Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Floyd v. City of New York

959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Floyd v. City of New York

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013)

Facts

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. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a police officer was permitted to briefly stop an individual if the officer reasonably suspected the individual was engaged in criminal activity. The officer was permitted to frisk the individual if he reasonably suspected the individual was armed and dangerous. A group of Black and Hispanic individuals who had been stopped pursuant to this policy (plaintiffs) filed a federal class-action lawsuit, claiming that the NYPD had implemented the policy in a racially discriminatory fashion in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Evidence presented 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, that Black individuals were more likely to be arrested following a stop than were White individuals, 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 district court found that the NYPD had an unwritten policy of targeting young Black and Hispanic men because those demographic groups were prevalent in local crime complaints.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scheindlin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership