- ICC VATICAN PROSECUTION
- Our Issues
- Learn More
- Get Involved
- Our Cases
- About Us
Our client Djamel Ameziane has been sent from Guantánamo to Algeria against his will and…
December 5, 2013, New York – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the organization…
November 25, 2013, New York – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel,…
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.
CCR has joined with a movement of community members, lawyers, researchers and activists to launch an unprecedented campaign to end discriminatory policing practices in New York. Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) is a campaign that promotes public safety and policing practices based on cooperation and respect– not discriminatory targeting and harassment. It includes a number of community-based, legal and advocacy organizations such as the Justice Committee, Make the Road-NY, New York Civil Liberties Union, Picture the Homeless and Bronx Defenders.
On November 25, 2013, the 2nd Circuit issued an Order holding all pending motions in abeyance.
On November 22, 2013, an appellate panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the City of New York’s request to vacate District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s ruling. Read the order here.
On November 11, 2013 Plaintiffs' filed a Motion to Reconsider En Banc with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
On October 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the City's motion to stay the remedial decision - not the liability decision - in Floyd. They also remanded the case to the District Court to assign a new judge. Papers in the appeal will be filed by both sides in early 2014.
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.
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.
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.