On November 14, 2011, two photographers asked by police for IDs after they took pictures in the subway filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, ...
read more >
On November 14, 2011, two photographers asked by police for IDs after they took pictures in the subway filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the ACLU of New York State (NYCLU), sought declaratory and monetary relief, alleging false arrest, assault, and battery, in violation of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the transit authority's ID rule was unconstitutional because it was vague and prone to arbitrary enforcement.
On March 19, 2012, the City (but not the Transit Authority) made an Offer of Judgment to the plaintiffs, offering them compensatory damages in sum of $7,502 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 2, 2012, thus releasing and discharging the City from the suit. The District Court (Judge Cheryl L. Pollak) consented to the Offer of Judgment and its acceptance.
One of the plaintiffs then withdrew participation in the lawsuit, but the other remained; the Transit Authority remained as a defendant. On March 23, 2013, the District Court (Judge Pollak) granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the Transit Authority's motion to dismiss the case. The Court declared that the ID rule of New York City Transit Authority was unconstitutionally vague, both facially and as applied. Judge Pollak found that the ID rule, which had criminal applications, did not provide sufficient definiteness for ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited and that it failed to discourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In addition, she ruled, the ID rule reached a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Barry v. City of New York, 2013 WL 1182083 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). The Transit Authority filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.
On May 8, 2013, the plaintiff and the Transit Authority settled the remainder of the case. The New York City Transit agreed to pay attorneys' fees and litigation costs in sum of $14,500 to the plaintiff and to withdraw its appeal of the District Court's March 21, 2013 order. This ended the case. Emma Bao - 05/28/2013