On April 15, Judge Karen Dooley dissolves the consent decree. She finds no compelling points of contempt in Plaintiffs’ recent Motion, which was presented without supporting evidence; “Plaintiffs’ motion is both procedurally flawed and substantively meritless.” (Source) (4) Dooley describes Attorney Schulman’s motion for contempt as a “unilateral attempted end run” around the procedures set out in the 2010 Settlement Agreement. (5) She rules that the points of noncompliance alleged by Schulman are minor, and that “‘Perfect compliance is not required’ to avoid a finding of contempt, and [the defendant’s] compliance—though belated—is reasonable enough under the circumstances here not to warrant a finding of contempt.” (7) Dooley also rules that the HPD has presented compelling evidence of their effective efforts towards minority recruitment, denying a major contention of Schulman’s motion for contempt.  

Plaintiffs submit a motion to reconsider, arguing that the original decree’s intent should be upheld, even though it did not include clear benchmarks for department diversity. “The effect that the dissolution of this Consent Decree has is grave,” Schulman writes. “While the Consent Decree was in effect, police-community relations were hot and cold, but at least the citizens of Hartford could take solace in the fact that the Hartford Police Department has a mandate to at least attempt to be better for their citizenry. Dissolving the Consent Decree strips the citizens of the City of Hartford of that solace, fosters mistrust between the police department and the community, and will lead to manifest injustice. The plaintiffs urge this Court to reconsider its decision.” (Source) The motion includes new evidence, such as affidavits from members of the Cintron Negotiating Committee regarding the persistent problems with police-community relations and minority police recruitment in Hartford. Corrie Betts, president of the Hartford NAACP, writes that “There does not currently exist in Hartford the trust necessary between the 
Hartford Police Department and the community that the provisions of the 
Consent Decree will be honored and fulfilled … Trust does not exist because of the continuing underrepresentation on the 
Hartford Police Department of Black and Brown officers who understand 
the community, its culture, its history and its ongoing needs.” (28) Defendants oppose this motion, pointing to judicial rules which render the new evidence inadmissible. (Source)  

In her final order regarding the case, Judge Dooley affirms the consent decree’s sunsetting, finding that the plaintiffs had not presented new evidence that would justify reconsideration. (Source) She writes:

To be clear, the Court recognizes the immense importance of the consent decree at the time it was adopted and its impact on the diversification of the Hartford Police Department over the past five decades. However, for all of the reasons articulated in the Court’s prior order, the Court’s involvement in this case is no longer warranted. In 2010, all parties clearly articulated an intention that the consent decree was approaching the end of its usefulness and should sunset. The Court’s order therefore simply brought across the finish line the dissolution that was contemplated by both the Court and the parties for over fourteen years. The next step in Plaintiffs’ continuing, important, and commendable efforts to promote diversity in the Hartford Police Department lies not with this Court, but with the police department itself, the City of Hartford, and the greater Hartford community. (6) (emphasis added)