Floyd et al v City of New York et al

Synopsis

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.

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 Justice Committee, Make the Road-NY, New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Urban Justice Center.

Status

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

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

On October 26, 2010, CCR released an expert report (PDF) for Floyd. The report includes key findings such as:

• Most stops occur in Black and Latino neighborhoods, and even after adjustments for other factors including crime rates, social conditions and allocation of police resources in those neighborhoods, race is the main factor determining NYPD stops.
• Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be stopped than Whites even in areas with low crime rates, where populations are mixed or mostly White.
• Nearly 150,000 stops over the last six years are facially unconstitutional and lack any legal justification. All together, 30 percent of all stops are unconstitutional, underlining a severe lack of adequate officer oversight in the NYPD.
• Black and Latino suspects are treated more harshly in instances in which police officers make the determination that a crime has occurred. Black and Latino suspects are more likely to be arrested rather than issued a summons when compared to White suspects who are accused of the same crimes. Black and Latino suspects are more likely to have force used against them.
• The rate of gun seizures is nearly zero—0.15 out of a hundred stops—a disturbingly low return for a law enforcement tactic which the NYPD itself claims is designed specifically  to remove illegal guns from the streets.

Read a summary of the report here.

Read the full report here.

Description

In 2008, the Center for Constitutional Rights produced a preliminary report on the NYPD's behavioral trends during Stop and Frisk procedures. The report is available as a PDF download. Additional information, analysis, and reporting can be found on our site at http://ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk.

Press Releases

• 2011 Data Reveals Record Number of Stop-and-Frisks With No Change in Racial Disparities (February 2012)
• Judge Allows Lawsuit Challenging the NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk Policy to Move Forward (August 31, 2011)

Video

More Videos:

• Floyd witness Nicholas Peart on Democracy Now!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-fdIWXO2XY
• ABC's Jim Hoffer reports on stop-and-frisk: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8337678
• ABC's Jim Hoffer reports on stop-and-frisk: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=7975868
• ABC's Jim Hoffer reports on stop-and-frisk: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7382367
• ABC's Jim Hoffer reports on stop-and-frisk: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7747015

Media Outlet Reports:

• "The Truth Behind Stop and Frisk" Op-ed, New York Times, (9/2/11)

• Interactive Map of Stop and Frisk in NYC Neighborhoods, NY Times (7/12/10)

• A Few Blocks, 4 Years, 52,000 Police Stops, NY Times (7/12/10)

• "Big Brother in Blue" Bob Herbert, NY Times. (3/12/10)

• "Power to Prosecute Police Goes to Civilians. Again." (2/19/10)

• NY Times Editorial: "Lingering Questions About Stop and Frisk" (2/18/10)

• Bob Herbert on Floyd and Stops and Frisks: "Jim Crow Policing" (2/4/10)

• Low-risk frisks: Thousands of minorities are stopped, few busted (2/7/09)

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.

LITIGATION-RELATED DOCUMENTS AND COURT DECISIONS

COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT

• Original Complaint (1/31/2008)
• First Amended Complaint (4/15/2008)
• 2nd Amended Complaint (10/20/2008)

COURT ORDERS

• Order Regarding UF-250 Data (9-10-2008)
• Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (8-31-11)
• Order Re-instating David Floyd's Claims (11-23-11)
• Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Daubert Motion (4-16-12)
• Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (5-16-12)

EXPERT REPORTS

• Plaintiffs' Expert Report - Jeffrey Fagan

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

• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
  • MOL App. Part 1
  • MOL App. Part 2
  • MOL App. Part 3
• Declaration of Jeffrey Fagan
• Declaration of Darius Charney
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 1
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 2
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 3
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 4
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 5
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 6
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 7
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 8
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 9
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 10
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 11
  • Charney Decl Exhibit 12

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

• Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
• Declaration of Heidi Grossman
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit A
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit B
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit C
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit D
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit E
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit F
  • Grossman Decl Exhibit G

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

• Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
• Declaration of Gretchen Hoff Varner
• Hoff Varner Decl Exhibit 1
• Declaration of Deon Dennis

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' Sur-Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Opposition

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

• Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Jeffrey Fagan
• Declaration of Heidi Grossman
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. A
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. B
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. C
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. D
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. E
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. F
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. G
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. H
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. I
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. J
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. K
• Dennis Smith Declaration
  • Smith Decl. Ex. A
  • Smith Decl. Ex. B
  • Smith Decl. Ex. C
  • Smith Decl. Ex. D
  • Smith Decl. Ex. E
  • Smith Decl. Ex. F
  • Smith Decl. Ex. G
  • Smith Decl. Ex. H
  • Smith Decl. Ex. I

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

• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition
• Declaration of Darius Charney
  • Charney Decl. Exhibit A
  • Charney Decl. Exhibit B
  • Charney Decl. Exhibit C
  • Charney Decl. Exhibit D
• Declaration of Jeffrey Fagan
  • Fagan Decl. Ex. A
  • Fagan Decl. Ex. B
  • Fagan Decl. Ex. C
  • Fagan Decl. Ex. D
  • Fagan Decl. Ex. E
  • Fagan Decl. Ex. F

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 Defendants' Reply
• Declaration of Heidi Grossman
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. A
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. B
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. C
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. D
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. E
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. F
  • Grossman Decl. Ex. G
• Declaration of Robert Purtell
• Purtell Decl. Ex. A
• Declaration of Dennis Smith