DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN 
ISLANDS and the VIRGIN ISLANDS 
POLICE DEPARTMENT, 
              Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2008-158 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney 
Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA 
Sansara Cannon, AUSA 
United States Attorney’s Office 
St. Thomas, VI 
Jeffrey Murray, Esq. 
Aaron Fleisher, Esq. 
Paul Killebrew, Esq. 
United States Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 
 
For the plaintiff, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Claude Walker, Attorney General 
Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG 
Terri L. Griffiths, SAAG 
Virgin Islands Department of Justice 
St. Thomas, VI 
 
For the defendants.  
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
In 2008, the United States of America filed this action 
against the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 371   Filed: 12/10/18   Page 1 of 4
USA v. VIPD, et. al. 
Civil No. 8-158 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) pursuant to the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 
In March 2009, the Court approved the Consent Decree in 
this matter. In the Consent Decree, the VIPD agreed to implement 
comprehensive reforms to ensure that the VIPD delivers 
constitutional, effective policing services that promote public 
safety and police integrity. The Consent Decree requires a 
complete review and update of VIPD’s use of force policies, 
training, and practices, as well as the implementation of 
internal and external systems of accountability that will ensure 
the sustainability of critical reforms. 
Implementing sustainable reforms at VIPD is a significant 
undertaking. It requires strategic planning, ongoing 
collaboration, continuous program development and evaluation, 
and consistent investment in human and other resources.  
Currently, the VIPD Consent Decree is the oldest unresolved 
consent decree against any police department in the United 
States. In light of that history, the Court appointed Robert 
McNeilly, an expert on police practices, and directed him to 
assess the cause of the VIPD’s delay in achieving substantial 
compliance with the Consent Decree. In a responsive 
comprehensive report, McNeilly indicates that a significant 
reason that the VIPD has not achieved compliance with the terms 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 371   Filed: 12/10/18   Page 2 of 4
USA v. VIPD, et. al. 
Civil No. 8-158 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
of the Consent Decree over the past nine years has been the 
constant change in leadership1 experienced by the VIPD. See 
Progress of the Virgin Islands Consent Decree, ECF 346-1, at 3. 
Importantly, McNeilly noted that the VIPD “has made considerable 
gains in compliance during the past several years due to 
committed leadership among the higher ranks in the department,” 
but that “any change in leadership in the department could 
disrupt progress towards compliance without available trained 
and experienced managers to continue to move the department into 
compliance.” Id.  
In light of that assessment, VIPD designated certain 
principals to steer the VIPD towards substantial compliance. 
That effort has borne fruit as the VIPD appears to be on the 
verge of achieving substantial compliance with all provisions of 
the Consent Decree before 2019. To the extent that critical 
milestone is achieved, it must be monitored and maintained for 
two years. 
The Court recognizes that the executive branch may change 
the position or status of certain principals associated with the 
VIPD. The Court also recognizes the need to achieve and foster 
compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree; and the 
                                                          
1 The VIPD has had seven different commissioners over the past nine years. 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 371   Filed: 12/10/18   Page 3 of 4
USA v. VIPD, et. al. 
Civil No. 8-158 
Order 
Page 4 
 
 
need to be timely apprised of any developments that may affect 
sustained compliance. 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that the parties shall file a notice with the Court 
advising the Court of any change in position or status of any 
principal involved in this matter, including counsel, at least 
seven days in advance of the effective date of any change in 
status or position; provided, however, that, such notice to the 
Court shall be filed immediately if a principal is afforded less 
than seven days notice before a change in status or position is 
effective.  
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 371   Filed: 12/10/18   Page 4 of 4