E.D.La.: Lack of funding doesn’t justify NOPD’s violating rights of citizens

Motion for stay of order to get out the NOPD consent decree pending appeal denied. The City of New Orleans on behalf of the NOPD entered into a consent decree with USDOJ over “(1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagement; (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and support; (10) performance evaluations and promotions; (11) supervision; (12) the secondary employment system, also known as the paid detail system; (13) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and oversight.” It wants out but can’t do anything for lack of money, and lack of funding doesn’t justify violations of constitutional rights. United States v. City of New Orleans, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73863 (E.D. La. May 24, 2013)*:

With respect to the unrelated OPP litigation, as this Court previously observed in denying the City’s first motion to stay, “inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.” Udey v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 1977) (rejecting argument that “lack of funds to implement the trial court’s order” justified failure to remedy ongoing constitutional violations); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1319 (5th Cir. 1972) (“Where state institutions have been operating under unconstitutional conditions and practices, the defense of fund shortage(s) … [has] been rejected by the federal courts.”). Likewise, the City’s argument that denying a stay will preclude appellate review is without merit. The Court entered the Consent Decree as a final judgment, which is, in fact, on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In addition to the judgment, the Court entered written reasons regarding why it determined the Consent Decree was “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Consequently, nothing prevents the City from obtaining meaningful appellate review.

Furthermore, the City has failed to make any showing whatsoever that (1) its appeal to the Fifth Circuit is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) the United States and residents of New Orleans will not be substantially harmed if the Court grants a stay, or (3) granting a stay is in the public interest. Thus, the City has failed to demonstrate the balance of the equities favors a stay pending appeal. Moore, 2013 WL 141791, at *2.