Attorney General Murrill filed a public comment letter urging Federal Judge Susie Morgan to rule on the City’s pending motions to get rid of the NOPD consent decree.

“The parties agree that the City of New Orleans has met its obligations under the current consent decree and this new one imposes new obligations and new costs with no sign of ending anytime soon. It’s time to end NOPD’s consent decree once and for all, to take the handcuffs off of the brave men and women who serve as officers in that police department, and put them back on the criminals to increase public safety for all residents,” said Attorney General Murrill.

The Consent Decree has achieved its purpose. There is no ongoing violation of federal law, which means keeping the Consent Decree in place any longer unduly usurps the State’s sovereign prerogative to enforce state law within its borders—authority that it delegated to the City in that area of the State. Meanwhile, the bureaucratized system that manages the Consent Decree marches on—sucking up State and City resources and enriching DC lawyers with taxpayer dollars.

It is time to restore local control. At a very, very minimum, the Court should start the two-year clock now without imposing any new injunctions beyond what the Consent Decree already requires.

Below are the main reasons that General Murrill outlined in her comment letter for why the Court should decline the Sustainment Plan:

I. THIS CONSENT DECREE HAS A LONG HISTORY.

II. CONSENT DECREES IN INSTITUTIONAL-REFORM CASES INCREASINGLY HARM STATE SOVEREIGNTY THE LONGER THEY STAY IN PLACE.

III.  CONSENT DECREES IN INSTITUTIONAL-REFORM CASES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HARD TO GRANT AND EASY TO VACATE.

IV. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS DIRECTED THIS COURT AND OTHERS TO END INSTITUTIONAL-REFORM CONSENT DECREES.

V. THIS COURT IS EVADING THAT DIRECTIVE BY UNLAWFULLY REFUSING TO RULE ON THE CITY’S RULE 60(B)(5) MOTION AND, IN THE MEANTIME, FUNNELING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CITY DOLLARS TO DC LAWYERS.

·       The Court’s unlawful refusal to rule on the City’s Motion has massive financial consequences for the City and NOPD. The Court-imposed Monitor filled that role with not just one but a whole group of Washington DC lawyers charging Washington DC rates. The monitoring team bills the City a whopping “$115,000 per month (on average).” Notice of Full and Effective Compliance with the Consent Decree 3 (Nov. 30, 2020).^[1] Today, that monthly average, multiplied by the Consent Decree’s 12-year lifespan, has climbed to an estimated $16.5 million in taxpayer dollars. In the last twenty-seven months since the City’s Rule 60(b)(5) Motion has been pending (August 2022 to now), the monitoring fees exceed $3 million dollars. And that is only for the Monitor. Under that kind of financial extortion, the City’s current request can only be viewed as capitulation rather than consensual. 

·       Now add in the costs of the Consent Decree “reforms.” When the Court adopted the Consent Decree in 2012, the reforms it required were estimated to cost the City “$11 million a year.” Charles Maldonado, Paying for the Consent Decree, Gambit, Aug. 13, 2012 (updated Nov. 20, 2019).^[2] Today, that estimate (multiplied by the twelve years the Consent Decree has been in place), has ballooned to $132 million. That fact alone should be grounds for substantial revisions to the decree.

·       Over the last decade, the monitoring fees and reform costs together are estimated to have cost the City a jaw-dropping $150 million dollars, which does not include the City’s attorney fees for this case. 

·       Those millions of dollars are the very funds NOPD needs to keep the City safe. The Consent Decree, far from improving public safety, has crippled NOPD’s ability to recruit and retain officers, which in turn has sent the City’s crime rate soaring.

VI. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE CITY’S PENDING RULE 60(B)(5) MOTION AND DECLINE THE SUSTAINMENT PLAN.

     CONCLUSION:

For all of these reasons, I urge the Court to grant the City’s Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree (or at least deny it so that the City can appeal) and deny the Motion to Approve the Sustainment Plan. There is no ongoing violation of federal law, which means keeping the Consent Decree in place any longer unduly usurps the State’s sovereign prerogative to enforce state law within its borders—authority that it delegated to the City in that area of the State. Meanwhile, the bureaucratized system that manages the Consent Decree marches on—sucking up State and City resources and enriching DC lawyers with taxpayer dollars. It is time to restore local control. At a very, very minimum, the Court should start the two-year clock now without imposing any new injunctions beyond what the Consent Decree already requires. 

Read the Attorney General's full comment letter here.