NEW IBERIA: Misconduct Allegations Led to Secrecy at City Hall

The public was told that the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board would “discuss” a complaint at a special meeting scheduled for March 19, 2026. What happened instead raises serious questions about whether the Board itself followed the law when it retreated behind closed doors to discuss multiple allegations of misconduct by appointed Chief of Police Todd D’Albor.

A Warrant, A Homicide, and a Breakdown in Trust

The allegations before the Board were initially brought to the attention of both the Board and Mayor Freddie DeCourt on January 20, 2026, when former Captain Cassie Duhon filed a complaint alleging misconduct. Duhon’s complaint details that a detective with the New Iberia Police Department submitted a sworn affidavit for a search warrant in connection with a double homicide investigation, which contained information that had already been contradicted by evidence in the department’s possession. According to the filing, a forensic extraction of a cellphone failed to produce key evidence referenced in the affidavit, and a subsequent interview further undermined those claims. Despite this, the warrant was still submitted and approved.

If accurate, that is not a simple mistake — it is a sworn statement used to obtain judicial authority where no legal avenue existed. A sworn affidavit is the foundation upon which a judge authorizes a search or arrest of an individual. When that foundation is compromised, the integrity of the entire investigation and other investigations handled by the officer is placed at risk.

What followed is just as troubling.

When the issue was later identified internally, it was reportedly brought to the attention of the command staff, including Chief D’Albor. Additionally, Mayor DeCourt was notified of the situation as early as September of 2025. Instead of initiating a formal investigation or notifying prosecutors, the investigation was paused, and the detective was given “grace.” The matter was not brought to the attention of the District Attorney’s Office at the time.

The case stalled. The questions did not.

Retaliation Followed

The complaint further alleges that when these concerns were later disclosed to the District Attorney’s Office to preserve the integrity of the homicide case, Duhon, who made the disclosure, faced retaliation. This included escalating hostility and eventual demotion under the pretext of insubordination. The complaint asserts that this alleged “insubordination” stemmed from her disclosure of information to prosecutors regarding potential Brady material in a case she was tasked with overseeing.

Duhon claims that leadership not only failed to properly address potential misconduct involving a sworn affidavit but also took adverse action against her for raising those concerns. The filing frames the issue not as an isolated incident, but as part of a broader pattern of retaliation, procedural violations, and failures in oversight within the department. The August 25, 2024, double homicide of 31-year-old Dewanna Broussard and 36-year-old Kasey Egbi remains unsolved.

Civil Service Board

Local Civil Service Boards are constitutionally created bodies with powers and duties set forth in state statutes. Those duties include ‘representing the public interest in matters of personnel administration’ and making investigations concerning the administration of personnel or the compliance with civil service provisions. Not only can classified employees within the civil service system petition the Board to conduct investigations, but ANY citizen can do so as well.

Additionally, in the City of New Iberia, the Chief of Police is appointed rather than elected. The appointing authority in this case is the Mayor. State law provides that when the appointing authority fails to initiate corrective or disciplinary action, the Board “shall, upon the written request of any qualified elector of the state which sets out the reasons therefor, make an investigation of the conduct and performance of any employee in the classified service.”

It Started in February

The matter initially appeared on the February 26, 2026, agenda of the New Iberia Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board as a discussion item. Just prior to the hearing, Attorney Gregory Beasley filed a response to Duhon’s allegations. Keep in mind, this is not an adversarial proceeding.

The allegations brought by Duhon, who is a citizen, qualified elector, and member of the classified service, alleged misconduct by D’Albor. It is not appropriate for the City of New Iberia to use public dollars to defend the actions of a classified employee in a complaint against them before the Civil Service Board. If that were the case, every police officer and firearms officer who is disciplined and appeals to the Board would be entitled to have a lawyer at the City’s expense.

After the discussion, Board members encouraged Duhon to obtain legal counsel. Additionally, the Board took up action not on the agenda and voted to require Duhon to submit an amended complaint of factual allegations to the Board within two weeks. Duhon, through her counsel, did so on March 12, 2026.

From Public Hearing to Private Decision

When the matter came back before the Board at the March 19, 2026, special meeting, the agenda stated that the Board would “discuss” the supplemental complaint. There was no indication that a decision would be made. There was no notice of an executive session. Public bodies are required to provide advance notice of both the subject matter and the actions that may be taken.

Yet the meeting did not unfold as a discussion.

Once again, the City used taxpayer dollars to file yet another response to the complaint against Chief Todd D’Albor. The filings indicate the City sought dismissal of the complaint, rather than simply a discussion.

The Board then decided to go behind closed doors. A motion was made by Wyatt Collins and seconded by Ed Landry to enter into executive session, with no public notice. Both Collins and Landry are/were lawyers by trade. When a lack-of-public-notice objection was raised, it did not alter the course. The session proceeded out of public view, and when the Board returned, Collins stated plainly:

They had ‘come to a decision.’ Decisions, however, must be made in public — not behind closed doors. That sequence matters. It strikes at the core of Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.

Open Meetings Law

Article XII, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution mandates that “No person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law.” Open Meetings Law is intended to foster compliance with the Constitution, ensure that decisions by the government are made in an open forum, and allow for public participation in the deliberative process.

To that end, public bodies are required to give written notice, including the date, time, and place of meeting, along with an agenda that describes each item of business to be conducted by the Board with reasonable specificity. If an executive session is to be held, it requires prior notice but is also limited to a select number of instances established by statute.

While Louisiana law permits executive sessions in limited circumstances, it also draws a firm boundary. Public bodies may deliberate privately in limited circumstances, but decisions must be made in public view. The public is not only entitled to know what decision was made — it is entitled to see how that decision was reached. That distinction is not technical — it is the law’s entire purpose.

When that process disappears behind closed doors, confidence in the outcome disappears with it.

Authority Present, Action Absent

Also present at the March 19, 2026 meeting was Mayor Freddie DeCourt. As the appointing authority over the police chief, the Mayor occupies a position where knowledge carries responsibility. The complaint raises concerns not only about the conduct of a detective, but about decisions made by department leadership — including the Mayor — after the issue came to light.

That places the matter squarely within the sphere of oversight the Mayor is expected to exercise. If the allegations are accurate, then the issue is no longer confined to a single investigation. It becomes a question of leadership — of what was known, how it was handled, and why no corrective action followed.

The presence of the Mayor in the room underscores the seriousness of the moment. What is less clear is what, if anything, has been done about it.

Dismissal Instead of Inquiry

In advance of the hearing, attorneys for D’Albor urged the Board to reject the complaint entirely. They characterized the petition as speculative and argued that the Civil Service Board lacks authority to investigate the claims, describing the effort as a “fishing expedition.” They further argued that employment decisions tied to a working test period are not subject to review, and that any allegations of wrongdoing should be directed to other agencies.

But that argument raises a question that has yet to be answered. If the allegations belong with prosecutors, ethics officials, or other authorities, why were those entities not notified by Mayor Decourt or Chief D’Albor when the issue first arose? And if they were not, who made that decision?

Records Requested — and Withheld

We made efforts to obtain clarity through public records. A request was submitted seeking documents related to the alleged false affidavit, any internal investigation, and communications with the District Attorney or Attorney General. At the February hearing, the attorney for Chief D’Albor asserted:

“Everyone, the ADA, the signing judge, even the attorney general, has all cleared this with no issue.”

The City of New Iberia declined to produce records, citing an exemption asserting that matters were still part of ongoing criminal investigation(s). That response introduces a contradiction that is difficult to ignore. If the matter is serious enough to be shielded as part of ongoing criminal investigation(s), then it is serious enough for the Civil Service Board to make inquiries. If it is not serious enough to investigate publicly, then there is no basis for withholding public records.

Either way, the public is left without answers. And a double homicide remains in limbo.

A System Turning Inward

What emerges from the record is not a single moment, but a pattern.

• An affidavit that may not have been supported by evidence.
• A homicide investigation that was paused rather than pursued.
• A delay in notifying prosecutors.
• A complaint met with resistance rather than curiosity.
• A public board that stepped out of public view at the moment a decision was required.

Each step moves in the same direction — away from transparency, scrutiny, accountability, and the public’s interest.

This story began with an allegation about a warrant. It has become something broader. It is now about whether the systems designed to ensure accountability are functioning as intended — or being bypassed when the stakes are highest. Because when allegations surface, when leadership declines to act, when records are withheld, and when decisions are made behind closed doors, the question is no longer confined to the original incident.

The question is what happened next. And what happened in that room — outside of public view.

###