Stop-and-Frisk Plaintiffs Encourage Public Input into NYPD Body Camera Policy

Survey and Public Comments Will Help Inform Policy That Will Govern 1000-Camera Pilot Ordered in Stop-and-Frisk Lawsuit


June 29, 2016, New York – The Policing Project at New York University launched an online survey and public comment portal today to collect community input regarding the NYPD policy that will govern the use of body worn cameras (BWC) to be worn by 1000 NYPD officers as part of an upcoming one-year pilot program ordered by the federal court in the landmark Center for Constitutional Rights stop-and-frisk lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York.. NYU will analyze the survey responses and public comments and prepare a report for the NYPD, which will then consider this input as it works with the Floyd plaintiffs and the court-appointed monitor to finalize its policy on the use of the cameras. Once the BWC policy is finalized, the NYPD will produce a public response to the NYU report, explaining which public input was and was not incorporated into the final policy and the reasons why. The Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement about the launch of the survey and public comment process:

We encourage those who have been impacted by the NYPD’s unlawful and discriminatory policing practices to take the survey and submit comments on the NYPD’s body-worn camera policy. Nobody knows better how best to structure policing reforms than those who have been on the receiving end of unconstitutional policing, including stop and frisk. The more people who participate and the more input they give, the more valuable the results of the survey and public comments will be and the better the chances that they will contribute to a body-worn camera policy that maximizes the potential accountability and transparency benefits of the cameras while protecting personal privacy.

Body-worn cameras were among the reforms mandated by the court in our case that successfully challenged the NYPD’s unconstitutional, racially discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices. The cameras are just one part of an extensive reform process that relies heavily upon input from affected communities. While the court has made its ruling the remedial phase of the case is ongoing, and CCR is committed to ensuring that the experiences of affected communities are front and center in that process.

In August 2013, the Center for Constitutional Rights won a landmark ruling that found the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices to be racially discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court appointed a monitor to oversee reforms resulting from CCR’s case, Floyd v. City of New York, and two other related cases, Davis v. City of New York, brought by the Legal Aid Society and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Ligon v. City of New York, brought by NYCLU, The Bronx Defenders, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF. In addition to specific reforms, such as body-worn cameras, the court ordered a Joint Remedial Process (JRP), which is intended to solicit substantive input from directly-affected communities, as well as other stakeholders, on further reforms to the NYPD’s stop-and frisk-practices. The court-appointed facilitator for the JRP convened 50 focus groups in different locations, with different populations, including youth of color, LGBTQ youth, homeless people, and recently incarcerated people. The information collected will be combined with other community input to shape recommendations for further reforms.

Read more about Floyd v. City of New York on CCR’s case page.

Take the survey and make public comments here.

Covington & Burling LLP, Demos, and Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP are co-counsel in the case.

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. Learn more at


Last modified 

June 29, 2016