However, even assuming that the Elian Gonzales protests provided the City with the required notice of a need to train or supervise,
Plaintiffs' failure to train claim against the City cannot survive the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. In order to establish their failure to train claim Plaintiffs must provide some evidence that the City knew of a need to train or supervise in a particular area “made a deliberate choice not to take any action.
” Gold, 151 F.3d at 1350
(emphasis added). Here, there is no evidence that City, through its official policymakers, made a “deliberate choice” not to take any action on police training. The evidence that Plaintiffs submit as support for their claim cuts the other way—the fact that Miami City Commission formed a committee to analyze police conduct during the Elian Gonzales protests and generate a report with recommendations demonstrates that the City made a choice to take action
on issues raised as a result of those events. The Report itself states that “the Ad Hoc Committee To Investigate Police Community Relations [ ] was formed pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Miami City Commission” and “was charged with the responsibility of investigating and reviewing the interaction between the Miami Police Department and members of the public” who gathered at the Elian Gonzales protests. Ad Hoc Report at 1. The Committee held open meetings and heard testimony from members of the public, and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents from the MPD. Id.
Further, the Committee made numerous detailed recommendations regarding planning, use of crowd control tools and methods, police training, and respecting lawful civil disobedience by members of the public. Id.
at 6–10. Plaintiffs themselves state that the City was “sued for civil rights violations in numerous cases involving false arrest and/or excessive force” stemming from the Elian Gonzales protests, and that “[i]n response,
the City of Miami Commission established the [Ad Hoc Committee] to determine what had occurred during the Elian demonstrations and to make recommendations for reform.” Plaintiffs' Resp., D.E. # 156 at 20. While Plaintiffs point out that the City's Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief did not read the Report in preparation for the FTAA summit, this argument misses the key issue for purposes of section 1983
municipal liability: whether the City itself, through its final policymakers, knew that its police officers needed training in making arrests with probable cause and without violating citizens' First Amendment rights and made a deliberate choice not to take any action. Plaintiffs' own evidence, in the form of the Ad Hoc Report that the Miami City Commission itself brought about, belies this argument.