Plaintiffs file their motion three weeks before the decree is to be sunsetted. It alleges similar failings as the 2018 motion, incorporating the critiques of defendants’ 2019 opposition, and requests that the consent decree be extended until 2032. (source) Plaintiffs’ response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause Why the Consent Decree Should Not Dissolve points to the pending motion for contempt, and argues that any progress that has been achieved within the HPD is a direct result of the consent decree. Without it, the department would be even less diverse and accountable in its operations; “With the Consent Decree, the parties can be sure the progress will continue to be at the very least pursued, even if not achieved.” (source) Defendants submit opposition to both of these documents, pointing to recent developments within the department such as increasingly strict policies regarding use of force that the HPD instituted during the 2020 protests, the department’s recent accreditation, and their general record of progressive police reform measures in comparison to the rest of the state; “Connecticut law concerning police misconduct has changed substantially as has the City’s approach to the issue. Not surprisingly, the conditions present in 1969 that led to federal jurisdiction are no longer present in 2022. Simply put, over 50 years of litigation has exhausted any basis for continuing jurisdiction over this matter.” (Source) (Source) (5)