Filed Date: July 24, 2012
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 2010, New Orleans Mayor Mitchell Landrieu invited the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to review civil rights issues at the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), and propose any necessary reforms. The DOJ opened the requested investigation on May 15, 2010, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Following a comprehensive investigation, on March 17, 2011, the DOJ announced its findings that the NOPD had engaged in misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law, including a pattern or practice of excessive force, illegal stops, searches, and arrests. The investigation also found a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in the Department's under-enforcement and under-investigation of violence against women, as well as strong indications of discriminatory policing based on racial, ethnic, and LGBT bias, and a failure to provide critical police services to language minority communities.
After extensive negotiations, on July 24, 2012, the Department of Justice filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 14141 and, concurrently, a proposed consent decree. The case was assigned to Judge Susie Morgan. The decree is very comprehensive--122 pages, with 19 sections. It covers recruitment; training; policy development; use of force; stops, searches and arrests; effective supervision; bias free policing; access to effective police services for people with limited English skills; data collection and integrity; officer assistance; effective investigation of crimes involving violence against women; evaluation and promotion of officers; effective internal systems to investigate officer misconduct; and secondary employment. The Consent Decree also involved the appointment of a Monitor to oversee NOPD's development and compliance.
On January 11, 2013, the District Court (Judge Susie Morgan) approved the Decree without modification.
On January 31, 2013, the City formally moved to vacate the Court's order approving the Decree, and to stay implementation of the Decree pending resolution of its Motion to Vacate. The City's brief complained that the DOJ had waited until after the police department Consent Decree was executed to inform the City that the required reform of the Orleans Parish Prison would likely cost $35 million. This jail reform litigation was in a separate case brought against the New Orleans Sheriff, rather than the City (Jones v. Gusman, JC-LA-0028. In addition, the City expressed its view that one of the DOJ's negotiators was an inappropriate person to have such a role, because of his blogging and other activities. Finally, the City argued that the Consent Decree's provisions dealing with "secondary employment" of police personnel may run afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On February 8, 2013, the District Court denied the City's motion to stay the implementation and enforcement of the consent decree with a written opinion. United States v. City of New Orleans, 2013 WL 492362 (E.D. La. Feb. 8, 2013). The District Court denied the motion to vacate on May 23, 2013. 947 F. Supp. 2d 601. The City appealed both. On June 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the City's appeal of the district court's ruling on the motion to stay. On September 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling denial of the motion to vacate the Consent order. United States v. City of New Orleans, 731 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2013).
On July 5, 2013, the Court ordered that Sheppard Mullin be selected as the Monitor required by the Consent Decree. On December 2, 2013, the Monitor filed the first Quarterly Report. The second report was filed on May 28, 2014, and the third on September 29, 2014. These reports indicated that the City continued to struggle with consistent record keeping, particularly with documenting use of force reports. However, they also noted that requiring body-worn cameras had a material positive impact on officer use of force. Over the course of 2014, the NOPD faced staffing changes. On November 12, 2014, the Inspector General issued a report that alleged pervasive problems within the NOPD’s Special Victims Section, which prompted staff reassignments and an internal investigation led by a newly created task force. By December 2014, the Monitor reported that the NOPD's policy drafting process had begun to improve, but noted ongoing "serious deficiencies" with the NOPD Training Academy, deficiencies in supervision and recordkeeping, unmet Crisis Intervention Team obligations, and outdated technology hindering some of NOPD's compliance efforts.
In a report of April 28, 2015, the Monitor found that the NOPD's revised use of force policy met the requirements of the consent decree. On July 21, 2015, the Monitor issued a special compliance report on NOPD supervision policies and practices. It found "persistent non-compliance" with the consent decree's supervisory requirements, which it attributed primarily to "lack of attention, guidance, and/or accountability devoted to supervision by NOPD." As a result, compliance in other areas of the consent decree was affected; for example, the report found supervisors were not ensuring compliance with the recently implemented in-car camera policy, nor discharging their responsibility to report malfunctioning cameras. The Monitor recommended forms and reporting requirements for supervision and evaluation of the non-supervisory duties assigned to supervisors. Over the course of 2015, the NOPD also developed a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) as required by the consent decree, drafting policies, assigning a dedicated program manager, providing train-the-trainer sessions, and conducting its first training of CIT officers. By the end of 2015, the Monitor highlighted the need for further improvement in use of force practices and recordkeeping and expressed ongoing concern about the Training Academy.
By early 2016, the NOPD had hired additional staff to help implement the consent decree. The NOPD also implemented a policy for public release of body-worn camera footage of critical incidents. Throughout 2016, the NOPD implemented changes leading to a "remarkable turnaround" in the Special Victims' Section, with significant reform of its sexual assault and domestic violence practices. Ongoing concerns remained around the Police Training Academy, supervision, and community oriented policing. In February 2017, several minor amendments to the consent decree were implemented in order to address staffing during holiday events such as Mardi Gras. On May 15, 2017, the Monitor issued a special report on NOPD uses of force. The report noted significant progress in the area of use of force, particularly in reporting of incidents of involving officer use of force. However, areas of improvement included supervision and poor officer tactics that contributed to the perceived need to use force.
On August 4, 2017, the court extended the monitoring in this case by three years, from its original termination date of August 2017 to August 2020. On January 25, 2019, the monitoring team publicly presented their report on NOPD progress under the consent decree. The report acknowledged the slow start to compliance, but was ultimately hopeful that NOPD was making progress towards the two-year compliance requirement.
On June 3rd, 2020 the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault. As the NOPD has not reached full-compliance, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Emily Goldman (3/3/2013)
Richard Jolly (11/25/2014)
Sarah McDonald (8/28/2018)
Alex Moody (5/27/2020)
Jack Hibbard (6/9/2020)
Jones v. Gusman, Eastern District of Louisiana (2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4510524/parties/united-states-v-new-orleans-city/
Currault, Donna Phillips (Louisiana)
Davis, W. Eugene (Louisiana)
Dennis, James L. (Louisiana)
Haynes, Catharina (Texas)
Jones, Warren Leroy (Florida)
Morgan, Susie [Sue, Donna] (Louisiana)
Stewart, Carl E. (Louisiana)
Wiener, Jacques Loeb Jr. (Louisiana)
Wilkinson, Joseph C. Jr. (Louisiana)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Currault, Donna Phillips (Louisiana)
Davis, W. Eugene (Louisiana)
Dennis, James L. (Louisiana)
Haynes, Catharina (Texas)
Jones, Warren Leroy (Florida)
Morgan, Susie [Sue, Donna] (Louisiana)
Stewart, Carl E. (Louisiana)
Wiener, Jacques Loeb Jr. (Louisiana)
Wilkinson, Joseph C. Jr. (Louisiana)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Boente, Dana J. (District of Columbia)
Carter, Theodore R. III (Louisiana)
Cheema, Puneet (District of Columbia)
Geissler, R. Jonas (District of Columbia)
Gunston, Emily A. (District of Columbia)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Killebrew, Paul (District of Columbia)
Lee, Bryan (District of Columbia)
Letten, Jim (Louisiana)
Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia)
Marks, Megan R (District of Columbia)
Mondino, Jennifer L. (District of Columbia)
Parker, Stephen C. (Tennessee)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Polite, Kenneth A. (Louisiana)
Sanders, Corey M. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Volek, Jude (District of Columbia)
Arthur, Byron R. (Louisiana)
Beck, Erica N. (Louisiana)
Capitelli, Brian Joseph (Louisiana)
Cortizas, Richard F. (Louisiana)
Dietz, Rebecca H (Louisiana)
Hansell, Churita H. (Louisiana)
Harowski, Christie C. (Louisiana)
Kaufman, Mary Katherine (Louisiana)
Lebeouf, Sunni (Louisiana)
Lindsay, Matthew J. (Louisiana)
Taplin, Cherrell Simms (Louisiana)
Taylor, Mary Katherine (Louisiana)
Therio, Erica A. (Louisiana)
Turner, Donesia Diane (Louisiana)
Williams, Sharonda R. (Louisiana)
Alpaugh, Chester Theodore III (Louisiana)
Charney, Darius (New York)
Finger, Davida (Louisiana)
Hessler, Eric John (Louisiana)
Quigley, William Patrick (Louisiana)
Schlesinger, Claude A. (Louisiana)
Warren, E. Vincent (New York)
Anderson, April J. (District of Columbia)
Aronie, Jonathan (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4510524/united-states-v-new-orleans-city/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: Louisiana
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 24, 2012
Closing Date: Aug. 1, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States of America following a DOJ investigation of use of force by New Orleans police
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
New Orleans Police Department (New Orleans, Orleans), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2012 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Race: