Brown v. City of Oneonta
195 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1999) (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Law enforcement officials do not violate the Equal Protection Clause when they use a victim's description of a suspect's race and gender to investigate a crime, provided there is no other evidence of discriminatory racial animus and they are not acting solely on the basis of race.
Facts:
- On September 4, 1992, a seventy-seven-year-old woman in Oneonta, New York, was attacked in her home by an intruder with a knife.
- The victim described her assailant to police as a young black man, based on her view of his hand and forearm, and stated that he had cut his hand during their struggle.
- A police canine unit tracked the assailant's scent from the crime scene toward the nearby State University of New York College at Oneonta (SUCO) campus.
- In response, police obtained a list of all black male students from SUCO officials and attempted to locate and question every person on it.
- Over the subsequent days, police conducted a broader "sweep" of the town, stopping and questioning non-white individuals on the streets and inspecting their hands for cuts.
- More than two hundred people were questioned during the investigation based on this description, but no suspect was apprehended through these methods.
Procedural Posture:
- Black residents of Oneonta (plaintiffs) sued the City of Oneonta, the State of New York, and various police officials (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as other federal and state claims.
- The district court dismissed the Equal Protection claims, ruling that plaintiffs had failed to plead the existence of a similarly-situated group of non-minority individuals who were treated differently.
- The district court also granted summary judgment for defendants on most Fourth Amendment claims, finding the police encounters were not 'seizures,' but allowed a few to proceed.
- After several amended complaints and subsequent rulings, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all remaining claims to create a final, appealable judgment.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court's adverse rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police investigation that relies on a victim's description of a suspect, consisting primarily of race and gender, to identify and question all individuals in a community matching that description violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, J.
No. A police investigation that relies on a victim's specific physical description of an assailant does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, even if that description is primarily composed of race and gender. The police policy here was race-neutral: to investigate a crime using a description provided by the victim. The plaintiffs were not questioned solely on the basis of their race; they were questioned on the legitimate basis of a victim's physical description, which included race, gender, age, and a potential hand injury. Acting on a specific description originating from a victim is not an express racial classification that triggers strict scrutiny. While such an investigation may have a disparate impact on a small minority community, that impact is insufficient to establish an Equal Protection violation without additional evidence of discriminatory intent or animus.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important, and for some, controversial, distinction between permissible police work based on a victim's description and impermissible racial profiling. It clarifies that using race as one component of a specific suspect description is not, by itself, a suspect racial classification subject to strict scrutiny. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring Equal Protection claims in similar situations, as they must now prove that police acted with discriminatory animus beyond simply using a victim's race-based description. The ruling protects police actions that are grounded in specific, albeit general, victim-provided information, even when those actions result in a significant disparate impact on a minority population.
