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. 
On July 6, 2018, the Court appointed Chief Robert McNeilly 
as an expert on police practices. Chief McNeilly was ordered to 
report to the Court on steps that the Virgin Islands Police 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 357   Filed: 10/05/18   Page 1 of 3
USA v. VIPD, et. al. 
Civil No. 8-158 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
Department (“VIPD”) could take to advance compliance with the 
Consent Decree entered in this case. See ECF No. 331. On August 
20, 2018, the Court filed two reports authored by Chief 
McNeilly, which contained numerous recommendations to VIPD. ECF 
No. 346. At a hearing in this matter on September 4, 2018, the 
Court ordered the Parties to adapt Chief McNeilly’s 
recommendations into a proposed order. In their joint report 
regarding Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, ECF No. 354, the 
Parties demonstrated that VIPD had already implemented many of 
Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, though several remained to be 
fully implemented and were addressed in a jointly proposed 
order, ECF No. 354-41. 
After the Parties filed their joint report and proposed 
order, the Independent Monitoring Team (“IMT”) contacted the 
Court to inquire whether it should monitor VIPD’s progress in 
implementing Chief McNeilly’s recommendations. The Court held a 
telephonic status conference with the Parties on October 4, 
2018, to discuss the IMT’s inquiry. 
In the wake of that conference, the Court has considered 
the parties’ positions. At the same time, the Court is mindful 
that the VIPD Consent Decree currently is the oldest active 
United States Department of Justice initiated police department 
Consent Decree in the nation. The Court also understands that 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 357   Filed: 10/05/18   Page 2 of 3
USA v. VIPD, et. al. 
Civil No. 8-158 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
the VIPD is one of the smallest, if not the smallest, police 
department that is under a Consent Decree. Given that backdrop, 
the Court appreciates the parties’ effort to adopt such inroads 
as will expedite the process by which VIPD will achieve 
substantial compliance with the provisions of the Consent 
Decree. To that end, the Court finds that accomplishment of the 
tasks outlined by Chief McNeilly is essential. 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that when the IMT reports on VIPD’s compliance with 
the Consent Decree in its quarterly reports, it shall include 
VIPD’s efforts to implement Chief McNeilly’s recommendations to 
the extent that the IMT disagrees with, or finds deficient, any 
assessments regarding implementation of Chief McNeilly’s 
recommendations that may be submitted by the parties; and it is 
further 
 
ORDERED that the parties and the IMT shall collaboratively 
undertake such efforts as will avoid duplication of efforts, and 
as will minimize costs to the VIPD.  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM   Document #: 357   Filed: 10/05/18   Page 3 of 3