Case Documents

View Attached Documents

Take Action

Speak Out Against Discriminatory Federal Prison Units

Please join CCR in speaking out against the Communications Management Units (CMUs). The Federal…

Related Cases

What's New

Court Denies Police Unions’ Late Attempt to Join Stop-and-Frisk Case, Approves Agreement to Proceed with Joint Remedial Plan

July 30, 2014, New York – Today, federal District Judge Analisa Torres rejected the attempts…

Leading Groups Stand Strong With American Muslims in Appeal of NYPD Spying Lawsuit

July 11, 2014, New York – Last night, dozens of organizations and individuals representing diverse…

Related Resources

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

Print Friendly and PDF

Synopsis

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 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.

On February 21, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to District Court.

On January 30, 2014, the City of New York moved to drop its appeal and filed a Motion for Limited Remand to the District Court.

On August 12, 2013 the District Court issued two rulings an:Order on Liability and an Order on Remedy. The City has appealed, and has also filed a Motion to Stay the Court's Remedial Order pending appeal with the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.

Floyd Decision Press Conference, Aug 12, 2013 from Center for Constitutional Rights on Vimeo.

Media Coverage

Research & Data

Timeline

On January 31, 2008, CCR filed the initial complaint.

On April 15, 2008, CCR filed an amended complaint that added new individual plaintiffs and sought certification as a class action.

On April 18, 2008, CCR served discovery requests on the City, seeking production of the NYPD’s stop and frisk data going back to 1998.

On September 10, 2008, Judge Scheindlin ordered that the City of New York and the NYPD must turn over all UF-250 (“Stop and Frisk”) data for the past ten years to CCR.

On January 15, 2009, CCR released its preliminary analysis of the 2005 through June 2008 UF-250 data, “Racial Disparity in NYPD Stops-and-Frisks”.

On January 29, 2009, CCR staff member, Marc Krupanski, submitted testimony to the New York City Council's Public Safety Committee regarding the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practice and the Department's failure to institute discipline in CCRB substantiated cases of misconduct that stem from a stop-and-frisk.

Fact discovery in this cased closed in August 2010.

Plaintiffs’ expert reports were submitted on October 15, 2010.

In February 2011, the City filed for partial summary judgment.

On August 31, 2011, the Judge denied most of the City's partial summary judgment motion.

On November 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification.

On November 23, 2011, the Judge issued an Order re-instating David Floyd's claim of an illegal stop by police.

On December 20, 2011 the City filed a Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey Fagan.

On February 3, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their response to the City's Daubert motion.

On March 8, 2012, Defendants and Plaintiffs presented oral arguments on the City's Daubert challenge, including testimony from Plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey Fagan.

On April 16, 2012, the Judge issued an Order granting Defendant's Daubert motion in part and denying the motion in part.

On May 16, 2012, the Judge issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion.

On August 17, 2012, the Judge issued an order granting Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion in part.

On August 27, 2012, the Judge set a trial date.

On March 5, 2013, Plaintiffs' filed their Memo of Law in Support of Requested Injunctive Relief

Trial in the case began March 18, 2013 and ended May 20, 2013.

Post-trial submissions by both parties were filed June 12, 2013.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest on June 12, 2013.

Judge Scheindlin issued two decisions - on liability and on remedy - on August 12, 2013.

On August 27, 2013, the City filed a request for a Stay in District Court of the August 12, 2013 Remedies Order.

On September 4, 2013, Judge Scheindlin issued a supplemental order designating a Facilitator for the Joint Remedial Process section of her August 12, 2013 Remedy Order.

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their response to the City's Stay Motion, including Declarations from the Communities United for Police Reform, City Council members and Plaintiff David Ourlicht.

On September 17, 2013, Judge Schiendlin denied the City's Motion for Stay filed with the Southern District.

On September 23, 2013, the City filed a Motion for Stay in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the City's Motion for Stay in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 29, 2013, oral argument was heard before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the City's Motion to Stay.

On October 31, 2013, the Second Circuit issued a Order and Mandate granting the City's motion to stay the remedial decision and remanding Floyd to the District Court to assign a new judge.

On November 6, 2013, District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin requested to file a motion addressing her disqualification by the Second Circuit.

On November 7, 2013, New York City police unions moved to intervene in the appeal.

On November 9, 2013, the City moved to vacate the District Court's August 12, 2013 liability and remedy orders.

On November 11, 2013, Plaintiffs' filed a Motion to Reconsider the Second Circuit's Mandate en banc.

On November 13, 2013, seventeen law professors filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider En Banc.

On November 13, 2013, the 2nd Circuit issued an Opinion and Order further explaining their removal of District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.

On November 18, 2013, six retired U.S. District Court judges and thirteen professors of legal ethics filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider En Banc.

On November 18, 2013, Plaintiffs' filed a Supplemental Motion for En Banc Reconsideration.

On November 22, 2013, the 2nd Circuit issued an Order without prejudice denying the City's motion to vacate the District Court decisions.

On November 25, 2013, the 2nd Circuit issued an Order holding all pending motions in abeyance.

On November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs' filed their Opposition to the Police Unions' Motions to Intervene.

On December 10, 2013, the City filed its Appellate Merits Brief.

On January 30, 2014, the City of New York moved to drop its appeal and filed a Motion for Remand to the District Court.

On February 21, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to District Court.

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental opposition motion to the police unions' motions to intervene.

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.

LITIGATION-RELATED DOCUMENTS AND COURT DECISIONS

COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COURT ORDERS

EXPERT REPORTS

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (11-7-11)

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (12/20/11)

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (2/2/12)

DEFENDANTS' SUR-REPLY IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND IN OPPOSITION TO B.L.A.C.'S AMICUS BRIEF (2/17/12)

DEFENDANTS' DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY FAGAN(12/20/11)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY FAGAN (2/3/12)

DEFENDANTS' REPLY MOTION IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY FAGAN (2/17/12)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (3/5/13)

POST-TRIAL SUBMISSIONS (6/12/13)

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (6/12/13)

LETTER TO COURT REGARDING FLOYD REMEDIES AND AN INSPECTOR GENERAL (7/10/13)

CITY'S REQUEST FOR STAY OF REMEDIES ORDERED IN FLOYD (8/27/13)

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO CITY'S STAY MOTION (9/6/13)

CITY'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO STAY MOTION (9/12/13)

CITY'S MOTION FOR STAY (2ND CIRCUIT) (9/23/13)

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT (10/7/13)

EXHIBITS TO DARIUS CHARNEY'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT (10/7/13)

AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY (10/15/13)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

POLICE UNIONS' MOTIONS TO INTERVENE (9/12/13)

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE (10/11/13)

POLICE UNIONS' MOTION TO INTERVENE IN SECOND CIRCUIT (11/7/13)

CITY'S MOTION TO VACATE DISTRICT COURT'S LIABILITY AND REMEDY ORDERS (11/9/13)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER EN BANC (11/11/13)

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE EN BANC COURT (11/18/13)

LAW PROFESSORS' AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION(11/13/13)

RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGES' AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION(11/18/13)

OPPOSITION TO POLICE UNIONS' MOTIONS TO INTERVENE (2ND CIR) (11/25/13)

CITY'S MOTION FOR LIMITED REMAND TO EXPLORE A RESOLUTION (1/30/14)

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS REGARDING POLICE UNIONS' MOTIONS TO INTERVENE (MARCH 2014)

JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ORDER (4/3/14)

Parties Joint 60-Day Letter to Judge Torres