Kunstler v. City of New York

Synopsis

Kunstler v. City of New York is a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed against the New York Police Department for unlawfully arresting and detaining peaceful anti-war protesters for excessively long periods of time.

Status

The case is currently before the District Court Judge on the City’s motion for summary judgment. We expect the case to go to trial in 2008.

Description

Kunstler v. City of New York is a multi-plaintiff federal lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against the New York Police Department (NYPD) on behalf of protesters who were unlawfully arrested during an anti-war rally in April 2003. It charges that the NYPD unlawfully arrested peaceful protesters and detained them for excessively long periods of time, violating their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Fifty-two of the arrestees have joined this lawsuit.

During an anti-war rally on April 7, 2003 in New York, more than 70 protesters were arrested outside the offices of an affiliate of the Carlyle Group, a defense-related investment firm with financial ties to the Bush and bin Laden families. The protestors were illegally arrested, detained for excessively prolonged periods at 1 Police Plaza, and denied access to their lawyers.

Lead plaintiff and protestor Sarah Kunstler was held for twelve hours and charged with two counts of disorderly conduct. “It was frightening to learn how easy it is to be arrested without warning and hauled away for peacefully exercising your free speech rights,” she said. “I hadn’t realized how regressive New York City policing had become.”

Some of the protesters were questioned using the controversial “Demonstration Debriefing Form,” which includes questions about political affiliations and prior attendance at demonstrations. The form was first used on scores of activists arrested following the mass protest on February 15, 2003 against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The NYPD claims to have withdrawn it after criticism from civil rights groups.

Discovery was completed in 2006, and CCR has recently succeeded in fighting off the City’s attempt to force Plaintiffs to produce all of their past psychological files.

In one remaining discovery matter, CCR is currently involved in a dispute over the City’s refusal to state whether undercover police officers were present at the demonstration, or the extent of the police infiltration and surveillance of Plaintiffs’ organizing coalition. After both the Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge ordered the City to produce the information, the City took the extraordinary step of filing a writ of mandamus—an exceptional procedural mechanism to request an appellate court take up a minor issue that is not normally appealable—to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue. CCR is awaiting that decision from the Second Circuit.

The City’s motion for Summary Judgment is currently before the District Court, and we expect the case to go to trial in 2008.

Timeline

On February 12, 2004, the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York., after all of the criminal charges had been dismissed against all the plaintiffs. Aside from unspecified monetary compensation, lawyers also seek a declaration from the court that the NYPD’s actions on April 7, 2003 were retaliatory and unconstitutional.

The case has been in discovery since 2004. CCR deposed dozens of the defendant police officers and the City of New York deposed all fifty two plaintiffs.

In 2006, the City of New York took the aggressive move of attempting to force the plaintiffs to disclose their personal psychological records. This was rejected by Magistrate Judge Dollinger on August 29, 2006. The city appealed that ruling, but U.S. District Judge Sweet upheld the decision on May 14, 2007.

The City had refused to disclose whether or not any undercover officers were at the protest on April 7, 2003, or the extent of the NYPD’s infiltration and surveillance of Plaintiffs’ organizing coalition. Magistrate Judge Dollinger ordered the city to disclose the information on June 8, 2006. On July 19, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Sweet upheld that order. The City took the extraordinary step of filing a writ of mandamus to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue. CCR is currently awaiting that decision from the Second Circuit.