Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
dc-20470036Court Unsealed

MPD Jane Doe settlement

Date
February 3, 2021
Source
Court Unsealed
Reference
dc-20470036
Pages
5
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MILWAUKEE COUNTY BRANCH 22 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. Case. No.: 20-CV-5830 CITY OF MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. Defendants. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On this 2nd day of February, 2021, the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and the Defendants, the City of Milwaukee Police Department, Acting Chief of Police Michael Brunson, Retired Chief of Police Alfonso Morales, and the City of Milwaukee, hereby agree as follows: 1. The Plaintiff agrees to move to dismiss the above-e

Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MILWAUKEE COUNTY BRANCH 22 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. Case. No.: 20-CV-5830 CITY OF MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. Defendants. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On this 2nd day of February, 2021, the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and the Defendants, the City of Milwaukee Police Department, Acting Chief of Police Michael Brunson, Retired Chief of Police Alfonso Morales, and the City of Milwaukee, hereby agree as follows: 1. The Plaintiff agrees to move to dismiss the above-entitled action with prejudice subject to reopening pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The dismissal of the case shall specifically recite that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. 2. In consideration of the promised conditions set forth below, the Plaintiff does hereby release and discharge the Defendants from any and all claims and causes of action regarding the alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as a crime victim under the laws and circumstances asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint for Jane Doe v. City of Milwaukee, Case Number 20-CV-5830, pending in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. 3. This release fully extinguishes all claims and causes of action related to violations alleged in Case Number 20-CV-5830 against the Defendants, including but not limited to those for: declaratory relief; compensatory damages; loss of society, companionship and consortium; 2 punitive damages; hedonic damages; costs and fees, including attorneys' fees; statutory damage awards; and liability based upon indemnification claims. 4. The City of Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) agrees to release authority over Jane Doe’s sexual assault investigation and request that it be transferred to the City of Madison Police Department. If the City of Madison Police Department declines, MPD will request that the case be transferred the Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation. If both of the proposed agencies decline the case, MPD shall notice and confer with Jane Doe on its plans for alternate transfers. MPD will transfer all evidence, documentation, and files related to Jane Doe’s investigation to the new law enforcement agency and will fully cooperate with their investigation however that agency deems necessary. 5. MPD agrees to review, develop, and modify as needed its policies and procedures regarding MPD’s incorporation of and compliance with crime victims’ rights under Wisconsin law. MPD shall notify Jane Doe that the following policies and procedures have been implemented within six months of the signing of this agreement. They include: a. MPD Sensitive Crimes Division (SCD) shall implement a secure file storage system that protects and maintains the privacy rights of reporting victims. All files, case records, and evidence shall be stored in locked cabinets to which only SCD detectives and supervisors will have keys. Anyone else seeking access must request permission and a record shall be maintained of anyone requesting files and/or evidence and the purpose of their request. b. Official and unofficial interviews of sensitive crimes suspects shall never be conducted at a domestic violence shelter or any other location with a primary purpose of providing support services to victims of crime, even if that location houses the SCD. c. MPD recognizes that in certain circumstances it is best practice to provide notice to a victim of a sensitive crime, thus it will implement protocols that will strive to timely effectuate these notification practices when appropriate in a case, and will document efforts to do so in the corresponding case file under the following circumstances: i. When a suspect is brought in for questioning or an interview; and ii. When a suspect is otherwise made aware by MPD that they are under investigation and the victim’s identity has been revealed to a suspect; d. Once made aware, MPD shall make reasonable efforts to immediately notify a victim of a sensitive crime when any portion of an investigating file and/or evidence has been breached or leaked to any outside entity. 3 e. All MPD personnel shall annually review the policies and procedures involving sensitive crimes, including the aforementioned changes, and the policies and procedures outlined in MPD’s Memorandum of Understanding as a partner at the Sojourner Family Peace Center. f. All MPD personnel shall participate in annual training on Wisconsin’s constitutional and statutory rights for crime victims. 6. MPD shall issue a public acknowledgment of Jane Doe’s rights under Wisconsin constitutional and statutory Chapter 950 Rights of Victims and Witnesses of Crime. MPD will issue a public apology to Jane Doe for the impact of their mishandling of her sexual assault investigation. A copy of the agreed-upon acknowledgment and apology is attached to this settlement agreement as Exhibit A. 7. Conditioned on Jane Doe’s coordination efforts, MPD chief of police, or an officer of similar authority, agrees to participate in a roundtable discussion with Jane Doe and leaders of other agencies involved in Jane Doe’s investigation and reporting. The purpose of the roundtable will be to discuss the policy changes outlined above, to listen to Jane Doe’s personal experience reporting her assault and the subsequent challenges she encountered through the process, and to engage with Jane Doe in a collaborative dialogue about how the agencies might improve the victim experience and avoid violations of other victim rights in the future. 8. Any party may notify the Court of any alleged breach of this Settlement Agreement. The Court shall conduct a hearing to determine if there was a breach. The Court will decide the appropriate remedy at that time. 9. This Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Wisconsin. 10. This Settlement Agreement shall be signed by counsel for the respective parties. Counsel for the Defendants are warranting that they have the authority to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Defendants, while counsel for the Plaintiff are warranting that they have the authority to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff. 4 11. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon the undersigned, their predecessors, successors, representatives, assigns, agents, and employees. Counsel for Plaintiff. By: Electronically Signed by Rachel E. Sattler Date: 02/02/2021 Rachel E. Sattler State Bar No. 1069328 Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc. By: Electronically Signed by Rebecca M. Donaldson Date: 02/01/2021 Rebecca M. Donaldson State Bar No. 1113629 Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc. By: Electronically Signed by Caitlin Kendall Noonan Date: 02/01/2021 Caitlin Kendall Noonan State Bar No. 1088893 Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc. By: Electronically Signed by Erika Jacobs Petty Date: 02/01/2021 Erika Jacobs Petty State Bar No. 1059488 Lotus Legal Clinic, Inc. Counsel for the Defendants. By: Electronically Signed by Katryna C. Rhodes Date: 02/01/2021 Katryna C. Rhodes State Bar No. 1050345 City Milwaukee Attorney’s Office 5 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY The Milwaukee Police Department endeavors to show proper respect and provide appropriate treatment of all individuals who report being a victim or witness of crime, consistent with its mission as a law enforcement agency and with state crime victim and witness protection legislation. In your case, we fell short and we deeply apologize for the trauma and loss of trust this caused. We also recognize that victims have rights under the law and that we have a duty to uphold these rights as we investigate crime. Under our watch, your case was leaked publicly, and you were further victimized by our failure to protect your privacy and to communicate with you effectively about the leak and the status of your case. Thank you for coming forward. It allowed us to revisit our procedures to ensure that this does not happen again in the future. In August 2020, we submitted to the Fire & Police Commission changes to our Standard Operating Instruction to ensure evidence held at our Sensitive Crimes Division (SCD) is more securely protected. We also codified our expectation that all SCD members respect and ensure the privacy of all complainants and victims and do not release personal information without their consent or as required by law. We are committed to doing better. Please know that your decision to seek accountability has effected real change and will help us ensure that we meet our goal to respect the privacy and dignity of all victims in the future.

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 1 of 4

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 and #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. / PETITIONERS JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CLOSING CASE As the Court is aware, this is an action under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two crime victims, petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, allege that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights under the Act by failing to advise them of a plea agreement it had reached with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On September 9, 2010, this Court sua sponte entered an administrative order "closing" the case. The basis for this order was "the underlying [civil settlements] between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Order at 1. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 hereby give notice that they intend to make subsequent fili

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed Plaintiffs' Response To Motion For Limited Intervention By Alan M. Dershowitz. [DE 291]. This is a 40-page pleading addressing whether the Court should allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the Plaintiffs quote from a 2007 plea and settlement negotiation letter that Epstein's defense lawyers sent to the government. The quote, in its entirety, is five or six words. The quote is redacted from the public filing but it is obvious that the quoted language is but a few words, not even a complete sentence. The le

18p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

14p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
Court UnsealedMar 17, 2016

Usg-Lavabit-Unsealed

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-sw-00522-CMH-1 Case title: USA v. In Re: Information Associated Date Filed: 07/16/2013 Date Terminated: 03/24/2015 with [Redacted] Assigned to: District Judge Claude M. Hilton Appeals court case number: 13-4625 Defendant (1) In Re: Information Associated with [Redacted] TERMINATED: 03/24/2015 Pending Counts Disposition None Highest Offense Level (Opening) None Terminated Counts Disposition None

560p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CM/ECF - Live Database

CM/ECF - Live Database r Page 1 of 3 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KA M Doe'. United States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant LRJ Date Filed # Docket Text 07/07/2008 1 EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 724403, filed by Jane Doe. (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 2 CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Jane Doe re 1 Complaint (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 3 ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe by 5:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/09/2008 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of United States of America (

204p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.