University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name People of the State of New York v. Wallkill PN-NY-0003
Docket / Court 01-CIV-0364 (CM) ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Policing
Case Summary
Case summary not yet recorded
On January 18, 2001, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Town of Wallkill, seeking injunctive relief to reform and monitor the Wallkill Police Department, which Spitzer had described as "out of control."

The lawsuit was the offshoot of the Attorney General's investigation of the Wallkill PD. The investigation revealed a pattern of pervasive misconduct including: officers illegally stopping women motorists and sexually harassing them; retaliation by officers against the Town's Police Commission after it issued a report that criticized the department; and officers illegally stopping drivers for the Middletown newspaper and charging them with bogus traffic violations in retaliation for stories the newspaper ran about the department.

A month after the complaint was filed the Town agreed to enter into a consent decree which the Attorney General. However, in court proceedings discussing the formal entry of the consent decree, counsel for Wallkill commented that the Town did not believe that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Judge Colleen McMahon treated the comment as an oral motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and ordered that the parties brief the issue, before the court evaluated the proposed consent decree.

On March 20, 2001, after considering the parties' briefs, judge McMahon issued her decision and order dismissing the defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. The court cited the doctrine of parens patriae which allows states to use their power to seek federal relief to protect their "quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being - both physical and economic - of [their] residents." Alfred L. Snapp & Sons, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592, 600 (1982).

On April 5, 2001, the court entered the consent decree and an amendment to the decree.

On May 2, 2001, the court appointed Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) as the independent monitor to oversee the implementation of the consent decree. On June 11, 2001, the Court appointed Dean M. Esserman to serve as auditor of the Wallkill PD for the duration of the consent decree. The court approved additional amendments to the consent decree on September 21, 2004.

The independent monitor issued four reports detailing the compliance efforts of the WPD.

On February 28, 2006, the court entered its order terminating its oversight with respect to the WPD and ordered the WPD to comply with certain sections of the Best Practices Guidelines adopted pursuant to the consent decree.

Dan Dalton - 12/29/2006

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Constitutional Clause
Unreasonable search and seizure
Failure to discipline
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
Racial profiling
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Town of Wallkill Police Department
Plaintiff Description The people of the state of New York seeking supervision of the Town of Wallkill’s police department, which is claimed to be "out of control"
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2001 - 2006
Case Closing Year 2006
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  New York City to Pay Up to $75 Million Over Dismissed Summonses
New York Times
Date: Jan. 23, 2017
By: Benjamin Weiser (New York Times)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

01-0364 (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/06/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Decision and Order Dismissing Defendant's Challenge to Subject Matter Jurisdiction (2001 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13364) (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0003-0006.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/16/2001
Amendment to Consent Decree
PN-NY-0003-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/03/2001
First Report of the Monitor
PN-NY-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/01/2002
Second Report of the Monitor
PN-NY-0003-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/01/2002
Third Report of the Monitor
PN-NY-0003-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/01/2004
Fourth Report of the Monitor
PN-NY-0003-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/01/2005
Final Judgment (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0003-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/28/2006
Judges McMahon, Colleen (S.D.N.Y.)
PN-NY-0003-0005 | PN-NY-0003-0006 | PN-NY-0003-0007 | PN-NY-0003-9000
Monitors/Masters Esserman, Dean (New York)
PN-NY-0003-0001 | PN-NY-0003-0002 | PN-NY-0003-0003 | PN-NY-0003-0004
Plaintiff's Lawyers Celli, Andrew G. Jr. (New York)
PN-NY-0003-0006 | PN-NY-0003-0007
Landau, Lisa (New York)
Peters, Mark G. (New York)
Pope, Peter (New York)
PN-NY-0003-0007 | PN-NY-0003-0007 | PN-NY-0003-9000
Spitzer, Eliot (New York)
Yap, Elisabeth (New York)
Defendant's Lawyers Rosenstein, Monte J. (New York)
PN-NY-0003-0006 | PN-NY-0003-0007 | PN-NY-0003-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -