Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit (SHU) prisoners have organized to combat cruel conditions of confinement, and…
March 19, 2013, Washington, D.C. – Today, on the 10-year anniversary of the invasion of…
March 18, 2013, New York, NY – The Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black…
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.
Use this link to read our Floyd Class Action FAQ that hopefully will answer many of your questions, and provide you with additional information.
On December 12, 2012, CCR released an expert report analyzing NYPD stop-and-frisk data from January 2010 through June 2012. The report follows a 2010 report that covered data from the years 2004-2009. The new report confirms that the constitutional violations documented previously continue to plague the controversial stop-and-frisk program.
Read a summary of the 2012 report here.
Read the full 2012 report here.
On May 16, 2012, the Judge issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion.
On October 26, 2010, CCR released an expert report that analyzes the NYPD stop and frisk data from the years 2004-2009.
Read a summary of the 2010 report here.
Read the full 2010 report here.
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.
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 is now scheduled to start on March 18, 2013.
CCR's summaries and take-aways from the daily proceedings of the Floyd v New York City trial.
Original complaints, Court Orders, Motions for Class Certification, and more.
Press Releases, Media Outlet Reporting, and videos.
Listing of events from January 31, 2008 through the present.
