Floyd v. City of New York

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) employed a policy, dubbed the stop-and-frisk policy, that allowed officers to make frequent and widespread Terry stops. A constitutionally permissible Terry stop consists of a brief stop of an individual based on an officer’s reasonable suspicion the individual is engaged in criminal activity. The officer may frisk the individual upon reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous. A group of Black and Hispanic individuals who had been stopped pursuant to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy (plaintiffs) filed a federal class-action lawsuit against New York City and city officials (defendants), claiming that (1) many stops conducted under the NYPD’s policy were not supported by reasonable suspicion and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment and (2) the NYPD had implemented the policy in a racially discriminatory fashion, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Regarding the equal-protection claim, evidence at trial showed that officers made more stops in areas with large Black and Hispanic populations, that Black and Hispanic individuals were more likely to be stopped by police even in primarily White areas, and that police were more likely to use force during stops of Black and Hispanic individuals than during stops of White individuals. Evidence also showed that the NYPD was warned in 1999 that the stop-and-frisk policy was being conducted in a racially discriminatory manner. Instead of changing the policy, the NYPD pressured its officers to make more stops. Further, the NYPD instructed officers to target “the right people” for stops. This meant to target the demographic groups that most frequently appeared in a precinct’s crime complaints, typically young Black and Hispanic men. The district court considered the claim.