article: This is one of four ongoing cases challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" program. See: Floyd v. City of New York (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">PN-NY-0009</a>); Daniels v. City of New York (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12023">PN-NY-0010</a>); and Davis v. City of New York (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12494">PN-NY-0013</a>). On March 28, 2012, twelve New York City residents and one former New York City resident filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. They challenged the city's "Operation Clean Halls" initiative (later renamed the "Trespass Affidavit Program"), which allowed police officers to patrol in and around private residential apartment buildings, and allegedly resulted in thousands of illegal stops, searches, summons (citations), and arrests. The plaintiffs were represented by a group of public interest lawyers from the New York Civil Liberties Union, Bronx Defenders and LatinoJustice. They filed the lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act and state law, alleging violations of the Federal and State Constitutions. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the NYPD's practices were unlawful and an injunction against those practices. Operation Clean Halls had the stated purpose of combating illegal activity in apartment buildings with records of high crime. In Manhattan alone, there were at least 3,895 Clean Halls buildings. Searches and seizures occurred in public areas such as courtyards, lobbies, and sidewalks, and NYPD officers engaged in vertical patrols (floor-by-floor sweeps), much like those that were challenged in litigation surrounding New York City Housing Authority residences. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been stopped without suspicion of unlawful behavior, and that they had been arrested or issued summons (citations) without probable cause. In multiple instances, plaintiffs were arrested for trespassing despite having another resident vouch for them. The plaintiffs alleged that these incidents were part of a larger pattern and practice in buildings enrolled in Operation Clean Halls, without meaningful correlations to actual crime levels. The residents of Clean Hall buildings were disproportionately Black and Latino. The plaintiffs also alleged that the City had been deliberately indifferent to these violations in their failure to train and supervise the NYPD. The plaintiffs asked for a class certification for all residents of Clean Hall buildings and their families, guests, and visitors and for all individuals who had been or were likely to be unlawfully stopped or arrested for being in or around buildings in the Operation Clean Halls initiative. The plaintiffs claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment; First and Fourteenth Amendments (free association and due process); the Fair Housing Act (discriminatory implementation); the New York Constitution; and New York Common Law (false arrest and malicious prosecution). The plaintiffs asked for a declaration that these laws had been violated. The plaintiffs also demanded an injunction that required the defendants to refrain from these violations, to establish citywide standards regarding Operation Clean Halls, to establish a system for tracking and monitoring NYPD practices (with care paid to tracking race, national origin, and geography), develop appropriate training for NYPD officers; and report to the plaintiffs and the court about the steps taken to cure the violations. The plaintiffs also asked for compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On June 12, 2012, the Court (Shira A. Scheindlin, J.) issued a memorandum opinion and order. Ligon v. City of New York, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81526, 2012 WL 2125989 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2012). The defendants wanted access to paperwork on the plaintiffs' prior arrests, even if they were terminated in the plaintiffs' favor and were now sealed pursuant to state law. Judge Scheindlin ruled that there was no legitimate reason for the defendants to access those files unless they were for charges of trespass or related crimes in the past ten years. The Court also ruled that the plaintiffs must make other disclosures about the length of time they were incarcerated and any injuries they suffered as a result of prior arrests, but that that could be done by sworn affidavit. On August 21, 2012, Judge Scheindlin issued an opinion and order allowing the plaintiffs' evidentiary hearing to proceed, regarding their request for a preliminary injunction. Ligon v. City of New York, 2012 WL 3597066 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). The defendants had asked the Court to deny the plaintiffs' motion summarily, prior to a hearing. The defendants had argued (among other reasons) that there was overlap in the plaintiff classes between this case and <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a>, so there was a risk of inconsistent adjudications. The Court pointed out that both matters were assigned to the same judge and gave the defendants a choice: they could cease delaying <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a> with interlocutory appeals or they could agree to let these plaintiffs pursue preliminary injunctive relief. The Court wrote: "the City cannot have it both ways." This case went forward with the preliminary injunction proceedings. The preliminary injunction hearing took place in October and November 2012. On January 8, 2013, Judge Scheindlin ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that they had demonstrated the likelihood that they would prevail on the merits, and proved the city's deliberate indifference toward a widespread practice of unconstitutional trespass stops by the NYPD outside TAP buildings in the Bronx. Judge Scheindlin summarized that her conclusion was based on five categories of evidence: (1) the testimony of a Bronx Assistant District Attorney that the NYPD frequently made trespass stops outside TAP buildings in the Bronx for no reason other than that the officer had seen someone enter and exit or exit the building; (2) a sample of "decline to prosecute" forms prepared by the Bronx District Attorneys' Office, which revealed the alarming frequency of unlawful trespass stops in the vicinity of TAP buildings in the Bronx; (3) the testimony of eight plaintiffs and a non-party witness, who described remarkably similar encounters with the police when stopped in the vicinity of TAP buildings in the Bronx; (4) the analysis by Dr. Jeffrey Fagan, plaintiffs' expert, of an NYPD database of recorded stops, which provided further evidence of the frequency of apparently unlawful trespass stops outside TAP buildings in the Bronx; and (5) NYPD training materials that misstated the minimal constitutional standards for making stops. The Court issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the NYPD to immediately cease performing trespass stops (in which a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter) outside TAP buildings in the Bronx without reasonable suspicion of trespass. In addition, Judge Scheindlin set out proposed relief, and consolidated a hearing on it with the already-scheduled remedial hearing in the related <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a> litigation. The proposed relief included requirements to develop constitutionally adequate policy guidance on stops, to collect data on each such stop, and to improve supervision and training. Ligon v. City of New York, 2013 WL 71800 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2013). On January 11, 2013, the defendants appealed the preliminary injunction decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 22, 2013, District Judge Scheindlin granted the defendants' stay of relief, pending their appeal in the circuit court. On February 11, 2013, Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification solely for the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief. The class included "all individuals who have been or are at risk of being stopped outdoors without legal justification by NYPD officers on suspicion of trespassing in Bronx apartment buildings enrolled in the NYPD's Trespass Affidavit Program (commonly referred to as "Operation Clean Halls"). Ligon v. City of New York, 2013 WL 500272 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2013). After a nine-week bench trial, on August 12, 2013, Judge Scheindlin issued an order in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a>, finding that the City had violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by acting with “deliberate indifference” toward the NYPD's practice of making suspicion-less “stops” and “frisks” and by adopting “a policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting racially defined groups” for “stops” and “frisks.” That same day, Judge Scheindlin issued an order imposing remedies in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a> and Ligon in the form of various “reforms” to the NYPD's “stop and frisk” practices to be overseen by a court-appointed monitor. The Court appointed Peter Zimroth, former New York Corporation Counsel and former First Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, to oversee the implementation of the relief. With respect to specific remedies, the Court ordered the NYPD to adopt a written policy spelling out the specific circumstances where stopping a person suspected of trespass outside a TAP building is legal. Additionally, the Court ordered the city (1) to develop procedures to ensure proper paperwork is completed for each stop outside a Bronx TAP building; (2) to develop and adopt a system for reviewing the legality of stops outside Bronx TAP buildings; and (3) to revise the NYPD's training materials and training programs to enter conformity with the law. Additionally, the Court ordered that attorney's fees and costs be rewarded on appropriate application. The City appealed in both cases and sought a stay. In September 2013, four police unions filed notices of appeal and motions to intervene in the District Court. Three of the unions moved to intervene in both Floyd and Ligon. One union only moved to intervene in Floyd. On October 31, 2013, the Second Circuit granted the City’s motion for a stay and ordered that the cases be reassigned from Judge Scheindlin to another district judge. The Second Circuit wrote that the "District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges" in (a) speaking to the press and (b) encouraging the plaintiffs' counsel in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12023">Daniels</a> to file the <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a> litigation, separately, rather than litigating racial profiling as part of <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12023">Daniels</a> -- particularly in stating that she would treat the new case as related. 538 F. App'x 101 (2d Cir. 2013). After the Second Circuit ruled, both <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a> and Ligon were reassigned (as related) to District Judge Analisa Torres. On November 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals rejected Judge Scheindlin's motion asking to be heard on the disqualification issue and clarified the reason for reassigning the case. The Second Circuit held that the rationale for the reassignment was an appearance of impropriety, not its actual presence. 736 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2013). In the meantime, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was elected, and took a very different approach to these cases. The city moved for limited remand from the Second Circuit to the district court for the purpose of exploring settlement. On February 21, 2014, the Second Circuit granted the City’s motion to remand to the district court to explore settlement for 45 days. The Second Circuit declined to decide the police unions' motion to intervene, preferring to let the district court decide that motion first. 743 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2014). On March 4, 2014, the parties informed Judge Torres that they had “reached an agreement in principle for resolving the City's appeals in both Floyd and Ligon. The City agreed to substantially comply with the injunctive relief set forth in Judge Scheindlin's August 12, 2013, remedial order, subject to the parties' application to Judge Torres to limit the term of the court-appointed monitor to three years. When the monitor’s term ended, the City agreed to authorize the Inspector General of the NYPD to take over monitoring and reporting responsibilities. The parties agreed that the agreement could be terminated once the City has maintained compliance for two years. On July 30, 2014, Judge Torres granted the parties' joint motion to modify the remedial order and to enter it as an embodiment of their agreements. On July 30, 2014, Judge Torres also issued an order denying the police unions' motions to intervene, finding, inter alia, that the motions were untimely and that the police unions did not assert a legally protectable interest. 302 F.R.D. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). The police unions appealed. However, on August 6, 2014, with the consent of the plaintiffs in Floyd and Ligon, the City moved to voluntarily dismiss its remaining appeals, with prejudice, stating that the parties had reached an agreement that resolved all the issues raised by the City's appeals in both Floyd and Ligon, and cleared the way for the parties to begin the remedial process and settlement negotiations. On October 31, 2014, the Second Circuit granted the City’s request to voluntarily dismiss all appeals, with prejudice. In addition, the Second Circuit held that the unions’ motions to intervene were untimely and that the unions failed to establish legally protectable interests, as required to allow intervention. 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014). The parties continued to work with the monitor on developing appropriate reforms. On February 3, 2015, Judge Torres issued an order regarding the procedure for the monitor to develop and the City to implement the reforms of NYPD’s stop-and-frisk activities. The monitor would consult with the parties to create a final recommendations for the implementation of remedies. Then, the court would approve or deny the final recommendations. First, on February 23, 2015, the monitor submitted and Judge Torres approved, a memo that was read by the NYPD at 10 consecutive roll calls in all precincts detailing the reforms ordered by Judge Scheindlin in Floyd. The memo was also posted in police stations and provided to all officers. The document detailed the constitutional standards governing stop and frisks, explicitly prohibited racial profiling by police, ordered officers to include a narrative explanation for stops in their UF250 forms, and ordered the start of a pilot program outfitting police officers with body cameras. Meanwhile, on March 18, 2015, the City suggested a way for all five police unions to participate in the remedial process. Under the City's approach, the City would share proposals with the unions before providing them to the monitor and the plaintiffs. The unions could then offer their comments, which the City would convey to the monitor. This approach would afford the unions an opportunity to inform the monitor of their viewpoints before the monitor reached conclusions and submitted the final recommendations to the Court. On March 19, 2015, Judge Torres issued an order approving this framework. On August 7, 2015, the monitor submitted his final recommendations for reforms on racial profiling and street encounters. The new racial profiling policy imposed a categorical prohibition on racial and national origin profiling; it also prohibited other forms of biased policing not covered in the NYPD’s current policy, such as profiling on the basis of religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, and housing status. The new street encounters policy regarding placed clearer legal limits on stops and frisks. It required supervisory review of officer conduct to ensure compliance with the Constitution. On August 24, 2015, Judge Torres approved the final recommendations. On December 8, 2015, Judge Torres issued an order modifying the remedial order’s requirement that NYPD institute a pilot project in which body-worn cameras would be used for a one-year period. Judge Torres modified the order so that the NYPD would use a randomized experimental design for the body-worn camera pilot program. By February 2017, the parties had a settlement agreement and began the formal process for court approval of a class-action settlement. Judge Torres approved the stipulation of settlement on July 19, 2017. The settlement includes payment to the named plaintiffs totaling $235,000 and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses totaling $2,640,533. The stipulation also articulates specific standards for stopping, frisking, searching, arresting, and issuing summonses in and around TAP buildings and requires the NYPD to implement and consistently adhere to those standards. In addition to the specific reforms outlined in the settlement, it provides that further reforms will be developed as part of the remedial process described in the August 2013 Floyd/Ligon joint remedial order. While the settlement of the claims in this case was being negotiated, the joint remedial process, part of the 2013 remedial order, included a comprehensive input process regarding recommended reforms. The input process concluded in April 2017, and in January 2018 the plaintiffs, describing the parties' impasse regarding the remedial process, requested that the facilitator issue a report and the parties hold a status conference. In an order of January 29, 2018, Judge Torres provided a schedule for the parties to work with the facilitator regarding reforms under the joint remedial process. Monitoring is ongoing in this case; see Floyd (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">PN-NY-0009</a>) for the implementation and monitoring proceedings of the settlement agreements. In February of 2018, the monitor filed proposed training materials for newly promoted lieutenants and sergeants. The materials involved guidebooks and powerpoint presentations that would be used during a four week training course (for lieutenants) and a six week training course (for sergeants). The next month, Judge Torres approved the materials. In June 2018, the monitor filed additional training materials regarding In-Service Stop and Frisks by Patrol Officers, which were approved by Judge Torres the next month. On July 19, 2018, Judge Torres issued an order about the recommendation to document police-citizen encounters. The order stated that by September 13, 2018, the parties must submit a joint proposal for a pilot program to study the electronic recording of first- and second-level police-citizen encounters, to be overseen by the monitor. The proposal shall consider social science best practices. In developing the proposal, the parties shall consult with experts and the monitor. The monitor shall report to the Court whether the benefits of recording lower-level encounters outweigh the financial, administrative, and other costs, and whether the program should be expanded or terminated. On July 27, 2018, the monitor filed a report on the use of body cameras by NYPD officers that outlines how the data from the pilot program will be used to analyze police/civilian interactions, police activity, and police lawfulness. On August 13, 2018, Judge Torres approved a stipulation of fees for the time period of July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017. The City agreed to pay fees of $275,149.00 to the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation. In December of 2018, the monitor issued a report recommending the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) Guide on Processing and Investigating Complaints of Profiling and Bias-Based Policing Patrol, and two Internal Investigations courses on profiling and police bias as training materials. Judge Torres granted these recommendations in January 2019. On May 9, 2019, Judge Torres approved a stipulation of fees for the time period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The City agreed to pay fees of $85,352.00 to the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation. On May 28, 2019, the monitor made a recommendation regarding training materials for Housing Bureau members, including housing one-day training scenarios on lobby trespass, stairwell trespass, shots fired interior patrol, and roof trespass, which the Judge granted the next day. Judge Torres approved a proposed confidentiality order regarding the pilot study, which severely restricted public access to data collected on police encounters with civilians. The confidentiality order will protect the information that is obtained and created by trained observers studying officer behavior in the NYPD pilot study from disclosure to anyone other than the monitor and his team. In the related <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12021">Floyd</a> case, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the confidentiality order, and Judge Torres denied this motion on October 25, 2019. Floyd v. City of New York, 2019 WL 5537875 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2019). On June 2, 2020, Judge Torres issued an order instructing the NYPD to systematically obtain and report various categories of information. This information included declinations of prosecutions by district attorneys in New York, suppression decisions by courts excluding evidence as a result of unlawful stops and searches, court findings of incredible testimony by police officers, denials of indemnification and/or representation of police officers by the New York City Law Department, and judgments and settlements against police officers in civil cases where, in the opinion of the New York City Law Department, there exists evidence of police malfeasance. This information will be compiled regularly by the NYPD and sent to a committee, who will review the information and make assessments of individual officers, as well as the extent and manner of the intervention to be applied. This committee will also track metrics to evaluate the efficacy of the program. The committee, in conjunction with the monitor, will also develop a program for receiving and assessing information regarding adverse conduct of police officers, and this information will be provided to the Police Commissioner. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, on June 2, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the defendants to produce information about the NYPD's use of investigative encounters and social distancing enforcement practices. The city has filed its opposition brief in response to this motion, and the monitor filed a letter opposing the plaintiffs' motion. On June 12, Judge Torres denied the plaintiffs' motion. This case is ongoing.
summary: In 2012, twelve New York City residents and one former New York City resident filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York and the New York City Police Department (NYPD). They challenged the City's "Operation Clean Halls" initiative, which allowed police officers to patrol in and around private residential apartment buildings, and allegedly resulted in thousands of illegal stops, searches, summons (citations), and arrests. In 2013, the court entered a preliminary injunction ordering remedies addressing unlawful enforcement practices by the NYPD. The parties reached court-approved settlement in 2017, which included ongoing court-ordered monitoring of changes to NYPD practices, policies, training, and supervision. Monitoring is ongoing in this case, and as of June 2020, the case remains open.