Floyd v. City of New York

283 F.R.D. 153 (2012)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Floyd v. City of New York

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
283 F.R.D. 153 (2012)

Play video

Facts

Acting under the stop-and-frisk policies of the New York Police Department (NYPD), NYPD officers conducted over 2.8 million Terry stops between 2004 and 2009. Over 50 percent were of Black people, 30 percent Latino, and 10 percent White. To comply with the Fourth Amendment, a stop-and-frisk must be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. However, for many stops, the only stated justification was furtive movements or presence in a high-crime area. Evidence also showed that Black and Latino people were more likely to be stopped without reasonable suspicion. David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht (plaintiffs) were Black men who were stopped at least once. Ourlicht, a resident of New York City (NYC) (defendant), had been frisked four times. The men sued NYC and city officials (defendants), seeking (1) a declaration that the NYPD’s policies violated the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) an injunction requiring changes to the policies. They moved to certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, defined as all people who, since 2005, had been or would be subjected to unlawful stop-and-frisks, including people stopped based on race. The government objected to certifying a class and also argued that Floyd, Clarkson, and Dennis lacked standing because they had either only been stopped once or since moved from NYC, making it entirely speculative that they would be stopped again. The district court considered class certification.

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 830,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 830,000 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
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 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