Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has filed a public comment letter urging a U.S. District Judge to eliminate a consent decree related to the New Orleans Police Department.
In a November 20 letter to federal Judge Susie Morgan, Murrill said the 12-year-old decree has outlived its purpose and now is harming the city's ability to address public safety challenges.
“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,” Murrill said in the letter. “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.
“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 D.C. lawyers with taxpayer dollars.”
The consent decree was implemented in 2012 after a U.S. Department of Justice investigation showed issues with the NOPD such as unconstitutional use of force, discriminatory practices and inadequate oversight.
Murrill said it’s “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,” Murrill wrote, also noting the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has directed the court and others to end institutional-reform consent decrees. She also says the court is “evading that directive” by refusing to rule on the city’s motion to end the decree.
The AG also noted the financial impact of the decree's oversight.
“The Court-imposed monitor filled that role with not just one but a whole group of Washington, D.C., lawyers charging Washington, D.C., rates,” Murrill wrote. “The monitoring team bills the city a whopping $115,000 per month (on average). … Today, that monthly average, multiplied by the consent decree’s 12-year lifespan, has climbed to an estimated $16.5 million in taxpayer 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. … Today, that estimate 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.”
Murrill says that money could be better used by the NOPD 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,” Murrill wrote.