On May 19, 2010, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed this putative class action suit on behalf of two male New York City residents who were allegedly stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The plaintiffs sued in New York State Court and alleged numerous violations of New York law, as well as violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. They sued under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs, both under the age of 40 and without criminal records, were stopped, questioned, searched, arrested, and given summonses that were later dismissed. Nevertheless, the NYPD kept their contact information in a massive stop-and-frisk database. The NYPD stored the information of all people stopped and frisked, refusing to seal misdemeanor and felony records. NYPD was also collecting information of individuals who were neither arrested nor summoned, and of those whose arrests and summonses were dropped. This database served as the index for investigations later carried about by the NYPD. 80% of people stopped and frisked were Black or Latino.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgments and an injunction requiring defendants to seal all records. On June 24, 2011, Justice Barbara Jaffe issued an order that granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. 932 N.Y.S.2d 761. {explain basis for decision and then the subsequent appeal which reversed, from the Dec, 20, 2012 order}

The parties settled in July 2013. Under the settlement, New York City paid $10,000 for all the claims that were or could have been raised by any plaintiffs in this action - including all costs, expenses, and attorney fees, and agreed to remove all information establishing the identity of individuals who were stopped, frisked, or questioned. The settlement also required the NYPD to cease entering such identifying information into the database. The City issued a written directive barring further entries into the database, and that directive was provided to the NYCLU under the terms of the settlement.

The court did not retain jurisdiction over the matter; the case was dismissed on the same day as the settlement was entered.

Nili Blanck - 03/17/2018


compress summary