Floyd v. City of New York
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113271, 2013 WL 4046209, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations if its official policy or custom, including widespread practices or deliberate indifference by high-level officials, causes constitutional injury. This includes practices leading to stops without reasonable suspicion and racial profiling based on general demographic crime data rather than specific suspect descriptions.
Facts:
- Between January 2004 and June 2012, the NYPD conducted over 4.4 million investigative 'Terry' stops.
- Over 80% of these 4.4 million stops were of blacks or Hispanics, while New York City's 2010 resident population was approximately 23% black, 29% Hispanic, and 33% white.
- Only 1.5% of frisks resulted in a weapon seizure, and 12% of all stops resulted in an arrest or summons; the remaining 88% resulted in no further law enforcement action.
- Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be stopped, subjected to the use of force, and arrested (as opposed to receiving a summons) for the same suspected crime, despite whites being more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.
- A 1999 New York Attorney General report notified the City that NYPD stops were conducted in a racially skewed manner and often lacked reasonable suspicion, but the NYPD took no corrective action.
- NYPD supervisors routinely pressured officers to increase the number of stops, with little to no corresponding emphasis on ensuring the constitutionality of those stops.
- The NYPD implemented an unwritten policy of targeting 'the right people' for stops, which in practice encouraged officers to target young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime suspect data, rather than specific suspect descriptions.
- Several individual plaintiffs, including Leroy Downs, Devin Almonor, and Cornelio McDonald, experienced stops and frisks by NYPD officers without reasonable suspicion or in a racially discriminatory manner.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a class of black and Hispanic individuals, sued the City of New York in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- On August 31, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
- On April 14, 2012, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ liability expert.
- On May 16, 2012, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to be certified as a class.
- In an order entered March 8, 2013, the District Court approved the parties’ stipulation withdrawing plaintiffs’ damages claims and dismissing claims against individual officers, leaving only Section 1983 claims against the City.
- A non-jury trial on liability and remedies was held in the District Court from March 18 to May 20, 2013.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the City of New York, through the NYPD, have an official policy or custom that violates the Fourth Amendment by making stops and conducting frisks without individualized reasonable suspicion? 2. Does the City of New York, through the NYPD, have an official policy or custom that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by engaging in racial profiling in its stop-and-frisk practices?
Opinions:
Majority - Shira A. Scheindlin
Yes, the City of New York is liable for violations of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments through the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices. The Court found that the City's senior officials exhibited deliberate indifference to widespread unconstitutional stops and frisks and that these practices were so persistent and widespread as to have the force of law. The evidence, including Dr. Fagan's expert testimony, revealed that at least 200,000 stops lacked reasonable suspicion, a number likely much higher due to flaws in documentation. Many stops were based on vague and subjective factors like 'furtive movements' and 'high crime area,' which were poorly correlated with actual criminal activity. Supervisors focused on increasing stop numbers without ensuring constitutionality or providing adequate training, monitoring, or discipline for illegal stops. Furthermore, the City is liable for Fourteenth Amendment violations because the NYPD adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting 'the right people' for stops based on local crime suspect data, rather than specific, individualized suspect descriptions. This policy, explicitly acknowledged by high-ranking officials like Chief Esposito and Commissioner Kelly, resulted in the disproportionate stopping of blacks and Hispanics. The Court rejected the City’s argument that crime suspect demographics are a valid benchmark, emphasizing that the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent. Statistical evidence showed that the racial composition of an area, rather than the crime rate, predicted stop rates, and that blacks and Hispanics were treated differently post-stop. This intentional discrimination, whether through facially neutral policies applied discriminately or express racial classifications, violates the Equal Protection Clause. The City’s deliberate indifference to these ongoing racial disparities further establishes municipal liability, as officials turned a blind eye to overwhelming proof of discriminatory practices, perpetuating a self-fulfilling cycle of bias in policing. The Court cited precedents such as Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, Terry v. Ohio, Florida v. J.L., and Washington v. Davis to support its reasoning on municipal liability, reasonable suspicion, and intentional discrimination.
Analysis:
This case represents a landmark ruling holding a major metropolitan police department liable for systemic constitutional violations in its stop-and-frisk practices. It clarifies and reinforces the standards for municipal liability under § 1983, particularly concerning deliberate indifference and widespread custom, in the context of policing. The decision has far-reaching implications for police accountability, emphasizing that effectiveness in crime fighting does not justify unconstitutional methods and that racial profiling, even indirect, is a violation of equal protection. It mandates comprehensive institutional reforms, including changes in training, supervision, and discipline, setting a precedent for courts to scrutinize systemic biases in law enforcement and to impose structural remedies.
