Black Love Resists in the Rust v. City of Buffalo

At a Glance

Date Filed: 

June 28, 2018

Current Status 

On June 1, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Co-Counsel 

National Center for Law and Economic Justice, Western New York Law Center

Client(s) 

Black Love Resists in the Rust, Dorethea Franklin, Taniqua Simmons, De'Jon Hall, Shaketa Redden, Joseph Bonds, Charles Palmer, Shirley Sarmiento, and Ebony Yeldon

Case Description 

In the summer of 2012, the Buffalo Police Department created a "Strike Force" Unit to aggressively patrol and conduct vehicle checkpoints in "high crime" areas of the city. While purportedly set up to enforce traffic laws and promote traffic safety, the vehicle checkpoints were often used as a pretext to engage in "proactive" criminal law enforcement activities with respect to Black drivers, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond.

BPD checkpoints often blocked off streets and intersections and could last for as long as 45 minutes, interrupting residents as they attempted to go about their daily activities such as traveling to school or to work. After the checkpoints were instituted, there was a 92 percent increase in the number of traffic tickets issued in the City of Buffalo. The vast majority of tickets were issued to drivers in Buffalo's poor and predominantly Black neighborhoods on the East Side.

Data shows that 40 percent of the checkpoints were located in three Buffalo census tracts, each of which has a population that is more than 88 percent Black. In addition, a statistical analysis found that the racial composition of a neighborhood was a stronger predictor of where the checkpoints were placed than crime or traffic accidents.

In addition, beginning in 2015, New York State legislation allowed the City of Buffalo, through its Traffic Violations Agency (BTVA), to keep almost all of the revenue collected from traffic tickets issued by BPD, thereby creating a huge financial incentive for the checkpoints and aggressive traffic enforcement generally. Not surprisingly, there was a 43 percent increase in the number of traffic tickets issued in 2015, the majority of which were issued by BPD's Patrol Division. BPD officers often issued multiple tickets for a single violation (e.g. four tickets for tinted windows—one for each window) or during a single stop.

The City revenue raised through traffic tickets has continued to increase each year since 2015, while the severe racial disproportionality in traffic enforcement has also continued. Each unpaid traffic ticket results in a driver's license suspension, and Black drivers in Buffalo are four times more likely than white drivers to have their licenses suspended.

In 2017, public outcry against the checkpoints and other heavy-handed and discriminatory practices of the Buffalo PD began to build, and Black Lives Matter Buffalo, in partnership with Professor Anjana Malhotra from SUNY Buffalo Law School, filed a complaint with the New York State Attorney General's Office Civil Rights Bureau regarding the vehicle checkpoints and BPD's policing practices in and around public housing buildings.

In 2018, CCR partnered with the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) and the Western New York Law Center to challenge these practices. The plaintiffs are Black Love Resists in the Rust, a grassroots police accountability organization, and individuals who were subject to suspicionless checkpoint stops and heavily ticketed in Buffalo’s East Side.

The case challenges the unconstitutional use of suspicionless vehicle checkpoint stops for general crime control under the Fourth Amendment, the discriminatory enforcement of the checkpoints in neighborhoods of color under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the financial motive behind the aggressive ticketing practices under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is part of CCR's longstanding work against discriminatory policing and racial injustice.

Case Timeline

June 1, 2026
The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
June 1, 2026
The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
May 5, 2026
Plaintiffs file Reply to Defendants' opposition
May 5, 2026
Plaintiffs file Reply to Defendants' opposition
May 1, 2026
Defendants file motion in opposition to Plaintiffs' appeal
May 1, 2026
Defendants file motion in opposition to Plaintiffs' appeal
April 15, 2026
Plaintiffs file to appeal lawsuit in the Second Circuit
April 15, 2026
Plaintiffs file to appeal lawsuit in the Second Circuit
March 27, 2026
The Court denies Plaintiffs Motion to Intervene and Motion to Reconsider
March 27, 2026
The Court denies Plaintiffs Motion to Intervene and Motion to Reconsider
October 10, 2025
Plaintiffs file reply brief for Motion to reconsider class certification
October 10, 2025
Plaintiffs file reply brief for Motion to reconsider class certification
The plaintiffs’ file a motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to certify the traffic enforcement class, or in the alternative to renew the motion to certify; plaintiffs and proposed intervenors file a motion to intervene as plaintiffs and class representatives of the traffic enforcement class.
October 3, 2025
Plaintiffs file Memorandum of Law in opposition to Defendant's Motion for summary judgment
October 3, 2025
Plaintiffs file Memorandum of Law in opposition to Defendant's Motion for summary judgment
September 26, 2025
Defendants file response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and motion to intervene
September 26, 2025
Defendants file response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and motion to intervene
August 1, 2025
Defendants file Reply Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for summary judgment
August 1, 2025
Defendants file Reply Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for summary judgment
August 1, 2025
Plaintiffs file reply brief in support of their Motion for partial summary judgment
August 1, 2025
Plaintiffs file reply brief in support of their Motion for partial summary judgment
July 11, 2025
Plaintiffs file Motion to Intervene and Motion to Reconsider
July 11, 2025
Plaintiffs file Motion to Intervene and Motion to Reconsider
Plaintiffs file Motion to Intervene to certify traffic enforcement class pursuant to Rule 54(B)
May 30, 2025
Defendants file Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for partial summary judgment
May 30, 2025
Defendants file Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for partial summary judgment
April 22, 2025
Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
April 22, 2025
Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
Opinion and Order by Judge Reiss granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
February 7, 2025
Plaintiffs file Motion for partial summary Judgment
February 7, 2025
Defendants file Motion for Summary Judgment
December 6, 2024
Defendants file brief in response to Plaintiffs' supplemental brief for class certification
December 6, 2024
Defendants file brief in response to Plaintiffs' supplemental brief for class certification
November 19, 2024
Plaintiffs file supplemental brief to their motion to certify class
November 19, 2024
Plaintiffs file supplemental brief to their motion to certify class
October 23, 2024
Oral argument on class certification
October 23, 2024
Oral argument on class certification
October 14, 2024
Plaintiffs respond to Defendants' notice of supplemental authority
October 14, 2024
Plaintiffs respond to Defendants' notice of supplemental authority
July 12, 2024
Defendants file Memorandum of Law in opposition to Motion for Class Certification
July 12, 2024
Defendants file Memorandum of Law in opposition to Motion for Class Certification
May 29, 2024
Memorandum of law in support of Plantiff's motion for class certification
May 29, 2024
Memorandum of law in support of Plantiff's motion for class certification
The motion is supplemented with expert testimony by David Bjerk and Robert Silverman providing statistical and historical evidence.
April 23, 2020
Motion to amend and supplement complaint filed
April 23, 2020
Motion to amend and supplement complaint filed
A motion to amend and supplement the complaint, along with several exhibits, is filed. Five new plaintiffs are added to the case.
June 28, 2018
Complaint filed against City of Buffalo
June 28, 2018
Complaint filed against City of Buffalo