated. For example, in the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man's car, blocking him in, and demanded the man's Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man's car. The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson's municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., "Mike" instead of "Michael"), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver's license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator's license, and with having no operator's license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges, he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.
即使是弗格森警察相对常规的不当行为，也会对权利受到侵犯的人造成重大影响。例如，2012 年夏天，一名 32 岁的非裔美国男子在弗格森公共公园打完篮球后，坐在车里乘凉。一名警官将车停在该男子的车后，将他堵在车内，并索要该男子的社会保险号和身份证件。在没有任何理由的情况下，该警官指责该男子是恋童癖，并提到公园里有儿童，还命令该男子下车接受搜身，尽管该警官没有理由相信该男子携带武器。警官还要求搜查该男子的汽车。该男子以其宪法权利为由表示反对。作为回应，该警官逮捕了这名男子，据说是用枪指着他，并指控他八项违反弗格森市政法规的行为。其中一项罪名是 "虚假申报"，因为他最初提供了自己名字的简称（例如，"迈克 "而不是 "迈克尔"），而且地址虽然合法，但与驾照上的地址不同。另一项指控是未系安全带，尽管他当时坐在一辆停好的汽车里。警官还指控这名男子的驾驶执照过期，并且没有持有驾驶执照。这名男子告诉我们，因为这些指控，他失去了在联邦政府担任多年的承包商工作。

Municipal Court Practices
市法院的做法

Ferguson has allowed its focus on revenue generation to fundamentally compromise the role of Ferguson's municipal court. The municipal court does not act as a neutral arbiter of the law or a check on unlawful police conduct. Instead, the court primarily uses its judicial authority as the means to compel the payment of fines and fees that advance the City's financial interests. This has led to court practices that violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection requirements. The court's practices also impose unnecessary harm, overwhelmingly on African-American individuals, and run counter to public safety.
弗格森对创收的重视从根本上损害了弗格森市法院的作用。市政法院并没有充当法律的中立仲裁者或对警察非法行为的制衡者。相反，法院主要利用其司法权作为手段，强制缴纳罚款和费用，以促进市政府的经济利益。这导致法院的做法违反了第十四修正案的正当程序和平等保护要求。法院的做法还对非裔美国人造成了不必要的伤害，与公共安全背道而驰。

Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments. In 2013 alone, the court issued over 9,000 warrants on cases stemming in large part from minor violations such as parking infractions, traffic tickets, or housing code violations. Jail time would be considered far too harsh a penalty for the great majority of these code violations, yet Ferguson's municipal court routinely issues warrants for people to be arrested and incarcerated for failing to timely pay related fines and fees. Under state law, a failure to appear in municipal court on a traffic charge involving a moving violation also results in a license suspension. Ferguson has made this penalty even more onerous by only allowing the suspension to be lifted after payment of an owed fine is made in full. Further, until recently, Ferguson also added charges, fines, and fees for each missed appearance and payment. Many pending cases still include such charges that were imposed before the court recently eliminated them, making it as difficult as before for people to resolve these cases.
最引人注目的是，法院签发市政逮捕令并非基于公共安全的需要，而是作为对缺席出庭和按规定缴纳罚款的例行回应。仅在 2013 年，法院就签发了 9000 多份逮捕令，这些案件主要源于轻微违规行为，如违章停车、交通罚单或违反住房法规。对于绝大多数这些违反法规的行为而言，监禁都被认为是过于严厉的处罚，但弗格森市法院却经常签发逮捕令，逮捕未及时缴纳相关罚款和费用的人并将其监禁。根据州法律，因交通违规指控而未在市法院出庭的，还将被吊销驾照。弗格森规定，只有在全额支付所欠罚款后，才能取消吊销执照的处罚，从而使这一处罚变得更加严厉。此外，直到最近，弗格森还对每次错过出庭和缴费的情况增加了收费、罚款和费用。许多悬而未决的案件中仍然包含法院最近取消这些收费之前所征收的费用，这使得人们像以前一样难以解决这些案件。

The court imposes these severe penalties for missed appearances and payments even as several of the court's practices create unnecessary barriers to resolving a municipal violation. The court often fails to provide clear and accurate information regarding a person's charges or court obligations. And the court's fine assessment procedures do not adequately provide for a defendant to seek a fine reduction on account of financial incapacity or to seek alternatives to
即使法院的一些做法为解决市政违规问题制造了不必要的障碍，法院仍对未出庭和未缴款者处以这些严厉的处罚。法院往往不能提供有关个人指控或法院义务的清晰准确的信息。法院的罚款评估程序也没有充分规定被告可以以经济能力不足为由要求减免罚款，或寻求其他方法来代替罚款。
payment such as community service. City and court officials have adhered to these court practices despite acknowledging their needlessly harmful consequences. In August 2013, for example, one City Councilmember wrote to the City Manager, the Mayor, and other City officials lamenting the lack of a community service option and noted the benefits of such a program, including that it would "keep those people that simply don't have the money to pay their fines from constantly being arrested and going to jail, only to be released and do it all over again."
如社区服务。尽管承认这些法庭做法会带来不必要的有害后果，但市政府和法院官员仍然坚持了这些做法。例如，2013 年 8 月，一位市议员写信给城市经理、市长和其他市政官员，对缺乏社区服务选择表示遗憾，并指出了这样一个计划的好处，包括它将 "使那些根本没钱支付罚款的人不至于不断被捕入狱，出狱后又重蹈覆辙"。

Together, these court practices exacerbate the harm of Ferguson's unconstitutional police practices. They impose a particular hardship upon Ferguson's most vulnerable residents, especially upon those living in or near poverty. Minor offenses can generate crippling debts, result in jail time because of an inability to pay, and result in the loss of a driver's license, employment, or housing.
这些法庭做法共同加剧了弗格森违宪警察行为的危害。它们给弗格森最弱势的居民，尤其是生活贫困或接近贫困的居民带来了特别的困难。轻微的违法行为可能会产生沉重的债务，因无力偿还而导致牢狱之灾，并失去驾照、工作或住房。

We spoke, for example, with an African-American woman who has a still-pending case stemming from 2007, when, on a single occasion, she parked her car illegally. She received two citations and a

fine, plus fees. The woman, who experienced financial difficulties and periods of homelessness over several years, was charged with seven Failure to Appear offenses for missing court dates or fine payments on her parking tickets between 2007 and 2010. For each Failure to Appear, the court issued an arrest warrant and imposed new fines and fees. From 2007 to 2014, the woman was arrested twice, spent six days in jail, and paid

to the court for the events stemming from this single instance of illegal parking. Court records show that she twice attempted to make partial payments of

and

, but the court returned those payments, refusing to accept anything less than payment in full. One of those payments was later accepted, but only after the court's letter rejecting payment by money order was returned as undeliverable. This woman is now making regular payments on the fine. As of December 2014, over seven years later, despite initially owing a $151 fine and having already paid $550, she still owed $541.
例如，我们采访了一位非裔美国妇女，她在 2007 年有过一次违章停车，当时她的案件仍在审理中。她收到了两张告票和一笔

罚款，外加一些费用。这名妇女在过去几年中经历了经济困难和无家可归的时期，在 2007 年至 2010 年期间，她因错过出庭日期或未按停车罚单缴纳罚款而被指控犯有七次 "未出庭 "罪。每次未出庭，法院都会签发逮捕令，并处以新的罚款和费用。从 2007 年到 2014 年，这名妇女两次被捕，在监狱中度过了六天，并向法院支付了

起因于这起违章停车事件的罚金。法院记录显示，她曾两次试图支付

和

的部分款项，但法院退回了这些款项，拒绝接受任何未全额支付的款项。其中一笔付款后来被接受了，但只是在法院拒绝用汇票付款的信件因无法投递而被退回之后。这位女士现在正在定期缴纳罚款。截至 2014 年 12 月，即七年多之后，尽管她最初欠下 151 美元罚款，并已支付了 550 美元，但仍欠 541 美元。

Racial Bias 种族偏见

Ferguson's approach to law enforcement both reflects and reinforces racial bias, including stereotyping. The harms of Ferguson's police and court practices are borne disproportionately by African Americans, and there is evidence that this is due in part to intentional discrimination on the basis of race.
弗格森的执法方式反映并强化了种族偏见，包括陈规定型观念。弗格森警方和法院的做法给非裔美国人造成了极大的伤害，有证据表明这部分是由于基于种族的蓄意歧视造成的。

Ferguson's law enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African Americans. Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African Americans account for

of vehicle stops,

of citations, and

of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only

of Ferguson's population. African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband

less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search. African Americans are more likely to be cited and arrested following a stop regardless of why the stop was initiated and are more likely to receive multiple citations during a single incident. From 2012 to 2014, FPD issued four or more citations to African Americans on 73 occasions, but issued four or more citations to non-African Americans only twice. FPD appears to bring certain offenses almost exclusively against African Americans. For example, from 2011 to 2013, African Americans accounted for 95% of Manner of Walking in Roadway charges, and

of all Failure to Comply charges. Notably, with
弗格森的执法行为对非洲裔美国人造成了压倒性影响。弗格森警察局2012年至2014年收集的数据显示，尽管非裔美国人仅占弗格森人口的

，但在弗格森警察局官员拦截的车辆、传票和逮捕的人中，非裔美国人分别占

、

和

。即使在控制了非种族变量（如拦车原因）之后，非裔美国人在拦车时被搜查的可能性仍是白人司机的两倍多，但被发现持有违禁品的

频率却低于白人司机，这表明警察在决定是否搜查时将种族作为一个因素考虑是不允许的。非裔美国人在被拦截后更有可能被传唤和逮捕，无论拦截的原因是什么，而且在一次事件中更有可能收到多张传票。从2012年到2014年，联邦警察局向非裔美国人发出四张或四张以上传票的情况有73次，但向非裔美国人发出四张或四张以上传票的情况仅有两次。FPD 似乎几乎只针对非裔美国人实施某些违法行为。例如，从2011年到2013年，非裔美国人占 "在道路上行走的方式"（Manner of Walking in Roadway）指控的95%，占所有 "未遵守规定"（Failure to Compliance）指控的

。值得注意的是
respect to speeding charges brought by FPD, the evidence shows not only that African Americans are represented at disproportionately high rates overall, but also that the disparate impact of FPD's enforcement practices on African Americans is

larger when citations are issued not on the basis of radar or laser, but by some other method, such as the officer's own visual assessment.
关于FPD提出的超速指控，证据显示，不仅非裔美国人的总体比例过高，而且当传票不是根据雷达或激光，而是根据其他方法（如警官自己的目测）发出时，FPD的执法行为对非裔美国人的不同影响更大。

These disparities are also present in FPD's use of force. Nearly

of documented force used by FPD officers was used against African Americans. In every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the person bitten was African American.
这些差异也体现在FPD使用武力的情况中。近

有记录的联邦警察使用的武力都是针对非裔美国人的。在每一起有种族信息的警犬咬人事件中，被咬者都是非裔美国人。

Municipal court practices likewise cause disproportionate harm to African Americans. African Americans are 68% less likely than others to have their cases dismissed by the court, and are more likely to have their cases last longer and result in more required court encounters. African Americans are at least 50% more likely to have their cases lead to an arrest warrant, and accounted for

of cases in which an arrest warrant was issued by the Ferguson Municipal Court in 2013. Available data show that, of those actually arrested by FPD only because of an outstanding municipal warrant,

are African American.
市法院的做法同样对非洲裔美国人造成了不成比例的伤害。非裔美国人被法院驳回案件的可能性比其他人低68%，而且他们的案件更有可能持续更长时间，导致需要出庭的次数更多。非裔美国人的案件被签发逮捕令的可能性至少高出50%，2013年弗格森市法院签发逮捕令的案件中，非裔美国人占了

。现有数据显示，在因市政逮捕令未执行而实际被弗格森警察局逮捕的人中，

是非裔美国人。

Our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on African Americans cannot be explained by any difference in the rate at which people of different races violate the law. Rather, our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control.
我们的调查表明，非裔美国人所承受的这种不成比例的负担无法用不同种族的人违法率的差异来解释。相反，我们的调查显示，这些差异的出现，至少部分原因是对非裔美国人的非法偏见和成见。我们在弗格森的警察和法院工作人员中发现了大量种族偏见的证据。例如，我们发现警方主管和法院工作人员分发的电子邮件将少数种族定型为罪犯，其中一封邮件还开玩笑说，非裔美国妇女堕胎是控制犯罪的一种手段。

City officials have frequently asserted that the harsh and disparate results of Ferguson's law enforcement system do not indicate problems with police or court practices, but instead reflect a pervasive lack of "personal responsibility" among "certain segments" of the community. Our investigation has found that the practices about which area residents have complained are in fact unconstitutional and unduly harsh. But the City's personal-responsibility refrain is telling: it reflects many of the same racial stereotypes found in the emails between police and court supervisors. This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson's conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
市政府官员经常声称，弗格森执法系统的严苛和差异化结果并不表明警方或法院的做法存在问题，而是反映出社区 "某些阶层 "普遍缺乏 "个人责任感"。我们的调查发现，该地区居民所抱怨的做法实际上是违宪和过分严厉的。但市政府关于个人责任的说法却很能说明问题：它反映了警方和法院主管之间电子邮件中的许多相同的种族成见。这些偏见和陈规定型观念的证据，加上弗格森长期以来一直承认但未能纠正其警察和法院做法所造成的持续的种族差异的证据，表明弗格森行为的歧视性影响至少部分是由违反第十四修正案的歧视性意图所驱动的。

Community Distrust 社区不信任

Since the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown, the lack of trust between the Ferguson Police Department and a significant portion of Ferguson's residents, especially African Americans, has become undeniable. The causes of this distrust and division, however, have been the subject of debate. Police and other City officials, as well as some Ferguson residents, have insisted to us that the public outcry is attributable to "outside agitators" who do not reflect the opinions of "real Ferguson residents." That view is at odds with the facts we have gathered during our investigation. Our investigation has shown that distrust of the Ferguson Police Department is longstanding and largely attributable to Ferguson's approach to law enforcement. This approach results in patterns of unnecessarily aggressive and at times unlawful policing;
自 2014 年 8 月迈克尔-布朗（Michael Brown）被枪杀以来，弗格森警察局与弗格森大部分居民（尤其是非裔美国人）之间缺乏信任已成为不争的事实。然而，造成这种不信任和分裂的原因一直是争论的焦点。警方和其他市政官员以及一些弗格森居民向我们坚称，公众的愤怒是 "外部煽动者 "造成的，他们并不反映 "真正的弗格森居民 "的意见。这种观点与我们在调查过程中收集到的事实不符。我们的调查显示，人们对弗格森警察局的不信任由来已久，这主要归咎于弗格森的执法方式。这种执法方式导致了不必要的激进执法模式，有时甚至是非法执法；
reinforces the harm of discriminatory stereotypes; discourages a culture of accountability; and neglects community engagement. In recent years, FPD has moved away from the modest community policing efforts it previously had implemented, reducing opportunities for positive police-community interactions, and losing the little familiarity it had with some AfricanAmerican neighborhoods. The confluence of policing to raise revenue and racial bias thus has resulted in practices that not only violate the Constitution and cause direct harm to the individuals whose rights are violated, but also undermine community trust, especially among many African Americans. As a consequence of these practices, law enforcement is seen as illegitimate, and the partnerships necessary for public safety are, in some areas, entirely absent.
这强化了歧视性陈规定型观念的危害；阻碍了问责文化的形成；忽视了社区参与。近年来，非裔美国人警察局放弃了以前实施的适度的社区警务工作，减少了警民积极互动的机会，也失去了与一些非裔美国人社区的一点熟悉感。因此，为增加收入而维持治安与种族偏见并存的做法不仅违反了《宪法》，对权利受到侵犯的个人造成直接伤害，而且破坏了社区信任，特别是许多非裔美国人对社区的信任。这些做法的后果是，执法被视为非法，在某些地区，公共安全所需的伙伴关系完全缺失。

Restoring trust in law enforcement will require recognition of the harms caused by Ferguson's law enforcement practices, and diligent, committed collaboration with the entire Ferguson community. At the conclusion of this report, we have broadly identified the changes that are necessary for meaningful and sustainable reform. These measures build upon a number of other recommended changes we communicated verbally to the Mayor, Police Chief, and City Manager in September so that Ferguson could begin immediately to address problems as we identified them. As a result of those recommendations, the City and police department have already begun to make some changes to municipal court and police practices. We commend City officials for beginning to take steps to address some of the concerns we have already raised. Nonetheless, these changes are only a small part of the reform necessary. Addressing the deeply embedded constitutional deficiencies we found demands an entire reorientation of law enforcement in Ferguson. The City must replace revenue-driven policing with a system grounded in the principles of community policing and police legitimacy, in which people are equally protected and treated with compassion, regardless of race.
要恢复人们对执法部门的信任，就必须认识到弗格森的执法行为所造成的伤害，并与整个弗格森社区开展勤勉、坚定的合作。在本报告的最后，我们大致确定了进行有意义和可持续改革所必需的变革。这些措施建立在我们 9 月份向市长、警察局长和城市经理口头传达的其他一些改革建议的基础上，以便弗格森能够立即开始解决我们发现的问题。根据这些建议，市政府和警察局已经开始对市级法院和警方的做法进行一些改革。我们对市政府官员开始采取措施解决我们已经提出的一些问题表示赞赏。然而，这些改变只是必要改革的一小部分。要解决我们发现的根深蒂固的宪法缺陷，就必须对弗格森的执法工作进行全面调整。该市必须以社区警务和警察合法性原则为基础的系统取代以收入为导向的警务工作，在这一系统中，人们不分种族都能得到平等的保护和同情的对待。

II. BACKGROUND II.背景情况

The City of Ferguson is one of 89 municipalities in St. Louis County, Missouri.

According to United States Census Data from 2010, Ferguson is home to roughly 21,000 residents.

While Ferguson's total population has stayed relatively constant in recent decades, Ferguson's racial demographics have changed dramatically during that time. In 1990, 74% of Ferguson's population was white, while

was black.

By 2000, African Americans became the new majority, making up

of the City's population.

According to the 2010 Census, the black population in Ferguson has grown to

, whereas the white population has decreased to 29%.

According to the 2009-2013 American Community Survey, 25% of the City's population lives below the federal poverty level.

弗格森市是密苏里州圣路易斯县89个市镇之一。

根据 2010 年的美国人口普查数据，弗格森市大约有 21,000 名居民。

近几十年来，弗格森的总人口保持相对稳定，但在此期间，弗格森的种族人口结构发生了巨大变化。1990 年，弗格森 74% 的人口为白人，

为黑人。

到 2000 年，非裔美国人成为新的多数，占该市人口的

。

根据 2010 年的人口普查，弗格森的黑人人口增长到

，而白人人口则下降到 29%。

根据 2009-2013 年美国社区调查，该市 25% 的人口生活在联邦贫困线以下。

Residents of Ferguson elect a Mayor and six individuals to serve on a City Council. The City Council appoints a City Manager to an indefinite term, subject to removal by a Council vote. See Ferguson City Charter § 4.1. The City Manager serves as chief executive and administrative officer of the City of Ferguson, and is responsible for all affairs of the City. The City Manager directs and supervises all City departments, including the Ferguson Police Department.
弗格森的居民选举一名市长和六名市议员。市议会任命一名城市经理，无限期任职，可由市议会投票免职。参见《弗格森市宪章》第 4.1 条。城市经理是弗格森市的首席执行官和行政长官，负责该市的所有事务。城市经理领导和监督包括弗格森警察局在内的所有市政部门。

The current Chief of Police, Thomas Jackson, has commanded the police department since he was appointed by the City Manager in 2010. The department has a total of 54 sworn officers divided among several divisions. The patrol division is the largest division; 28 patrol officers are supervised by four sergeants, two lieutenants, and a captain. Each of the four patrol squads has a canine officer. While all patrol officers engage in traffic enforcement, FPD also has a dedicated traffic officer responsible for collecting traffic stop data required by the state of Missouri. FPD has two School Resource Officers ("SROs"), one who is assigned to the McCluer South-Berkeley High School and one who is assigned to the Ferguson Middle School. FPD has a single officer assigned to be the "Community Resource Officer," who attends community meetings, serves as FPD's public relations liaison, and is charged with collecting crime data. FPD operates its own jail, which has ten individual cells and a large holding cell. The jail is staffed by three non-sworn correctional officers. Of the 54 sworn officers currently serving in FPD, four are African American.
现任警察局长托马斯-杰克逊（Thomas Jackson）自 2010 年被城市经理任命以来一直领导着警察局。警察局共有 54 名宣誓就职的警官，分属多个部门。巡警部门是最大的部门，共有 28 名巡警，由 4 名警长、2 名中尉和 1 名上尉负责。四个巡逻队各有一名警犬警官。虽然所有巡逻警官都参与交通执法，但 FPD 还有一名专职交通警官负责收集密苏里州要求的交通拦截数据。FPD 有两名学校资源官员（"SRO"），一名被派往麦克卢尔南-伯克利高中，另一名被派往弗格森中学。FPD 指派一名警官担任 "社区资源官"，负责出席社区会议，担任 FPD 的公共关系联络员，并负责收集犯罪数据。FPD 拥有自己的监狱，其中有十间单人牢房和一间大牢房。监狱配备有三名不穿制服的管教人员。目前在 FPD 服役的 54 名宣誓警官中，有 4 名是非洲裔美国人。

FPD officers are authorized to initiate charges-by issuing citations or summonses, or by making arrests - under both the municipal code and state law. Ferguson's municipal code addresses nearly every aspect of civic life for those who live in Ferguson, and regulates the conduct of all who work, travel through, or otherwise visit the City. In addition to mirroring some non-felony state law violations, such as assault, stealing, and traffic violations, the code establishes housing violations, such as High Grass and Weeds; requirements for permits to rent an apartment or use the City's trash service; animal control ordinances, such as Barking Dog and Dog Running at Large; and a number of other violations, such as Manner of Walking in Roadway. See, e.g., Ferguson Mun. Code §§ 29-16 et seq.; 37-1 et seq.; 46-27; 6-5, 6-11; 44344 .
根据市政法典和州法律，弗格森警察有权通过签发传票或传票，或进行逮捕来提起诉讼。弗格森的市政法规几乎涉及居住在弗格森的市民生活的方方面面，并规范所有在该市工作、旅行或以其他方式访问该市的人的行为。除了与州法律中的一些非重罪违法行为（如袭击、偷窃和交通违法行为）如出一辙之外，该法规还规定了住房方面的违法行为（如高草和杂草）；租房或使用城市垃圾处理服务的许可要求；动物管理条例（如狗叫和狗乱跑）；以及其他一些违法行为（如在道路上行走的方式）。参见 Ferguson Mun.法典》§§ 29-16 及其后；37-1 及其后；46-27；6-5，6-11；44344 。

FPD files most charges as municipal offenses, not state violations, even when an analogous state offense exists. Between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014, the City of Ferguson issued approximately 90,000 citations and summonses for municipal violations. Notably, the City issued nearly

more citations in the last year of that time period than it did in the first. This increase in enforcement has not been driven by a rise in serious crime. While the ticketing rate has increased dramatically, the number of charges for many of the most serious offenses covered by the municipal code-e.g., Assault, Driving While Intoxicated, and Stealing-has remained relatively constant.

弗格森警察局将大多数指控归档为市政违法行为，而非州违法行为，即使存在类似的州违法行为。2010 年 7 月 1 日至 2014 年 6 月 30 日期间，弗格森市共签发了约 9 万张市政违法行为传票和传票。值得注意的是，该市在这一时期的最后一年发出的传票比第一年多出近

倍。执法力度的加大并不是因为严重犯罪率的上升。虽然开罚单的比例大幅上升，但市政法规中涉及的许多最严重犯罪（如袭击、酒后驾车和偷窃）的指控数量却相对保持稳定。

Because the overwhelming majority of FPD's enforcement actions are brought under the municipal code, most charges are processed and resolved by the Ferguson Municipal Court, which has primary jurisdiction over all code violations. Ferguson Mun. Code § 13-2. Ferguson's municipal court operates as part of the police department. The court is supervised by the Ferguson Chief of Police, is considered part of the police department for City organizational purposes, and is physically located within the police station. Court staff report directly to the Chief of Police. Thus, if the City Manager or other City officials issue a court-related directive, it is typically sent to the Police Chief's attention. In recent weeks, City officials informed us that they are considering plans to bring the court under the supervision of the City Finance Director.
由于 FPD 的绝大多数执法行动都是根据市政法规进行的，因此大多数指控都由弗格森市政法院处理和解决，该法院对所有违反法规的行为拥有主要管辖权。弗格森市政法典》第 13-2 条。弗格森市法典》§ 13-2。弗格森市法院作为警察局的一部分运作。该法院由弗格森警察局长监管，就城市组织而言被视为警察局的一部分，并实际设在警察局内。法院工作人员直接向警察局长报告。因此，如果城市经理或其他城市官员发布与法院有关的指令，通常会将其转发给警察局长。最近几周，市政府官员告诉我们，他们正在考虑将法院交由市财政局局长监管的计划。

A Municipal Judge presides over court sessions. The Municipal Judge is not hired or supervised by the Chief of Police, but is instead nominated by the City Manager and elected by the City Council. The Judge serves a two-year term, subject to reappointment. The current Municipal Judge, Ronald Brockmeyer, has presided in Ferguson for approximately ten years. The City's Prosecuting Attorney and her assistants officially prosecute all actions before the court, although in practice most cases are resolved without trial or a prosecutor's involvement. The current Prosecuting Attorney was appointed in April 2011. At the time of her appointment, the Prosecuting Attorney was already serving as City Attorney, and she continues to serve in that separate capacity, which entails providing general counsel and representation to the City. The Municipal Judge, Court Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, and all assistant court clerks are white.
市政法官主持法庭开庭。市政法官不是由警察局长聘用或监督，而是由城市经理提名、市议会选举产生。法官任期两年，可连任。现任市政法官罗纳德-布罗克迈耶已在弗格森市担任法官约十年。该市的检察官及其助理正式起诉法院受理的所有诉讼，但实际上大多数案件都是在没有审判或检察官参与的情况下解决的。现任检察官于 2011 年 4 月获得任命。在被任命时，检察长已担任城市检察官，她将继续以这一独立身份为城市提供总法律顾问和代表服务。市法官、法院书记员、检察长和所有法院助理书记员均为白人。

While the Municipal Judge presides over court sessions, the Court Clerk, who is employed under the Police Chief's supervision, plays the most significant role in managing the court and exercises broad discretion in conducting the court's daily operations. Ferguson's municipal code confers broad authority on the Court Clerk, including the authority to collect all fines and fees, accept guilty pleas, sign and issue subpoenas, and approve bond determinations. Ferguson Mun. Code § 13-7. Indeed, the Court Clerk and assistant clerks routinely perform duties that are, for all practical purposes, judicial. For example, documents indicate that court clerks have disposed of charges without the Municipal Judge's involvement.
虽然市法官主持开庭，但受雇于警察局长的法院书记员在管理法院方面发挥着最重要的作用，并在法院日常运作中行使广泛的自由裁量权。弗格森的市政法典赋予法庭书记官广泛的权力，包括收取所有罚款和费用、接受认罪、签署和签发传票以及批准保释金裁定的权力。Ferguson Mun.法典》§ 13-7。事实上，法院书记员和助理书记员日常履行的职责实际上都是司法职责。例如，有文件显示，法院书记员曾在没有市政法官参与的情况下处理指控。

The court officially operates subject to the oversight of the presiding judge of the St. Louis County Circuit Court (

Judicial Circuit) under the rules promulgated by that Circuit Court and the Missouri Supreme Court. Notwithstanding these rules, the City of Ferguson and the court itself retain considerable power to establish and amend court practices and procedures. The Ferguson municipal code sets forth a limited number of protocols that the court must follow, but the code leaves most aspects of court operations to the discretion of the court itself. See Ferguson Mun. Code Ch. 13, Art. III. The code also explicitly authorizes the Municipal Judge to "make and adopt such rules of practice and procedure as are necessary to hear and decide matters pending before the municipal court." Ferguson Mun. Code § 13-29.
法院在圣路易斯郡巡回法院（

司法巡回区）主审法官的监督下，根据该巡回法院和密苏里州最高法院颁布的规则正式运作。尽管有这些规则，弗格森市和法院本身仍保留了相当大的权力来制定和修改法院惯例和程序。弗格森市政法典规定了法院必须遵守的数量有限的规程，但该法典将法院运作的大部分方面留给了法院自己酌情处理。参见 Ferguson Mun.Code Ch. 13, Art.III.该法典还明确授权市政法官 "制定并通过审理和裁决市政法院待决事项所需的惯例和程序规则"。弗格森市政法典》第 13-29 条。弗格森市法典》第 13-29 条。

The Ferguson Municipal Court has the authority to issue and enforce judgments, issue warrants for search and arrest, hold parties in contempt, and order imprisonment as a penalty for contempt. The court may conduct trials, although it does so rarely, and most charges are resolved without one. Upon resolution of a charge, the court has the authority to impose fines, fees, and imprisonment when violations are found. Specifically, the court can impose imprisonment in the Ferguson City Jail for up to three months, a fine of up to

, or a combination thereof. It is rare for the court to sentence anyone to jail as a penalty for a violation of the municipal code; indeed, the Municipal Judge reports that he has done so only once.
弗格森市法院有权签发和执行判决，签发搜查令和逮捕令，判定当事人藐视法庭，并下令对藐视法庭者处以监禁。法院可以进行审判，但很少这样做，大多数指控无需审判即可解决。在解决指控后，法院有权对发现的违法行为处以罚款、费用和监禁。具体而言，法院可判处弗格森市监狱最长三个月的监禁、最多

的罚款，或两者并罚。法院极少判处任何人入狱作为对违反市政法规行为的惩罚；事实上，市政法官报告说他只这样做过一次。

Rather, the court almost always imposes a monetary penalty payable to the City of Ferguson, plus court fees. Nonetheless, as discussed in detail below, the court issues arrest warrants when a person misses a court appearance or fails to timely pay a fine. As a result, violations that would normally not result in a penalty of imprisonment can, and frequently do, lead to municipal warrants, arrests, and jail time.
相反，法院几乎总是对弗格森市处以罚款，外加法庭费用。尽管如此，如下文详述，当某人缺席出庭或未能及时缴纳罚款时，法院会签发逮捕令。因此，通常不会导致监禁处罚的违法行为可能会，而且经常会导致市政逮捕令、逮捕和监禁。

As the number of charges initiated by FPD has increased in recent years, the size of the court's docket has also increased. According to data the City reported to the Missouri State Courts Administrator, at the end of fiscal year 2009, the municipal court had roughly 24,000 traffic cases and 28,000 non-traffic cases pending. As of October 31, 2014, both of those figures had roughly doubled to 53,000 and 50,000 cases, respectively. In fiscal year 2009, 16,178 new cases were filed, and 8,727 were resolved. In 2014, by contrast, 24,256 new offenses were filed, and 10,975 offenses were resolved.
近年来，随着市警察局提出的指控数量不断增加，法院的待审案件数量也随之增加。根据市政府向密苏里州法院行政长官报告的数据，在 2009 财政年度结束时，市法院约有 24,000 起交通案件和 28,000 起非交通案件待审。截至 2014 年 10 月 31 日，这两个数字都翻了约一倍，分别达到 53,000 起和 50,000 起案件。2009 财年，新立案 16178 起，结案 8727 起。相比之下，2014 年共立案 24,256 起新案件，解决了 10,975 起案件。

The court holds three or four sessions per month, and each session lasts no more than three hours. It is not uncommon for as many as 500 people to appear before the court in a single session, exceeding the court's physical capacity and leading individuals to line up outside of court waiting to be heard. Many people have multiple offenses pending; accordingly, the court typically considers 1,200-1,500 offenses in a single session, and has in the past considered over 2,000 offenses during one sitting. Previously there was a cap on the number of offenses that could be assigned to a particular docket date. Given that cap, and the significant increase in municipal citations in recent years, a problem developed in December 2011 in which more citations were issued than court sessions could timely accommodate. At one point court dates were initially scheduled as far as six months after the date of the citation. To address this problem, court staff first raised the cap to allow 1,000 offenses to be assigned to a single court date and later eliminated the cap altogether. To handle the increasing caseload, the City Manager also requested and secured City Council approval to fund additional court positions, noting in January 2013 that "each month we are setting new all-time records in fines and forfeitures," that this was overburdening court staff, and that the funding for the additional positions "will be more than covered by the increase in revenues."
法院每月开庭三至四次，每次开庭不超过三小时。一次开庭审理多达 500 人的情况并不少见，这超出了法庭的实际容量，导致人们在法庭外排队等候听审。许多人有多项罪行待审；因此，法庭通常在一次开庭中审理 1,200 至 1,500 项罪行，过去曾在一次开庭中审理过 2,000 多项罪行。以前，分配给特定备审案件日期的犯罪数量是有上限的。考虑到这一上限，以及近年来市政传票的大幅增加，2011 年 12 月出现了一个问题，即发出的传票数量超过了法庭开庭所能及时容纳的数量。开庭日期一度被安排在传票日期的六个月之后。为解决这一问题，法院工作人员先是提高了上限，允许将 1,000 项违法行为分配到一个开庭日，后来又完全取消了上限。为了处理不断增加的案件量，城市经理还请求并获得了市议会的批准，为增设法院职位提供资金，并在 2013 年 1 月指出，"我们每个月的罚款和罚没金额都在刷新历史记录"，这让法院工作人员不堪重负，而增设职位的资金 "将超过收入增长的部分"。

III. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUE
III.弗格森执法工作的重点是创收

City officials have consistently set maximizing revenue as the priority for Ferguson's law enforcement activity. Ferguson generates a significant and increasing amount of revenue from the enforcement of code provisions. The City has budgeted for, and achieved, significant increases in revenue from municipal code enforcement over the last several years, and these increases are projected to continue. Of the

million in general fund revenue the City collected in fiscal year 2010,

million came from fines and fees collected by the court; similarly, in fiscal year 2011, the City's general fund revenue of

million included

million from fines and fees. In its budget for fiscal year 2012, however, the City predicted that revenue from municipal fines and fees would increase over

from the previous year's amount to

million; the court exceeded that target, collecting

million. In its budget for fiscal year 2013, the City budgeted for fines and fees to yield

million; the court exceeded that target as well, collecting

million. For 2014, the City budgeted for the municipal court to generate

million in revenue. The City has not yet made public the actual revenue collected that year, although budget documents forecasted lower revenue than
市政府官员一直将收入最大化作为弗格森执法活动的首要任务。弗格森市通过执行法规条款获得了大量收入，而且这一数额还在不断增加。在过去的几年中，市政府已经为来自市政法规执行的收入编制了预算，并实现了大幅增长，预计这些增长还将继续。2010 财年，该市普通基金收入为

百万，其中

百万来自法院收取的罚款和费用；同样，2011 财年，该市普通基金收入为

百万，其中

百万来自罚款和费用。然而，在 2012 财年的预算中，市政府预测来自市政罚款和收费的收入将比上年增加

多，达到

万；法院超额完成了这一目标，收取了

万。在 2013 财年的预算中，该市预算的罚款和规费收入为

万；法院也超额完成了这一目标，收取了

万。2014 年，市政府预算市法院的收入为

万元。该市尚未公布当年的实际收入，尽管预算文件预测收入将低于预算。
was budgeted. Nonetheless, for fiscal year 2015, the City's budget anticipates fine and fee revenues to account for

million of a projected

million in general fund revenues.

的预算。尽管如此，在 2015 财年，该市的预算预计罚款和收费收入将占普通基金预计收入

百万中的

百万。

City, police, and court officials for years have worked in concert to maximize revenue at every stage of the enforcement process, beginning with how fines and fine enforcement processes are established. In a February 2011 report requested by the City Council at a Financial Planning Session and drafted by Ferguson's Finance Director with contributions from Chief Jackson, the Finance Director reported on "efforts to increase efficiencies and maximize collection" by the municipal court. The report included an extensive comparison of Ferguson's fines to those of surrounding municipalities and noted with approval that Ferguson's fines are "at or near the top of the list." The chart noted, for example, that while other municipalities' parking fines generally range from

, Ferguson's is

. The chart noted also that the charge for "Weeds/Tall Grass" was as little as

in one city but, in Ferguson, it ranged from

. The report stated that the acting prosecutor had reviewed the City's "high volume offenses" and "started recommending higher fines on these cases, and recommending probation only infrequently." While the report stated that this recommendation was because of a "large volume of non-compliance," the recommendation was in fact emphasized as one of several ways that the code enforcement system had been honed to produce more revenue.
多年来，市政府、警方和法院官员一直通力合作，在执法过程的各个阶段最大限度地增加收入，首先是如何确定罚款和罚款执行程序。2011 年 2 月，市议会在财务规划会议上要求提交一份报告，该报告由弗格森市财务总监起草，杰克逊局长也参与其中。报告对弗格森市的罚款额与周边城市的罚款额进行了广泛的比较，并赞许地指出弗格森市的罚款额 "处于或接近榜首"。例如，图表指出，其他城市的停车罚款一般在

到

之间，而弗格森的罚款则为

。该图表还指出，在一个城市，"杂草/高草 "的收费低至

，但在弗格森，则从

到

不等。报告称，代理检察官审查了该市的 "大量违法行为"，"开始建议对这些案件处以更高的罚款，并建议缓刑，但这种情况并不多见"。虽然报告称这一建议是由于 "大量的违规行为"，但事实上，该建议被强调为规范执法系统为创造更多收入而磨练的几种方法之一。

In combination with a high fine schedule, the City directs FPD to aggressively enforce the municipal code. City and police leadership pressure officers to write citations, independent of any public safety need, and rely on citation productivity to fund the City budget. In an email from March 2010, the Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that "unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year. What are your thoughts? Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, it's not an insignificant issue." Chief Jackson responded that the City would see an increase in fines once more officers were hired and that he could target the

million forecast. Significantly, Chief Jackson stated that he was also "looking at different shift schedules which will place more officers on the street, which in turn will increase traffic enforcement per shift." Shortly thereafter, FPD switched to the 12-hour shift schedule for its patrol officers, which FPD continues to use. Law enforcement experience has shown that this schedule makes community policing more difficult - a concern that we have also heard directly from FPD officers. Nonetheless, while FPD heavily considered the revenue implications of the 12-hour shift and certain other factors such as its impact on overtime and sick time usage, we have found no evidence that FPD considered the consequences for positive community engagement. The City's 2014 budget itself stated that since December 2010, "the percent of [FPD] resources allocated to traffic enforcement has increased," and "[a]s a result, traffic enforcement related collections increased" in the following two years. The 2015 budget added that even after those initial increases, in fiscal year 2012-2013, FPD was once again "successful in increasing their proportion of resources dedicated to traffic enforcement" and increasing collections.
结合高额罚款，市政府指示 FPD 积极执行市政法规。市政府和警方领导向警员施压，要求他们开罚单，而不考虑任何公共安全需要，并依靠开罚单的生产力为市政府预算提供资金。在 2010 年 3 月的一封电子邮件中，财务总监在写给杰克逊局长的信中说："除非在年底前大幅提高开罚单的数量，否则明年将很难大幅提高税收。您有什么想法？鉴于我们的销售税缺口很大，这不是一个无关紧要的问题"。杰克逊局长回答说，一旦雇佣更多的警察，本市的罚款额就会增加，他可以瞄准

百万的预测目标。值得注意的是，杰克逊局长表示，他还在 "研究不同的轮班安排，这将在街上安排更多的警员，从而增加每班的交通执法力度"。此后不久，FPD 为其巡逻人员改用了 12 小时轮班制，并一直沿用至今。执法经验表明，这种班次安排增加了社区警务工作的难度--我们也直接从 FPD 警官那里听到了这种担忧。然而，尽管 FPD 充分考虑了 12 小时轮班制对收入的影响以及对加班和病假使用的影响等某些其他因素，但我们没有发现任何证据表明 FPD 考虑过对积极社区参与的影响。该市2014年的预算本身指出，自2010年12月以来，"分配给交通执法的[FPD]资源的百分比增加了"，"因此，在随后的两年中，与交通执法相关的税收增加了"。 2015 年预算补充说，即使在最初的增长之后，2012-2013 财年，FPD 再次 "成功提高了交通执法专用资源的比例"，并增加了收款。

As directed, FPD supervisors and line officers have undertaken the aggressive code enforcement required to meet the City's revenue generation expectations. As discussed below in Part III.A., FPD officers routinely conduct stops that have little relation to public safety and a questionable basis in law. FPD officers routinely issue multiple citations during a single stop, often for the same violation. Issuing three or four charges in one stop is not uncommon in Ferguson. Officers sometimes write six, eight, or, in at least one instance, fourteen citations for a single encounter. Indeed, officers told us that some compete to see who can issue the largest number of citations during a single stop.
根据指示，FPD 的主管人员和一线警员积极开展了必要的执法活动，以满足市政府的创收预期。如下文第 III.A 部分所述，计生协警员经常拦截一些与公共安全关系不大、法律依据有问题的车辆。FPD 警官在一次拦截中通常会发出多张传票，而且往往是针对同一违法行为。在弗格森，一次拦截就开出三到四张罚单的情况并不少见。警察有时会在一次拦截中开出六张、八张或至少十四张传票。事实上，警官们告诉我们，有些警官会相互竞争，看谁在一次拦截中发出的传票数量最多。

The February 2011 report to the City Council notes that the acting prosecutor-with the apparent approval of the Police Chief-"talked with police officers about ensuring all necessary summonses are written for each incident, i.e. when DWI charges are issued, are the correct companion charges being issued, such as speeding, failure to maintain a single lane, no insurance, and no seat belt, etc." The prosecutor noted that "

his is done to ensure that a proper resolution to all cases is being achieved and that the court is maintaining the correct volume for offenses occurring within the city." Notably, the "correct volume" of law enforcement is uniformly presented in City documents as related to revenue generation, rather than in terms of what is necessary to promote public safety.

Each month, the municipal court provides FPD supervisors with a list of the number of tickets issued by each officer and each squad. Supervisors have posted the list inside the police station, a tactic officers say is meant to push them to write more citations.
2011 年 2 月向市议会提交的报告指出，代理检察官显然得到了警察局长的批准，"与警官讨论了如何确保为每起事件开具所有必要的传票，即在开具酒驾指控时，是否开具了正确的附带指控，如超速、未保持单一车道、无保险和未系安全带等"。检察官指出："

这样做是为了确保所有案件都能得到妥善解决，并确保法院对市内发生的违法行为保持正确的处理量。值得注意的是，在市政府的文件中，"正确的执法量 "被统一表述为与创收有关，而不是与促进公共安全所必需的执法量有关。

每个月，市法院都会向 FPD 主管提供一份清单，列出每名警官和每个小队开出的罚单数量。主管们将这份清单张贴在警察局内，警官们说这是为了促使他们开出更多的罚单。

The Captain of FPD's Patrol Division regularly communicates with his Division commanders regarding the need to increase traffic "productivity," and productivity is a common topic at squad meetings. Patrol Division supervisors monitor productivity through monthly "self-initiated activity reports" and instruct officers to increase production when those reports show they have not issued enough citations. In April 2010, for example, a patrol supervisor criticized a sergeant for his squad only issuing 25 tickets in a month, including one officer who issued "a grand total" of 11 tickets to six people on three days "devoted to traffic stops." In November 2011, the same patrol supervisor wrote to his patrol lieutenants and sergeants that "[t]he monthly self-initiated activity totals just came out," and they "may want to advise [their] officers who may be interested in the open detective position that one of the categories to be considered when deciding on the eligibility list will be self-initiated activity." The supervisor continued: "Have any of you heard comments such as, why should I produce when I know I'm not getting a raise? Well, some people are about to find out why." The email concludes with the instruction to "

eep in mind, productivity (self-initiated activity) cannot decline for next year."
FPD 巡逻分队队长定期与分队指挥官就提高交通 "生产率 "的必要性进行沟通，生产率也是分队会议的一个常见议题。巡逻分局的主管通过每月的 "自发活动报告 "来监督工作效率，当报告显示他们没有发出足够的传票时，就会指示警官提高工作效率。例如，2010 年 4 月，一名巡逻主管批评一名警长，因为他的巡逻队在一个月内只开出了 25 张罚单，其中一名警官在 "专门进行交通拦截 "的三天内向六个人 "总共 "开出了 11 张罚单。2011 年 11 月，同一位巡警主管写信给他的巡警中尉和警长说，"每月的自发活动总数刚刚出来"，他们 "可能想告知可能对空缺侦探职位感兴趣的警官，在决定资格名单时，自发活动将是考虑的类别之一"。该主管接着说"你们中是否有人听到过这样的评论：我知道自己不会加薪，为什么还要去工作？有些人就要知道为什么了"。邮件最后指示"

记住，明年的生产率（自主活动）不能下降"。

FPD has communicated to officers not only that they must focus on bringing in revenue, but that the department has little concern with how officers do this. FPD's weak systems of supervision, review, and accountability, discussed below in Part III.A., have sent a potent message to officers that their violations of law and policy will be tolerated, provided that officers
FPD 向警员们传达的信息不仅是他们必须把重点放在创收上，而且该部门对警员们如何创收并不关心。以下第 III.A 部分将讨论的 FPD 监督、审查和问责制度薄弱的问题，向警员们发出了一个强有力的信息，即他们违反法律和政策的行为是可以被容忍的，只要警员们做到以下几点

continue to be "productive" in making arrests and writing citations. Where officers fail to meet productivity goals, supervisors have been instructed to alter officer assignments or impose discipline. In August 2012, the Captain of the Patrol Division instructed other patrol supervisors that, "[f]or those officers who are not keeping up an acceptable level of productivity and they have already been addressed at least once if not multiple times, take it to the next level." He continued: "As we have discussed already, regardless of the seniority and experience take the officer out of the cover car position and assign them to prisoner pick up and bank runs. . . . Failure to perform can result in disciplinary action not just a bad evaluation." Performance evaluations also heavily emphasize productivity. A June 2013 evaluation indicates one of the "Performance-Related Areas of Improvements" as "Increase/consistent in productivity, the ability to maintain an average ticket [sic] of 28 per month."
继续 "高效 "地实施逮捕和开具传票。如果警员未能达到工作效率目标，主管就会接到指示，改变警员的任务分配或实施纪律处分。2012 年 8 月，巡警分局队长指示其他巡警主管："对于那些工作效率未达到可接受水平的警员，如果不是多次，也至少已经处理过一次，那么就再处理一次。他接着说他继续说："正如我们已经讨论过的那样，无论资历和经验如何，都要将警员从掩护车岗位上调走，让他们去接囚犯和跑银行......。. ..表现不佳会导致纪律处分，而不仅仅是一个糟糕的评估"。绩效评估也非常强调工作效率。2013 年 6 月的一份评估指出，"与绩效相关的改进领域 "之一是 "提高/保持工作效率，保持每月平均 28 张罚单[原文如此]的能力"。

Not all officers within FPD agree with this approach. Several officers commented on the futility of imposing mounting penalties on people who will never be able to afford them. One member of FPD's command staff quoted an old adage, asking: "How can you get blood from a turnip?" Another questioned why FPD did not allow residents to use their limited resources to fix equipment violations, such as broken headlights, rather than paying that money to the City, as fixing the equipment violation would more directly benefit public safety.

并非 FPD 的所有官员都同意这种做法。几位警官认为，对那些永远负担不起罚款的人施加越来越重的处罚是徒劳无益的。一名消防局的指挥人员引用了一句老话："萝卜怎么能生出血来呢？"另一位成员则质疑，为什么 FPD 不允许居民利用其有限的资源来修复违规设备，例如坏掉的车头灯，而要向市政府支付这笔钱，因为修复违规设备更直接有利于公共安全。

However, enough officers-at all ranks-have internalized this message that a culture of reflexive enforcement action, unconcerned with whether the police action actually promotes public safety, and unconcerned with the impact the decision has on individual lives or community trust as a whole, has taken hold within FPD. One commander told us, for example, that when he admonished an officer for writing too many tickets, the officer challenged the commander, asking if the commander was telling him not to do his job. When another commander tried to discipline an officer for over-ticketing, he got the same response from the Chief of Police: "No discipline for doing your job."
然而，已经有足够多的警官--包括所有级别的警官--将这一信息内化，以至于在FPD内部形成了一种条件反射式执法行动的文化，这种文化不关心警察的行动是否真正促进了公共安全，也不关心这一决定对个人生活或整个社区信任的影响。例如，一名指挥官告诉我们，当他因为一名警官开了太多罚单而对其进行训诫时，这名警官向指挥官提出质疑，问指挥官是否在告诉他不要做他的工作。当另一位指挥官试图处分一名开罚单过多的警官时，他从警察局长那里得到了同样的答复："不因你的工作而处分你"。

The City closely monitors whether FPD's enforcement efforts are bringing in revenue at the desired rate. Consistently over the last several years, the Police Chief has directly reported to City officials FPD's successful efforts at raising revenue through policing, and City officials have continued to encourage those efforts and request regular updates. For example, in June 2010, at the request of the City, the Chief prepared a report comparing court revenues in Ferguson to court revenues for cities of similar sizes. The Chief's email sending the report to the City Manager notes that, "of the 80 St. Louis County Municipal Courts reporting revenue, only 8, including Ferguson, have collections greater than one million dollars." In the February 2011 report referenced above, Chief Jackson discussed various obstacles to officers writing tickets in previous months, such as training, injury leave, and officer deployment to Iraq, but noted that those factors had subsided and that, as a result, revenues were increasing. The acting prosecutor echoed these statements, stating "we now have several new officers writing tickets, and as a result our overall ticket volume is increasing by 400-700 tickets per month. This increased volume will lead to larger dockets this year and should have a direct effect in increasing overall revenue to the municipal court."
市政府密切监督 FPD 的执法工作是否按预期速度带来收入。在过去几年中，警察局长一直直接向市政府官员汇报弗格森警察局通过警务工作成功增加收入的情况，市政府官员也不断鼓励这些努力，并要求定期更新。例如，2010 年 6 月，警察局长应市政府的要求编写了一份报告，将弗格森的法院收入与类似规模城市的法院收入进行了比较。局长在发给市经理的电子邮件中指出，"在圣路易斯郡80个报告收入的市级法院中，只有包括弗格森在内的8个法院的收入超过100万美元"。在上面提到的2011年2月的报告中，杰克逊局长谈到了前几个月警察开罚单时遇到的各种障碍，如培训、工伤假、警察被派往伊拉克等，但他指出，这些因素已经消退，因此，收入正在增加。代理检察官对这些说法表示赞同，他说："我们现在有几名新警官在开罚单，因此我们的总罚单量每月增加 400-700 张。数量的增加将导致今年的案件数量增加，并将直接增加市法院的总体收入"。

Similarly, in March 2011, the Chief reported to the City Manager that court revenue in February was

, and that the total "beat our next biggest month in the last four years by over

," to which the City Manager responded: "Wonderful!" In a June 2011 email from Chief Jackson to the Finance Director and City Manager, the Chief reported that "May is the 6th straight month in which court revenue (gross) has exceeded the previous year." The City Manager again applauded the Chief's efforts, and the Finance Director added praise, noting that the Chief is "substantially in control of the outcome." The Finance Director further recommended in this email greater police and judicial enforcement to "have a profound effect on collections." Similarly, in a January 2013 email from Chief Jackson to the City Manager, the Chief reported: "Municipal Court gross revenue for calendar year 2012 passed the $2,000,000 mark for the first time in history, reaching $2,066,050 (not including red light photo enforcement)." The City Manager responded: "Awesome! Thanks!" In one March 2012 email, the Captain of the Patrol Division reported directly to the City Manager that court collections in February 2012 reached

, and that this was the first month collections ever exceeded

. The Captain noted that "

he [court clerk] girls have been swamped all day with a line of people paying off fines today. Since 9:30 this morning there hasn't been less than 5 people waiting in line and for the last three hours 10 to 15 people at all times." The City Manager enthusiastically reported the Captain's email to the City Council and congratulated both police department and court staff on their "great work."
同样，2011 年 3 月，局长向城市经理报告说，2 月份的法院收入为

，"比我们过去四年中第二大的月份超出

多"，城市经理对此做出了回应："太棒了！"在 2011 年 6 月杰克逊局长发给财务总监和城市经理的电子邮件中，局长报告说："5 月份是法院收入（毛额）连续第 6 个月超过上一年"。城市经理再次对局长的努力表示赞赏，财务总监也表示了赞扬，并指出局长 "在很大程度上控制着结果"。财务总监在这封电子邮件中进一步建议警方和司法部门加大执法力度，以 "对收款产生深远影响"。同样，在 2013 年 1 月杰克逊局长发给城市经理的电子邮件中，局长报告说"2012日历年市政法院总收入有史以来首次突破200万美元大关，达到2,066,050美元（不包括闯红灯照相执法）"。城市经理回应道："太棒了！谢谢！"在 2012 年 3 月的一封电子邮件中，巡警部队长直接向城市经理报告说，2012 年 2 月的法院收款额度达到了

，这是收款额度首次超过

。队长指出："

今天，（法院书记员）姑娘们整天都在排队缴纳罚款，忙得不可开交。从今天早上 9:30 开始，排队等候的人就没有少过 5 个，在过去的三个小时里，一直有 10 到 15 个人在排队等候"。城市经理热情地向市议会报告了队长的电子邮件，并对警察局和法院工作人员的 "出色工作 "表示祝贺。

Even as officers have answered the call for greater revenue through code enforcement, the City continues to urge the police department to bring in more money. In a March 2013 email, the Finance Director wrote: "Court fees are anticipated to rise about 7.5%. I did ask the Chief if he thought the PD could deliver

increase. He indicated they could try." Even more recently, the City's Finance Director stated publicly that Ferguson intends to make up a 2014 revenue shortfall in 2015 through municipal code enforcement, stating to Bloomberg News that "[t]here's about a million-dollar increase in public-safety fines to make up the difference."

The City issued a statement to "refute[]" the Bloomberg article in part because it "insinuates" an "over reliance on municipal court fines as a primary source of revenues when in fact they represented less than

of city revenues for the last fiscal year." But there is no dispute that the City budget does, in fact, forecast an increase of nearly a million dollars in municipal code enforcement fines and fees in 2015 as reported in the Bloomberg News report.
即使警官们响应了通过规范执法增加收入的号召，市政府仍在继续敦促警察局带来更多收入。在 2013 年 3 月的一封电子邮件中，财务总监写道："法院费用预计将上涨约 7.5%。我确实问过局长，他是否认为警察局可以实现

增长。他表示他们可以尝试。最近，市财政局局长公开表示，弗格森打算在 2015 年通过执行市政法规来弥补 2014 年的收入缺口，他向彭博新闻社表示："公共安全罚款大约会增加一百万美元，以弥补差额"。

市政府发表声明 "驳斥 "彭博社的文章，部分原因是该文章 "影射""过度依赖市政法庭罚款作为主要收入来源，而事实上这些罚款在上一财政年度只占市政府收入的不到

%"。但毫无疑问的是，正如彭博新闻社报道的那样，市政预算确实预测 2015 年市政法规执行罚款和费用将增加近一百万美元。

The City goes so far as to direct FPD to develop enforcement strategies and initiatives, not to better protect the public, but to raise more revenue. In an April 2014 communication from the Finance Director to Chief Jackson and the City Manager, the Finance Director recommended immediate implementation of an "I-270 traffic enforcement initiative" in order to "begin to fill the revenue pipeline." The Finance Director's email attached a computation of the net revenues that would be generated by the initiative, which required paying five officers overtime for highway traffic enforcement for a four-hour shift. The Finance Director stated that "there is nothing to keep us from running this initiative

, or even 7 days a week. Admittedly at 7 days per week[] we would see diminishing returns." Indeed, in a separate email to FPD
市政府甚至指示 FPD 制定执法策略和举措，不是为了更好地保护公众，而是为了增加收入。在 2014 年 4 月财务总监给杰克逊局长和城市经理的一封信函中，财务总监建议立即实施 "I-270 交通执法计划"，以便 "开始填补收入管道"。财务总监在邮件中附上了该举措将产生的净收入的计算结果，该举措需要支付五名警官四小时一班的高速公路交通执法加班费。财务总监表示，"没有什么能阻止我们实施这一举措

，甚至是每周 7 天。诚然，每周 7 天[]我们会看到收益递减"。事实上，在另外一封给 FPD 的电子邮件中

supervisors, the Patrol Captain explained that "[t]he plan behind this [initiative] is to PRODUCE traffic tickets, not provide easy OT." There is no indication that anyone considered whether community policing and public safety would be better served by devoting five overtime officers to neighborhood policing instead of a "revenue pipeline" of highway traffic enforcement. Rather, the only downsides to the program that City officials appear to have considered are that "this initiative requires 60 to 90 [days] of lead time to turn citations into cash," and that Missouri law caps the proportion of revenue that can come from municipal fines at

, which limits the extent to which the program can be used. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.341.2. With regard to the statewide-cap issue, the Finance Director advised: "As the RLCs [Red Light Cameras] net revenues ramp up to whatever we believe its annualized rate will be, then we can figure out how to balance the two programs to get their total revenues as close as possible to the statutory limit of

. ."12
巡逻队队长解释说，"这一[举措]背后的计划是生产交通罚单，而不是提供轻松的加班费"。没有任何迹象表明，有人考虑过将五名加班警员用于邻里治安而不是高速公路交通执法的 "收入管道 "是否更有利于社区治安和公共安全。相反，市政府官员似乎唯一考虑到的该计划的缺点是，"这一举措需要 60 到 90 [天] 的准备时间才能将传票变成现金"，而且密苏里州法律规定，来自市政罚款的收入比例不得超过

，这限制了该计划的使用范围。参见 Mo.Rev. Stat.§ 302.341.2.关于全州上限问题，财务总监表示"当 RLCs（红灯照相机）的净收入增加到我们认为的年增长率时，我们就可以想办法平衡这两个项目，使其总收入尽可能接近

的法定上限。. "12

The City has made clear to the Police Chief and the Municipal Judge that revenue generation must also be a priority in court operations. The Finance Director's February 2011 report to the City Council notes that "Judge Brockmeyer was first appointed in 2003, and during this time has been successful in significantly increasing court collections over the years." The report includes a list of "what he has done to help in the areas of court efficiency and revenue." The list, drafted by Judge Brockmeyer, approvingly highlights the creation of additional fees, many of which are widely considered abusive and may be unlawful, including several that the City has repealed during the pendency of our investigation. These include a

fee charged each time a person has a pending municipal arrest warrant cleared, and a "failure to appear fine," which the Judge noted is "increased each time the Defendant fails to appear in court or pay a fine." The Judge also noted increasing fines for repeat offenders, "especially in regard to housing violations, [which] have increased substantially and will continue to be increased upon subsequent violations." The February 2011 report notes Judge Brockmeyer's statement that "none of these changes could have taken place without the cooperation of the Court Clerk, the Chief of Police, and the Prosecutor's Office." Indeed, the acting prosecutor noted in the report that "I have denied defendants' needless requests for continuance from the payment docket in an effort to aid in the court's efficient collection of its fines."
市政府已向警察局长和市政法官明确表示，创收也必须是法院业务的优先事项。财务总监在 2011 年 2 月向市议会提交的报告中指出，"布罗克迈尔法官于 2003 年首次被任命，在此期间，他成功地大幅提高了法院的收款额度。报告列出了 "他在提高法院效率和增加收入方面所做的工作"。这份由布罗克迈尔法官起草的清单赞许地强调了额外费用的设立，其中许多费用被广泛认为是滥用性的，可能是非法的，包括在我们调查期间市政府已经废除的几项费用。这些费用包括：

每次在某人的市级逮捕令被撤销时收取的费用，以及 "未出庭罚款"，法官指出，"每次被告未出庭或未支付罚款时，罚款额都会增加"。法官还指出，对屡犯者的罚款也在增加，"特别是对违反住房条例的罚款，[罚款]已大幅增加，并将在以后违反条例时继续增加"。2011 年 2 月的报告指出，布罗克迈尔法官说："如果没有法院书记员、警察局长和检察官办公室的合作，这些变化都不可能发生。"事实上，代理检察官在报告中指出，"我拒绝了被告无谓的延期支付备审案件的请求，以帮助法院有效收取罚金"。

Court staff are keenly aware that the City considers revenue generation to be the municipal court's primary purpose. Revenue targets for court fines and fees are created in consultation not only with Chief Jackson, but also the Court Clerk. In one April 2010 exchange with Chief Jackson entitled "2011 Budget," for example, the Finance Director sought and received confirmation that the Police Chief and the Court Clerk would prepare targets for the court's fine and fee collections for subsequent years. Court staff take steps to ensure those targets are met in operating court. For example, in April 2011, the Court Clerk wrote to Judge
法院工作人员非常清楚，市政府将创收视为市法院的首要目标。法院罚款和收费的收入目标不仅是与杰克逊局长协商制定的，也是与法院书记员协商制定的。例如，在 2010 年 4 月与杰克逊局长进行的一次题为 "2011 年预算 "的交流中，财务总监寻求并得到确认，警察局长和法院书记员将为法院随后几年的罚款和费用征收制定目标。法院工作人员采取措施，确保在法院运作中实现这些目标。例如，2011 年 4 月，法院书记官致函法官

Brockmeyer (copying Chief Jackson) that the fines the new Prosecuting Attorney was recommending were not high enough. The Clerk highlighted one case involving three Derelict Vehicle charges and a Failure to Comply charge that resulted in

in fines, and noted this "normally would have brought a fine of all three charges around

." After describing another case that she believed warranted higher fines, the Clerk concluded: "We need to keep up our revenue." There is no indication that ability to pay or public safety goals were considered.
Brockmeyer （抄送 Jackson 处长）说，新任检察官建议的罚款额度不够高。书记员强调了一个案件，该案件涉及三项废弃车辆指控和一项不遵守规定指控，结果罚款额为

，并指出 "通常情况下，三项指控的罚款额会在

左右"。在介绍了另一起她认为应该处以更高罚款的案件后，书记员总结道："我们需要保持我们的收入"。没有迹象表明支付能力或公共安全目标得到了考虑。

The City has been aware for years of concerns about the impact its focus on revenue has had on lawful police action and the fair administration of justice in Ferguson. It has disregarded those concerns - even concerns raised from within the City government-to avoid disturbing the court's ability to optimize revenue generation. In 2012, a Ferguson City Councilmember wrote to other City officials in opposition to Judge Brockmeyer's reappointment, stating that "[the Judge] does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn't let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict." The Councilmember then addressed the concern that "switching judges would/could lead to loss of revenue," arguing that even if such a switch did "lead to a slight loss, I think it's more important that cases are being handled properly and fairly." The City Manager acknowledged mixed reviews of the Judge's work but urged that the Judge be reappointed, noting that "[i]t goes without saying the City cannot afford to lose any efficiency in our Courts, nor experience any decrease in our Fines and Forfeitures."
多年来，弗格森市政府一直意识到人们担心其对收入的关注会影响警方的合法行动和司法公正。为了避免干扰法院优化创收的能力，市政府一直无视这些担忧，甚至是市政府内部提出的担忧。2012 年，一名弗格森市议员致信其他市政官员，反对重新任命布罗克迈尔法官，称"（法官）不听取证词，不审查被告的报告或犯罪史，在做出判决前不让所有相关证人作证"。市议员随后谈到了 "更换法官会/可能会导致收入损失 "的担忧，他认为即使这样的更换 "会导致轻微的损失，我认为更重要的是案件得到了适当和公平的处理"。市政经理承认对法官工作的评价褒贬不一，但敦促重新任命该法官，并指出 "不言而喻，本市法院的效率不能有任何损失，罚款和罚金也不能有任何减少"。

IV. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES VIOLATE THE LAW AND UNDERMINE COMMUNITY TRUST, ESPECIALLY AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS
IV.弗格森执法行为违反了法律，破坏了社区信任，尤其是非洲裔美国人的信任

Ferguson's strategy of revenue generation through policing has fostered practices in the two central parts of Ferguson's law enforcement system-policing and the courts-that are themselves unconstitutional or that contribute to constitutional violations. In both parts of the system, these practices disproportionately harm African Americans. Further, the evidence indicates that this harm to African Americans stems, at least in part, from racial bias, including racial stereotyping. Ultimately, unlawful and harmful practices in policing and in the municipal court system erode police legitimacy and community trust, making policing in Ferguson less fair, less effective at promoting public safety, and less safe.
弗格森通过维持治安创收的策略助长了弗格森执法系统两个核心部分--治安和法院--的做法，这些做法本身违反宪法或助长了违反宪法的行为。在该系统的这两个部分中，这些做法对非洲裔美国人造成了极大的伤害。此外，有证据表明，这种对非洲裔美国人的伤害至少部分源于种族偏见，包括种族成见。归根结底，维持治安和市法院系统中的非法和有害做法侵蚀了警察的合法性和社区的信任，使弗格森的治安工作变得不那么公平，在促进公共安全方面不那么有效，也不那么安全。

A. Ferguson's Police Practices
A.弗格森警方的做法

FPD's approach to law enforcement, shaped by the City's pressure to raise revenue, has resulted in a pattern and practice of constitutional violations. Officers violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force. Officers frequently infringe on residents' First Amendment rights, interfering with their right to record police activities and making enforcement decisions based on the content of individuals' expression.
FPD 的执法方式是在市政府的增收压力下形成的，其结果是形成了一种违反宪法的模式和做法。警察在没有合理怀疑的情况下拦截民众，在没有正当理由的情况下逮捕民众，并使用不合理的武力，这些行为违反了宪法第四修正案。警官经常侵犯居民的第一修正案权利，干涉他们记录警察活动的权利，并根据个人表达的内容做出执法决定。

FPD's lack of systems to detect and hold officers responsible for misconduct reflects the department's focus on revenue generation at the expense of lawful policing and helps perpetuate the patterns of unconstitutional conduct we found. FPD fails to adequately supervise officers or review their enforcement actions. While FPD collects vehicle-stop data because it is required to
FPD缺乏发现并追究警员不当行为责任的制度，这反映了该部门以牺牲合法警务为代价，专注于创收，并助长了我们发现的违宪行为模式的长期存在。FPD 未能充分监督警员或审查他们的执法行为。尽管 FPD 收集车辆拦截数据是因为它必须
do so by state law, it collects no reliable or consistent data regarding pedestrian stops, even though it has the technology to do so.

In Ferguson, officers will sometimes make an arrest without writing a report or even obtaining an incident number, and hundreds of reports can pile up for months without supervisors reviewing them. Officers' uses of force frequently go unreported, and are reviewed only laxly when reviewed at all. As a result of these deficient practices, stops, arrests, and uses of force that violate the law or FPD policy are rarely detected and often ignored when they are discovered.

在弗格森，警察有时会在不写报告甚至不获取事件编号的情况下实施逮捕，数百份报告可能堆积数月而得不到主管的审查。

在弗格森，警察有时会在不写报告、甚至不获取事件编号的情况下实施逮捕，数百份报告可能会堆积数月而得不到主管的审查。警官使用武力的情况经常得不到报告，即使得到审查，也是审查不严。由于这些不完善的做法，违反法律或联邦警察局政策的拦截、逮捕和使用武力行为很少被发现，即使被发现也往往被忽视。

1. FPD Engages in a Pattern of Unconstitutional Stops and Arrests in Violation of the Fourth Amendment
1.联邦警察违反宪法第四修正案的拦截和逮捕模式

FPD's approach to law enforcement has led officers to conduct stops and arrests that violate the Constitution. We identified several elements to this pattern of misconduct. Frequently, officers stop people without reasonable suspicion or arrest them without probable cause. Officers rely heavily on the municipal "Failure to Comply" charge, which appears to be facially unconstitutional in part, and is frequently abused in practice. FPD also relies on a system of officer-generated arrest orders called "wanteds" that circumvents the warrant system and poses a significant risk of abuse. The data show, moreover, that FPD misconduct in the area of stops and arrests disproportionately impacts African Americans.
FPD 的执法方式导致警察违反《宪法》进行拦截和逮捕。我们发现了这种不当行为模式的几个要素。警官经常在没有合理怀疑的情况下拦截他人，或在没有正当理由的情况下逮捕他人。警察严重依赖市级 "不守法 "指控，该指控部分表面上似乎违宪，但在实践中却经常被滥用。此外，FPD 还依赖于一种由警官生成的逮捕令系统，即 "通缉令"，该系统规避了逮捕令系统，存在很大的滥用风险。此外，数据显示，联邦警察局在拦截和逮捕方面的不当行为对非洲裔美国人的影响尤为严重。

a. FPD Officers Frequently Detain People Without Reasonable Suspicion and Arrest People Without Probable Cause
a.FPD 警官经常在没有合理怀疑的情况下拘留人员，在没有正当理由的情况下逮捕人员

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a search or seizure is unreasonable "in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000). The Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to briefly detain individuals for investigative purposes if the officers possess reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). Reasonable suspicion exists when an "officer is aware of particularized, objective facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant suspicion that a crime is being committed." United States v. Givens, 763 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, if the officer reasonably believes the person with whom he or she is dealing is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a protective search or frisk of the person's outer clothing. United States v. Cotter, 701 F.3d 544, 547 (8th Cir. 2012). Such a search is not justified on the basis of "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion;" rather, the "issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger." Id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). For an arrest to constitute a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, it must be supported by probable cause, which exists only if "the totality of facts based on reasonably trustworthy information would justify a prudent person in believing the individual arrested had
第四修正案》保护个人免受不合理的搜查和扣押。一般情况下，"在缺乏对不法行为的个别怀疑的情况下"，搜查或扣押是不合理的。印第安纳波利斯市诉埃德蒙德案，531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000)。第四修正案允许执法人员出于调查目的短暂拘留个人，条件是执法人员有理由怀疑正在发生犯罪活动。特里诉俄亥俄州案，392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)。当 "警官了解到具体的客观事实，再加上对这些事实的合理推断，有理由怀疑有人正在犯罪 "时，就存在合理怀疑。美国诉吉文斯案（United States v. Givens），763 F.3d 987, 989（第8巡回法院，2014年）（内部引号省略）。此外，如果警官有理由相信与他或她打交道的人持有武器且十分危险，警官可以对此人的外衣进行保护性搜查或搜身。美国诉科特案（United States v. Cotter），701 F.3d 544, 547（第八巡回法院，2012年）。这种搜查不能以 "不明确和不具体的怀疑 "为依据；相反，"问题在于在当时情况下，一个合理谨慎的人是否有理由相信自己或他人的安全处于危险之中"。同上。(同上（引用 Terry, 392 U.S. at 27）。根据《第四修正案》，要使逮捕构成合理的扣押，必须有合理的理由支持，而只有在 "基于合理可信的信息的全部事实能够证明一个谨慎的人有理由相信被逮捕的人有以下行为 "的情况下，才存在合理的理由。

committed an offense at the time of the arrest." Stoner v. Watlingten, 735 F.3d 799, 803 (8th Cir. 2013).
"。Stoner v. Watlingten, 735 F.3d 799, 803 (8th Cir. 2013)。

Under Missouri law, when making an arrest, "[t]he officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required." Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.180. In reviewing FPD records, we found numerous incidents in which — based on the officer's own description of the detention-an officer detained an individual without articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or arrested a person without probable cause. In none of these cases did the officer explain or justify his conduct.
根据密苏里州法律，在实施逮捕时，"警官必须告知被告他是根据什么授权行事的，如果需要，还必须出示逮捕令"。Mo.莫州法规修正案§ 544.180.在审查联邦警察局的记录时，我们发现在许多事件中--根据警官自己对拘留的描述--警官在没有明确的犯罪活动合理怀疑的情况下拘留了某人，或者在没有正当理由的情况下逮捕了某人。在这些案件中，警官均未对其行为做出解释或说明理由。

For example, in July 2013 police encountered an African-American man in a parking lot while on their way to arrest someone else at an apartment building. Police knew that the encountered man was not the person they had come to arrest. Nonetheless, without even reasonable suspicion, they handcuffed the man, placed him in the back of a patrol car, and ran his record. It turned out he was the intended arrestee's landlord. The landlord went on to help the police enter the person's unit to effect the arrest, but he later filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination and unlawful detention. Ignoring the central fact that they had handcuffed a man and put him in a police car despite having no reason to believe he had done anything wrong, a sergeant vigorously defended FPD's actions, characterizing the detention as "minimal" and pointing out that the car was air conditioned. Even temporary detention, however, constitutes a deprivation of liberty and must be justified under the Fourth Amendment. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996).
例如，2013 年 7 月，警方在一个停车场遇到一名非裔美国男子，当时他们正前往一栋公寓楼逮捕其他人。警方知道这名男子不是他们要逮捕的人。然而，他们甚至没有合理的怀疑就给这名男子戴上了手铐，将他放在巡逻车后座，并查询了他的犯罪记录。结果发现他是被捕者的房东。房东继续帮助警察进入该人的单元实施逮捕，但他后来提出了指控种族歧视和非法拘禁的投诉。一名警长无视他们在没有理由相信一个人做了任何错事的情况下给他戴上手铐并把他关进警车这一核心事实，极力为FPD的行为辩护，称拘留是 "最低限度的"，并指出警车里有空调。然而，即使是临时拘留也构成了剥夺自由，必须根据第四修正案证明其合理性。Whren 诉美国，517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996)。

Many of the unlawful stops we found appear to have been driven, in part, by an officer's desire to check whether the subject had a municipal arrest warrant pending. Several incidents suggest that officers are more concerned with issuing citations and generating charges than with addressing community needs. In October 2012, police officers pulled over an African-American man who had lived in Ferguson for 16 years, claiming that his passenger-side brake light was broken. The driver happened to have replaced the light recently and knew it to be functioning properly. Nonetheless, according to the man's written complaint, one officer stated, "let's see how many tickets you're going to get," while a second officer tapped his Electronic Control Weapon ("ECW") on the roof of the man's car. The officers wrote the man a citation for "tail light/reflector/license plate light out." They refused to let the man show them that his car's equipment was in order, warning him, "don't you get out of that car until you get to your house." The man, who believed he had been racially profiled, was so upset that he went to the police station that night to show a sergeant that his brakes and license plate light worked.
我们发现，许多非法拦截的部分原因似乎是警官想检查当事人是否有市级逮捕令。有几起事件表明，警察更关心的是发出传票和提出指控，而不是解决社区需求。2012 年 10 月，警察拦下了一名在弗格森居住了 16 年的非裔美国男子，声称他副驾驶位置的刹车灯坏了。这名司机最近刚换过刹车灯，知道它能正常工作。然而，根据该男子的书面投诉，一名警官说："让我们看看你会收到多少张罚单。"另一名警官则用电子控制武器（ECW）敲击该男子的车顶。警官给这名男子开了一张 "尾灯/反光镜/牌照灯熄灭 "的罚单。他们拒绝让该男子向他们展示他的汽车设备是否正常，并警告他 "在你到家之前不要下车"。这名男子认为自己遭到了种族貌相，他非常生气，当晚就去了警察局，向警长证明他的刹车和车牌灯是正常的。

At times, the constitutional violations are even more blatant. An African-American man recounted to us an experience he had while sitting at a bus stop near Canfield Drive. According to the man, an FPD patrol car abruptly pulled up in front of him. The officer inside, a patrol lieutenant, rolled down his window and addressed the man:
有时，违反宪法的行为甚至更加明目张胆。一名非裔美国人向我们讲述了他坐在坎菲尔德路附近的公交车站时的经历。据该男子称，一辆联邦警察署的巡逻车突然停在他面前。车内的警官是一名巡警中尉，他摇下车窗，对这名男子说："你是什么人？

Lieutenant: Get over here.
中尉过来
Bus Patron: Me? 巴士乘客我？
Lieutenant: Get the

over here. Yeah, you.
中尉把他带过来对，就是你
Bus Patron: Why? What did I do?
巴士乘客：为什么？我做了什么？

Lieutenant: Give me your ID.
中尉给我你的身份证
Bus Patron: Why? 巴士乘客：为什么？
Lieutenant: Stop being a smart ass and give me your ID.
中尉别自作聪明了把身份证给我
The lieutenant ran the man's name for warrants. Finding none, he returned the ID and said, "get the hell out of my face." These allegations are consistent with other, independent allegations of misconduct that we heard about this particular lieutenant, and reflect the routinely disrespectful treatment many African Americans say they have come to expect from Ferguson police. That a lieutenant with supervisory responsibilities allegedly engaged in this conduct is further cause for concern.
中尉查了这个人的名字，以寻找逮捕证。发现没有后，他归还了身份证，并说 "滚出我的视线"。这些指控与我们听到的有关这名中尉不当行为的其他独立指控是一致的，反映了许多非裔美国人所说的他们对弗格森警方一贯的不尊重待遇。一名负有监管职责的中尉涉嫌参与这一行为更令人担忧。

This incident is also consistent with a pattern of suspicionless, legally unsupportable stops we found documented in FPD's records, described by FPD as "ped checks" or "pedestrian checks." Though at times officers use the term to refer to reasonable-suspicion-based pedestrian stops, or "Terry stops," they often use it when stopping a person with no objective, articulable suspicion. For example, one night in December 2013, officers went out and "ped. checked those wandering around" in Ferguson's apartment complexes. In another case, officers responded to a call about a man selling drugs by stopping a group of six African-American youths who, due to their numbers, did not match the facts of the call. The youths were "detained and ped checked." Officers invoke the term "ped check" as though it has some unique constitutional legitimacy. It does not. Officers may not detain a person, even briefly, without articulable reasonable suspicion. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. To the extent that the words "ped check" suggest otherwise, the terminology alone is dangerous because it threatens to confuse officers' understanding of the law. Moreover, because FPD does not track or analyze pedestrian Terry stops-whether termed "ped checks" or something else-in any reliable way, they are especially susceptible to discriminatory or otherwise unlawful use.
这起事件也与我们在 FPD 记录中发现的一种无怀疑、无法律依据的拦截模式相吻合，FPD 将其描述为 "行人检查 "或 "行人检查"。虽然有时警官会用这个词来指基于合理怀疑的行人拦截，或 "特里拦截"，但他们往往是在没有客观、明确怀疑的情况下拦截一个人时使用这个词。例如，2013 年 12 月的一天晚上，警察在弗格森的公寓楼里 "步行检查四处游荡的人"。在另一起案件中，警察在接到关于一名男子贩卖毒品的报警后，拦下了六名非裔美国青年，由于他们的人数与报警事实不符。这些青年被 "拘留并进行了行人检查"。警官们引用 "行人检查 "一词，好像它具有某种独特的宪法合法性。其实不然。如果没有明确的合理怀疑，警官不得拘留某人，哪怕是短暂拘留。Terry, 392 U.S. at 21。如果 "ped check"（血清检查）一词所暗示的情况并非如此，那么这一术语本身就是危险的，因为它有可能混淆警官对法律的理解。此外，由于联邦警察署没有以任何可靠的方式跟踪或分析特里拦截行人的行为--无论是称作 "行人检查 "还是其他，因此特别容易出现歧视性使用或其他非法使用的情况。

As with its pattern of unconstitutional stops, FPD routinely makes arrests without probable cause. Frequently, officers arrest people for conduct that plainly does not meet the elements of the cited offense. For example, in November 2013, an officer approached five African-American young people listening to music in a car. Claiming to have smelled marijuana, the officer placed them under arrest for disorderly conduct based on their "gathering in a group for the purposes of committing illegal activity." The young people were detained and charged - some taken to jail, others delivered to their parents - despite the officer finding no marijuana, even after conducting an inventory search of the car. Similarly, in February 2012, an officer wrote an arrest notification ticket for Peace Disturbance for "loud music" coming from a car. The arrest ticket appears unlawful as the officer did not assert, and there is no other indication, that a third party was disturbed by the music - an element of the offense. See Ferguson Mun. Code § 29-82 (prohibiting certain conduct that "unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons"). Nonetheless, a supervisor approved it. These warrantless arrests violated the Fourth Amendment because they were not based on probable cause. See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 173 (2008).
与违宪拦截的模式一样，联邦警察经常在没有正当理由的情况下实施逮捕。警官经常因明显不符合所引犯罪要件的行为而逮捕人。例如，2013 年 11 月，一名警官走近五名在车内听音乐的非裔美国青年。这名警官声称闻到了大麻味，以 "为从事非法活动而聚众闹事 "为由，以扰乱治安罪将他们逮捕。这些年轻人被拘留并受到指控--一些人被送进了监狱，另一些人则被送回了父母身边--尽管警官在对汽车进行清点搜查后也没有发现大麻。同样，2012 年 2 月，一名警官因汽车中传出 "响亮的音乐 "而开出了一张扰乱治安的逮捕通知单。这张逮捕通知单似乎是非法的，因为警官并没有断言，也没有其他迹象表明第三方受到了音乐的干扰--这是该罪行的一个要素。见 Ferguson Mun.见《弗格森市法典》第 29-82 条（禁止某些 "无理且故意干扰或惊吓他人 "的行为）。尽管如此，一名主管还是批准了这一逮捕。这些无证逮捕违反了《第四修正案》，因为它们并非基于合理的理由。见弗吉尼亚州诉摩尔，553 U.S. 164, 173 (2008)。

While the record demonstrates a pattern of stops that are improper from the beginning, it also exposes encounters that start as constitutionally defensible but quickly cross the line. For example, in the summer of 2012, an officer detained a 32-year-old African-American man who
虽然记录显示了一种从一开始就不恰当的拦截模式，但它也揭露了开始时符合宪法但很快就越界的遭遇。例如，2012 年夏天，一名警官拦截了一名 32 岁的非裔美国男子，该男子称自己是 "被拦截的"。
was sitting in his car cooling off after playing basketball. The officer arguably had grounds to stop and question the man, since his windows appeared more deeply tinted than permitted under Ferguson's code. Without cause, the officer went on to accuse the man of being a pedophile, prohibit the man from using his cell phone, order the man out of his car for a pat-down despite having no reason to believe he was armed, and ask to search his car. When the man refused, citing his constitutional rights, the officer reportedly pointed a gun at his head, and arrested him. The officer charged the man with eight different counts, including making a false declaration for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., "Mike" instead of "Michael") and an address that, although legitimate, differed from the one on his license. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator's license, and with having no operator's license in possession. The man told us he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government as a result of the charges.
该男子在打完篮球后坐在车里乘凉。可以说，这名警官有理由拦下并盘问这名男子，因为他的车窗着色程度似乎超过了弗格森法规所允许的范围。在没有理由的情况下，该警官继续指控该男子是恋童癖，禁止该男子使用手机，命令该男子下车接受搜身，尽管没有理由相信他携带武器，并要求搜查他的汽车。据报道，当这名男子以宪法权利为由拒绝搜查时，警官用枪指着他的头，将他逮捕。该警官指控该男子犯有八项不同的罪行，其中包括虚假申报，因为他最初提供的是自己名字的简称（例如，"迈克 "而不是 "迈克尔"），而且他提供的地址虽然合法，但与驾照上的地址不同。警官还指控该男子持有过期的驾驶执照和未持有驾驶执照。这名男子告诉我们，由于这些指控，他丢掉了联邦政府承包商的工作。

b. FPD Officers Routinely Abuse the "Failure to Comply" Charge
b.FPD 警官经常滥用 "不守法 "指控

One area of FPD activity deserves special attention for its frequency of Fourth Amendment violations: enforcement of Ferguson's Failure to Comply municipal ordinance.

Ferguson Mun. Code § 29-16. Officers rely heavily on this charge to arrest individuals who do not do what they ask, even when refusal is not a crime. The offense is typically charged under one of two subsections. One subsection prohibits disobeying a lawful order in a way that hinders an officer's duties, § 29-16(1); the other requires individuals to identify themselves, § 29-16(2). FPD engages in a pattern of unconstitutional enforcement with respect to both, resulting in many unlawful arrests.
弗格森警察局的一个活动领域值得特别关注，因为它经常违反《宪法第四修正案》：执行弗格森市的 "不守法 "市政条例。

弗格森市政法典§29-16。Code § 29-16。警察严重依赖这一罪名来逮捕不按其要求行事的个人，即使拒绝并不构成犯罪。该罪行通常根据两个小节中的一个进行指控。其中一款禁止以妨碍警官执行公务的方式不服从合法命令，即第 29-16(1)条；另一款要求个人表明身份，即第 29-16(2)条。FPD 在这两方面都采取了违反宪法的执法模式，导致了许多非法逮捕。

i. Improper Enforcement of Code Provision Prohibiting Disobeying a Lawful Order
i.不当执行《法典》中禁止违抗合法命令的规定

Officers frequently arrest individuals under Section 29-16(1) on facts that do not meet the provision's elements. Section 29-16(1) makes it unlawful to "[f]ail to comply with the lawful order or request of a police officer in the discharge of the officer's official duties where such failure interfered with, obstructed or hindered the officer in the performance of such duties." Many cases initiated under this provision begin with an officer ordering an individual to stop despite lacking objective indicia that the individual is engaged in wrongdoing. The order to stop is not a "lawful order" under those circumstances because the officer lacks reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 882-83 (1975); United States v. Jones, 606 F.3d 964, 967-68 (8th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, when individuals do not stop in those situations, FPD officers treat that conduct as a failure to comply with a lawful order, and make arrests. Such arrests violate the Fourth Amendment because they are not based on probable cause that the crime of Failure to Comply has been committed. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208 (1979).
警官经常根据第 29-16(1)条逮捕不符合该条款要素的人。第 29-16(1)条规定，"在警官执行公务时不遵守其合法命令或要求，干扰、阻碍或妨碍警官执行公务的 "行为属于违法行为。根据这一规定提起的许多案件都是从一名警官命令某人停车开始的，尽管没有客观迹象表明此人正在从事不法行为。在这种情况下，要求停车的命令不是 "合法命令"，因为警官缺乏对正在发生的犯罪活动的合理怀疑。见美国诉 Brignoni-Ponce，422 U.S. 873, 882-83 (1975)；美国诉 Jones，606 F.3d 964, 967-68 (8th Cir. 2010)。尽管如此，当个人在这些情况下不停车时，菲律宾警察就会将这种行为视为不遵守合法命令，并实施逮捕。这种逮捕违反了《宪法第四修正案》，因为它们并非基于已犯下 "不遵守命令罪 "的合理理由。Dunaway 诉纽约，442 U.S.200，208（1979 年）。

FPD officers apply Section 29-16(1) remarkably broadly. In an incident from August 2010, an officer broke up an altercation between two minors and sent them back to their homes. The officer ordered one to stay inside her residence and the other not to return to the first's
FPD 警官对第 29-16(1)条的适用非常宽泛。在 2010 年 8 月发生的一起事件中，一名警官制止了两名未成年人之间的争吵，并将他们送回家中。警官命令其中一人呆在自己的住所内，另一人不得返回前者的住所。

residence. Later that day, the two minors again engaged in an altercation outside the first minor's residence. The officer arrested both for Failure to Comply with the earlier orders. But Section 29-16(1) does not confer on officers the power to confine people to their homes or keep them away from certain places based solely on their verbal orders. At any rate, the facts of this incident do not satisfy the statute for another reason: there was no evidence that the failure to comply "interfered with, obstructed or hindered the officer in the performance" of official duties. § 29-16(1). The officer's arrest of the two minors for Failure to Comply without probable cause of all elements of the offense violated the Fourth Amendment.
当天晚些时候，两名未成年人再次在第一名未成年人的住所外发生口角。当天晚些时候，这两名未成年人在第一名未成年人的住所外再次发生口角。警官以未遵守先前命令为由逮捕了两人。但第 29-16(1)条并没有赋予警官仅凭口头命令就将人禁闭在家中或禁止其进入某些场所的权力。无论如何，这一事件的事实并不符合法规要求，原因还有一个：没有证据表明不遵守命令的行为 "干扰、阻碍或妨碍 "了警官执行公务。§ 29-16(1).警官在没有犯罪所有要素的合理理由的情况下以 "不遵守 "为由逮捕两名未成年人，违反了第四修正案。

ii. Improper Enforcement of Code Provision Requiring Individuals to Identify Themselves to a Police Officer
ii.不当执行要求个人向警官表明身份的法典条款

FPD's charging under Section 29-16(2) also violates the Constitution. Section 29-16(2) makes it unlawful to "[f]ail to give information requested by a police officer in the discharge of his/her official duties relating to the identity of such person." This provision, a type of "stopand-identify" law, is likely unconstitutional under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. It is also unconstitutional as typically applied by FPD.
FPD 根据第 29-16(2)条提出指控也违反了宪法。第 29-16(2)条规定，"不提供警官在执行公务时所要求的与此人身份有关的信息 "属于违法行为。根据 "因模糊而无效 "原则，这一条款作为 "拦截并确认身份 "法的一种，很可能违宪。从联邦警察局的典型应用来看，该条款也是违宪的。

As the Supreme Court has explained, the void-for-vagueness doctrine "requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). In Kolender, the Supreme Court invalidated a California stop-and-identify law as unconstitutionally vague because its requirement that detained persons give officers "credible and reliable" identification provided no standard for what a suspect must do to comply with it. Instead, the law "vest[ed] complete discretion in the hands of the police" to determine whether a person had provided sufficient identity information, which created a "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties" and "the constitutional right to freedom of movement." Id. at 358. The Eighth Circuit has applied the doctrine numerous times. In Fields v. City of Omaha, 810 F.2d 830 (8th Cir. 1987), the court struck down a city ordinance that required a person to "identify himself" because it did not make definite what would suffice for identification and thereby provided no "standard to guide the police officer's discretionary assessment" or "prevent arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement." Id. at 833-34; see also Stahl v. City of St. Louis, 687 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that an ordinance prohibiting conduct that would impede traffic was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause because it "may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits") (internal quotation marks omitted).
正如最高法院所解释的那样，"因模糊而无效 "原则 "要求刑事法规对刑事犯罪的定义必须足够明确，使普通人能够理解被禁止的行为，并且不会鼓励任意和歧视性执法"。Kolender 诉 Lawson，461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)。在 Kolender 案中，最高法院判定加利福尼亚州的一项拦截指认法违宪，因为该法要求被拘留者向官员提供 "可信和可靠 "的指认，但却没有规定嫌疑人必须如何做才能遵守该法的标准。相反，该法 "将决定一个人是否提供了足够的身份信息的自由裁量权完全交给了警察"，这就造成了 "任意压制第一修正案规定的自由 "和 "宪法规定的行动自由权 "的可能性。同上，第 358 页。第八巡回法院曾多次适用该原则。在 Fields 诉奥马哈市案（810 F.2d 830）（第八巡回法院，1987 年）中，法院推翻了一项要求某人 "表明身份 "的市政条例，因为该条例没有明确说明什么情况下足以表明身份，因此没有提供 "指导警官酌情评估的标准 "或 "防止任意和歧视性执法"。同上，第833-34页；另见Stahl诉圣路易斯市案，687 F.3d 1038, 1040（第8巡回法院，2012年）（认为根据正当程序条款，禁止阻碍交通行为的法令是违宪的模糊法令，因为它 "可能未能提供使普通人能够理解其禁止的行为的通知"）（内部引号省略）。

Under these binding precedents, Ferguson's stop-and-identify law appears to be unconstitutionally vague because the term "information . . . relating to the identity of such person" in Section 29-16(2) is not defined. Neither the ordinance nor any court has narrowed that language. Cf. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 188-89 (2004) (upholding stop-and-identify law that was construed by the state supreme court to require only that a suspect provide his name). As a consequence, the average person has no understanding of precisely how much identity information, and what kind, he or she must provide when an FPD officer demands it; nor do officers. Indeed, we are aware of several people who were asked to provide their Social Security numbers, including one man who was arrested after refusing to do
根据这些具有约束力的先例，弗格森的拦截查证法似乎违宪地含糊不清，因为第 29-16(2)条中的"......与此人身份有关的信息 "一词没有定义。无论是该法令还是任何法院都没有对这一措辞进行缩减。参见 Hiibel 诉内华达州第六司法区法院案，542 U.S. 177, 188-89 (2004)(支持拦截并确认身份的法律，该法律被州最高法院解释为只要求嫌疑人提供姓名)。因此，普通人并不清楚当联邦警察局官员要求提供身份信息时，他或她必须提供多少身份信息，以及提供哪种类型的信息；官员也不清楚。事实上，我们知道有几个人被要求提供社会安全号，其中一名男子在拒绝提供社会安全号后被捕。
so. Given that the ordinance appears to lend itself to such arbitrary enforcement, Section 29

is likely unconstitutional on its face.

所以。鉴于该条例似乎可以任意执行，第 29 节

从表面上看很可能是违宪的。

Even apart from the facial unconstitutionality of the statute, the evidence is clear that FPD's enforcement of Section 29-16(2) is unconstitutional in its application. Stop-and-identify laws stand in tension with the Supreme Court's admonition that a person approached by a police officer "need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way." Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 (1983). For this reason, the Court has held that an officer cannot require a person to identify herself unless the officer first has reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1979) (holding that the application of a Texas statute that criminalized refusal to provide a name and address to a peace officer violated the Fourth Amendment where the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); see also Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 184 (deeming the reasonable suspicion requirement a "constitutional limitation[]" on stop-and-identify statutes). FPD officers, however, routinely arrest individuals under Section 29-16(2) for failure to identify themselves despite lacking reasonable suspicion to stop them in the first place.
即使不考虑法规表面违宪的问题，证据也清楚地表明 FPD 执行第 29-16(2)条的行为在适用上是违宪的。拦截指认法与最高法院的告诫相矛盾，即被警察拦截的人 "不必回答向他提出的任何问题；事实上，他可以根本不听问题，可以继续走自己的路"。佛罗里达诉罗耶，460 U.S. 491，497-98（1983 年）。因此，法院认为，除非警官首先有合理的怀疑启动拦截，否则不能要求某人表明身份。见 Brown 诉得克萨斯州案，443 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1979)（认为得克萨斯州的一项法规将拒绝向治安官员提供姓名和地址的行为定为刑事犯罪，如果治安官员缺乏对犯罪活动的合理怀疑，则该法规的适用违反了第四修正案）；另见 Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 184（认为合理怀疑要求是对拦截和指认法规的 "宪法限制"）。然而，尽管一开始就没有合理的怀疑来拦截他们，FPD 警官还是经常根据第 29-16(2)条以未表明身份为由逮捕个人。

For example, in an October 2011 incident, an officer arrested two sisters who were backing their car into their driveway. The officer claimed that the car had been idling in the middle of the street, warranting investigation, while the women claim they had pulled up outside their home to drop someone off when the officer arrived. In any case, the officer arrested one sister for failing to provide her identification when requested. He arrested the other sister for getting out of the car after being ordered to stay inside. The two sisters spent the next three hours in jail. In a similar incident from December 2011, police officers approached two people sitting in a car on a public street and asked the driver for identification. When the driver balked, insisting that he was on a public street and should not have to answer questions, the officers ordered him out of the car and ultimately charged him with Failure to Comply.
例如，在 2011 年 10 月发生的一起事件中，一名警官逮捕了正在将车倒入车道的两姐妹。该警官声称，汽车一直在街道中间空转，需要进行调查，而这两名妇女则声称，警官到达时，她们已将车开到家门口送人。无论如何，警官逮捕了其中一位姐妹，因为她没有按要求提供身份证明。而另一位姐妹则因被命令留在车内后下车而被捕。两姐妹在监狱中度过了三个小时。在 2011 年 12 月发生的一起类似事件中，警察走近坐在公共街道上一辆汽车里的两个人，要求司机出示证件。当司机坚称自己是在公共街道上，不应该回答问题时，警察命令他下车，并最终以 "未遵守规定 "对他提出了指控。

In another case, from March 2013, officers responded to the police station to take custody of a person wanted on a state warrant. When they arrived, they encountered a different mannot the subject of the warrant - who happened to be leaving the station. Having nothing to connect the man to the warrant subject, other than his presence at the station, the officers nonetheless stopped him and asked that he identify himself. The man asserted his rights, asking the officers "Why do you need to know?" and declining to be frisked. When the man then extended his identification toward the officers, at their request, the officers interpreted his hand motion as an attempted assault and took him to the ground. Without articulating reasonable suspicion or any other justification for the initial detention, the officers arrested the man on two counts of Failure to Comply and two counts of Resisting Arrest.
在 2013 年 3 月的另一起案件中，警官前往警察局拘押一名因州通缉令而被通缉的人。当他们到达时，他们遇到了另一名男子，而不是通缉令上的目标--他恰好要离开警察局。除了他出现在警察局之外，没有任何证据可以将此人与通缉对象联系起来，但警察还是拦住了他，要求他表明身份。该男子坚持自己的权利，问警官 "你们为什么需要知道？"并拒绝接受搜身。随后，在警官的要求下，该男子将自己的身份证件伸向警官，警官将他的手部动作解释为试图攻击，并将他按倒在地。在没有说明合理怀疑或任何其他正当理由的情况下，警官以两项 "不服从命令罪 "和两项 "拒捕罪 "逮捕了该男子。

In our conversations with FPD officers, one officer admitted that when he conducts a traffic stop, he asks for identification from all passengers as a matter of course. If any refuses, he considers that to be "furtive and aggressive" conduct and cites-and typically arrests-the
在我们与联邦警察署警官的交谈中，一位警官承认，当他拦截交通时，他会理所当然地要求所有乘客出示证件。如果有乘客拒绝，他就会认为这是 "鬼鬼祟祟、咄咄逼人 "的行为，并举例说明，通常还会逮捕这些乘客。

person for Failure to Comply. The officer thus acknowledged that he regularly exceeds his authority under the Fourth Amendment by arresting passengers who refuse, as is their right, to provide identification. See Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 188 ("[A]n officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop."); Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 887-88 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that the arrest of a passenger for failure to identify himself during a traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment where the passenger was not suspected of other criminal activity and his identification was not needed for officer safety). Further, the officer told us that he was trained to arrest for this violation.
因未遵守规定而被逮捕。因此，该警官承认，他逮捕拒绝提供身份证明（这是乘客的权利）的乘客，经常超越《第四修正案》赋予他的权力。见 Hiibel，542 U.S.，188（"如果要求辨认身份与拦截情况没有合理联系，警官不得因嫌疑人未能辨认身份而将其逮捕"）；Stufflebeam 诉 Harris，521 F.3d 884，887-88（第 8 巡回法院，2008 年）（认为在交通拦截过程中因乘客未能辨认身份而将其逮捕违反了《宪法第四修正案》，因为该乘客并未涉嫌其他犯罪活动，而且警官的安全也不需要他的身份证明）。此外，该警官还告诉我们，他接受过逮捕这种违法行为的培训。

Good supervision would correct improper arrests by an officer before they became routine. But in Ferguson, the same dynamics that lead officers to make unlawful stops and arrests cause supervisors to conduct only perfunctory review of officers' actions-when they conduct any review at all. FPD supervisors are more concerned with the number of citations and arrests officers produce than whether those citations and arrests are lawful or promote public safety. Internal communications among command staff reveal that FPD for years has failed to ensure even that officers write their reports and first-line supervisors approve them. In 2010, a senior police official complained to supervisors that every week reports go unwritten, and hundreds of reports remain unapproved. "It is time for you to hold your officers accountable," he urged them. In 2014, the official had the same complaint, remarking on 600 reports that had not been approved over a six-month period. Another supervisor remarked that coding errors in the new records management system is set up "to hide, do away with, or just forget reports," creating a heavy administrative burden for supervisors who discover incomplete reports months after they are created. In practice, not all arrests are given incident numbers, meaning supervisors may never know to review them. These systemic deficiencies in oversight are consistent with an approach to law enforcement in which productivity and revenue generation, rather than lawful policing, are the priority. Thus, even as commanders exhort line supervisors to more closely supervise officer activity, they perpetuate the dynamics that discourage meaningful supervision.
良好的监督会在警官的不当逮捕行为成为例行公事之前予以纠正。但在弗格森，导致警员进行非法拦截和逮捕的动力同样导致监管人员对警员的行为只进行敷衍的审查--如果他们进行任何审查的话。FPD的主管们更关心警员的传票和逮捕数量，而不是这些传票和逮捕是否合法或是否促进了公共安全。指挥人员之间的内部交流显示，多年来，FPD甚至未能确保警员撰写报告并由一线主管批准。2010 年，一名高级警官向主管抱怨说，每周都有报告没有写成，数百份报告仍未得到批准。"他敦促上司："是时候让你们的警官负起责任了。2014 年，这位官员也有同样的抱怨，他说在六个月内有 600 份报告未获批准。另一位主管说，新记录管理系统中的编码错误是 "为了隐藏、删除或遗忘报告 "而设置的，这给主管造成了沉重的行政负担，因为他们会在报告创建数月后才发现报告不完整。在实践中，并非所有的逮捕都有事件编号，这意味着主管人员可能永远都不知道要审查这些报告。这些系统性的监督缺陷与执法方法是一致的，即优先考虑生产力和创收，而不是合法维持治安。因此，即使指挥官劝诫部门主管更密切地监督警员的活动，他们也会使阻碍有效监督的动力长期存在。

c. FPD's Use of a Police-run "Wanted" System Circumvents Judicial Review and Poses the Risk of Abuse
c.FPD 使用由警方管理的 "通缉 "系统规避了司法审查并带来了滥用风险

FPD and other law enforcement agencies in St. Louis County use a system of "wanteds" or "stop orders" as a substitute for seeking judicial approval for an arrest warrant. When officers believe a person has committed a crime but are not able to immediately locate that person, they can enter a "wanted" into the statewide law enforcement database, indicating to all other law enforcement agencies that the person should be arrested if located. While wanteds are supposed to be based on probable cause, see FPD General Order 424.01, they operate as an end-run around the judicial system. Instead of swearing out a warrant and seeking judicial authorization from a neutral and detached magistrate, officers make the probable cause determination themselves and circumvent the courts. Officers use wanteds for serious state-level crimes and minor code violations alike, including traffic offenses.
FPD和圣路易斯郡的其他执法机构使用 "通缉令 "或 "停止令 "系统来代替申请司法批准的逮捕令。当执法人员认为某人已经犯罪但无法立即找到此人时，他们可以将 "通缉令 "输入全州执法数据库，向所有其他执法机构表明，如果找到此人，就应该将其逮捕。虽然 "通缉令 "应基于合理的理由（见 FPD General Order 424.01），但它的运作却绕过了司法系统。警官没有宣誓签发逮捕令，也没有向中立、独立的地方法官寻求司法授权，而是自己确定可能的理由，绕过了法院。通缉令既适用于严重的国家级犯罪，也适用于轻微的违反法规行为，包括交通违法行为。

FPD command staff express support for the wanted system, extolling the benefits of being able to immediately designate a person for detention. But this expedience carries constitutional risks. If officers enter wanteds into the system on less than probable cause, then
FPD 的指挥人员对通缉制度表示支持，称赞能够立即指定拘留某人的好处。但这种权宜之计存在宪法风险。如果警员在没有充分理由的情况下将通缉犯输入系统，那么
the subsequent arrest would violate the Fourth Amendment. Our interviews with command staff and officers indicate that officers do not clearly understand the legal authority necessary to issue a wanted. For example, one veteran officer told us he will put out a wanted "if I do not have enough probable cause to arrest you." He gave the example of investigating a car theft. Upon identifying a suspect, he would put that suspect into the system as wanted "because we do not have probable cause that he stole the vehicle." Reflecting the muddled analysis officers may employ when deciding whether to issue a wanted, this officer concluded, "you have to have reasonable suspicion and some probable cause to put out a wanted."
随后的逮捕将违反《第四修正案》。我们与指挥人员和警官的访谈表明，警官并不清楚发布通缉令所需的法律授权。例如，一名资深警官告诉我们，"如果我没有足够的正当理由逮捕你"，他就会发出通缉令。他举了一个调查汽车盗窃案的例子。在确认嫌疑人后，他会将嫌疑人作为通缉犯输入系统，"因为我们没有可能的理由证明他偷了车"。这位警官的结论是，"你必须有合理的怀疑和一些可能的理由才能发布通缉令"，这反映了警官在决定是否发布通缉令时可能会进行的糊涂分析。

At times, FPD officers use wanteds not merely in spite of a lack of probable cause, but because they lack probable cause. In December 2014, a Ferguson detective investigating a shooting emailed a county prosecutor to see if a warrant for a suspect could be obtained, since "

lot of state agencies won't act on a wanted." The prosecutor responded stating that although "[c]hances are" the crime was committed by the suspect, "we just don't have enough for a warrant right now." The detective responded that he would enter a wanted.
有时，弗格森警察使用通缉令并不仅仅是因为缺乏正当理由，而是因为他们缺乏正当理由。2014年12月，一名调查枪击案的弗格森警探向县检察官发送电子邮件，询问是否可以获得对嫌疑人的逮捕令，因为"

很多州立机构不会对通缉令采取行动"。检察官回复说，虽然 "很有可能 "犯罪嫌疑人已经实施了犯罪，但 "我们现在还没有足够的证据来申请搜查令"。侦探回答说，他会输入通缉令。

There is evidence that the use of wanteds has resulted in numerous unconstitutional arrests in Ferguson. Internal communications reveal problems with FPD officers arresting individuals on wanteds without first confirming that the wanteds are still valid. In 2010, for instance, an FPD supervisor wrote that "[a]s of late we have had subjects arrested that were wanted for other agencies brought in without being verified first. You guessed it, come to find out they were no longer wanted by the agencies and had to be released." The same supervisor told us that in 2014 he cleared hundreds of invalid wanteds from the system, some of them over ten years old, suggesting that invalid wanteds have been an ongoing problem.
有证据表明，通缉令的使用导致弗格森发生了多起违宪逮捕事件。内部通信显示，弗格森警察在逮捕被通缉人员时存在问题，他们没有首先确认通缉令是否仍然有效。例如，2010 年，一名联邦警察署主管写道："最近，我们逮捕了一些被其他机构通缉的人，但没有首先进行核实。你猜对了，后来发现他们已不再是这些机构的通缉对象，不得不将他们释放"。"同一位主管告诉我们，2014 年，他从系统中清除了数百份无效通缉令，其中一些已有十多年的历史，这表明无效通缉令一直是个问题。

Wanteds can also be imprecise, leading officers to arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. For example, in June 2011, officers arrested a man at gunpoint because the car he was driving had an active wanted "on the vehicle and its occupants" in connection with an alleged theft. In fact, the theft was alleged to have been committed by the man's brother. Nonetheless, according to FPD's files, the man was arrested solely on the basis of the wanted.
通缉令也可能不够精确，导致警官在违反第四修正案的情况下实施逮捕。例如，2011 年 6 月，警官持枪逮捕了一名男子，因为他驾驶的汽车上有一条与一起涉嫌盗窃案有关的 "对车辆及其乘员 "的通缉令。事实上，这起盗窃案据称是该男子的兄弟所为。尽管如此，根据 FPD 的档案，逮捕该男子的唯一依据就是通缉令。

This system creates the risk that wanteds could be used improperly to develop evidence necessary for arrest rather than to secure a person against whom probable cause already exists. Several officers described wanteds as an investigatory tool. According to Chief Jackson, "a wanted allows us to get a suspect in for booking and potential interrogation." One purpose, he said, is "to conduct an interview of that person." While it is perfectly legitimate for officers to try to obtain statements from persons lawfully detained, it is unconstitutional for them to jail individuals on less than probable cause for that purpose. Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 216. One senior supervisor acknowledged that wanteds could be abused. He agreed that the potential exists, for example, for an officer to pressure a subject into speaking voluntarily to avoid being arrested. These are risks that the judicially-reviewed warrant process is meant to avoid.
这种制度造成的风险是，通缉令可能被不恰当地用来搜集逮捕所需的证据，而不是用来抓捕已经存在合理理由的人。几名警官称通缉令是一种调查工具。据杰克逊局长说，"通缉令可以让我们把嫌疑人送去登记并进行可能的审问"。他说，这样做的目的之一是 "对此人进行询问"。虽然警官试图从被合法拘留的人那里获取供词是完全合法的，但他们为此目的以不充分的正当理由将个人监禁是违宪的。Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 216。一名高級督導人員承認通緝令可能會被濫用。他同意有可能出現這種情況，例如，警務人員可能會向受疑人施壓，要求受疑人自願說話以免被捕。這些風險是經司法覆核的手令程序所要避免的。

Compounding our concern is the minimal training and supervision provided on when to issue a wanted, and the lack of any meaningful oversight to detect and respond to improperly issued wanteds. Some officers told us that they may have heard about wanteds in the training academy. Others said that they received no formal training on wanteds and learned about them
使我们更加担忧的是，在何时发出通缉令方面，所提供的培训和监督少之又少，而且缺乏任何有意义的监督来发现和应对不当发出的通缉令。一些警官告诉我们，他们可能在培训学院听说过通缉令。其他人则说，他们没有接受过关于通缉令的正式培训，只是在以下情况下了解到通缉令
from their field training officers. As for supervision, officers are supposed to get authorization from their supervisors before entering a wanted into a law enforcement database. They purportedly do this by providing the factual basis for probable cause to their supervisors, orally or in their written reports. However, several supervisors and officers we spoke with acknowledged that this supervisory review routinely does not happen. Further, the supervisors we interviewed told us that they had never declined to authorize a wanted.
在监督方面，警官在将通缉犯输入执法数据库之前，应获得其主管的授权。至于监督问题，警官在将通缉令输入执法数据库之前，理应得到上司的授权。据称，他们可以通过口头或书面报告的方式，向上司提供可能原因的事实依据。然而，与我们交谈过的几位主管和警官都承认，这种监督审查通常不会发生。此外，我们访谈过的主管告诉我们，他们从未拒绝授权通缉。

Finally, a Missouri appellate court has highlighted the constitutional risks of relying on a wanted as the basis for an arrest. In State v. Carroll, 745 S.W.2d 156 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987), the court held that a robbery suspect was arrested without probable cause when Ferguson and St. Louis police officers picked him up on a wanted for leaving the scene of an accident. Id. at 158. The officers then interrogated him three times at two different police stations, and he eventually made incriminating statements. Despite the existence of a wanted, the court deemed the initial arrest unconstitutional because "

he record . . . fail[ed] to show any facts known to the police at the time of the arrest to support a reasonable belief that defendant had committed a crime." Id. Carroll highlights the fact that wanteds do not confer an authority equal to a judicial arrest warrant. Rather, the Carroll court's holding suggests that wanteds may be of unknown reliability and thus insufficient to permit custodial detention under the Fourth Amendment. See also Steven J. Mulroy, "Hold" On: The Remarkably Resilient, Constitutionally Dubious 48Hour Hold, 63 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 815, 823, 842-45 (2013) (observing that one problem with police "holds" is that, although they require probable cause, "in practice they often lack it").
最后，密苏里州的一家上诉法院强调了以通缉令作为逮捕依据的宪法风险。在 State v. Carroll, 745 S.W.2d 156 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)一案中，法院认为，当弗格森和圣路易斯的警察以离开事故现场为由通缉一名抢劫嫌疑犯时，该嫌疑犯是在没有正当理由的情况下被捕的。同上，第 158 页。警務人員然後在兩個不同的警署對他進行了三次詰問，而他最終作出了有罪的陳述。尽管存在通缉令，但法院认为最初的逮捕是违宪的，因为"

记录......未能显示逮捕时警方已知的任何事实，以支持被告曾犯罪的合理信念"。同上。卡罗尔强调了一个事实，即通缉令并没有赋予与司法逮捕令同等的权力。相反，卡罗尔法院的判决表明，通缉令的可靠性可能未知，因此不足以允许根据第四修正案进行拘留。另见 Steven J. Mulroy, "Hold" On：The Remarkably Resilient, Constitutionally Dubious 48Hour Hold, 63 Case W. Res.L. Res. Rev. 815, 823, 842-45 (2013)（注意到警方 "扣留 "的一个问题是，虽然它们要求有正当理由，但 "在实践中往往缺乏正当理由"）。

We received complaints from FPD officers that the County prosecutor's office is too restrictive in granting warrant requests, and that this has necessitated the wanted practice. This investigation did not determine whether the St. Louis County prosecutor is overly restrictive or appropriately cautious in granting warrant requests. What is clear, however, is that current FPD practices have resulted in wanteds being issued and executed without legal basis.
我们收到联邦警察局官员的投诉，称郡检察官办公室在批准搜查令申请时限制过严，因此必须采取通缉做法。这次调查并没有确定圣路易斯郡检察官在批准搜查令申请时是限制过多还是谨慎得当。但可以肯定的是，目前联邦警察局的做法已经导致在没有法律依据的情况下发出和执行通缉令。

2. FPD Engages in a Pattern of First Amendment Violations
2.FPD 不断违反第一修正案

FPD's approach to enforcement results in violations of individuals' First Amendment rights. FPD arrests people for a variety of protected conduct: people are punished for talking back to officers, recording public police activities, and lawfully protesting perceived injustices.
FPD 的执法方式侵犯了个人的第一修正案权利。联邦警察因各种受保护的行为而逮捕人：人们因与警察顶嘴、记录警察的公共活动以及合法抗议所发现的不公正现象而受到惩罚。

Under the Constitution, what a person says generally should not determine whether he or she is jailed. Police officers cannot constitutionally make arrest decisions based on individuals' verbal expressions of disrespect for law enforcement, including use of foul language. Buffkins v. City of Omaha, 922 F.2d 465, 472 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that officers violated the Constitution when they arrested a woman for disorderly conduct after she called one an "asshole," especially since "police officers are expected to exercise greater restraint in their response than the average citizen"); Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that the First Amendment prohibited a police chief from arresting an individual who pointed at him and told him "move the

car," even if the comment momentarily distracted the chief from a routine traffic stop); Gorra v. Hanson, 880 F.2d 95, 100 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that arresting a person in retaliation for making a statement "constitutes obvious infringement" of the First Amendment). As the Supreme Court has held, "the First Amendment protects a significant
根据《宪法》，一个人说了什么通常不应决定他或她是否会被监禁。警察不能根据个人对执法人员不敬的口头表达，包括使用粗言秽语，做出符合宪法的逮捕决定。Buffkins诉奥马哈市案，922 F.2d 465，472（第8巡回法院，1990年）（认为警察在一名妇女称其为 "混蛋 "后以扰乱治安罪将其逮捕违反了宪法，特别是因为 "警察在作出反应时应比普通公民更加克制"）；Copeland诉Locke案，613 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2010)（认为第一修正案禁止警察局长逮捕一个指着他并告诉他 "把

车开走 "的人，即使该评论一时分散了警察局长对例行交通拦截的注意力）；Gorra v. Hanson, 880 F.2d 95, 100 (8th Cir. 1989)（认为逮捕一个因发表声明而遭到报复的人 "构成对 "第一修正案的 "明显侵犯"）。正如最高法院所认为的，"第一修正案保护了一个重要的
amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (striking down as unconstitutionally overbroad a local ordinance that criminalized interference with police by speech).
针对警察的大量口头批评和质疑"。德克萨斯州休斯顿市诉希尔案，482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987)（以违宪为由驳回了一项将以言论干扰警察的行为定为犯罪的地方法令）。

In Ferguson, however, officers frequently make enforcement decisions based on what subjects say, or how they say it. Just as officers reflexively resort to arrest immediately upon noncompliance with their orders, whether lawful or not, they are quick to overreact to challenges and verbal slights. These incidents-sometimes called "contempt of cop" cases-are propelled by officers' belief that arrest is an appropriate response to disrespect. These arrests are typically charged as a Failure to Comply, Disorderly Conduct, Interference with Officer, or Resisting Arrest.
然而，在弗格森，警察经常根据当事人所说的话或所说的方式做出执法决定。无论命令合法与否，一旦有人不服从命令，警察就会条件反射地立即实施逮捕。这些事件--有时被称为 "蔑视警察 "案件--是由于警官认为逮捕是对不尊重的适当反应。这些逮捕行为通常被指控为不守规矩、行为不检、干扰警察或拒捕。

For example, in July 2012, a police officer arrested a business owner on charges of Interfering in Police Business and Misuse of 911 because she objected to the officer's detention of her employee. The officer had stopped the employee for "walking unsafely in the street" as he returned to work from the bank. According to FPD records, the owner "became verbally involved," came out of her shop three times after being asked to stay inside, and called 911 to complain to the Police Chief. The officer characterized her protestations as interference and arrested her inside her shop.

The arrest violated the First Amendment, which "does not allow such speech to be made a crime." Hill, 482 U.S. at 462 . Indeed, the officer's decision to arrest the woman after she tried to contact the Police Chief suggests that he may have been retaliating against her for reporting his conduct.
例如，2012 年 7 月，一名警官逮捕了一名企业主，罪名是干扰警方公务和滥用 911，因为她反对警官拘留她的员工。这名警官在该员工从银行返回公司时以 "在街上行走不安全 "为由将其拦下。根据 FPD 的记录，店主 "言辞激烈"，在被要求留在店内后三次走出店门，并拨打 911 向警察局长投诉。警察将她的抗议定性为干扰，并在店内将她逮捕。

这次逮捕违反了第一修正案，该修正案 "不允许将此类言论定为犯罪"。希尔案，482 U.S. at 462。事实上，该警官在该妇女试图联系警察局长后决定逮捕她，这表明他可能是在报复该妇女举报他的行为。

Officers in Ferguson also use their arrest power to retaliate against individuals for using language that, while disrespectful, is protected by the Constitution. For example, one afternoon in September 2012, an officer stopped a 20-year-old African-American man for dancing in the middle of a residential street. The officer obtained the man's identification and ran his name for warrants. Finding none, he told the man he was free to go. The man responded with profanities. When the officer told him to watch his language and reminded him that he was not being arrested, the man continued using profanity and was arrested for Manner of Walking in Roadway.
弗格森的官员还利用其逮捕权对使用语言的个人进行报复，虽然这些语言是不敬的，但却受到《宪法》的保护。例如，2012 年 9 月的一天下午，一名警官拦下了一名在居民区街道中央跳舞的 20 岁非裔美国男子。警官出示了该男子的身份证件，并对他的姓名进行了搜查。发现没有后，他告诉该男子他可以走了。该男子以脏话回应。当警官告诉他注意自己的言辞并提醒他并不是要逮捕他时，该男子继续辱骂警官，并因在道路上行走的方式被捕。

In February 2014, officers responded to a group of African-American teenage girls "play fighting" (in the words of the officer) in an intersection after school. When one of the schoolgirls gave the middle finger to a white witness who had called the police, an officer ordered her over to him. One of the girl's friends accompanied her. Though the friend had the right to be present and observe the situation-indeed, the offense reports include no facts suggesting a safety concern posed by her presence - the officers ordered her to leave and then attempted to arrest her when she refused. Officers used force to arrest the friend as she pulled away. When the first girl grabbed an officer's shoulder, they used force to arrest her, as well.
2014 年 2 月，警官发现一群非裔美国少女放学后在十字路口 "打闹"（用警官的话说）。当其中一名女学生向一名报警的白人目击者竖中指时，一名警官命令她走到他身边。女孩的一个朋友陪着她。虽然这位朋友有权在场观察情况--事实上，犯罪报告中没有任何事实表明她的在场会带来安全问题--但警官命令她离开，并在她拒绝后试图逮捕她。当她离开时，警官使用武力逮捕了她的朋友。当第一个女孩抓住警官的肩膀时，警官也使用武力逮捕了她。

Officers charged the two teenagers with a variety of offenses, including: Disorderly Conduct for giving the middle finger and using obscenities; Manner of Walking for being in the street; Failure to Comply for staying to observe; Interference with Officer; Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer; and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (themselves and their schoolmates) by resisting arrest and being involved in disorderly conduct. This incident underscores how officers' unlawful response to activity protected by the First Amendment can quickly escalate to physical resistance, resulting in additional force, additional charges, and increasing the risk of injury to officers and members of the public alike.
警官指控这两名少年犯有多项罪行，包括罪名包括：因竖中指和使用脏话而扰乱治安；因在街上行走而影响走路姿势；因逗留观察而未能遵守规定；干扰警官；袭击执法人员；以及因拒捕和参与扰乱治安行为而危及儿童（他们自己和他们的同学）的福利。这一事件强调了警官对受宪法第一修正案保护的活动做出的非法回应如何迅速升级为肢体抵抗，从而导致额外的武力、额外的指控，并增加警官和公众受伤的风险。

These accounts are drawn entirely from officers' own descriptions, recorded in offense reports. That FPD officers believe criticism and insolence are grounds for arrest, and that supervisors have condoned such unconstitutional policing, reflects intolerance for even lawful opposition to the exercise of police authority. These arrests also reflect that, in FPD, many officers have no tools for de-escalating emotionally charged scenes, even though the ability of a police officer to bring calm to a situation is a core policing skill.
这些叙述完全来自警官自己的描述，记录在违法行为报告中。联邦警察署的警官认为批评和傲慢无礼是逮捕的理由，而上司也纵容这种违反宪法的警务行为，这反映出他们甚至对合法反对警察行使权力的行为也不能容忍。这些逮捕事件还反映出，在 FPD，许多警官没有缓和情绪激动场面的工具，尽管警官平息事态的能力是一项核心警务技能。

FPD officers also routinely infringe on the public's First Amendment rights by preventing people from recording their activities. The First Amendment "prohibit[s] the government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." First Nat'l Bank v. Belloti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978). Applying this principle, the federal courts of appeal have held that the First Amendment "unambiguously" establishes a constitutional right to videotape police activities. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011); see also ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012) (issuing a preliminary injunction against the use of a state eavesdropping statute to prevent the recording of public police activities); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a First Amendment right to film police carrying out their public duties); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing a First Amendment right "to photograph or videotape police conduct"). Indeed, as the ability to record police activity has become more widespread, the role it can play in capturing questionable police activity, and ensuring that the activity is investigated and subject to broad public debate, has become clear. Protecting civilian recording of police activity is thus at the core of speech the First Amendment is intended to protect. Cf. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681 (1972) (First Amendment protects "news gathering"); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966) (news gathering enhances "free discussion of governmental affairs"). "In a democracy, public officials have no general privilege to avoid publicity and embarrassment by preventing public scrutiny of their actions." Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2005).
FPD 警官还经常侵犯公众的第一修正案权利，阻止人们记录他们的活动。第一修正案 "禁止政府限制公众可以从中获取的信息"。First Nat'l Bank v. Belloti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978).应用这一原则，联邦上诉法院认为第一修正案 "明确 "确立了对警察活动进行录像的宪法权利。Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011); see also ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012) (issued a preliminary injunction against the use of a state eavesdropping statute to prevent the recording of public police activities); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995)（承认第一修正案规定的拍摄警察执行公务的权利）；Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)（承认第一修正案规定的 "拍摄或录像警察行为 "的权利）。事实上，随着记录警察活动的能力日益普及，它在捕捉有问题的警察活动、确保对这些活动进行调查并引起公众广泛讨论方面的作用已变得十分明显。因此，保护平民记录警察活动是第一修正案旨在保护的言论的核心。参见 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681 (1972)（第一修正案保护 "新闻收集"）；Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)（新闻收集加强了 "对政府事务的自由讨论"）。"在民主社会中，公职人员没有通过阻止公众监督其行为来避免公开和尴尬的普遍特权"。Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2005)。

In Ferguson, however, officers claim without any factual support that the use of camera phones endangers officer safety. Sometimes, officers offer no rationale at all. Our conversations with community members and review of FPD records found numerous violations of the right to record police activity. In May 2014, an officer pulled over an African-American woman who was driving with her two sons. During the traffic stop, the woman's 16 -year-old son began recording with his cell phone. The officer ordered him to put down the phone and refrain from using it for the remainder of the stop. The officer claimed this was "for safety reasons." The situation escalated, apparently due to the officer's rudeness and the woman's response. According to the 16 year old, he began recording again, leading the officer to wrestle the phone
然而，在弗格森，警官在没有任何事实依据的情况下声称，使用拍照手机会危及警官的安全。有时，警官根本不提供任何理由。我们与社区成员的谈话以及对弗格森警察局记录的审查发现，记录警察活动的权利遭到了多次侵犯。2014 年 5 月，一名警官拦下了一名带着两个儿子开车的非裔美国妇女。在拦截过程中，该妇女 16 岁的儿子开始用手机录音。警官命令他放下手机，在剩余的拦车时间内不得使用手机。警官声称这是 "出于安全考虑"。显然，警官的粗鲁和女子的反应导致事态升级。据这名 16 岁的女子称，他又开始录音，导致警官将手机摔在地上。
from him. Additional officers arrived and used force to arrest all three civilians under disputed circumstances that could have been clarified by a video recording.
他。更多的警察赶到现场，并在有争议的情况下使用武力逮捕了所有三名平民，而这些情况本可以通过视频记录得到澄清。

In June 2014, an African-American couple who had taken their children to play at the park allowed their small children to urinate in the bushes next to their parked car. An officer stopped them, threatened to cite them for allowing the children to "expose themselves," and checked the father for warrants. When the mother asked if the officer had to detain the father in front of the children, the officer turned to the father and said, "you're going to jail because your wife keeps running her mouth." The mother then began recording the officer on her cell phone. The officer became irate, declaring, "you don't videotape me!" As the officer drove away with the father in custody for "parental neglect," the mother drove after them, continuing to record. The officer then pulled over and arrested her for traffic violations. When the father asked the officer to show mercy, he responded, "no more mercy, since she wanted to videotape," and declared "nobody videotapes me." The officer then took the phone, which the couple's daughter was holding. After posting bond, the couple found that the video had been deleted.
2014 年 6 月，一对非裔美国夫妇带着孩子到公园玩耍，却任由孩子在他们停放的汽车旁边的灌木丛中小便。一名警官拦住了他们，威胁要以允许孩子 "暴露自己 "为由对他们进行处罚，并检查了父亲的逮捕令。当母亲问警官是否必须当着孩子的面拘留父亲时，警官转过身对父亲说："你会坐牢的，因为你妻子一直在喋喋不休。母亲随后开始用手机录音。警官恼羞成怒，宣称 "你不能给我录像！"当警官以 "父母疏于管教 "为由将父亲带走时，母亲开车追了上去，并继续录像。警官随后把车停在路边，以违反交通规则为由逮捕了她。当父亲请求警官手下留情时，警官回答说："既然她想录像，那就别再手下留情了"，并宣称 "没人会给我录像"。警官随后拿走了这对夫妇女儿手中的手机。在缴纳保释金后，这对夫妇发现视频已被删除。

A month later, the same officer pulled over a truck hauling a trailer that did not have operating tail lights. The officer asked for identification from all three people inside, including a 54-year-old white man in the passenger seat who asked why. "You have to have a reason. This is a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights," he asserted. The officer, who characterized the man's reaction as "suspicious," responded, "the reason is, if you don't hand it to me, I'll arrest you." The man provided his identification. The officer then asked the man to move his cell phone from his lap to the dashboard, "for my safety." The man said, "okay, but I'm going to record this." Due to nervousness, he could not open the recording application and quickly placed the phone on the dash. The officer then announced that the man was under arrest for Failure to Comply. At the end of the traffic stop, the officer gave the driver a traffic citation, indicated at the other man, and said, "you're getting this ticket because of him." Upon bringing that man to the jail, someone asked the officer what offense the man had committed. The officer responded, "he's one of those guys who watches CNBC too much about his rights." The man did not say anything else, fearing what else the officer might be capable of doing. He later told us, "I never dreamed I could end up in jail for this. I'm scared of driving through Ferguson now."
一个月后，同一名警官拦下了一辆拖着拖车的卡车，但该车的尾灯没有亮起。警官要求车内三人出示证件，包括副驾驶座位上的一名 54 岁白人男子，他问为什么。他说："你必须有理由。他声称："这侵犯了我的第四修正案权利。这名警官将该男子的反应描述为 "可疑"，并回答说："理由是，如果你不把它交给我，我就逮捕你。该男子提供了身份证件。警官随后要求该男子 "为了我的安全"，把手机从腿上挪到仪表盘上。该男子说，"好吧，但我要录音"。由于紧张，他无法打开录音应用程序，于是迅速将手机放在了仪表盘上。警官随即宣布该男子因未遵守交通规则被捕。交通拦截结束后，警官给了司机一张交通罚单，并指着另一名男子说："因为他，你才会收到这张罚单"。将该男子带到监狱后，有人问警官该男子犯了什么罪。警官回答说："他是那种看 CNBC 看多了的人，不知道自己的权利"。这名男子没有再说什么，他担心警官还会做出什么事情来。他后来告诉我们："我做梦也没想到自己会因此入狱。我现在都害怕开车经过弗格森了。

The Ferguson Police Department's infringement of individuals' freedom of speech and right to record has been highlighted in recent months in the context of large-scale public protest. In November 2014, a federal judge entered a consent order prohibiting Ferguson officers from interfering with individuals' rights to lawfully and peacefully record public police activities. That same month, the City settled another suit alleging that it had abused its loitering ordinance, Mun. Code § 29-89, to arrest people who were protesting peacefully on public sidewalks.
近几个月来，弗格森警察局侵犯个人言论自由和记录权的问题在大规模公众抗议活动中得到了突出强调。2014 年 11 月，联邦法官签发了一项同意令，禁止弗格森警官干涉个人合法、和平地记录公共警务活动的权利。同月，弗格森市政府解决了另一起指控其滥用闲逛条例（Mun.Code § 29-89，逮捕在公共人行道上和平抗议的人。

Despite these lawsuits, it appears that FPD continues to interfere with individuals’ rights to protest and record police activities. On February 9, 2015, several individuals were protesting outside the Ferguson police station on the six-month anniversary of Michael Brown's death. According to protesters, and consistent with several video recordings from that evening, the protesters stood peacefully in the police department's parking lot, on the sidewalks in front of it, and across the street. Video footage shows that two FPD vehicles abruptly accelerated from the police parking lot into the street. An officer announced, "everybody here's going to jail,"
尽管有这些诉讼，但弗格森警察局似乎仍在继续干涉个人抗议和记录警察活动的权利。2015 年 2 月 9 日，在迈克尔-布朗（Michael Brown）死亡六周年之际，有几个人在弗格森警察局外举行抗议活动。据抗议者称，与当晚的几段视频记录一致，抗议者和平地站在警察局的停车场、停车场前的人行道上以及街对面。录像显示，两辆菲律宾警察局的车辆突然从警察局停车场加速冲向街道。一名警官宣布："这里的每个人都要进监狱"。
causing the protesters to run. Video shows that as one man recorded the police arresting others, he was arrested for interfering with police action. Officers pushed him to the ground, began handcuffing him, and announced, "stop resisting or you're going to get tased." It appears from the video, however, that the man was neither interfering nor resisting. A protester in a wheelchair who was live streaming the protest was also arrested. Another officer moved several people with cameras away from the scene of the arrests, warning them against interfering and urging them to back up or else be arrested for Failure to Obey. The sergeant shouted at those filming that they would be arrested for Manner of Walking if they did not back away out of the street, even though it appears from the video recordings that the protesters and those recording were on the sidewalk at most, if not all, times. Six people were arrested during this incident. It appears that officers' escalation of this incident was unnecessary and in response to derogatory comments written in chalk on the FPD parking lot asphalt and on a police vehicle.
导致抗议者逃跑。视频显示，当一名男子录下警察逮捕其他人的过程时，他因干扰警察行动而被捕。警察将他推倒在地，开始给他戴手铐，并宣布 "停止抵抗，否则就用电击"。但从视频中可以看出，这名男子既没有干扰，也没有反抗。一名坐在轮椅上正在直播抗议活动的抗议者也被逮捕。另一名警官将几名携带相机的人带离逮捕现场，警告他们不要干扰，并敦促他们后退，否则将以 "不服从命令 "为由逮捕他们。这名警官对拍摄者大声说，如果他们不退后离开街道，就会因 "走路方式 "被捕，尽管从视频记录来看，抗议者和拍摄者大部分时间（如果不是全部时间）都在人行道上。此次事件中共有六人被捕。看来，警官将这一事件升级是不必要的，而且是为了回应用粉笔写在 FPD 停车场沥青路面和警车上的诽谤性言论。

FPD's suppression of speech reflects a police culture that relies on the exercise of police power-however unlawful-to stifle unwelcome criticism. Recording police activity and engaging in public protest are fundamentally democratic enterprises because they provide a check on those "who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties." Glik, 655 F.3d at 82 . Even profane backtalk can be a form of dissent against perceived misconduct. In the words of the Supreme Court, "

he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." Hill, 482 U.S. at 463. Ideally, officers would not encounter verbal abuse. Communities would encourage mutual respect, and the police would likewise exhibit respect by treating people with dignity. But, particularly where officers engage in unconstitutional policing, they only exacerbate community opposition by quelling speech.
FPD 对言论的压制反映了一种警察文化，即依靠行使警察权力--无论多么非法--来压制不受欢迎的批评。记录警察活动和参与公众抗议从根本上说是民主的事业，因为它们对那些 "被授予可能被滥用来剥夺个人自由的重大自由裁量权的人 "起到了制衡作用。Glik, 655 F.3d at 82。即使是亵渎性的顶撞也可以是对所认为的不当行为提出异议的一种形式。用最高法院的话来说，"

个人在口头上反对或质疑警察行为而不因此面临被捕风险的自由，是我们将自由国家与警察国家区分开来的主要特征之一"。希尔案，482 U.S. at 463。在理想情况下，警官不会遭遇辱骂。社区会鼓励相互尊重，而警察也同样会表现出尊重，以有尊严的方式待人。但是，特别是在警察违宪维持治安的情况下，他们只会通过压制言论来加剧社区的反对意见。

3. FPD Engages in a Pattern of Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment
3.联邦警察经常过度使用武力，违反了《第四修正案》

FPD engages in a pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Many officers are quick to escalate encounters with subjects they perceive to be disobeying their orders or resisting arrest. They have come to rely on ECWs, specifically Tasers

, where less force-or no force at all—would do. They also release canines on unarmed subjects unreasonably and before attempting to use force less likely to cause injury. Some incidents of excessive force result from stops or arrests that have no basis in law. Others are punitive and retaliatory. In addition, FPD records suggest a tendency to use unnecessary force against vulnerable groups such as people with mental health conditions or cognitive disabilities, and juvenile students. Furthermore, as discussed in greater detail in Part III.C. of this report, Ferguson's pattern of using excessive force disproportionately harms African-American members of the community. The overwhelming majority of force-almost

-is used against African Americans.
联邦警察经常过度使用武力，违反了《第四修正案》。许多警察在遇到他们认为不服从命令或拒捕的对象时，会迅速升级武力。他们开始依赖电子致命武器，特别是泰瑟枪

，而在这种情况下使用较少的武力或根本不使用武力就可以了。他们还在试图使用不太可能造成伤害的武力之前，不合理地向手无寸铁的目标释放警犬。一些过度使用武力的事件源于没有法律依据的拦截或逮捕。还有一些则是惩罚性和报复性的。此外，联邦警察局的记录显示，他们倾向于对弱势群体使用不必要的武力，如精神疾病患者或认知障碍患者以及青少年学生。此外，正如本报告第 III.C 部分所详细讨论的那样，弗格森过度使用武力的模式对社区中的非裔美国人造成了不成比例的伤害。绝大多数武力--几乎

--都是针对非裔美国人使用的。

The use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989); Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1207-09 (8th Cir. 2013). The constitutionality of an officer's use of force depends on whether the officer's conduct was '"objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and
执法人员过度使用武力违反了第四修正案。Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989); Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1207-09 (8th Cir. 2013)。警官使用武力是否符合宪法取决于警官的行为是否 "客观合理"。
circumstances," which must be assessed "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Relevant considerations include "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Id.; Johnson v. Caroll, 658 F.3d 819, 826 (8th Cir. 2011).
情况"，必须 "从一个在现场的通情达理的官员的角度，而不是用事后的 20/20 远见来评估"。格雷厄姆案，490 U.S. at 396。相关的考虑因素包括 "所涉罪行的严重性，嫌疑人是否对警官或他人的安全构成直接威胁，以及他是否积极拒捕或试图通过逃跑逃避逮捕"。同上；Johnson v. Caroll, 658 F.3d 819, 826 (8th Cir. 2011)。

FPD also imposes limits on officers' use of force through department policies. The useof-force policy instituted by Chief Jackson in 2010 states that "force may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under a particular set of circumstances." FPD General Order 410.01. The policy also sets out a use-offorce continuum, indicating the force options permitted in different circumstances, depending on the level of resistance provided by a suspect. FPD General Order 410.08.
FPD 还通过部门政策对警官使用武力施加限制。杰克逊局长于 2010 年制定的使用武力政策规定，"除非已用尽其他合理的替代方法，或在特定情况下显然无效，否则不得诉诸武力"。FPD General Order 410.01。该政策还规定了使用武力的连续统一体，指出了在不同情况下允许使用武力的选项，具体取决于嫌疑人的反抗程度。FPD General Order 410.08。

FPD's stated practice is to maintain use-of-force investigation files for all situations in which officers use force. We reviewed the entire set of force files provided by the department for the period of January 1, 2010 to September 8, 2014.

Setting aside the killing of animals (e.g., dogs, injured deer) and three instances in which the subject of the use of force was not identified, FPD provided 151 files. We also reviewed related documentation regarding canine deployments. Our finding that FPD force is routinely unreasonable and sometimes clearly punitive is drawn largely from FPD's documentation; that is, from officers' own words.
FPD 所称的做法是为警员使用武力的所有情况保存使用武力调查档案。我们审查了该局提供的 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 9 月 8 日期间的整套武力档案。

撇开杀害动物（如狗、受伤的鹿）和三次未确定使用武力对象的情况不谈，FPD共提供了151份档案。我们还审查了有关警犬部署的相关文件。我们发现，FPD 使用武力经常是不合理的，有时明显是惩罚性的，这一结论主要来自 FPD 的文件，即警官自己的话。

a. FPD's Use of Electronic Control Weapons Is Unreasonable
a.FPD 使用电子控制武器不合理

FPD's pattern of excessive force includes using ECWs in a manner that is unconstitutional, abusive, and unsafe. For example, in August 2010, a lieutenant used an ECW in drive-stun mode against an African-American woman in the Ferguson City Jail because she had refused to remove her bracelets.

The lieutenant resorted to his ECW even though there were five officers present and the woman posed no physical threat.
弗格森警察过度使用武力的模式包括以违宪、滥用和不安全的方式使用电子警察。例如，2010年8月，一名中尉在弗格森市监狱对一名非裔美国妇女使用了驱晕模式的ECW，因为她拒绝摘下手镯。

尽管当时有五名警官在场，而且该妇女并未构成人身威胁，但该中尉还是使用了电击枪。

Similarly, in November 2013, a correctional officer fired an ECW at an AfricanAmerican woman's chest because she would not follow his verbal commands to walk toward a cell. The woman, who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, had yelled an insulting remark at the officer, but her conduct amounted to verbal noncompliance or passive resistance at most. Instead of attempting hand controls or seeking assistance from a state trooper who was also present, the correctional officer deployed the ECW because the woman was "not doing as she was told." When another FPD officer wrote up the formal incident report, the reporting officer wrote that the woman "approached [the correctional officer] in a threatening manner." This "threatening manner" allegation appears nowhere in the statements of the correctional
同样，2013年11月，一名惩教人员向一名非裔美国妇女的胸部发射了一枚ECW，因为她不听从他的口头命令走向牢房。这名因醉酒驾车而被捕的妇女曾对警官大喊侮辱性的话语，但她的行为最多相当于口头不服从或消极抵抗。由于该女子 "不听话"，管教人员没有尝试用手控制，也没有向当时也在场的州警寻求帮助，而是使用了ECW。当另一名 FPD 警官撰写正式事件报告时，报告警官写道，这名妇女 "以威胁的方式接近 [管教警官]"。这一 "威胁方式 "的指控在管教人员的陈述中从未出现过。

officer or witness trooper. The woman was charged with Disorderly Conduct, and the correctional officer soon went on to become an officer with another law enforcement agency.
这名妇女被指控行为不检。这名妇女被指控扰乱治安，而这名管教人员很快就成为了另一个执法机构的官员。

These are not isolated incidents. In September 2012, an officer drive-stunned an AfricanAmerican woman who he had placed in the back of his patrol car but who had stretched out her leg to block him from closing the door. The woman was in handcuffs. In May 2013, officers drive-stunned a handcuffed African-American man who verbally refused to get out of the back seat of a police car once it had arrived at the jail. The man did not physically resist arrest or attempt to assault the officers. According to the man, he was also punched in the face and head. That allegation was neither reported by the involved officers nor investigated by their supervisor, who dismissed it.
这些并非孤立事件。2012 年 9 月，一名警官开车眩晕了一名非裔美国妇女，他将她放在巡逻车后座，但她伸腿阻挡他关门。这名妇女当时戴着手铐。2013 年 5 月，警官驾车眩晕了一名戴着手铐的非裔美国男子，该男子在警车抵达监狱后口头拒绝从警车后座下车。该男子并未肢体拒捕或试图攻击警官。据该男子称，他的脸部和头部还遭到了拳击。这一指控既没有被涉案警官报告，也没有被其主管调查，而是被其主管驳回。

FPD officers seem to regard ECWs as an all-purpose tool bearing no risk. But an ECW—an electroshock weapon that disrupts a person's muscle control, causing involuntary contractions-can indeed be harmful. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed that ECW-inflicted injuries are "sometimes severe and unexpected." LaCross v. City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2013). Electroshock "inflicts a painful and frightening blow, which temporarily paralyzes the large muscles of the body, rendering the victim helpless." Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1993). Guidance produced by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and the Police Executive Research Forum in 2011 warns that ECWs are "'less-lethal' and not 'nonlethal weapons'" and "have the potential to result in a fatal outcome." 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines 12 (Police Executive Research Forum & U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Mar. 2011) ("2011 ECW Guidelines").
FPD 警官似乎认为电击枪是一种没有风险的万能工具。但是，电击枪--一种破坏人的肌肉控制、导致不自主收缩的电击武器--确实会造成伤害。第八巡回上诉法院注意到，电击枪造成的伤害 "有时是严重和意想不到的"。LaCross 诉德卢斯市，713 F.3d 1155, 1158（第八巡回上诉法院，2013 年）。电击 "造成痛苦而可怕的打击，暂时麻痹身体的大块肌肉，使受害者无能为力"。Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1993)。美国司法部、社区警务办公室和警察执行研究论坛于 2011 年制定的指南警告说，电子控制武器是"'低致命性'而非'非致命性武器'"，"有可能造成致命后果"。2011 年电子控制武器准则》第 12 条（警察执行研究论坛和美国司法部社区警务服务办公室，2011 年 3 月）（"2011 年电子控制武器准则"）。

FPD officers' swift, at times automatic, resort to using ECWs against individuals who typically have committed low-level crimes and who pose no immediate threat violates the Constitution. As the Eighth Circuit held in 2011, an officer uses excessive force and violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law when he deploys an ECW against an individual whose crime was minor and who is not actively resisting, attempting to flee, or posing any imminent danger to others. Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 497-99 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding the denial of a qualified immunity claim made by an officer who drive-stunned a woman on her arm for two or three seconds when she refused to hang up her phone despite being ordered to do so twice); cf. Hickey, 12 F.3d at 759 (finding that the use of a stun gun against a prisoner for refusing to sweep his cell violated the more deferential Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment). Courts have found that even when a suspect resists but does so only minimally, the surrounding factors may render the use of an ECW objectively unreasonable. See Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 444-46, 448-51 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding in two consolidated cases that minimal defensive resistance-including stiffening the body to inhibit being pulled from a car, and raising an arm in defense -does not render using an ECW reasonable where the offense was minor, the subject did not attempt to flee, and the subject posed no immediate threat to officers); Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 9-11 (1st Cir. 2008) (upholding a jury verdict of excessive use of force for an ECW use because the evidence supported a finding that the subject who had held his hands together was not actively resisting or posing an immediate threat); Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that the use of an ECW was not objectively reasonable when the
FPD 警官迅速（有时是自动）对通常只犯有轻微罪行、不构成直接威胁的个人使用防暴警棍，这违反了《宪法》。正如第八巡回法院在2011年裁定的那样，当警察对犯罪情节轻微、未积极抵抗、未试图逃跑或未对他人构成任何迫在眉睫的危险的个人使用高压电枪时，即属过度使用武力，违反了《宪法第四修正案》中明确规定的法律。Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 497-99 (8th Cir. 2011)（支持驳回一名警官提出的合格豁免权主张，该警官在一名妇女两次被命令挂断电话但拒绝挂断时，对其手臂实施了两三秒钟的电击）；参见 Hickey, 12 F.3d，第 759 页（认定对拒绝清扫牢房的囚犯使用电击枪违反了《第八修正案》关于禁止残忍和不寻常惩罚的规定）。法院认为，即使嫌疑人进行了反抗但只是轻微反抗，周围的因素也可能使使用电击枪客观上不合理。见 Mattos 诉 Agarano，661 F.3d 433, 444-46, 448-51 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)（在两起合并案件中认定，在犯罪情节轻微、嫌疑人未试图逃跑且未对警官构成直接威胁的情况下，轻微的防卫性反抗--包括僵硬身体以阻止被拉出汽车，以及举起手臂进行防卫--并不会导致使用ECW不合理）；Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 9-11 (1st Cir. 2011)（在两起合并案件中认定，在犯罪情节轻微、嫌疑人未试图逃跑且未对警官构成直接威胁的情况下，轻微的防卫性反抗--包括僵硬身体以阻止被拉出汽车，以及举起手臂进行防卫--并不会导致使用ECW不合理）。 2008）（维持陪审团对使用ECW过度使用武力的裁决，因为证据支持当事人双手合十并未积极抵抗或构成直接威胁的结论）；Casey诉City of Fed.Heights, 509 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir.2007 年）（认为在以下情况下使用ECW在客观上是不合理的
subject pulled away from the officer but did not otherwise actively resist arrest, attempt to flee, or pose an immediate threat).
当事人拉开了警官，但并未主动拒捕、试图逃跑或构成直接威胁）。

Indeed, officers' unreasonable ECW use violates FPD's own policies. The department prohibits the use of force unless reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective. FPD General Order 410.01. A separate ECW policy describes the weapon as "designed to overcome active aggression or overt actions of assault." FPD General Order 499.00. The policy states that an ECW "will never be deployed punitively or for purposes of coercion. It is to be used as a way of averting a potentially injurious or dangerous situation." FPD General Order 499.04. Despite the existence of clearly established Fourth Amendment case law and explicit departmental policies in this area, FPD officers routinely engage in the unreasonable use of ECWs, and supervisors routinely approve their conduct.
事实上，警员不合理地使用ECW违反了FPD自身的政策。该部门禁止使用武力，除非已用尽合理的替代办法或明显无效。FPD General Order 410.01。一项单独的ECW政策将该武器描述为 "旨在克服主动攻击或公开的攻击行为"。FPD General Order 499.00。该政策规定，ECW "决不能用于惩罚或胁迫目的。使用这种武器是为了避免潜在的伤害或危险情况"。FPD General Order 499.04。尽管在这一领域有明确的《第四修正案》判例法和明确的部门政策，但FPD警官经常不合理地使用ECW，而主管也经常批准他们的行为。

It is in part FPD officers' approach to policing that leads them to violate the Constitution and FPD's own policies. Officers across the country encounter drunkenness, passive defiance, and verbal challenges. But in Ferguson, officers have not been trained or incentivized to use deescalation techniques to avoid or minimize force in these situations. Instead, they respond with impatience, frustration, and disproportionate force. FPD's weak oversight of officer use of force, described in greater detail below, facilitates this abuse. Officers should be required to view the ECW as one tool among many, and "a weapon of need, not a tool of convenience." 2011 ECW Guidelines at 11. Effective policing requires that officers not depend on ECWs, or any type of force, "at the expense of diminishing the fundamental skills of communicating with subjects and de-escalating tense encounters." Id. at 12.
部分是 FPD 警官的警务方式导致他们违反宪法和 FPD 自身的政策。全国各地的警察都会遇到醉酒、消极反抗和言语挑战等情况。但在弗格森，警官们没有接受过培训，也没有受到激励，在这些情况下使用缓和技巧来避免或尽量减少使用武力。相反，他们以不耐烦、沮丧和过度使用武力来应对。FPD 对警员使用武力的监督不力，助长了这种滥用权力的现象，下文将对此进行更详细的描述。应要求警员将ECW视为众多工具中的一种，"是一种需要的武器，而不是一种方便的工具"。2011年ECW准则第11条。有效的警务要求警官不依赖ECW或任何类型的武力，"以降低与目标沟通和缓和紧张冲突的基本技能为代价"。同上，第 12 页。

b. FPD's Use of Canines on Low-level, Unarmed Offenders Is Unreasonable
b.FPD 对手无寸铁的低级罪犯使用警犬是不合理的

FPD engages in a pattern of deploying canines to bite individuals when the articulated facts do not justify this significant use of force. The department's own records demonstrate that, as with other types of force, canine officers use dogs out of proportion to the threat posed by the people they encounter, leaving serious puncture wounds to nonviolent offenders, some of them children. Furthermore, in every canine bite incident for which racial information is available, the subject was African American. This disparity, in combination with the decision to deploy canines in circumstances with a seemingly low objective threat, suggests that race may play an impermissible role in officers' decisions to deploy canines.
FPD 动辄出动警犬咬人，而所阐述的事实并不能证明这种大量使用武力的行为是正当的。警察局自己的记录表明，与其他类型的武力一样，警犬警官使用警犬的程度与他们遇到的人所构成的威胁不成比例，给非暴力罪犯（其中一些是儿童）留下了严重的刺伤。此外，在每一起有种族信息的警犬咬人事件中，被咬者都是非裔美国人。这种差异，再加上在客观威胁似乎很低的情况下决定出动警犬，表明种族可能在警察决定出动警犬时发挥了不允许的作用。

FPD currently has four canines, each assigned to a particular canine officer. Under FPD policy, canines are to be used to locate and apprehend "dangerous offenders." FPD General Order 498.00. When offenders are hiding, the policy states, "handlers will not allow their K-9 to engage a suspect by biting if a lower level of force could reasonably be expected to control the suspect or allow for the apprehension." Id. at 498.06. The policy also permits the use of a canine, however, when any crime - not just a felony or violent crime - has been committed. Id. at 498.05. This permissiveness, combined with the absence of meaningful supervisory review and an apparent tendency to overstate the threat based on race, has resulted in avoidable dog bites to low-level offenders when other means of control were available.
FPD 目前有四条警犬，每条警犬都分配给一名特定的警犬警官。根据 FPD 的政策，警犬用于查找和逮捕 "危险罪犯"。参见 FPD General Order 498.00。该政策规定，当罪犯藏匿时，"如果可以合理预期较低程度的武力可以控制嫌疑人或将其逮捕，则训导员不得允许警犬与嫌疑人进行撕咬"。同上，第 498.06 页。不过，该政策也允许在发生任何犯罪（不仅仅是重罪或暴力犯罪）时使用警犬。同上，第 498.05 页。这种纵容，再加上缺乏有意义的监督审查，以及基于种族而夸大威胁的明显倾向，导致在有其他控制手段的情况下，低级别的罪犯被警犬咬伤的情况是可以避免的。

In December 2011, officers deployed a canine to bite an unarmed 14-year-old AfricanAmerican boy who was waiting in an abandoned house for his friends. Four officers, including a
2011 年 12 月，警察出动警犬咬伤了一名手无寸铁的 14 岁非裔美国男孩，当时他正在一栋废弃的房子里等朋友。四名警察，包括一名
canine officer, responded to the house mid-morning after a caller reported that people had gone inside. Officers arrested one boy on the ground level. Describing the offense as a burglary in progress even though the facts showed that the only plausible offense was trespassing, the canine officer's report stated that the dog located a second boy hiding in a storage closet under the stairs in the basement. The officer peeked into the space and saw the boy, who was

and 140 pounds, curled up in a ball, hiding. According to the officer, the boy would not show his hands despite being warned that the officer would use the dog. The officer then deployed the dog, which bit the boy's arm, causing puncture wounds.
在接到报警称有人进入屋内后，警犬警官于上午中旬赶到现场。警官在底层逮捕了一名男孩。警犬警官在报告中称，警犬发现第二个男孩藏在地下室楼梯下的储藏柜中，并将其描述为正在进行的盗窃。警犬警官探头进去一看，只见这名身高

140 磅的男孩蜷缩成一团躲了起来。据警官称，尽管警官警告他将会使用警犬，但男孩就是不肯露手。警官随即出动警犬，警犬咬伤了男孩的手臂，造成刺伤。

According to the boy, with whom we spoke, he never hid in a storage space and he never heard any police warnings. He told us that he was waiting for his friends in the basement of the house, a vacant building where they would go when they skipped school. The boy approached the stairs when he heard footsteps on the upper level, thinking his friends had arrived. When he saw the dog at the top of the steps, he turned to run, but the dog quickly bit him on the ankle and then the thigh, causing him to fall to the floor. The dog was about to bite his face or neck but instead got his left arm, which the boy had raised to protect himself. FPD officers struck him while he was on the ground, one of them putting a boot on the side of his head. He recalled the officers laughing about the incident afterward.
据与我们交谈过的男孩说，他从未躲在储藏室里，也从未听到过警察的警告。他告诉我们，他当时正在房子的地下室等他的朋友，那是一栋空楼，他们逃学时都会去那里。男孩听到上层有脚步声，以为朋友们到了，便走近楼梯。当他看到狗在台阶顶端时，他转身就跑，但狗很快咬住了他的脚踝，然后又咬住了他的大腿，导致他摔倒在地上。狗准备咬他的脸或脖子，但却咬到了他的左臂，男孩举起左臂保护自己。FPD 警官在他倒地时对他进行了殴打，其中一名警官用靴子踢了他的头。据他回忆，事后警察们对此事大笑不止。

The lack of sufficient documentation or a supervisory force investigation prevents us from resolving which version of events is more accurate. However, even if the officer's version of the force used were accurate, the use of the dog to bite the boy was unreasonable. Though described as a felony, the facts as described by the officer, and the boy, indicate that this was a trespass - kids hanging out in a vacant building. The officers had no factual predicate to believe the boy was armed. The offense reports document no attempt to glean useful information about the second boy from the first, who was quickly arrested. By the canine officer's own account, he saw the boy in the closet and thus had the opportunity to assess the threat posed by this

year old. Moreover, there were no exigent circumstances requiring apprehension by dog bite. Four officers were present and had control of the scene.
由于缺乏足够的文件记录或上级武力调查，我们无法确定哪种说法更准确。然而，即使警官对使用武力的说法是准确的，使用狗咬男孩也是不合理的。尽管被描述为重罪，但警官和男孩所描述的事实表明，这只是一起非法闯入事件--孩子们在一栋空楼里闲逛。警官没有事实依据相信男孩持有武器。根据犯罪报告的记录，警官并没有试图从第一个男孩那里收集关于第二个男孩的有用信息，而第二个男孩很快就被逮捕了。根据警犬警官自己的说法，他在壁橱里看到了这个男孩，因此有机会评估这个

岁的孩子所构成的威胁。此外，当时并不存在需要用狗咬来逮捕的紧急状况。当时有四名警官在场并控制了现场。

There is a recurring pattern of officers claiming they had to use a canine to extract a suspect hiding in a closed space. The frequency with which this particular rationale is used to justify dog bites, alongside the conclusory language in the reports, provides cause for concern. In December 2012, a 16-year-old African-American boy suspected of stealing a car fled from an officer, jumped several fences, and ran into a vacant house. A second officer arrived with a canine, which reportedly located the suspect hiding in a closet. Without providing a warning outside the closet, the officer opened the door and sent in the dog, which bit the suspect and dragged him out by the legs. This force appears objectively unreasonable. See Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 598 (8th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, Minn., 486 F.3d 385, 396 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that "a jury could find it objectively unreasonable to use a police dog trained in the bite and hold method without first giving the suspect a warning and opportunity for peaceful surrender'). The first officer, who was also on the scene by this point, deployed his ECW against the suspect three times as the suspect struggled with the dog, which was still biting him. The offense reports provide only minimal explanation for why apprehension by dog bite was necessary. The pursuing officer claimed the suspect had "reached into the front section of his waist area," but the report does not
有一种反复出现的模式，即警官声称他们不得不使用警犬来抓捕躲藏在封闭空间的嫌疑人。这种为警犬咬人辩护的特殊理由频频出现，加上报告中言之凿凿的措辞，令人担忧。2012 年 12 月，一名涉嫌偷车的 16 岁非裔美国男孩从一名警官面前逃走，跳过几道栅栏，跑进一栋空房子。第二名警官带着警犬赶到，据说警犬找到了躲在壁橱里的嫌疑人。警官没有在壁橱外发出警告，就打开门，让警犬进来，警犬咬住嫌疑人的腿，将他拖了出来。这种武力在客观上似乎是不合理的。见 Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 598 (8th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, Minn., 486 F.3d 385, 396 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that "a jury could find it objectively unreasonable to use a police dog trained in the bite and hold method without first giving the suspect a warning and opportunity for peaceful surrender')。第一名警官此时也在现场，他对嫌疑人使用了三次ECW，当时嫌疑人正在与警犬搏斗，而警犬仍在咬他。犯罪报告对为何必须用狗咬的方式逮捕嫌犯只提供了极少的解释。追捕的警官声称疑犯 "将手伸进了他的腰部前段"，但报告中并没有
say that he relayed this information to the canine officer, and no weapon was found. Moreover, given the lack of a warning at the closet, the use of the dog and ECW at the same time, and the application of three ECW stuns in quick succession, the officers' conduct raises the possibility that the force was applied in retaliation for leading officers on a chase.
他说，他将这一信息转告了警犬警官，但没有发现武器。此外，鉴于在壁橱前没有发出警告、同时使用警犬和电击枪以及接连使用三次电击枪眩晕，警官的行为让人联想到使用武力是为了报复警官的追捕。

In November 2013, an officer deployed a canine to bite and detain a fleeing subject even though the officer knew the suspect was unarmed. The officer deemed the subject, an AfricanAmerican male who was walking down the street, suspicious because he appeared to walk away when he saw the officer. The officer stopped him and frisked him, finding no weapons. The officer then ran his name for warrants. When the man heard the dispatcher say over the police radio that he had outstanding warrants - the report does not specify whether the warrants were for failing to appear in municipal court or to pay owed fines, or something more serious - he ran. The officer followed him and released his dog, which bit the man on both arms. The officer's supervisor found the force justified because the officer released the dog "fearing that the subject was armed," even though the officer had already determined the man was unarmed.
2013 年 11 月，一名警官出动警犬咬住并扣留了一名逃跑的嫌疑人，尽管该警官知道嫌疑人没有携带武器。该警官认为这名正在街上行走的非裔美国男性可疑，因为他在看到警官时似乎走开了。警官将其拦下并搜身，没有发现武器。警官随后对他的姓名进行了通缉。当这名男子听到调度员通过警方无线电说他有未执行的逮捕令时--报告没有说明逮捕令是因为他没有在市法院出庭或支付所欠罚款，还是其他更严重的原因--他跑了。警官紧随其后，并放出警犬，警犬咬伤了该男子的双臂。该警官的上司认为使用武力是合理的，因为该警官 "担心目标携带武器 "而放出了狗，尽管该警官已经确定该男子没有携带武器。

As these incidents demonstrate, FPD officers' use of canines to bite people is frequently unreasonable. Officers command dogs to apprehend by biting even when multiple officers are present. They make no attempt to slow situations down, creating time to resolve the situation with lesser force. They appear to use canines not to counter a physical threat but to inflict punishment. They act as if every offender has a gun, justifying their decisions based on what might be possible rather than what the facts indicate is likely. Overall, FPD officers' use of canines reflects a culture in which officers choose not to use the skills and tactics that could resolve a situation without injuries, and instead deploy tools and methods that are almost guaranteed to produce an injury of some type.
正如这些事件所表明的，FPD 警官使用警犬咬人经常是不合理的。即使有多名警员在场，警员也会命令警犬咬人进行抓捕。他们不试图减缓事态发展，为使用较轻的武力解决问题创造时间。他们使用警犬似乎不是为了应对人身威胁，而是为了实施惩罚。他们表现得好像每个罪犯都有枪，根据可能发生的情况而不是事实表明可能发生的情况为自己的决定辩护。总体而言，警察使用警犬反映了一种文化，即警察选择不使用可以在不造成伤害的情况下解决问题的技能和战术，而是使用几乎保证会造成某种伤害的工具和方法。

FPD's use of canines is part of its pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, FPD's use of dog bites only against African-American subjects is evidence of discriminatory policing in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and other federal laws.
FPD 使用警犬是其过度使用武力模式的一部分，违反了《第四修正案》。此外，联邦警察只对非裔美国人使用警犬咬人，这也是歧视性警务的证据，违反了《第十四修正案》和其他联邦法律。

c. FPD's Use of Force Is Sometimes Retaliatory and Punitive
c.FPD 使用武力有时具有报复性和惩罚性

Many FPD uses of force appear entirely punitive. Officers often use force in response to behavior that may be annoying or distasteful but does not pose a threat. The punitive use of force by officers is unconstitutional and, in many cases, criminal. See, e.g., Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The Due Process clause protects pretrial detainees from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment."); see also 18 U.S.C. § 242 (making willful deprivation of rights under color of law, such as by excessive force, a federal felony punishable by up to ten years in prison).
许多 FPD 使用武力似乎完全是惩罚性的。警察经常对可能令人讨厌或讨厌但并不构成威胁的行为使用武力。警官惩罚性地使用武力是违宪的，而且在很多情况下是犯罪。例如，见 Gibson 诉 County of Washoe, Nev.，290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002)（"正当程序条款保护审前被拘留者免受相当于惩罚的过度使用武力"）；另见 18 U.S.C. § 242（将以过度使用武力等法律手段故意剥夺权利定为联邦重罪，最高可判处十年监禁）。

We reviewed many incidents in which it appeared that FPD officers used force not to counter a physical threat but to inflict punishment. The use of canines and ECWs, in particular, appear prone to such abuse by FPD. In April 2013, for example, a correctional officer deployed an ECW against an African-American prisoner, delivering a five-second shock, because the man had urinated out of his cell onto the jail floor. The correctional officer observed the man on his security camera feed inside the booking office. When the officer came out, some of the urine hit
我们审查了许多事件，在这些事件中，FPD 警官使用武力似乎不是为了应对人身威胁，而是为了实施惩罚。特别是警犬和高压电枪的使用，似乎很容易被FPD滥用。例如，2013 年 4 月，一名管教人员对一名非裔美国囚犯使用了电击枪，电击时间为 5 秒钟，原因是该男子将尿液撒出牢房，撒到了监狱地板上。管教人员在登记处的监控摄像头中看到了这名男子。当管教人员出来时，一些尿液溅到了他的脸上。
his pant leg and, he said, almost caused him to slip. "Due to the possibility of contagion," the correctional officer claimed, he deployed his ECW "to cease the assault." The ECW prongs, however, both struck the prisoner in the back. The correctional officer's claim that he deployed the ECW to stop the ongoing threat of urine is not credible, particularly given that the prisoner was in his locked cell with his back to the officer at the time the ECW was deployed. Using lesslethal force to counter urination, especially when done punitively as appears to be the case here, is unreasonable. See Shumate v. Cleveland, 483 F. App’x 112, 114 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of summary judgment on an excessive-force claim against an officer who punched a handcuffed arrestee in response to being spit on, when the officer could have protected himself from further spitting by putting the arrestee in the back of a patrol car and closing the door).
他说，他的裤腿差点滑倒。管教人员声称，"由于可能会造成传染"，他使用了 "ECW"，"以停止攻击"。然而，ECW 的两根刺都击中了囚犯的背部。惩教人员声称他使用ECW是为了阻止持续的尿液威胁，这种说法不可信，特别是考虑到在使用ECW时，囚犯是在上锁的牢房中，背对着惩教人员。使用致命性较低的武力来制止小便，尤其是像本案这种惩罚性的做法，是不合理的。见 "Shumate诉克利夫兰"，483 F. App'x 112, 114（第6巡回法院，2012年）（维持驳回对一名警官过度使用武力指控的即决判决，该警官因被人吐口水而对一名戴着手铐的被捕者施以拳击，而该警官本可以通过将被捕者放入巡逻车后座并关闭车门来保护自己免受进一步吐口水之害）。

d. FPD Use of Force Often Results from Unlawful Arrest and Officer Escalation
d.联邦警察使用武力往往是非法逮捕和警察升级的结果

A defining aspect of FPD's pattern of excessive force is the extent to which force results from unlawful stops and arrests, and from officer escalation of incidents. Too often, officers overstep their authority by stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and arresting without probable cause. Officers frequently compound the harm by using excessive force to effect the unlawful police action. Individuals encountering police under these circumstances are confused and surprised to find themselves being detained. They decline to stop or try to walk away, believing it within their rights to do so. They pull away incredulously, or respond with anger. Officers tend to respond to these reactions with force.
菲律宾警察局过度使用武力模式的一个显著特点是，非法拦截和逮捕以及警员将事件升级所导致的使用武力程度。警官经常越权行事，在没有合理怀疑的情况下拦截个人，在没有正当理由的情况下实施逮捕。警察经常过度使用武力来实施非法的警察行动，从而加重了伤害。在这种情况下遇到警察的个人会感到困惑，并惊讶地发现自己被拘留了。他们拒绝停车或试图离开，认为这样做是他们的权利。他们不可置信地走开，或做出愤怒的反应。对于这些反应，警官往往会使用武力。

In January 2013, a patrol sergeant stopped an African-American man after he saw the man talk to an individual in a truck and then walk away. The sergeant detained the man, although he did not articulate any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. When the man declined to answer questions or submit to a frisk-which the sergeant sought to execute despite articulating no reason to believe the man was armed - the sergeant grabbed the man by the belt, drew his ECW, and ordered the man to comply. The man crossed his arms and objected that he had not done anything wrong. Video captured by the ECW's built-in camera shows that the man made no aggressive movement toward the officer. The sergeant fired the ECW, applying a five-second cycle of electricity and causing the man to fall to the ground. The sergeant almost immediately applied the ECW again, which he later justified in his report by claiming that the man tried to stand up. The video makes clear, however, that the man never tried to stand - he only writhed in pain on the ground. The video also shows that the sergeant applied the ECW nearly continuously for 20 seconds, longer than represented in his report. The man was charged with Failure to Comply and Resisting Arrest, but no independent criminal violation.
2013 年 1 月，一名巡逻警长在看到一名非裔美国男子与一辆卡车上的人交谈后将其拦下，随后将其带走。警长拘留了这名男子，尽管他并没有提出任何合理怀疑，认为该男子正在从事犯罪活动。当该男子拒绝回答问题或接受搜身时--尽管中士没有说明任何理由认为该男子持有武器，但他还是试图对其实施搜身--中士抓住该男子的腰带，拔出他的ECW，命令该男子服从命令。该男子双手交叉，反对说他没有做错任何事。ECW内置摄像头拍摄的视频显示，该男子没有对警官做出任何攻击性动作。军士长发射了ECW，施加了一个五秒钟的电流周期，导致该男子倒地。中士几乎立即再次使用了电击枪，他后来在报告中称该男子试图站起来。但视频显示，该男子从未试图站起来，他只是在地上痛苦地挣扎。视频还显示，这名警官几乎持续施用了 20 秒ECW，比他的报告中所陈述的时间更长。该男子被指控犯有不服从命令和拒捕罪，但没有独立的刑事违法行为。

In a January 2014 incident, officers attempted to arrest a young African-American man for trespassing on his girlfriend's grandparents' property, even though the man had been invited into the home by the girlfriend. According to officers, he resisted arrest, requiring several officers to subdue him. Seven officers repeatedly struck and used their ECWs against the subject, who was

and 170 pounds. The young man suffered head lacerations with significant bleeding.
在 2014 年 1 月发生的一起事件中，警察试图逮捕一名非法闯入其女友祖父母家的年轻非裔美国男子，尽管该男子是应女友邀请进入其家中的。据警官称，该男子拒捕，需要几名警官将其制服。七名警官对这名身高

170 磅的男子进行了反复击打并使用了防身武器。这名年轻人头部撕裂伤，大量出血。

In the above examples, force resulted from temporary detentions or attempted arrests for which officers lacked legal authority. Force at times appeared to be used as punishment for non-
在上述例子中，使用武力的原因是临时拘留或试图逮捕，而警官没有法律授权。有时使用武力似乎是为了惩罚不遵守法律的行为。
compliance with an order that lacked legal authority. Even where FPD officers have legal grounds to stop or arrest, however, they frequently take actions that ratchet up tensions and needlessly escalate the situation to the point that they feel force is necessary. One illustrative instance from October 2012 began as a purported check on a pedestrian's well-being and ended with the man being taken to the ground, drive-stunned twice, and arrested for Manner of Walking in Roadway and Failure to Comply. In that case, an African-American man was walking after midnight in the outer lane of West Florissant Avenue when an officer asked him to stop. The officer reported that he believed the man might be under the influence of an "impairing substance." When the man, who was 5 ' 5 " and 135 pounds, kept walking, the officer grabbed his arm; when the man pulled away, the officer forced him to the ground. Then, for reasons not articulated in the officer's report, the officer decided to handcuff the man, applying his ECW in drive-stun mode twice, reportedly because the man would not provide his hand for cuffing. The man was arrested but there is no indication in the report that he was in fact impaired or indeed doing anything other than walking down the street when approached by the officer.
遵守缺乏法律依据的命令。然而，即使联邦警察有法律依据进行拦截或逮捕，他们采取的行动也经常会加剧紧张局势，使事态不必要地升级到他们认为有必要动用武力的地步。2012 年 10 月发生的一件事就很能说明问题，该事件的起因是对一名行人进行所谓的安检，结果该男子被按倒在地，遭到两次电击，并因在道路上行走的方式和未遵守规定而被捕。在该案中，一名非裔美国男子午夜过后在西弗洛里桑大道（West Florissant Avenue）的外侧车道上行走，一名警官要求他停车。警官报告说，他认为该男子可能受到了 "损害性物质 "的影响。该男子身高5英尺5英寸，体重135磅，当他继续行走时，警官抓住了他的手臂；当该男子挣脱时，警官将他按倒在地。然后，由于警官报告中没有说明的原因，警官决定给该男子戴上手铐，并两次使用了驱-眩晕模式的电子手铐，据说是因为该男子不愿把手伸出来戴上手铐。该男子被逮捕，但报告中没有任何迹象表明他确实受到了伤害，或者在警官接近他时，他除了在街上行走外，确实还在做其他事情。

In November 2011, officers stopped a car for speeding. The two African-American women inside exited the car and vocally objected to the stop. They were told to get back in the car. When the woman in the passenger seat got out a second time, an officer announced she was under arrest for Failure to Comply. This decision escalated into a use of force. According to the officers, the woman swung her arms and legs, although apparently not at anyone, and then stiffened her body. An officer responded by drive-stunning her in the leg. The woman was charged with Failure to Comply and Resisting Arrest.
2011 年 11 月，警官拦下了一辆超速行驶的汽车。车内的两名非裔美国妇女下车，大声反对拦截。警官让她们回到车里。当副驾驶座上的妇女第二次下车时，一名警官宣布以 "未遵守规定 "为由将她逮捕。这一决定升级为使用武力。据警官称，该女子挥舞着胳膊和腿，但显然不是冲着任何人，然后身体僵硬。一名警官开枪击中了她的腿部。这名妇女被指控犯有拒不服从命令和拒捕罪。

As these examples demonstrate, a significant number of the documented use-of-force incidents involve charges of Failure to Comply and Resisting Arrest only. This means that officers who claim to act based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime either are wrong much of the time or do not have an adequate legal basis for many stops and arrests in the first place. Cf. Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 136 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring) (cautioning that an overbroad code ordinance "tends to be invoked only where there is no other valid basis for arresting an objectionable or suspicious person" and that the "opportunity for abuse . . . is self-evident"). This pattern is a telltale sign of officer escalation and a strong indicator that the use of force was avoidable.
正如这些例子所显示的，大量有记录的使用武力事件仅涉及不服从命令和拒捕指控。这意味着，那些声称根据合理怀疑或可能犯罪原因采取行动的警官，要么在很多时候是错误的，要么在很多情况下并没有充分的法律依据来实施拦截和逮捕。参见 Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 136 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)(告诫过宽的法规条例 "只有在没有其他有效依据逮捕令人反感或可疑人员时才会被援引"，而且 "滥用的机会......是不言而喻的")。这种模式是警官升级的明显迹象，也是使用武力本可避免的有力证据。

e. FPD Officers Have a Pattern of Resorting to Force Too Quickly When Interacting with Vulnerable Populations
e.FPD 警官在与弱势群体互动时经常过快使用武力

Another dimension of FPD's pattern of unreasonable force is FPD's overreliance on force when interacting with more vulnerable populations, such as people with mental health conditions or intellectual disabilities and juvenile students.
FPD 不合理使用武力模式的另一个方面是，在与精神疾病患者或智障人士以及青少年学生等弱势群体互动时，FPD 过度依赖武力。

i. Force Used Against People with Mental Health Conditions or Intellectual Disabilities
i.对精神疾病患者或智障人士使用武力

The Fourth Amendment requires that an individual's mental health condition or intellectual disability be considered when determining the reasonableness of an officer's use of force. See Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 904 (6th Cir. 2004) (explaining in
第四修正案要求在确定警官使用武力的合理性时，必须考虑个人的精神健康状况或智力残疾。参见 Champion 诉 Outlook Nashville, Inc.
case concerning use of force against a detainee with autism that "

]he diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken into account when assessing the amount of force exerted"); see also Phillips v. Community Ins. Corp., 678 F.3d 513, 526 (7th Cir. 2012); Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001); Giannetti v. City of Stillwater, 216 F. App'x 756, 764 (10th Cir. 2007). This is because people with such disabilities "may be physically unable to comply with police commands." Phillips, 678 F.3d at 526. Our review indicates that FPD officers do not adequately consider the mental health or cognitive disability of those they suspect of wrongdoing when deciding whether to use force.
在关于对患有自闭症的被拘留者使用武力的案件中，"

]在评估使用武力的数量时，必须考虑到手无寸铁的被拘留者的能力减弱"）；另见 Phillips 诉 Community Ins、678 F.3d 513, 526 (7th Cir. 2012); Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001); Giannetti v. City of Stillwater, 216 F. App'x 756, 764 (10th Cir. 2007)。这是因为有此类残疾的人 "可能在身体上无法服从警察的命令"。菲利普斯案，678 F.3d at 526。我们的审查表明，菲律宾警察在决定是否使用武力时，没有充分考虑到他们怀疑有不法行为的人的精神健康或认知障碍。

Ferguson is currently in litigation against the estate of a man with mental illness who died in September 2011 after he had an ECW deployed against him three times for allegedly running toward an officer while swinging his fist. See Estate of Moore v. Ferguson Police Dep't, No. 4:14-cv-01443 (E.D. Mo. filed Aug. 19, 2014). The man had been running naked through the streets and pounding on cars that morning while yelling "I am Jesus." The Eighth Circuit recently considered a similar set of allegations in De Boise v. Taser Intern., Inc., 760 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2014). There, a man suffering from schizophrenia, who had run naked in and out of his house and claimed to be a god, died after officers used their ECWs against him multiple times because he would not stay on the ground. Id. at 897-98. Although the court resolved the case on qualified immunity grounds without deciding the excessive-force issue, the one judge who reached that issue opined that the allegations could be sufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment violation. Id. at 899-900 (Bye, J., dissenting).
弗格森目前正在对一名患有精神疾病的男子的遗产提起诉讼，该男子于 2011 年 9 月因挥舞拳头冲向一名警官而被执行了三次ECW，之后不治身亡。见摩尔遗产诉弗格森警察局案，第 4:14-cv-01443 号（2014 年 8 月 19 日提交，密苏里州东区法院）。该男子当天早上在街上裸奔，一边大喊 "我是耶稣 "一边猛击汽车。第八巡回法院最近在 De Boise 诉 Taser Intern., Inc., 760 F.3d 892（第八巡回法院，2014 年）一案中审理了类似的指控。在该案中，一名患有精神分裂症的男子赤身裸体地进出自己的房子，并声称自己是神，由于他不愿意待在地上，警察多次对他使用电击枪，导致他死亡。同上，第 897-98 页。尽管法院以合格豁免权为由解决了此案，但并未就过度使用武力问题做出裁决，审理该问题的一名法官认为，指控足以证明违反了《第四修正案》。同上，第 899-900 页（Bye，法官，反对意见）。

In 2013, FPD stopped a man running with a shopping cart because he seemed "suspicious." According to the file, the man was "obviously mentally handicapped." Officers took the man to the ground and attempted to arrest him for Failure to Comply after he refused to submit to a pat-down. In the officers' view, the man resisted arrest by pulling his arms away. The officers drive-stunned him in the side of the neck. They charged him only with Failure to Comply and Resisting Arrest. In August 2011, officers used an ECW device against a man with diabetes who bit an EMT's hand without breaking the skin. The man had been having seizures when he did not comply with officer commands.
2013 年，FPD 拦截了一名推着购物车奔跑的男子，因为他看起来 "很可疑"。档案显示，该男子 "明显有智力障碍"。警官将该男子按倒在地，在他拒绝接受搜身检查后，试图以 "未遵守规定 "为由将其逮捕。在警官看来，该男子通过拉开自己的手臂来拒捕。警官驾车击打了他的颈部。警官仅以 "未服从命令 "和 "拒捕 "对他提出指控。2011 年 8 月，警官对一名患有糖尿病的男子使用了 ECW 设备，该男子咬了一名急救人员的手，但没有伤到皮肤。该男子在不服从警官命令时曾出现癫痫发作。

In August 2010, an officer responded to a call about an African-American man walking onto the highway and lying down on the pavement. Seeing that the man was sweating, acting jittery, and had dilated pupils, the officer believed he was on drugs. The man was cooperative at first but balked, pushing the officer back when the officer tried to handcuff him for safety reasons. The officer struck the man several times with his Asp

baton-including once in the head, a form of deadly force-causing significant bleeding. Two other officers then deployed their ECWs against the man a total of five times.
2010 年 8 月，一名警官接到报警，称一名非裔美国男子走到高速公路上，并躺倒在人行道上。看到该男子满头大汗、神情紧张、瞳孔放大，警官认为他吸食了毒品。该男子起初很合作，但当警官出于安全考虑试图给他戴上手铐时，他却将警官推了回去。警官数次用 Asp

警棍击打该男子，其中一次击中头部，这是一种致命武力，造成大量出血。随后，另外两名警官对该男子共使用了五次ECW。

Jail staff have also reacted to people with mental health conditions by resorting to greater force than necessary. For example, in July 2011, a correctional officer used an ECW to drivestun an African-American male inmate three times after he tried to hang himself with material torn from a medical dressing and banged his head on the cell wall. That same month, a correctional officer used an ECW against an African-American inmate with bipolar disorder who broke the overhead glass light fixture and tried to use it to cut his wrists. According to the correctional officer, the glass was "safety glass" and could not be used to cut the skin.
监狱工作人员也曾对患有精神疾病的人使用超过必要程度的武力。例如，2011 年 7 月，一名非裔美国男性囚犯试图用从医用敷料上撕下的材料上吊自杀，并用头撞击牢房的墙壁，一名管教人员使用电动警棍将其击昏三次。同月，一名狱警对一名患有躁郁症的非裔美国囚犯使用了电锯，该囚犯打碎了头顶的玻璃灯具，并试图用它割腕。据管教人员称，玻璃是 "安全玻璃"，不能用来割伤皮肤。

These incidents indicate a pattern of insufficient sensitivity to, and training about, the limitations of those with mental health conditions or intellectual disabilities. Officers view mental illness as narcotic intoxication, or worse, willful defiance. They apply excessive force to such subjects, not accounting for the possibility that the subjects may not understand their commands or be able to comply with them. And they have been insufficiently trained on tactics that would minimize force when dealing with individuals who are in mental health crisis or who have intellectual disabilities.
这些事件表明，对精神疾病患者或智障者的局限性缺乏足够的敏感性和培训。警官将精神疾病视为麻醉品中毒，或者更糟糕的是故意违抗命令。他们对这些对象过度使用武力，没有考虑到这些对象可能不理解他们的命令或无法服从命令。而且，他们也没有接受过充分的战术培训，以便在处理处于精神健康危机或有智力障碍的人时尽量减少使用武力。

ii. Force Used Against Students
ii.对学生使用武力

FPD's approach to policing impacts how its officers interact with students, as well, leading them to treat routine discipline issues as criminal matters and to use force when communication and de-escalation techniques would likely resolve the conflict.
FPD 的警务方法也影响了其警员与学生的互动方式，导致他们将日常纪律问题视为刑事案件，并在沟通和缓和技巧很可能解决冲突的情况下使用武力。

FPD stations two School Resource Officers in the Ferguson-Florissant School District,

one at Ferguson Middle School and one at McCluer South-Berkeley High School. The stated mission of the SRO program, according to the memorandum of understanding between FPD and the school district, is to provide a safe and secure learning environment for students. But that agreement does not clearly define the SROs' role or limit SRO involvement in cases of routine discipline or classroom management. Nor has FPD established such guidance for its SROs or provided officers with adequate training on engaging with youth in an educational setting. The result of these failures, combined with FPD's culture of unreasonable enforcement actions more generally, is police action that is unreasonable for a school environment.
弗格森警察局在弗格森-弗洛里桑学区派驻了两名学校资源官员，

一名派驻在弗格森中学，另一名派驻在麦克卢尔南-伯克利高中。根据弗格森警察局和学区之间的谅解备忘录，SRO 计划的既定任务是为学生提供一个安全可靠的学习环境。但该协议并未明确界定 SRO 的职责，也未限制 SRO 参与日常纪律或课堂管理。FPD 也没有为其 SRO 制定此类指导，也没有为警官提供在教育环境中与青少年接触的适当培训。这些失误，再加上 FPD 普遍存在的执法行动不合理的文化，导致警察的行动在学校环境中不合理。

For example, in November 2013, an SRO charged a ninth grade girl with several violations after she refused to follow his orders to walk to the principal's office. The student and a classmate, both 15-year-old African-American girls, had gotten into a fight during class. When the officer responded, school staff had the two girls separated in a hallway. One refused the officer's order to walk to the principal's office, instead trying to push past staff toward the other girl. The officer pushed her backward toward a row of lockers and then announced that she was under arrest for Failure to Comply. Although the officer agreed not to handcuff her when she agreed to walk to the principals' office, he forwarded charges of Failure to Comply, Resisting Arrest, and Peace Disturbance to the county family court. The other student was charged with Peace Disturbance.
例如，2013 年 11 月，一名九年级女生在拒绝听从他的命令走到校长办公室后，被一名自律监督员指控多项违规行为。这名学生和一名同学都是 15 岁的非裔美国女孩，两人在课间打了起来。当警官赶到现场时，学校工作人员将两名女生分开带到走廊上。其中一名女生拒绝了警官让她走向校长办公室的命令，而是试图推开工作人员，走向另一名女生。警官将她向后推向一排储物柜，然后宣布她因 "不服从命令 "被捕。虽然在她同意步行到校长办公室时，警官同意不给她戴手铐，但他还是将 "未遵守规定"、"拒捕 "和 "扰乱治安 "的指控转交给了县家庭法院。另一名学生被指控扰乱治安。

FPD officers respond to misbehavior common among students with arrest and force, rather than reserving arrest for cases involving safety threats. As one SRO told us, the arrests he made during the 2013-14 school year overwhelmingly involved minor offenses—Disorderly Conduct, Peace Disturbance, and Failure to Comply with instructions. In one case, an SRO decided to arrest a 14-year-old African-American student at the Ferguson Middle School for Failure to Comply when the student refused to leave the classroom after getting into a trivial argument with another student. The situation escalated, resulting in the student being drive-
FPD 警官对学生中常见的不当行为采取逮捕和武力措施，而不是在涉及安全威胁时才实施逮捕。正如一位 SRO 告诉我们的那样，他在 2013-14 学年实施的逮捕绝大多数涉及轻微违法行为--行为不检、扰乱治安和不服从指令。在一起案件中，弗格森中学一名 14 岁的非裔美国学生在与另一名学生发生琐碎争执后拒绝离开教室，一名自律监督员决定以 "未遵守指示 "为由将其逮捕。事态升级，导致该学生被开车

stunned with an ECW in the classroom and the school seeking a 180-day suspension for the student. SROs' propensity for arresting students demonstrates a lack of understanding of the negative consequences associated with such arrests. In fact, SROs told us that they viewed increased arrests in the schools as a positive result of their work. This perspective suggests a failure of training (including training in mental health, counseling, and the development of the teenage brain); a lack of priority given to de-escalation and conflict resolution; and insufficient appreciation for the negative educational and long-term outcomes that can result from treating disciplinary concerns as crimes and using force on students. See Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline, U.S. Dep't of Justice & U.S. Dep't of Education, http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf (2014) (citing research and providing guidance to public schools on how to comply with federal nondiscrimination law).
学校要求对该学生停课 180 天。自律监督员倾向于逮捕学生，这表明他们对与此类逮捕相关的负面后果缺乏了解。事实上，自律监管人员告诉我们，他们认为在学校逮捕学生的人数增加是他们工作的积极成果。这种观点表明培训（包括心理健康、咨询和青少年大脑发育方面的培训）的失败；对缓和冲突和解决冲突缺乏重视；以及对将违纪问题视为犯罪并对学生使用武力可能造成的负面教育和长期结果缺乏足够的认识。见《关于学校纪律的非歧视性管理的亲爱同事的信》，美国司法部和美国教育部，http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf（2014年）（引用研究，并就如何遵守联邦非歧视法向公立学校提供指导）。

f. FPD's Weak Oversight of Use of Force Reflects its Lack of Concern for Whether Officer Conduct Is Consistent with the Law or Promotes Police Legitimacy
f.FPD 对使用武力的监督不力，反映出其对警官的行为是否符合法律或促进警察合法性缺乏关注

FPD's use-of-force review system is particularly ineffectual. Force frequently is not reported. When it is, there is rarely any meaningful review. Supervisors do little to no investigation; either do not understand or choose not to follow FPD's use-of-force policy in analyzing officer conduct; rarely correct officer misconduct when they find it; and do not see the patterns of abuse that are evident when viewing these incidents in the aggregate.
FPD 的武力使用审查系统尤其无效。经常不报告使用武力的情况。即使报告了，也很少进行有意义的审查。主管人员几乎不做任何调查；在分析警员行为时，要么不理解，要么选择不遵循 FPD 的使用武力政策；在发现警员有不当行为时，也很少予以纠正；而且，在对这些事件进行综合分析时，也看不到明显的滥用权力模式。

While Chief Jackson implemented new department policies when he joined FPD in 2010, including on use-of-force reporting and review, these policies are routinely ignored. Under FPD General Order 410.00, when an officer uses or attempts to use any force, a supervisor must respond to the scene to investigate. The supervisor must complete a two-page use-of-force report assessing whether the use of force complied with FPD's force policy. Additional forms are required for ECW uses and vehicle pursuits. According to policy and our interviews with Chief Jackson, a use-of-force packet is assembled-which should include the use-of-force report and supplemental forms, all police reports, any photographs, and any other supporting materials - and forwarded up the chain of command to the Chief. The force reporting and review system is intended to "help identify trends, improve training and officer safety, and provide timely information for the department addressing use-of-force issues with the public." FPD General Order 410.07. The policy even requires that a professional standards officer conduct an annual review of all force incidents. Id. These requirements are not adhered to in practice.
虽然杰克逊局长在 2010 年加入 FPD 时实施了新的部门政策，包括关于使用武力的报告和审查，但这些政策经常被忽视。根据 FPD General Order 410.00，当一名警官使用或试图使用任何武力时，主管必须赶赴现场进行调查。主管必须填写一份两页纸的使用武力报告，评估使用武力是否符合 FPD 的武力政策。使用ECW和追捕车辆还需要填写其他表格。根据政策规定以及我们与杰克逊局长的访谈，使用武力报告应包括使用武力报告和补充表格、所有警方报告、任何照片以及任何其他辅助材料，并在指挥系统中上报局长。武力报告和审查制度旨在 "帮助确定趋势，改善培训和警官安全，并为该部门与公众一起处理使用武力问题提供及时信息"。FPD General Order 410.07。该政策甚至要求专业标准官员对所有武力事件进行年度审查。同上。这些要求在实践中并未得到遵守。

Perhaps the greatest deviation from FPD's use-of-force policies is that officers frequently do not report the force they use at all. There are many indications that this underreporting is widespread. First, we located information in FPD's internal affairs files indicating instances of force that were not included in the force files provided by FPD. Second, in reviewing randomly selected reports from FPD's records management system, we found several offense reports that described officers using force with no corresponding use-of-force report. Third, we found evidence that force had been used but not documented in officers' workers compensation claims. Of the nine cases between 2010 and 2014 in which officers claimed injury sustained from using force on the job, three had no corresponding use-of-force paperwork. Fourth, the set of force investigations provided by FPD contains lengthy gaps, including six stretches of time ranging
也许，与联邦警察署使用武力政策最大的偏差是，警察经常根本不报告他们所使用的武力。许多迹象表明，这种漏报现象十分普遍。首先，我们在FPD的内部事务档案中发现了一些信息，表明FPD提供的武力档案中没有包括使用武力的情况。其次，在审查从 FPD 记录管理系统中随机抽取的报告时，我们发现有几份犯罪报告描述了警官使用武力的情况，但却没有相应的使用武力报告。第三，我们发现有证据表明使用了武力，但在警员的工伤赔偿申请中却没有记录。2010 年至 2014 年间，在九起警官声称因在工作中使用武力而受伤的案件中，有三起没有相应的使用武力文件。第四，FPD 提供的一系列武力调查存在较长的空白期，其中包括六段时间，从 2010 年到 2014 年，这六段时间分别为
from two to four months in which no incidents of force are reported. Otherwise, the files typically reflect between two and six force incidents per month. Fifth, we heard from community members about uses of force that do not appear within FPD's records, and we learned of many uses of force that were never officially reported or investigated from reviewing emails between FPD supervisors. Finally, FPD's force files reflect an overrepresentation of ECW uses - a type of force that creates a physical record (a spent ECW cartridge with discharged confetti) and that requires a separate form be filled out. It is much easier for officers to use physical blows and baton strikes without documenting them. Thus, the evidence indicates that a significant amount of force goes unreported within FPD. This in turn raises the possibility that the pattern of unreasonable force is even greater than we found.
有 2 到 4 个月没有报告暴力事件。除此之外，档案中通常每月反映 2 到 6 起使用武力事件。第五，我们从社区成员那里了解到，使用武力的情况并未出现在FPD的记录中，而且我们通过查看FPD主管之间的电子邮件了解到，许多使用武力的情况从未正式报告或调查过。最后，FPD 的使用武力档案反映出使用电子致命武器的比例过高--这种类型的使用武力会产生有形记录（一个用完的电子致命武器弹壳和排出的纸屑），并且需要填写一份单独的表格。对警官来说，使用殴打和警棍击打而不记录在案要容易得多。因此，有证据表明，FPD 内部有大量使用武力的情况没有报告。这反过来又提出了一种可能性，即不合理使用武力的模式比我们发现的还要严重。

Even when force is reported, the force review process falls so short of FPD's policy requirements that it is ineffective at improving officer safety or ensuring that force is used properly. First, and most significantly, supervisors almost never actually investigate force incidents. In almost every case, supervisors appear to view force investigations as a ministerial task, merely summarizing the involved officers' version of events and sometimes relying on the officers' offense report alone. The supervisory review starts and ends with the presumption that the officer's version of events is truthful and that the force was reasonable. As a consequence, though contrary to policy, supervisors almost never interview non-police witnesses, such as the arrestee or any independent witnesses. They do not review critical evidence even when it is readily available. For example, a significant portion of the documented uses of force occurs at the Ferguson jail, which employs surveillance cameras to monitor the area. Yet FPD records provide no indication that a supervisor has ever sought to review the footage for a jail incident. Nor do supervisors examine ECW camera video, even though it is available in FPD's newer model ECWs. Sometimes, supervisors provide no remarks on the use-of-force report, indicating simply, "see offense report."
即使在报告了使用武力的情况下，武力审查程序也与 FPD 的政策要求相去甚远，无法有效改善警员的安全或确保武力的正确使用。首先，也是最重要的一点，主管人员几乎从未真正调查过武力事件。几乎在所有情况下，主管人员似乎都把武力调查看作是例行公事，只是总结涉案警员对事件的描述，有时甚至仅仅依靠警员的犯罪报告。上级审查的起点和终点都是假定警官对事件的描述是真实的，使用武力是合理的。因此，尽管与政策相悖，但主管人员几乎从不询问非警方证人，如被捕者或任何独立证人。即使有现成的关键证据，他们也不进行审查。例如，记录在案的使用武力事件中有很大一部分发生在弗格森监狱，该监狱使用监控摄像头对该区域进行监控。然而，弗格森警察局的记录却没有显示任何主管曾试图查看监狱事件的录像。主管人员也不查看监控录像，尽管 FPD 较新型号的监控录像可以查看。有时，主管人员在使用武力的报告中不做任何说明，只是简单地表示 "见违法报告"。

Our review found the record to be replete with examples of this lack of meaningful supervisory review of force. For example, the use-of-force report for a May 2013 incident states that a suspect claims he had an ECW deployed against him and that he was punched in the head and face. The supervisor concludes simply, "other than the drive stun, no use of force was performed by the officers." The report does not clarify what investigation the supervisor did, if any, to assess the suspect's allegations, or how he determined that the allegations were false. Supervisors also fail to provide recommendations for how to ensure officer safety and minimize the need for force going forward. In January 2014, for instance, a correctional officer used force to subdue an inmate who tried to escape while the correctional officer was moving the inmate's cellmate to another cell without assistance. The supervisor missed the opportunity to recommend that correctional officers not act alone in such risky situations.
我们的审查发现，记录中不乏这种缺乏对武力进行有意义的监督审查的例子。例如，2013 年 5 月发生的一起事件的武力使用报告称，一名嫌疑人声称有人对他使用了电击棒，他的头部和脸部遭到重击。主管的结论很简单，"除了驱晕之外，警官没有使用武力"。报告没有说明该主管做了哪些调查（如果有的话）来评估嫌疑人的指控，也没有说明他是如何确定这些指控是虚假的。主管也没有就如何确保警官安全和尽量减少今后使用武力的必要性提出建议。例如，2014 年 1 月，一名管教人员使用武力制服了一名试图逃跑的囚犯，当时该管教人员正在将该囚犯的狱友转移到另一间牢房，而没有得到任何协助。该主管错过了建议管教人员在这种危险情况下不要单独行动的机会。

Second, supervisors either do not understand or choose not to follow FPD's use-of-force policy. As discussed above, in many of the force incidents we reviewed, it is clear from the officers' offense reports that the force used was, at the very least, contrary to FPD policy. Nonetheless, based on records provided by FPD, it appears that first-line supervisors and the command staff found all but one of the 151 incidents we reviewed to be within policy. This includes the instances of unreasonable ECW use discussed above. FPD policy advises that ECWs are to be used to "overcome active aggression or overt actions of assault." FPD General
其次，主管人员要么不理解，要么选择不遵守 FPD 的使用武力政策。如上所述，在我们审查的许多武力事件中，从警员的犯罪报告中可以清楚地看出，所使用的武力至少违反了 FPD 的政策。尽管如此，根据 FPD 提供的记录，在我们审查的 151 起事件中，一线主管和指挥人员似乎认为，除一起事件外，其他所有事件都符合政策规定。这其中包括上文讨论的不合理使用防暴警棍的情况。FPD 的政策规定，ECW 用于 "克服主动攻击或公开的攻击行为"。FPD General

Order 499.00. They are to be used to "avert[] a potentially injurious or dangerous situation," and never "punitively or for purposes of coercion." FPD General Order 499.04. Simply referring back to these policies should have made clear to supervisors that the many uses of ECWs against subjects who were merely argumentative or passively resistant violated policy.
第 499.00 号令。这些措施只能用于 "避免潜在的伤害或危险情况"，绝不能用于 "惩罚或胁迫目的"。FPD General Order 499.04。只要回溯一下这些政策，主管人员就会清楚地认识到，对只是争辩或消极抵抗的对象多次使用高压电枪违反了政策。

For example, in April 2014, an intoxicated jail detainee climbed up on the bars in his cell and refused to get down when ordered to by the arresting officer and the correctional officer on duty. The correctional officer then fired an ECW at him, from outside the closed cell door, striking the detainee in the chest and causing him to fall to the ground. In addition to being excessive, this force violated explicit FPD policy that "[p]roper consideration and care should be taken when deploying the X26 TASER on subjects who are in an elevated position or in other circumstance where a fall may cause substantial injury or death." FPD General Order 499.04. The reviewing supervisor deemed the use of force within policy.
例如，2014年4月，一名醉酒的监狱被拘留者爬上牢房的栅栏，并拒绝在逮捕官员和值班管教官员的命令下下来。狱警随后从紧闭的牢房门外向他发射了一发ECW，击中了被拘留者的胸部，导致他倒地。除了过度使用武力之外，这种做法还违反了 FPD 的明确政策，即 "在对处于高处或其他可能造成重大伤亡的情况下的目标使用 X26 TASER 时，应充分考虑并小心谨慎"。FPD General Order 499.04。审查主管认为使用武力符合政策规定。

Supervisors seem to believe that any level of resistance justifies any level of force. They routinely rely on boilerplate language, such as the statement that the subject took "a fighting stance," to justify force. Such language is not specific enough to understand the specific behavior the officer encountered and thus to determine whether the officer's response was reasonable. Indeed, a report from September 2010 shows how such terms may obscure what happened. In that case, the supervisor wrote that the subject "turned to [the officer] in a fighting stance" even though the officer's report makes clear that he chased and tackled the subject as the subject fled. That particular use of force may have been reasonable, but the use-of-force report reveals how little attention supervisors give to their force investigations. Another common justification, frequently offered by officers who use ECWs to subdue individuals who do not readily put their hands behind their back after being put on the ground, is to claim that a subject's hands were near his waist, where he might have a weapon. Supervisors tend to accept this justification without question.
主管人员似乎认为，任何程度的反抗都可以成为使用任何程度武力的理由。他们经常依赖模板式的语言，例如说目标采取了 "战斗姿态"，以此来证明使用武力是合理的。这种语言不够具体，无法了解警官遇到的具体行为，因此无法确定警官的反应是否合理。事实上，2010 年 9 月的一份报告就表明了这种措辞可能会掩盖事情的真相。在该案例中，尽管警官在报告中明确指出他在目标逃跑时追赶并擒获了目标，但主管却写道目标 "转身向（警官）摆出战斗姿态"。这一特定的武力使用可能是合理的，但这份武力使用报告却揭示了主管人员对武力调查的不重视。另一个常见的理由是，警员在使用ECW制服被按倒在地后不愿意将双手放在背后的人时，经常声称目标的双手靠近腰部，而腰部可能有武器。主管人员往往毫无疑问地接受这一理由。

Third, the review process breaks down even further when officers at the sergeant level or above use force. Instead of reporting their use of force to an official higher up the chain, who could evaluate it objectively, they complete the use-of-force investigation themselves. We found several examples of supervisors investigating their own conduct. When force investigations are conducted by the very officers involved in the incidents, the department is less likely to identify policy and constitutional violations, and the public is less likely to trust the department's commitment to policing itself.
第三，当中士或以上级别的警官使用武力时，审查程序会进一步崩溃。他们没有向更高一级的官员报告使用武力的情况，而后者可以对其进行客观评估，但他们自己却完成了使用武力的调查。我们发现了几个上司调查自己行为的例子。当武力调查由参与事件的官员进行时，部门就不太可能发现违反政策和宪法的行为，公众也不太可能相信部门对维持治安的承诺。

Fourth, the failure of supervisors to investigate and the absence of analysis from their use-of-force reports frustrate review up the chain of command. Lieutenants, the assigned captain, and the Police Chief typically receive at most a one- or two-paragraph summary from supervisors; no witness statements, photographs, or video footage that should have been obtained during the investigation is included. These reviewers are left to rely only on the offense report and the sergeant's cursory summary. To take one example, 21 officers responded to a fight at the high school in March 2013, and several of them used force to take students into custody. FPD records contain only one offense report, which does not describe the actions of all officers who used force. The use-of-force report identifies the involved officers as "multiple" (without names) and provides only a one-paragraph summary stating that students "were grabbed,
第四，主管人员没有进行调查，也没有在使用武力报告中进行分析，这阻碍了上一级指挥系统的审查。中尉、指派的队长和警察局长通常最多只能从主管那里得到一两个段落的总结；调查期间本应获得的证人证词、照片或录像资料都不包括在内。这些审查人员只能依靠违法报告和警长的粗略总结。举例来说，2013 年 3 月，21 名警官对高中发生的一起打架事件做出了回应，其中几名警官使用武力将学生拘留。FPD 记录中只有一份违法报告，其中并未描述所有使用武力的警官的行为。使用武力的报告将参与的警官称为 "多名"（没有姓名），只提供了一段摘要，称学生 "被抓住"、
handcuffed, and restrained using various techniques of control." The offense report reflects that officers collected video from the school's security cameras, but the supervisor apparently never reviewed it. Further, while the offense report contains witness statements, those statements relate to the underlying fight, not the officer use of force, and there appear to be no statements from any of the 21 officers who responded to the fight. It is not possible for higher-level supervisors to adequately assess uses of force with so little information.
"。犯罪报告显示，警官收集了学校监控摄像头的录像，但主管显然从未查看过。此外，虽然犯罪报告中包含证人证词，但这些证词涉及的是基本的打架事件，而不是警官使用武力的情况，而且似乎没有回应打架事件的 21 名警官的任何证词。在信息如此匮乏的情况下，上级主管不可能充分评估使用武力的情况。

In fact, although a use-of-force packet is supposed to include all related documents, in practice only the two-page use-of-force report, that is, the supervisor's brief summary of the incident, goes to the Chief. In the example from the high school, then, the Chief would have known only that there was a fight at the school and that force was used - not which officers used force, what type of force was used, or what the students did to warrant the use of force. Offense reports are available in FPD's records management system, but Chief Jackson told us he rarely retrieves them when reviewing uses of force. The Chief also told us that he has never overturned a supervisor's determination of whether a use of force fell within FPD policy.
事实上，虽然使用武力的文件包应该包括所有相关文件，但实际上只有两页的使用武力报告，即主管对事件的简要总结，才会提交给局长。因此，在高中的例子中，局长只知道学校发生了打斗并使用了武力，而不知道哪些警员使用了武力、使用了何种武力或学生们做了什么导致需要使用武力。犯罪报告可从 FPD 的记录管理系统中获取，但杰克逊局长告诉我们，他在审查使用武力情况时很少检索这些报告。局长还告诉我们，他从未推翻过主管对使用武力是否符合 FPD 政策的认定。

Finally, FPD does not perform any comprehensive review of force incidents sufficient to detect patterns of misconduct by a particular officer or unit, or patterns regarding a particular type of force. Indeed, FPD does not keep records in a manner that would allow for such a review. Within FPD's paper storage system, the two-page use-of-force reports (which are usually handwritten) are kept separately from all other documentation, including ECW and pursuit forms for the same incidents. Offense reports are attached to some use-of-force reports but not others. Some use-of-force reports have been removed from FPD's set of force files because the incidents became the subjects of an internal investigation or a lawsuit. As a consequence, when FPD provided us what it considers to be its force files - which, as described above, we have reason to believe do not capture all actual force incidents-a majority of those files were missing a critical document, such as an offense report, ECW report, or the use-of-force report itself. We had to make repeated requests for documents to construct force files amenable to fair review. There were some documents that FPD was unable to locate, even after repeated requests.
最后，FPD 没有对武力事件进行任何全面审查，以发现特定官员或单位的不当行为模式，或特定类型武力的模式。事实上，FPD 没有以允许进行此类审查的方式保存记录。在 FPD 的纸质存储系统中，两页纸的使用武力报告（通常是手写的）与所有其他文件（包括同一事件的 ECW 表和追捕表）分开保存。一些使用武力报告附有犯罪报告，而其他报告则没有。一些使用武力的报告已从FPD的武力档案中删除，因为这些事件已成为内部调查或诉讼的主题。因此，当FPD向我们提供它所认为的武力档案时--如上所述，我们有理由相信，这些档案并没有记录所有实际的武力事件--其中大多数档案都缺少一份重要文件，如犯罪报告、ECW报告或使用武力报告本身。我们不得不反复要求提供文件，以建立便于公平审查的武力档案。有些文件，即使经过反复请求，FPD 也无法找到。

With its records incomplete and scattered, the department is unable to implement an early intervention system to identify officers who tend to use excessive force or the need for more training or better equipment - goals explicitly set out by FPD policy. It appears that no annual review of force incidents is conducted, as required by FPD General Order 410.07; indeed, a meaningful annual audit would be impossible. These recordkeeping problems also explain why Chief Jackson told us he could not remember ever imposing discipline for an improper use of force or ordering further training based on force problems.
由于记录不完整且分散，该部门无法实施早期干预系统，以确定哪些警官倾向于过度使用武力，或需要更多的培训或更好的设备--这些都是 FPD 政策明确规定的目标。似乎没有按照警察局总命令 410.07 的要求对武力事件进行年度审查；事实上，不可能进行有意义的年度审计。这些记录保存方面的问题也解释了为什么杰克逊局长告诉我们，他不记得曾经对不当使用武力的行为进行过处分，也不记得曾经根据武力问题下令进行进一步培训。

These deficiencies in use-of-force review can have serious consequences. They make it less likely that officers will be held accountable for excessive force and more likely that constitutional violations will occur. They create potentially devastating liability for the City for failing to put in place systems to ensure officers operate within the bounds of the law. And they result in a police department that does not give its officers the supervision they need to do their jobs safely, effectively, and constitutionally.
使用武力审查中的这些缺陷会产生严重后果。它们使警员因过度使用武力而被追究责任的可能性降低，使违反宪法的情况更有可能发生。这些缺陷可能会给市政府带来毁灭性的责任，因为市政府未能建立相关制度来确保警员在法律允许的范围内行动。此外，它们还导致警察部门无法对警员进行必要的监督，使其能够安全、有效、合乎宪法地开展工作。

B. Ferguson's Municipal Court Practices
B.弗格森市法院的做法

The Ferguson municipal court handles most charges brought by FPD, and does so not with the primary goal of administering justice or protecting the rights of the accused, but of maximizing revenue. The impact that revenue concerns have on court operations undermines the court's role as a fair and impartial judicial body.

Our investigation has uncovered substantial evidence that the court's procedures are constitutionally deficient and function to impede a person's ability to challenge or resolve a municipal charge, resulting in unnecessarily prolonged cases and an increased likelihood of running afoul of court requirements. At the same time, the court imposes severe penalties when a defendant fails to meet court requirements, including added fines and fees and arrest warrants that are unnecessary and run counter to public safety. These practices both reflect and reinforce an approach to law enforcement in Ferguson that violates the Constitution and undermines police legitimacy and community trust.
弗格森市法院负责处理 FPD 提出的大多数指控，其主要目标不是伸张正义或保护被告的权利，而是最大限度地增加收入。收入问题对法院运作的影响破坏了法院作为公平公正司法机构的作用。

我们的调查发现了大量证据，表明法院的程序在宪法上存在缺陷，其功能是阻碍个人质疑或解决市政指控的能力，导致案件不必要地拖延，并增加了违反法院要求的可能性。与此同时，当被告未能满足法院要求时，法院会施加严厉的处罚，包括增加罚款和费用，以及签发不必要且有悖于公共安全的逮捕令。这些做法反映并强化了弗格森的执法方式，违反了《宪法》，破坏了警方的合法性和社区的信任。

Ferguson's municipal court practices combine to cause significant harm to many individuals who have cases pending before the court. Our investigation has found overwhelming evidence of minor municipal code violations resulting in multiple arrests, jail time, and payments that exceed the cost of the original ticket many times over. One woman, discussed above, received two parking tickets for a single violation in 2007 that then totaled

plus fees. Over seven years later, she still owed Ferguson $541—after already paying $550 in fines and fees, having multiple arrest warrants issued against her, and being arrested and jailed on several occasions. Another woman told us that when she went to court to try to pay

on a

outstanding balance, the Court Clerk refused to take the partial payment, even though the woman explained that she was a single mother and could not afford to pay more that month. A 90-yearold man had a warrant issued for his arrest after he failed to timely pay the five citations FPD issued to him during a single traffic stop in 2013. An 83-year-old man had a warrant issued against him when he failed to timely resolve his Derelict Auto violation. A 67-year-old woman told us she was stopped and arrested by a Ferguson police officer for an outstanding warrant for failure to pay a trash-removal citation. She did not know about the warrant until her arrest, and the court ultimately charged her

in fines, which she continues to pay off in

monthly increments despite being on a limited, fixed income. We have heard similar stories from dozens of other individuals and have reviewed court records documenting many additional instances of similarly harsh penalties, often for relatively minor violations.
弗格森市法院的做法对许多在法院待审案件的当事人造成了巨大伤害。我们在调查中发现了大量证据，证明一些轻微的违反市政法规行为导致了多次逮捕、牢狱之灾，以及超出原罚单成本数倍的付款。上文提到的一位女士在 2007 年因一次违章行为收到了两张违章停车罚单，总金额为

加费用。七年多过去了，她仍然欠弗格森 541 美元--在此之前，她已经支付了 550 美元的罚款和费用，还收到了多份针对她的逮捕令，并多次被捕入狱。另一名妇女告诉我们，当她去法院试图支付

的

未付余额时，法院书记员拒绝接受部分付款，尽管该妇女解释说她是一名单身母亲，当月无力支付更多费用。一名 90 岁的男子在 2013 年的一次交通拦截中因未能及时支付 FPD 向其签发的五张传票而被签发逮捕令。一名 83 岁的男子因未能及时解决其 "废弃汽车"（Derelict Auto）违规行为而被发出逮捕令。一名 67 岁的妇女告诉我们，她被弗格森一名警官拦下并逮捕，原因是未支付垃圾清运传票的未执行逮捕令。她在被捕前并不知道有这张逮捕令，法院最终向她收取了

的罚款，尽管她的收入有限且固定，但她仍继续按

月缴纳罚款。我们还从其他几十个人那里听到了类似的故事，并查阅了法院记录，其中记录了许多类似的严厉处罚，而且往往是针对相对较轻的违法行为。

Our review of police and court records suggests that much of the harm of Ferguson's law enforcement practices in recent years is attributable to the court's routine use of arrest warrants to secure collection and compliance when a person misses a required court appearance or payment. In a case involving a moving violation, procedural failures also result in the suspension of the defendant's license. And, until recently, the court regularly imposed a separate Failure to Appear charge for missed appearances and payments; that charge resulted in an additional fine in the amount of

, plus

in court costs. See Ferguson Mun. Code

§

13-58 (repealed Sept. 23, 2014). During the last three years, the court imposed roughly one Failure to Appear charge per every two citations or summonses issued by FPD. Since at least
我们对警方和法院记录的审查表明，弗格森近年来的执法行为所造成的危害，很大程度上要归咎于法院在某人未按要求出庭或缴款时，例行使用逮捕令来确保收款和履约。在涉及违章行驶的案件中，程序上的失误也会导致被告的驾照被吊销。而且，直到最近，法院还经常对错过出庭和缴款的行为单独提出 "未出庭 "的指控；该指控会导致

的额外罚款，外加

的法庭费用。参见 Ferguson Mun.法典》

§

13-58（2014 年 9 月 23 日废止）。在过去三年中，FPD 每发出两张传票或传票，法院就会对其提出一次 "未出庭 "指控。至少自

2010, the court has collected more revenue for Failure to Appear charges than for any other charge. This includes

in fines for Failure to Appear violations in 2013, which comprised

of the total revenue the court collected that year. While the City Council repealed the Failure to Appear ordinance in September 2014, many people continue to owe fines and fees stemming from that charge. And the court continues to issue arrest warrants in every case where that charge previously would have been applied. License suspension practices are similarly unchanged. Once issued, arrest warrants can, and frequently do, lead to arrest and time in jail, despite the fact that the underlying offense did not result in a penalty of imprisonment.

2010 年，法院收取的 "未出庭 "费用比其他任何费用都多。其中包括 2013 年因 "违规不出庭 "而被处以的罚款

，占当年法院总收入的

。虽然市议会已于 2014 年 9 月废除了 "不出庭 "条例，但仍有许多人因这项指控而拖欠罚款和费用。法院继续对以前适用该指控的每个案件签发逮捕令。吊销执照的做法同样没有改变。逮捕令一旦签发，就可能而且经常会导致逮捕和监禁，尽管相关罪行并未导致监禁处罚。

Thus, while the municipal court does not generally deem the code violations that come before it as jail-worthy, it routinely views the failure to appear in court to remit payment to the City as jail-worthy, and commonly issues warrants to arrest individuals who have failed to make timely payment. Similarly, while the municipal court does not have any authority to impose a fine of over

for any offense, it is not uncommon for individuals to pay more than this amount to the City of Ferguson-in forfeited bond payments, additional Failure to Appear charges, and added court fees - for what may have begun as a simple code violation. In this way, the penalties that the court imposes are driven not by public safety needs, but by financial interests. And despite the harm imposed by these needless penalties, until recently, the City and court did little to respond to the increasing frequency of Failure to Appear charges, and in many respects made court practices more opaque and difficult to navigate.
因此，虽然市法院一般不会将提交给它的违反法规行为视为应被监禁的行为，但它通常会将未出庭向市政府付款的行为视为应被监禁的行为，并通常会签发逮捕令以逮捕未及时付款的个人。同样，虽然市法院无权对任何违法行为处以超过

的罚款，但个人向弗格森市支付的罚金（没收的保释金、额外的 "未出庭 "费用和额外的法庭费用）超过这一数额的情况并不少见，而这最初可能只是一起简单的违反法规行为。这样一来，法院实施的处罚就不是出于公共安全的需要，而是经济利益的驱动。尽管这些不必要的处罚造成了伤害，但直到最近，市政府和法院都没有采取什么措施来应对日益频繁的 "不出庭 "指控，而且在很多方面使法院的做法变得更加不透明和难以驾驭。

1. Court Practices Impose Substantial and Unnecessary Barriers to the Challenge or Resolution of Municipal Code Violations
1.法院的做法为质疑或解决违反市政法规的问题设置了实质性的不必要障碍

It is a hallmark of due process that individuals are entitled to adequate notice of the allegations made against them and to a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); see also Ward v. Vill. of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 58-62 (1972) (applying due process requirements to case adjudicated by municipal traffic court). As documented below, however, Ferguson municipal court rules and procedures often fail to provide these basic protections, imposing unnecessary barriers to resolving a citation or summons and thus increasing the likelihood of incurring the severe penalties that result if a code violation is not quickly resolved.
正当程序的一个标志是，个人有权充分知悉对其提出的指控，并获得有意义的陈述机会。参见 Cole 诉阿肯色州案，333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948)；另见 Ward 诉 Vill. of Monroeville 案，409 U.S. 57, 58-62 (1972)（将正当程序要求适用于由市政交通法庭裁决的案件）。然而，如下文所述，弗格森市法院的规则和程序往往无法提供这些基本保护，为解决传票或传票问题设置了不必要的障碍，从而增加了违反法规行为得不到迅速解决而受到严厉处罚的可能性。

We have concerns not only about the obstacles to resolving a charge even when an individual chooses not to contest it, but also about the trial processes that apply in the rare occasion that a person does attempt to challenge a charge. While it is "axiomatic that a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process," Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009), the adjudicative tribunal provided by the Ferguson municipal court appears deficient in many respects.

Attempts to raise legal claims are met with retaliatory conduct. In an August 2012 email exchange, for instance, the Court Clerk asked what the
我们关注的不仅是在个人选择不对指控提出异议的情况下解决指控所面临的障碍，而且还关注在个人试图对指控提出异议的罕见情况下所适用的审判程序。Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009)一案中，"不言而喻，在公正的法庭上接受公正的审判是正当程序的基本要求"，但弗格森市法院提供的审判法庭似乎在许多方面存在缺陷。

试图提出法律申诉却遭到报复。例如，在 2012 年 8 月的一封电子邮件往来中，法院书记员询问弗格森市法院在什么方面存在缺陷。

Prosecuting Attorney does when an attorney appears in a red light camera case, and the Prosecuting Attorney responded: "I usually dismiss them if the attorney merely requests a recommendation. If the attorney goes off on all of the constitutional stuff, then I tell the attorney to come . . . and argue in front [of] the judge-after that, his client can pay the ticket." We have found evidence of similar adverse action taken against litigants attempting to fulsomely argue a case at trial. The man discussed above who was cited after allowing his child to urinate in a bush attempted to challenge his charges. The man retained counsel who, during trial, was repeatedly interrupted by the court during his cross-examination of the officer. When the attorney objected to the interruptions, the judge told him that, if he continued on this path, "I will hold you in contempt and I will incarcerate you," which, as discussed below, the court has done in the past to others appearing before it. The attorney told us that, believing no line of questioning would alter the outcome, he tempered his defense so as not to be jailed. Notably, at that trial, even though the testifying officer had previously been found untruthful during an official FPD investigation, the prosecuting attorney presented his testimony without informing defendant of that fact, and the court credited that testimony.

The evidence thus suggests substantial deficiencies in the manner in which the court conducts trials.
当有律师出现在闯红灯摄像头案件中时，检察官会怎么做？"如果律师只是要求提出建议，我通常会驳回。如果律师在宪法问题上大做文章，我就会让律师来......在法官面前争辩--之后，他的当事人就可以支付罚单了。我们发现有证据表明，对试图在庭审中充分辩论案件的诉讼当事人采取了类似的不利行动。上文讨论过的一名男子因允许孩子在灌木丛中小便而被传唤，他试图对自己的指控提出质疑。该男子聘请了律师，但在审判期间，律师在盘问警官时多次被法庭打断。当该律师反对法庭打断他的诘问时，法官告诉他，如果他继续这样做，"我将以藐视法庭罪将你监禁"，如下文所述，法庭过去曾这样对待其他出庭者。这位律师告诉我们，他认为任何提问都不会改变结果，因此他对自己的辩护进行了调整，以免被关进监狱。值得注意的是，在那次庭审中，尽管作证的警官之前曾在FPD的官方调查中被认定为不诚实，但公诉律师在出示其证词时并未告知被告这一事实，而法庭也采信了该证词。

因此，证据表明法院进行审判的方式存在重大缺陷。

Even where defendants opt not to challenge their charges, a number of court processes make resolving a case exceedingly difficult. City officials and FPD officers we spoke with nearly uniformly asserted that individuals' experiences when they become embroiled in Ferguson's municipal code enforcement are due not to any failings in Ferguson's law enforcement practices, but rather to those individuals' lack of "personal responsibility." But these statements ignore the barriers to resolving a case that court practices impose, including: 1 ) a lack of transparency regarding rights and responsibilities; 2) requiring in-person appearance to resolve most municipal charges; 3) policies that exacerbate the harms of Missouri's law requiring license suspension where a person fails to appear on a moving violation charge; 4) basic access deficiencies that frustrate a person's ability to resolve even those charges that do not require in-court appearance; and 5) legally inadequate fine assessment methods that do not appropriately consider a person's ability to pay and do not provide alternatives to fines for those living in or near poverty. Together, these barriers impose considerable hardship. We have heard repeated reports, and found evidence in court records, of people appearing in court many times-
即使被告选择不对指控提出异议，法院的一系列程序也会使案件的解决变得异常困难。与我们交谈过的市政官员和弗格森警察局官员几乎一致声称，个人卷入弗格森市政法规执法的经历并非由于弗格森执法行为的任何失误，而是由于这些人缺乏 "个人责任"。但这些说法忽视了法院在解决案件时所遇到的障碍，包括1) 权利和责任缺乏透明度；2) 解决大多数市政指控都需要当事人亲自出庭；3) 密苏里州法律规定，如果当事人因违反交通规则而未出庭，则必须吊销其驾照，而这些政策加剧了这一规定的危害；4) 即使是那些不需要出庭的指控，也存在基本的障碍，使当事人解决这些指控的能力受挫；5) 法律上不完善的罚款评估方法，没有适当考虑当事人的支付能力，也没有为那些生活贫困或接近贫困的人提供罚款替代方案。这些障碍加在一起给人们造成了相当大的困难。我们曾多次听到报告，并在法庭记录中找到证据，证明有人多次出庭--比如

in some instances on more than ten occasions-to try to resolve a case but being unable to do so, and subsequently having additional fines, fees, and arrest warrants issued against them.
在某些情况下，他们曾十多次试图解决案件，但都无法解决，随后又被处以额外的罚款、费用和签发逮捕令。

a. Court Practices and Procedural Deficiencies Create a Lack of Transparency Regarding Rights and Responsibilities
a.法院惯例和程序缺陷导致权利和责任缺乏透明度

It is often difficult for an individual who receives a municipal citation or summons in Ferguson to know how much is owed, where and how to pay the ticket, what the options for payment are, what rights the individual has, and what the consequences are for various actions or oversights. The initial information provided to people who are cited for violating Ferguson's municipal code is often incomplete or inconsistent. Communication with municipal court defendants is haphazard and known by the court to be unreliable. And the court's procedures and operations are ambiguous, are not written down, and are not transparent or even available to the public on the court's website or elsewhere.
在弗格森，收到市政传票或传票的人往往很难知道欠款多少、在哪里以及如何支付罚单、有哪些支付选择、个人有哪些权利以及各种行为或疏忽的后果是什么。向因违反弗格森市政法规而被传唤的人提供的初始信息往往不完整或不一致。与市政法庭被告的沟通也是杂乱无章，而且法庭也知道这种沟通是不可靠的。法院的程序和运作也含糊不清，没有书面记录，不透明，甚至无法在法院网站或其他地方向公众公开。

The rules and procedures of the court are difficult for the public to discern. Aside from a small number of exceptions, the Municipal Judge issues rules of practice and procedure verbally and on an ad hoc basis. Until recently, on the rare occasion that the Judge issued a written order that altered court practices, those orders were not distributed broadly to court and other FPD officials whose actions they affect and were not readily accessible to the public. Further, Ferguson, unlike other courts in the region, does not include any information about its operations on its website other than inaccurate instructions about how to make payment.

Court staff acknowledged during our investigation that the public would benefit from increased information about how to resolve cases and about court practices and procedures. Yet neither the court nor other City officials have undertaken efforts to make court operations more transparent in order to ensure that litigants understand their rights or court procedures, or to enable the public to assess whether the court is operating in a fair manner.
公众很难了解法院的规则和程序。除少数例外情况外，市政法官以口头和临时方式发布惯例和程序规则。直到最近，法官在极少数情况下发布改变法庭惯例的书面命令，但这些命令并没有广泛分发给法庭和其他其行动受到影响的联邦公共警察局官员，公众也不容易获得。此外，与该地区的其他法院不同，弗格森法院的网站上除了关于如何付款的不准确说明外，没有任何关于其运作的信息。

法院工作人员在我们调查期间承认，增加有关如何解决案件以及法院惯例和程序的信息将使公众受益。然而，无论是法院还是其他市政官员，都没有努力提高法院运作的透明度，以确保诉讼当事人了解自己的权利或法院程序，或使公众能够评估法院是否以公平的方式运作。

Current court practices fail to provide adequate information even to those who are charged with a municipal violation. The lack of clarity about a person's rights and responsibilities often begins from the moment a person is issued a citation. For some offenses, FPD uses state of Missouri uniform citations, and typically indicates on the ticket the assigned court date for the offense. Many times, however, FPD officers omit critical information from the citation, which makes it impossible for a person to determine the specific nature of the offense charged, the amount of the fine owed, or whether a court appearance is required or some alternative method of payment is available. In some cases, citations fail to indicate the offense charged altogether; in November 2013, for instance, court staff wrote FPD patrol to "see what [a] ticket was for" because it "does not have a charge on it." In other cases, a ticket will indicate a charge but omit other crucial information. For example, speeding tickets often fail to indicate the alleged speed observed, even though both the fine owed and whether a court appearance is mandatory depends upon the specific speed alleged. Evidence shows that in some of these cases,
即使是那些被指控违反市政法规的人，目前的法院做法也未能提供足够的信息。一个人的权利和责任不明确，往往从收到传票的那一刻起就开始了。对于某些违法行为，FPD 采用密苏里州统一的传票，通常会在传票上注明违法行为的指定开庭日期。然而，很多时候，FPD 警官在传票上遗漏了一些关键信息，使当事人无法确定被控违法行为的具体性质、所欠罚款金额、是否需要出庭或是否有其他付款方式。在某些情况下，罚单上根本没有标明指控的违法行为；例如，2013 年 11 月，法院工作人员写信给 FPD 巡警，要求 "查看罚单的内容"，因为罚单上 "没有标明指控的违法行为"。在其他情况下，罚单上会注明一项指控，但会遗漏其他关键信息。例如，超速罚单往往没有标明所称的车速，尽管所欠罚款和是否必须出庭都取决于所称的具体车速。有证据表明，在某些此类案件中：

a person has appeared in court but been unable to resolve the citation because of the missing information. In June 2014, for instance, a court clerk wrote to an FPD officer: "The above ticket . . . does not have a speed in it. The guy came in and we had to send him away. Can you email me the speed when you get time." Separate and apart from the difficulties these omissions create for people, the fact that the court staff routinely add the speed to tickets weeks after they are issued raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of officers' assertions in official records.
有人出庭，但由于信息缺失而无法解决传票问题。例如，2014 年 6 月，一名法院书记员写信给一名 FPD 警官："上述罚单......里面没有速度。这家伙来了，我们不得不把他打发走。有时间的话，能不能把车速发邮件给我"。除了这些遗漏给人们造成的困难之外，法院工作人员经常在罚单开出数周后才将车速添加到罚单中这一事实也让人们对官员在官方记录中的说法的准确性和可靠性产生了担忧。

We have also found evidence that in issuing citations, FPD officers frequently provide people with incorrect information about the date and time of their assigned court session. In November 2012, court staff emailed the two patrol lieutenants asking: "Would you please be so kind to tell your squads to check their ct. dates and times. We are getting quite a few wrong dates and times [on tickets]." In December 2012, a court clerk emailed an FPD officer to inform him that while he had been putting 6:00 p.m. on his citations that month, the scheduled court session was actually a morning session. More recently, in March 2014, an officer wrote a court clerk because the officer had issued a citation that listed the court date as ten days later than the actual court date assigned. Some of these emails indicate that court staff planned to send a letter to the person who was cited. As noted below, however, such letters often are returned to the court as undeliverable. It is thus unsurprising that, on one occasion, a City employee who works in the building where court was held wrote the Court Clerk to tell her that "[a] few people stopped by tonight looking for court and I referred them to you." The email notes that one person insisted on providing her information so the employee could "vouch for her appearance for Night Court." The email does not identify any other individual who showed up for court that night, nor does it state that any steps were taken to ensure that those assigned the incorrect court date did not have Failure to Appear charges and fines imposed, arrest warrants issued against them, or their licenses suspended.
我们还发现有证据表明，在签发传票时，FPD 警官经常向人们提供关于指定开庭日期和时间的错误信息。2012年11月，法庭工作人员给两位巡逻中尉发邮件询问："请你们告诉你们的巡逻队检查他们的开庭日期和时间。我们收到了不少日期和时间错误的 [罚单]"。2012 年 12 月，一名法庭书记员通过电子邮件告知一名 FPD 警官，虽然他在当月的传票上填写的是下午 6 点，但实际上预定的开庭时间是上午。最近，在 2014 年 3 月，一名警官写信给法院书记员，因为该警官签发的传票上的开庭日期比实际指定的开庭日期晚了十天。其中一些邮件显示，法院工作人员计划给被传唤者发一封信。但如下文所述，此类信件往往因无法投递而被退回法院。因此，有一次，一名在开庭所在大楼工作的市政雇员写信告诉法院书记员 "今晚有几个人顺路来找法院，我把他们介绍给了你"，就不足为奇了。"该邮件指出，有一个人坚持要提供她的信息，以便该员工可以 "为她出席夜庭作证"。这封邮件没有指明当晚出庭的任何其他人，也没有说明采取了任何措施来确保那些被指派了错误出庭日期的人不会受到 "未出庭 "指控和罚款、被签发逮捕令或被吊销执照。

Even if the citation a person receives has been properly filled out, it is often unclear whether a court appearance is required or if some other method of resolving a case is available. Ferguson has a schedule that establishes fixed fines for a limited number of violations that do not require court appearance. Nonetheless, this list - called the "TVB" or "Traffic Violations Bureau" list - is incomplete and does not provide sufficient clarity regarding whether a court appearance is mandatory. Court staff members have themselves informed us that there are certain offenses for which they will sometimes require a court appearance and other times not, depending on their own assessment of whether an appearance should be required in a given case. That information, however, is not reliably communicated to the person who has been given the citation.
即使某人收到的传票填写正确，也往往不清楚是否需要出庭，或者是否有其他解决案件的方法。弗格森有一个时间表，对少数无需出庭的违法行为规定了固定罚款。然而，这份被称为 "TVB "或 "交通违规局 "的清单并不完整，也没有充分说明是否必须出庭。法院工作人员自己告诉我们，对于某些违法行为，他们有时会要求出庭，有时则不要求，这取决于他们自己对特定案件是否需要出庭的评估。然而，这些信息并没有可靠地传达给收到传票的人。

Although the City of Ferguson frequently bears responsibility for giving people misinformation about when they must appear in court, Ferguson does little to ensure that persons who have missed a court date are properly notified of the consequences that result from an additional missed appearance, such as arrest or losing their driver's licenses, or that those consequences have already been levied. If a person misses a required appearance, it is the purported practice of court staff to send a letter that sets a new court date and informs the defendant that missing the next appearance will result in an arrest warrant being issued. But court staff do not even claim to send these letters before issuing warrants if an individual is on a payment plan and misses a payment, or if a person already has an outstanding warrant on a
尽管弗格森市经常要对向人们提供关于何时必须出庭的错误信息承担责任，但弗格森市几乎没有确保错过出庭日期的人被正确告知再次错过出庭日期的后果，如逮捕或吊销驾照，或者这些后果已经产生。如果某人错过了规定的出庭时间，法院工作人员的所谓做法是发函确定新的出庭日期，并告知被告错过下次出庭时间将导致法院签发逮捕令。但是，如果某人正在执行付款计划而错过了一次付款，或者如果某人已经有一个未执行的逮捕令，法院工作人员甚至都不会声称在签发逮捕令之前会发送这些信件。
different offense; in those cases, the court issues a warrant after a single missed payment or appearance. Further, even for the cases in which the court says it does send such letters prior to issuing a warrant, court records suggest that those letters are often not actually sent. Even where a letter is sent, some are returned to court, and court staff told us that in those cases, they make no additional effort to notify the individual of the new court date or the consequences of nonappearance. Court staff and staff from other municipal courts have informed us that defendants in poverty are more likely not to receive such a letter from court because they frequently change residence.
在这些案件中，法院会在一次未缴款或未出庭后签发逮捕令。此外，即使在法院表示确实会在签发逮捕令之前寄出此类信件的案件中，法院记录也显示这些信件往往并未真正寄出。法院工作人员告诉我们，在这种情况下，他们不会再努力通知当事人新的开庭日期或不出庭的后果。法院工作人员和其他市级法院的工作人员告诉我们，贫困被告更有可能收不到法院的此类信件，因为他们经常更换住所。

If an individual misses a second court date, an arrest warrant is issued, without any confirmation that the individual received notice of that second court date. In the past, when the court issued a warrant it would also send notice to the individual that a warrant was issued against them and telling them to appear at the police department to resolve the matter. This notice did not provide the basis of the arrest warrant or describe how it might be resolved. In any case, Ferguson stopped providing even this incomplete notice in 2012. In explaining the decision to stop sending this warrant notice, the Court Clerk wrote in a June 2011 email to Chief Jackson that "this will save the cost of warrant cards and postage" and "it is not necessary to send out these cards." Some court employees, however, told us that the notice letter had been useful-at least for those who received it-and that they believe it should still be sent. That the court discontinued what little notice it was providing to people in advance of issuing a warrant is particularly troubling given that, during our investigation, we spoke with several individuals who were arrested without ever knowing that a warrant was outstanding.

如果当事人错过了第二次开庭日期，法院就会发出逮捕令，但却无法确认当事人是否收到了第二次开庭日期的通知。过去，当法院签发逮捕令时，也会向当事人发出通知，告知已对其签发逮捕令，并通知其前往警察局解决此事。该通知并未提供逮捕令的依据，也未说明如何解决该问题。无论如何，弗格森在 2012 年停止提供这种不完整的通知。在解释停止发送逮捕令通知的决定时，法院书记员在 2011 年 6 月给杰克逊局长的电子邮件中写道，"这将节省逮捕令卡片和邮资的成本"，"没有必要再发送这些卡片了"。然而，一些法院员工告诉我们，通知函很有用--至少对那些收到通知函的人来说是这样，而且他们认为通知函仍应继续发送。在我们的调查过程中，我们曾与一些人交谈过，他们在不知道逮捕令尚未执行的情况下就被逮捕了。

Once a warrant is issued, a person can clear the warrant by appearing at the court window in the police department and paying a pre-determined bond. However, that process is itself not communicated to the public and, in any case, is only useful if an individual knows there is a warrant for her or his arrest. Court clerks told us that in some cases they deem sympathetic in their own discretion, they will cancel the warrant without a bond. Further, it appears that if a person is aware of an outstanding warrant but believes that the warrant was issued in error, that person can petition the Municipal Judge to cancel the warrant only after the bond is paid in full. If a person cannot afford to pay the bond, there is no opportunity to seek recourse from the court.
一旦签发了逮捕令，当事人只需到警察局的法庭窗口缴纳预先确定的保证金，即可解除逮捕令。然而，这一程序本身并不向公众公布，而且，无论如何，只有当一个人知道有逮捕令时才会有用。法院书记员告诉我们，在某些他们认为值得同情的案件中，他们会自行决定取消逮捕令而不收取保证金。此外，如果某人知道有未执行的逮捕令，但认为逮捕令是错误签发的，那么此人只有在付清保证金后才能向市政法官申请取消逮捕令。如果某人无力支付保证金，则没有机会向法院提出申诉。

If a person is arrested on an outstanding warrant - or as the result of an encounter with FPD - it is often difficult to secure release with a bond payment, not only because of the inordinately high bond amounts discussed below, but also because of procedural obstacles. In practice, bond procedures depart from those articulated in official policy, and are arbitrary and confusing. FPD staff have told us that correctional officers have at times tried to find a warrant in the court's files to determine the bond amount owed, but have been unable to do so. This is unsurprising given the existence of what has been described to us as "drawers and drawers of warrants." In some cases, people have attempted to pay a bond to secure the release of a family
如果一个人因未执行的逮捕令而被捕，或因与联邦警察遭遇而被捕，通常很难通过支付保证金而获得释放，这不仅是因为下文讨论的过高的保证金数额，还因为程序上的障碍。在实践中，保释程序与官方政策中规定的程序相背离，既武断又混乱。FPD 的工作人员告诉我们，管教人员有时试图在法院档案中查找逮捕令，以确定所欠保释金的数额，但却无法做到。这也就不足为奇了，因为我们看到的是 "一抽屉一抽屉的逮捕令"。在某些情况下，人们试图支付保证金以确保家人获释。

See 2012 Census of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau (Sept. 2013), available at http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG13.ST05P?slice=GEO 0400000US29 (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
见《2012 年政府普查》，美国人口普查局（2013 年 9 月），详情可登录 http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG13.ST05P?slice=GEO 0400000US29（最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
See 2010 Census, U.S. Census Bureau (2010), available at http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_SF1/QTP3/1600000US2923986 (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
见 2010 年人口普查，美国人口普查局（2010 年），可查阅 http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_SF1/QTP3/1600000US2923986 （最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
See 1990 Census of Population General Population Characteristics Missouri, U.S. Census Bureau (Apr. 1992), available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/library/publications/1992/dec/cp-1-27.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
见 1990 年人口普查密苏里州一般人口特征，美国人口普查局（1992 年 4 月），可查阅 ftp://ftp2.census.gov/library/publications/1992/dec/cp-1-27.pdf （最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
See Race Alone or in Combination: 2000, U.S. Census Bureau (2000), available at http://factfinder.census.gov/ bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/QTP5/1600000US2923986 (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
见《种族单独或组合：2000 年》，美国人口普查局（2000 年），可查阅 http://factfinder.census.gov/ bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/QTP5/1600000US2923986（最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
Census, supra note 2.
人口普查，前注 2。
See Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau (2014), available at
参见《2009-2013 年美国社区调查 5 年估计》中过去 12 个月的贫困状况，美国人口普查局（2014 年），可在以下网站查阅
http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/13_5YR/S1701/1600000US2923986 (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/13_5YR/S1701/1600000US2923986 （最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
This is evidenced not only by FPD's own records, but also by Uniform Crime Reports data for Ferguson, which show a downward trend in serious crime over the last ten years. See Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
这不仅可以从弗格森警察局自己的记录中得到证明，还可以从弗格森的《统一犯罪报告》数据中得到证明，这些数据显示在过去十年中严重犯罪呈下降趋势。参见《统一犯罪报告》，联邦调查局，http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s（最后访问日期：2015年2月26日）。
Each of these yearly totals excludes certain court fees that are designated for particular purposes, but that nonetheless are paid directly to the City. For example, of the court fee that accompanies every citation for a municipal code violation is set aside to be used for police training. That fee is used only by the City of Ferguson and is deposited in the City's general fund; nonetheless, the City's budget does not include that fee in its totals for "municipal court" revenue. In 2012 and 2013, the police training fee brought in, respectively, another $24,724 and $22,938 in revenue.
这些年度总额中均不包括某些指定用于特定用途的法庭费用，但这些费用是直接支付给市政府的。例如，每张违反市政法规的传票所附带的法庭费用被留作警察培训之用。这笔费用仅由弗格森市使用，并存入该市的普通基金；尽管如此，该市的预算并未将这笔费用列入 "市政法庭 "收入总额中。2012 年和 2013 年，警察培训费分别又带来了 24724 美元和 22938 美元的收入。
FPD's financial focus has also led FPD to elevate municipal enforcement over state-law enforcement. Even where individuals commit violations of state law, if there is an analogous municipal code provision, the police department will nearly always charge the offense under municipal law. A senior member of FPD's command told us that all Ferguson police officers understand that, when a fine is the likely punishment, municipal rather than state charges should be pursued so that Ferguson will reap the financial benefit.
FPD的财政重点也导致FPD将市政执法凌驾于州法律执法之上。即使个人违反了州法律，如果有类似的市政法规条款，警察局几乎总是会根据市政法律对违法行为提出指控。弗格森警察局指挥部的一名高级成员告诉我们，所有弗格森警官都明白，如果罚款是可能的处罚，那么就应该起诉市政部门而不是州政府，这样弗格森就能获得经济收益。
After a recommendation we made during this investigation, Ferguson has recently begun a very limited "correctable violation" or "fix-it" ticket program, under which charges for certain violations can be dismissed if corrected within a certain period of time.
根据我们在此次调查中提出的建议，弗格森最近开始实施一项非常有限的 "可纠正违规行为 "或 "修复 "罚单计划，根据该计划，如果在一定时间内纠正了某些违规行为，就可以撤销对其的指控。
Katherine Smith, Ferguson to Increase Police Ticketing to Close City's Budget Gap, Bloomberg News (Dec. 12, 2014), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/ferguson-to-increase-police-ticketing-to-close-city-sbudget-gap.
凯瑟琳-史密斯，《弗格森将增加警方罚单以弥补城市预算缺口》，彭博新闻社（2014 年 12 月 12 日），http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-12/ferguson-to-increase-police-ticketing-to-close-city-sbudget-gap。
Ferguson officials have asserted that in the last fiscal year revenue from the municipal court comprised only 12% of City revenue, but they have not made clear how they calculated this figure. It appears that is the proportion of Ferguson's total revenue (forecasted to amount to million in 2014) derived from fines and fees (forecasted to be million in 2014). Guidelines issued by the Missouri State Auditor in December 2014 provide, however, that the cap outlined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.341.2 imposes a limit on the makeup of fines and fees in general use revenue, excluding any revenue designated for a particular purpose. Notably, the current state cap only applies to fines and fees derived from "traffic violations." It thus appears that, for purposes of the state cap, Ferguson must ensure that its traffic-related fines and fees do not exceed of its "General Fund" revenue. In 2014, Ferguson's General Fund revenue was forecasted to be million.
弗格森官员声称，在上一财政年度，来自市法院的收入仅占市政府收入的 12%，但他们没有明确说明是如何计算出这一数字的。似乎是弗格森总收入（预计 2014 年为百万）中来自罚款和收费（预计 2014 年为百万）的比例。不过，密苏里州审计长于 2014 年 12 月发布的指导原则规定，《密苏里州法规修正案》（Mo.Rev. Stat.§302.341.2对一般用途收入中的罚款和费用构成施加了限制，不包括任何指定用于特定用途的收入。值得注意的是，目前的州上限仅适用于来自 "交通违规 "的罚款和费用。因此，就州政府规定的上限而言，弗格森似乎必须确保与交通相关的罚款和费用不超过其 "普通基金 "收入的。2014年，弗格森的普通基金收入预计为百万。
FPD policy states that "[o]fficers should document" all field contacts and field interrogation "relevant to criminal activity and identification of criminal suspects on the appropriate Department approved computer entry forms." FPD General Order 407.00. Policy requires that a "Field Investigation Report" be completed for persons and vehicles "in all instances when an officer feels" that the subject "may be in the area for a questionable or suspicious purpose." FPD General Order 422.01. In practice, however, FPD officers do not reliably document field contacts, particularly of pedestrians, and the department does not evaluate such field contacts.
FPD政策规定，"警员应记录 "所有 "与犯罪活动和识别犯罪嫌疑人有关的 "现场接触和现场讯问，"并将其记录在适当的部门批准的计算机输入表格上"。FPD General Order 407.00。政策规定，"在所有情况下，当警官认为 "目标人物 "可能出于可疑或可疑目的而进入该地区时"，必须填写一份针对人员和车辆的 "实地调查报告"。FPD General Order 422.01。然而，在实践中，FPD 警官并没有可靠地记录实地接触，特别是行人，而且该部门也没有对这种实地接触进行评估。
FPD officers are not consistent in how they label this charge in their reports. They refer to violations of Section 29-16 as both "Failure to Comply" and "Failure to Obey." This report refers to all violations of this code provision as "Failure to Comply."
FPD 警官在报告中对这一指控的标注并不一致。他们将违反第 29-16 条的行为称为 "未遵守 "和 "未服从"。本报告将所有违反该法规条款的行为称为 "未遵守"。
Other broad quality-of-life ordinances in the Ferguson municipal code, such as the disorderly conduct provision, may also be vulnerable to attack as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. See Ferguson Mun. Code § 29-94 (defining disorderly conduct to include the conduct of "[a]ny person, while in a public place, who utters in a loud, abusive or threatening manner, any obscene words, epithets or similar abusive language") (emphasis added).
弗格森市政法典中的其他宽泛的生活质量条例，如扰乱治安行为条款，也可能会被攻击为违宪含糊或过于宽泛。见 Ferguson Mun.法典》§ 29-94（将扰乱治安行为定义为包括 "任何人在公共场所以大声、辱骂或威胁的方式使用任何淫秽词语、绰号或类似辱骂性语言 "的行为）（着重部分由作者标明）。
The ordinance on interfering with arrest, detention, or stop, Ferguson Mun. Code § 29-17, does not actually permit arrest unless the subject uses or threatens violence, which did not occur here. Another code provision the officer may have relied on, § 29-19, is likely unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibits obstruction of government operations "in any manner whatsoever." See Hill, 482 U.S. at 455, 462, 466 (invalidating ordinance that made it unlawful to "in any manner oppose, molest, abuse, or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty').
《弗格森市政法典》第 29-17 条关于干扰逮捕、拘留或拦截的法令实际上并不允许逮捕，除非当事人使用或威胁使用暴力。弗格森市法典》第29-17条实际上并不允许逮捕，除非当事人使用或威胁使用暴力，而本案中并未发生这种情况。该官员可能依据的另一项法典条款，即第 29-19 条，很可能违宪地过于宽泛，因为它禁止 "以任何方式 "妨碍政府运作。见 Hill, 482 U.S. at 455, 462, 466（规定 "以任何方式反对、骚扰、辱骂或干扰任何警察执行公务 "为非法的法令无效）。
This set, however, did not include any substantive information on the August 9, 2014 shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. That incident is being separately investigated by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri.
然而，这组文件并不包括有关2014年8月9日达伦-威尔逊警官枪杀迈克尔-布朗的任何实质性信息。这一事件正由民权部门刑事科和密苏里州东区联邦检察官办公室分别进行调查。
ECWs have two modes. In dart mode, an officer fires a cartridge that sends two darts or prongs into a person's body, penetrating the skin and delivering a jolt of electricity of a length determined by the officer. In drive-stun mode, sometimes referred to as "pain compliance" mode, an officer presses the weapon directly against a person's body, pulling the trigger to activate the electricity. Many agencies strictly limit the use of ECWs in drive-stun mode because of the potential for abuse.
电子起搏器有两种模式。在飞镖模式下，警官发射一个弹夹，将两枚飞镖或棱刺射入人的身体，穿透皮肤，产生由警官决定长度的电击。在驱-眩晕模式下，有时也称为 "疼痛顺应 "模式，警官将武器直接按在人的身体上，扣动扳机以启动电流。由于存在滥用的可能性，许多机构严格限制在驱-眩晕模式下使用电子致命武器。
The Ferguson-Florissant School District serves over 11,000 students, about of whom are African American. See Ferguson-Florissant District Demographic Data 2014 & 2015, Mo. Dep’t of Elementary & Secondary Educ., http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/Pages/District-and-School-Information.aspx (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
弗格森-弗洛里桑特学区服务于 11,000 多名学生，其中约人为非裔美国人。参见弗格森-弗洛里桑特学区 2014 年和 2015 年人口统计数据，Mo.Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ.，http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/Pages/District-and-School-Information.aspx（最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
The influence of revenue on the court, described both in Part II and in Part III.B. of this Report, may itself be unlawful. See Ward v. Vill. of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 58-62 (1972) (finding a violation of the due process right to a fair and impartial trial where a town mayor served as judge and was also responsible for the town's finances, which were substantially dependent on "fines, forfeitures, costs, and fees" collected by the court).
本报告第二部分和第三部分 B.中所述的财政收入对法院的影响本身就可能是非法的。参见 Ward v. Vill. of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 58-62 (1972)（在镇长担任法官的同时还负责该镇的财政，而该镇的财政在很大程度上依赖于法院收取的 "罚金、没收物、费用和收费 "的情况下，认定违反了获得公平公正审判的正当程序权利）。
As with many of the problematic court practices that we identify in this report, other municipalities in St. Louis County also have imposed a separate Failure to Appear charge, fine, and fee for missed court appearances and payments. Many continue to do so.
正如我们在本报告中指出的许多有问题的法院做法一样，圣路易斯郡的其他市政府也对未出庭和未缴费的情况征收单独的 "未出庭费"、罚款和费用。许多城市还在继续这样做。
As discussed in Part II of this report, City officials have acknowledged several of these procedural deficiencies. In 2012, a City Councilmember, citing specific examples, urged against reappointing Judge Brockmeyer because he "often times does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn't let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict."
正如本报告第二部分所讨论的，市政府官员已经承认了这些程序上的缺陷。2012 年，一位市议员列举了一些具体事例，敦促不要再次任命布罗克迈尔法官，因为他 "经常不听取证词，不审查报告或被告的犯罪史，在做出判决前不让所有相关证人作证"。
This finding of untruthfulness by a police officer constitutes impeachment evidence that must be disclosed in any trial in which the officer testifies for the City. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the failure to disclose evidence that is "favorable to an accused" violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). This duty applies to impeachment evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985), and it applies even if the defendant does not request the evidence, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). The duty encompasses, furthermore, information that should be known to the prosecutor, including information known solely by the police department. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). This constitutional duty to disclose appears to extend to municipal court cases, which can result in jail terms of up to three months under Section 29-2 of Ferguson's municipal code. See City of Kansas City v. Oxley, 579 S.W.2d 113, 114 (Mo. 1979) (en banc) (holding that the due process standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applied in a municipal court speeding case because "the violation has criminal overtones"); see also City of Cape Girardeau v. Jones, 725 S.W.2d 904, 907-09 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) (explaining that reasonable doubt standard applied to municipal trespass prosecution because municipal ordinance violations are "quasi-criminal," and reversing two convictions based on privilege against selfincrimination). We are aware of at least two cases, from January 2015, in which the City called this officer as a witness without disclosing the finding of untruthfulness to the defense.
警官的这一不实之词构成了弹劾证据，必须在该警官为市政府作证的任何审判中予以披露。根据第十四修正案，不披露 "对被告有利 "的证据违反了正当程序，"如果该证据对定罪或处罚具有重要意义，则不论控方是善意还是恶意"。布雷迪诉马里兰州案，373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)。这一义务适用于弹劾证据，美国诉Bagley案，473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985)，即使被告没有要求提供证据也适用，美国诉Agurs案，427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)。此外，该义务还包括检察官应该知道的信息，包括只有警察局知道的信息。Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995)。宪法规定的披露义务似乎也适用于市政法院的案件，根据弗格森市的市政法规第 29-2 条，这些案件可导致长达三个月的监禁。参见堪萨斯城市诉奥克斯利案，579 S.W.2d 113, 114 (Mo. 1979) (en banc)（认为排除合理怀疑的正当程序证据标准适用于市级法院的超速案件，因为 "该违法行为具有刑事色彩"）；另见吉拉尔多角市诉琼斯案，725 S.W.2d 904, 907-09 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)（解释说，合理怀疑标准适用于市政侵入起诉，因为违反市政条例是 "准刑事 "行为，并基于免于自证其罪的特权推翻了两项定罪）。据我们所知，从 2015 年 1 月起，至少有两起案件中，市政府传唤了这名警官作为证人，但并未向辩方披露不诚实的调查结果。
See City Courts, City of Ferguson, http://www.fergusoncity.com/60/The-City-Of-Ferguson-Municipal-Courts (last visited Feb. 26, 2015). By contrast, the neighboring municipality of Normandy operates a court website with an entire page containing information regarding fine due dates, methods of payment, and different payment options, including the availability of payment plans for those who cannot afford to pay a fine in full. See How Do I Pay a Ticket / Fine?, City of Normandy, http://www.cityofnormandy.gov/index.aspx?NID=570 (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).
参见弗格森市法院，http://www.fergusoncity.com/60/The-City-Of-Ferguson-Municipal-Courts（最后访问日期：2015年2月26日）。与此形成鲜明对比的是，邻近的诺曼底市开设了一个法院网站，该网站的整个页面都包含有关罚款到期日、付款方式和不同付款选项的信息，包括为无力全额支付罚款的人提供的付款计划。参见诺曼底市，http://www.cityofnormandy.gov/index.aspx?NID=570（最后访问日期：2015 年 2 月 26 日）。
Prior to September 2014, a second missed court appearance (or a single missed payment) would result not only in a warrant being issued, but also the imposition of an additional Failure to Appear charge. This charge was imposed automatically. It does not appear that there was any attempt by the court to inform individuals that a failure to appear could be excused upon a showing of good cause, or to provide individuals with an opportunity to make such a showing. Additionally, just as the court does not currently send any notice informing a defendant that an arrest warrant has been issued, the court did not send any notice that this additional Failure to Appear charge had been brought.
在 2014 年 9 月之前，第二次未出庭（或一次未缴费）不仅会导致签发逮捕令，还会被追加一项 "未出庭 "指控。这项指控是自动实施的。法院似乎并没有试图告知个人，如果有正当理由，可以免除未出庭的指控，也没有为个人提供提出正当理由的机会。此外，正如法院目前没有发出任何通知告知被告已签发逮捕令一样，法院也没有发出任何通知告知被告已提出这项额外的 "未出庭 "指控。

Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 弗格森警察局调查

United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division美国司法部 公民权利处

TABLE OF CONTENTS 目录

I. REPORT SUMMARY I.报告摘要

Focus on Generating Revenue注重创收

Police Practices 警务工作

Municipal Court Practices市法院的做法

Racial Bias 种族偏见

Community Distrust 社区不信任

II. BACKGROUND II.背景情况

III. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUEIII.弗格森执法工作的重点是创收

IV. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES VIOLATE THE LAW AND UNDERMINE COMMUNITY TRUST, ESPECIALLY AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANSIV.弗格森执法行为违反了法律，破坏了社区信任，尤其是非洲裔美国人的信任

A. Ferguson's Police PracticesA.弗格森警方的做法

1. FPD Engages in a Pattern of Unconstitutional Stops and Arrests in Violation of the Fourth Amendment1.联邦警察违反宪法第四修正案的拦截和逮捕模式

a. FPD Officers Frequently Detain People Without Reasonable Suspicion and Arrest People Without Probable Causea.FPD 警官经常在没有合理怀疑的情况下拘留人员，在没有正当理由的情况下逮捕人员

b. FPD Officers Routinely Abuse the "Failure to Comply" Chargeb.FPD 警官经常滥用 "不守法 "指控

i. Improper Enforcement of Code Provision Prohibiting Disobeying a Lawful Orderi.不当执行《法典》中禁止违抗合法命令的规定

ii. Improper Enforcement of Code Provision Requiring Individuals to Identify Themselves to a Police Officerii.不当执行要求个人向警官表明身份的法典条款

c. FPD's Use of a Police-run "Wanted" System Circumvents Judicial Review and Poses the Risk of Abusec.FPD 使用由警方管理的 "通缉 "系统规避了司法审查并带来了滥用风险

2. FPD Engages in a Pattern of First Amendment Violations2.FPD 不断违反第一修正案

3. FPD Engages in a Pattern of Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment3.联邦警察经常过度使用武力，违反了《第四修正案》

a. FPD's Use of Electronic Control Weapons Is Unreasonablea.FPD 使用电子控制武器不合理

b. FPD's Use of Canines on Low-level, Unarmed Offenders Is Unreasonableb.FPD 对手无寸铁的低级罪犯使用警犬是不合理的

c. FPD's Use of Force Is Sometimes Retaliatory and Punitivec.FPD 使用武力有时具有报复性和惩罚性

d. FPD Use of Force Often Results from Unlawful Arrest and Officer Escalationd.联邦警察使用武力往往是非法逮捕和警察升级的结果

e. FPD Officers Have a Pattern of Resorting to Force Too Quickly When Interacting with Vulnerable Populationse.FPD 警官在与弱势群体互动时经常过快使用武力

i. Force Used Against People with Mental Health Conditions or Intellectual Disabilitiesi.对精神疾病患者或智障人士使用武力

ii. Force Used Against Studentsii.对学生使用武力

f. FPD's Weak Oversight of Use of Force Reflects its Lack of Concern for Whether Officer Conduct Is Consistent with the Law or Promotes Police Legitimacyf.FPD 对使用武力的监督不力，反映出其对警官的行为是否符合法律或促进警察合法性缺乏关注

B. Ferguson's Municipal Court PracticesB.弗格森市法院的做法

1. Court Practices Impose Substantial and Unnecessary Barriers to the Challenge or Resolution of Municipal Code Violations1.法院的做法为质疑或解决违反市政法规的问题设置了实质性的不必要障碍

a. Court Practices and Procedural Deficiencies Create a Lack of Transparency Regarding Rights and Responsibilitiesa.法院惯例和程序缺陷导致权利和责任缺乏透明度