University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Bailey v. City of Philadelphia PN-PA-0013
Docket / Court 2:10-cv-05952 ( E.D. Pa. )
State/Territory Pennsylvania
Case Type(s) Policing
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On November 4, 2010, eight African-American male residents of Philadelphia filled this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia division ("PPD"). The plaintiffs sued the City of Philadelphia and individual police officers under 4 ... read more >
On November 4, 2010, eight African-American male residents of Philadelphia filled this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia division ("PPD"). The plaintiffs sued the City of Philadelphia and individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Pennsylvania state law. The putative class, represented by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and private attorneys, sought injunctive and compensatory relief. They claimed that the defendants had illegally stopped and searched thousands of African-American and Latino males solely because of their race in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

On June 21, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell entered an order accepting a binding settlement agreement, class certification, and consent decree between the parties and appointed a monitor. The City agreed to train its police officers to use the proper electronic database to record relevant information after each time a subject is stopped and frisked within Philadelphia. The plaintiffs and the defendants also agreed to jointly review current police department training, supervision, and discipline procedures to determine if changes are needed to ensure that stops and frisks only occur where there is probable cause to believe the subject could lawfully be detained. The plaintiffs were to report to the Court the results of periodic reviews of stop data.

The Decree left open the individual damage claim by a named plaintiff, who did not settle. In a November 3, 2011 order, the Court set a jury trial on this issue and on December 20, 2011, judgment was granted in favor of the named plaintiff, who was awarded $50,000.

The Decree was to stay in place until the Court, upon motion of a party, determined that the provisions regarding data foreclosure and analysis, document production, Monitor Reports and Recommendations, and Court review are no longer necessary to ensure that the PPD stop and frisk policies and practices are consistent with constitutional standards.

In the time since the agreement, the plaintiffs and defendants have filed 6 reports each. The plaintiffs' reports address ongoing issues of police misconduct, such as the racial disparities of arrests and the disproportionate number of arrests in certain districts of certain racial makeups. The defendants, in their reports, provide updates on progress and address the concerns raised by the plaintiffs. The most recent report was filed by the plaintiffs on March 22, 2016, concluding that data still showed significant racial disparities in stop-and-frisk that in almost all respects could not be explained by non-racial factors. The case is ongoing.

Justin Benson - 07/30/2011
Saeeda Joseph-Charles - 10/23/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Failure to discipline
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
False arrest
Racial profiling
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
State law
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) City of Philadelphia
Plaintiff Description All persons, who were or will be stopped, frisked, detained andlor searched by Philadelphia police officers on or after November 4, 2008 without legal justification or on legally impermissible considerations of race or national origin.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Federal Enforcement of Police Reform
By: Stephen Rushin (University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program )
Citation: 82 Fordham Law Review 3189 (2014)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Panopticism for Police: Structural Reform Bargaining and Police Regulation by Data-Driven Surveillance
By: Mary D. Fan (University of Washington)
Citation: Forthcoming, 87 Washington L. Rev. __ (2012).
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  What Happens When Police Are Forced to Reform?
Written: Nov. 13, 2015
By: Kimbriell Kelly, Sarah Childress and Steven Rich (Frontline/Post)
Citation: Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2015)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:10−cv−05952 (E.D. Pa.) 03/22/2016
PN-PA-0013-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 11/04/2010
PN-PA-0013-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source:
Consent Decree 06/21/2011
PN-PA-0013-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment [For the Plaintiff] 12/20/2011
PN-PA-0013-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Third Report to Court and Monitor on Stop and Frisk Practices 01/01/2013
PN-PA-0013-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Plaintiffs' Third Report on Stop and Frisk Practices 03/19/2013
PN-PA-0013-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Second Report to Court and Monitor 04/02/2013
PN-PA-0013-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Fourth Report to Court and Monitor on Stop and Frisk Practices 12/03/2013
PN-PA-0013-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Fifth Report to Court and Monitor on Stop and Frisk Practices 02/24/2015
PN-PA-0013-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Sixth Report to Court and Monitor on Stop and Frisk Practices 03/22/2016
PN-PA-0013-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Dalzell, Stewart R. (E.D. Pa.)
PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-0007 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Monitors/Masters Epps, Joanne E. (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Kreimer, Seth (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0001 | PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-0003 | PN-PA-0013-0004 | PN-PA-0013-0005 | PN-PA-0013-0006 | PN-PA-0013-0008 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Messing, Paul (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0001 | PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-0003 | PN-PA-0013-0004 | PN-PA-0013-0005 | PN-PA-0013-0006 | PN-PA-0013-0008 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Roper, Mary Catherine (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0001 | PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-0003 | PN-PA-0013-0004 | PN-PA-0013-0005 | PN-PA-0013-0006 | PN-PA-0013-0008 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Rudovsky, David (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0001 | PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-0003 | PN-PA-0013-0004 | PN-PA-0013-0005 | PN-PA-0013-0006 | PN-PA-0013-0008 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Straw, Craig M. (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-0009 | PN-PA-0013-9000 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Cooper, Jonathan K. (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-9000
Johnson, Carlton L. (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0002 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Mavroudis, Dimitrios (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-0009 | PN-PA-0013-9000
Smith, Shelley R. (Pennsylvania)
PN-PA-0013-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -