Earlier this year in Floyd v. City of New York, U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin handed down a 237-page liability opinion finding that the City of New York, through the New York City Police Department ("City"), violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of plaintiffs by engaging in racial profiling in the execution of its stop and frisk policy.
The Injunctive Order
Judge Scheindlin wrote a separate opinion detailing the remedies in Floyd. Finding equitable relief proper, she ordered the appointment of a third-party Monitor to oversee the process of bringing the City's "stop and frisk practices into compliance with the Constitution."
Immediate reforms to the City's practices included, but were not limited to: (1) the NYPD's revision of its stop and frisk training and policies; (2) properly documenting stop and frisk activity; (3) changing the UF-250 form from just checkboxes, to include a description for the basis of the stop; (4) changes to "supervision, monitoring and discipline;" (5) a pilot project where officers would wear body-cameras; and (6) community input into reforms.
Motion to Stay Pending Appeal
Soon after, the City filed a 343-page motion to stay an injunctive order pending appeal to the Second Circuit. The City argued that Judge Scheindlin's decision contains "flawed legal finding[s]" and "[w]ithout justification, the Injunction imposes the will of the federal judiciary in matters of local law enforcement."
The plaintiffs countered by stating the City's "parade of horribles" is speculative, and do not constitute irreparable harm.
If you're wondering how the Second Circuit will decide the appeal, we may get a glimpse next Tuesday, October 29, when it is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the City's motion to stay the injunctive order pending appeal.
not surprising Second Circuit news, the conviction of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the man of many aliases, and the man convicted of conspiring to bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, was upheld.