Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Stop-and-Frisk Plaintiff Oppose Police Union Appeal



Video by Rafael Martínez Alequín

Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al.


CCR at City Hall, arguing against the Stay
Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. is a federal class action lawsuit filed against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the City of New York that challenges the NYPD's practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop-and frisks. These NYPD practices have led to a dramatic increase in the number of suspicion-less stop-and-frisks per year in the city, with the majority of stops in communities of color.
On August 12, 2013, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department (NYPD) liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop-and-frisks in a historic ruling (read our full August 12, 2013 press release), and on Jaunary 30, 2014, the City agreed to drop its appeal and begin the joint remedial process ordered by the court in August (read our full January 30, 2014 press release).
Learn more about CCR's fight against discriminatory policing.
Videos, media coverage, expert reports, and more.

Status

On August 14, 2014, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order (1) consolidating the unions' appeals of the denial of their intervention motions with the city's motion to withdraw its appeal, and (2) expediting consideration of both the unions' appeals and the city's motion, which will all be argued in the Second Sircuit on October 15, 2014. On August 6, 2014, the City of New York filed a motion to withdraw its appeal.
On July 30, 2014, Southern District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued an Opinion and Order denying the police unions' motions to intervene, as well as granting the proposed modification of the District Court's August 2013 remedial decision.

Description

Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. is a federal class action lawsuit filed against the New York City Police Department that charges the NYPD with engaging in racial profiling and suspicion-less stop-and-frisks of law-abiding New York City residents. According to CCR attorneys, the named plaintiffs in CCR’s case – David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis – represent the thousands of New Yorkers who have been stopped without any cause on the way to work, in front of their house, or just walking down the street. CCR and the plaintiffs allege that the NYPD unlawfully stopped these individuals because they are men of color.
Co-counsel on the case are the law firms Beldock, Levine and Hoffman, and Covington & Burling LLP.
The Floyd case stems from CCR's landmark racial profiling case, Daniels, et al. v. City of New York, et al. that led to the disbanding of the infamous Street Crime Unit and a settlement with the City in 2003. The Daniels settlement agreement required the NYPD to maintain a written racial profiling policy that complies with the United States and New York State Constitutions and to provide stop-and-frisk data to CCR on a quarterly basis from the last quarter of 2003 through the first quarter of 2007. However, an analysis of the data revealed that the NYPD has continued to enagage in suspicion-less and racially pretextual stop-and-frisks.
Floyd focuses not only on the lack of any reasonable suspicion to make these stops in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also on the obvious racial disparities in who gets stopped and searched by the NYPD—90 percent of those stopped are Black and Latino, even though these two groups make up only 52 percent of the city’s population- which constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The settlement agreement from Daniels required the NYPD to maintain a written racial profiling policy that complies with the U.S. and New York State Constitutions, required the NYPD audit officers who engage in stop-and-frisks and their supervisors to determine whether and to what extent the stop-and-frisks are based on reasonable suspicion and whether and to what extent the stop-and-frisks are being documented, and it required the NYPD to provide stop-and-frisk data to CCR on a quarterly basis, among other provisions.
But after significant non-compliance with the consent decree and after new information released publicly by the City showed a remarkable increase in stop-and-frisks from 2002 to 2006, CCR decided to file this new lawsuit challenging the NYPD's racial profiling and stop-and-frisk policy.

Post a Comment