Defendants oppose the 2018 motion for contempt. (source) Judge Bryant denies plaintiffs’ motion as premature because the parties had not yet exhausted their mediation sessions with Judge Margolis; Attorney Schulman submitted the motion too early. The 2010 Agreement ordered that the plaintiffs would use contempt as a last resort following mediation regarding compliance issues. (source) The parties conduct more mediation sessions with Judge Margolis and resolve most of their disagreements. (source)

The HPD revamps its investigation procedure into internal sexual harassment allegations after a complaint by Officer Kelly Baerga goes ignored for nine months. Baerga describes a “good ol’ boys” mentality within the department that contributes to her poor treatment as well as her superiors’ lack of response. Faced with pressure from Hartford residents, the city hires a labor relations firm to speed up pending and future sexual harassment investigations. They also change the review process to include the mayor’s chief of staff. (Source) Like many police departments nationwide, the HPD tends to be most receptive to criticism when it poses a public relations problem. This pattern is evident throughout the history of Cintron, and is related to the limitations of judicially imposed reform; the antagonistic mode of litigation does not incentivize reflexivity on the part of the department, placing the onus for change on the plaintiff’s counsel and their ability to argue against the city’s robust legal team. The department learns that it only has to institute reforms when its norms are made abnormal, whether by press or by judge. The change spurred by Officer Baerga’s complaint is hardly a promise of future vigilance regarding the department’s internal culture; the story harkens back to past claims of discrimination within the force, such as those brought by the Guardians in 1970 and again in 1981. However, considering the deep stagnation within most police departments, every small step holds potential to engender a different future.

The Hartford Courant reports on systemic problems in the state investigation process for killings committed by officers. Connecticut law requires that cases of deadly force be investigated by state police detectives, who pass their findings onto a state’s attorney to decide whether criminal charges should be filed. As the Courant reports, Hartford State’s Attorney Gail P. Hardy has failed to resolve five investigations into such deaths from 2008-2019. Hardy blames her failure on the jurisdiction’s overload of cases; she is too busy. This situation is unacceptable; several of the responsible officers are still on the street, and the families of victims received no correspondence about the incident. This degree of delay is in some sense an automatic acquittal; “The investigations … fall outside the statute of limitations for a number of criminal offenses a prosecutor could ask state police to pursue if they found the actions were unlawful.” (Source) Hardy generally rules in the officer’s favor in deadly force cases, but if she were to decide otherwise, the officer would still face fewer consequences than they would from a punctual investigation. David McGuire, the executive director of Connecticut’s ACLU, expresses outrage at Hardy’s delays, which are of course indicative of a wider culture of disregard for victims of police violence. “It’s not only justice delayed, it’s justice denied,” McGuire said. “It’s a case where prosecutors, who know criminal statute of limitations … are knowingly running the clocks out. Even if they found the force was not justified, they would have no ability to charge the officer. It’s deeply troubling and problematic on many levels.” (Source) Although Cintron has no jurisdiction over the actions of state’s attorneys such as Hardy, the issue is still very much in conversation with the intention of officer accountability built into the consent decree.