Minneapolis officials reviewed a federal consent decree behind closed doors on Monday that would implement significant police reforms intended to change how officers investigate, root out excessive force and expose patterns of dangerous conduct by officers.

The Minnesota Star Tribune has reviewed a copy of the proposed agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, which came together in the wake of the killing of George Floyd while he was in the custody of a group of officers. The report was not made available to the public prior to Monday’s review by the Minneapolis City Council and other city leaders. After emerging from the seven-hour meeting, the City Council approved the agreement unanimously by a vote of 12-0.

Here are some of the key takeaways and notable reforms proposed in the 170-page agreement:

A few sections of the proposed agreement would put restrictions on how officers can carry out pursuits or arrests, with the intent of reducing excessive force.

One proposal states that rank-and-file officers must use the lowest level of force needed to ensure their safety, stop an attack, make an arrest or prevent escape.

It also prohibits officers from initiating a foot chase simply because someone flees upon seeing the officer.

Neck restraints and chokeholds would be prohibited, and any officer carrying a gun must also carry at least one less-lethal weapon they have been trained on.

The agreement comes a year-and-a-half after a DOJ report found that Minneapolis police engaged in a pattern of racist and abusive behavior that deprived people of constitutional rights.

In the agreement reviewed Monday, the city and its police department said they “do not concede” the allegations in the report or “that there is a pattern or practice of unlawful behavior.” However, the agreement states that the findings raised “issues of great importance” to the community. It says the parties involved in this agreement “engaged in good faith negotiations to resolve this matter to avoid the time and expense of taxpayer-funded litigation.”

Many of the consent decree policies reinforce ones already put in place in the aftermath of Floyd’s murder. Officers must intervene when they see a colleague break the department’s rules. If that officer doesn’t step in, it could lead to the same level of punishment as that of the offending officer.

Under the consent decree, if someone doesn’t comply with an officer, that officer must first consider whether it stems from the person’s age, size, physical condition, mental impairment or language barrier.

It also prohibits officers from putting children younger than 14 in handcuffs.

Many of the policies deal with free speech and protests, and mandate that officers make a “good faith attempt” to communicate with event organizers at protests they respond to. The officers would not be allowed to intentionally obscure their badges or nameplates, and they must provide their identities if asked by a protester.

Along with giving names, the department is required to minimize the appearance of a military operation when officers respond to a protest.

The consent decree puts a variety of protections in place for journalists, namely that police must not “intentionally impede or discourage” journalists from news gathering operations, which includes protests or law enforcement actions in public.