Gray v. City of New York

Background

The court retained jurisdiction to enforce a settlement resolving multiple lawsuits arising from alleged police misconduct during demonstrations in New York City in 2020. In Gray, members of the press alleged that City officials and others unlawfully and unconstitutionally assaulted or arrested them while they were engaged in constitutionally protected newsgathering activities.

The settlement, filed and approved on April 17, 2024, included provisions governing police interactions with members of the press. Section VI stated that the New York City Police Department must adopt policies, protocols, and guide updates concerning press interactions in both First Amendment Activity and non-First Amendment-Activity situations. The opinion defined First Amendment Activity as a protest or demonstration at which people exercise rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution.

Paragraph 89(h)

Paragraph 89(h) addresses the arrest of a member of the press for a “Red Light offense,” a category of specified low-level offenses defined elsewhere in the settlement. If the person presents a government-issued press credential, the arrest process must be approved by the Incident Commander or personnel from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Press Interaction. For a summons-eligible offense, the presumption is that the person will receive the summons at the location of the encounter. Removal to an arrest-processing facility or another location is permitted when the Incident Commander determines that issuing the summons at the scene would create a health or safety risk.

The plaintiffs argued that Paragraph 89(h) required the City to include these procedures in policies and training for arrests both during and outside demonstrations. The City argued that the provision applied only during demonstrations because “Red Light offenses” and “Incident Commander” were used elsewhere in the settlement in connection with demonstrations. The City also argued that personnel from the press-interaction office were not trained or equipped to approve arrests.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the stipulated settlement as a court-approved contract and applied contract-interpretation principles. It concluded that the relevant language was unambiguous. Section VI expressly applied to both demonstration-related and non-demonstration-related situations, and nothing in Paragraph 89(h) limited that provision to demonstrations.

The court rejected the City’s arguments. It held that the reference to “Red Light offenses” incorporated the definition of that term but did not bring Paragraph 89(h) within the settlement provisions that applied only to demonstrations. It also concluded that “Incident Commander” was defined in the NYPD Patrol Guide as the highest-ranking uniformed police supervisor responsible for managing the incident, and that the Patrol Guide allowed an Incident Commander to be designated in non-demonstration situations. The court viewed the provision allowing approval by press-interaction personnel as an alternative for situations in which no Incident Commander was available.

The court further ruled that the City’s assertion that its press-interaction personnel traditionally did not approve arrests did not change the settlement’s terms. If the settlement gave those personnel a new responsibility, the City had to provide the necessary training.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion. It directed the City to engage with the plaintiffs to ensure that protocols were drafted for press arrests during non-demonstration situations.

The court also GRANTED the consent-letter motions seeking sealing in connection with the motion, but stated that the sealed material was limited to settlement-discussion evidence that the court did not consider. The court therefore directed that the opinion and complaint be filed publicly. It also GRANTED motions seeking removal of the names of former Corporation Counsel from the docket and directed the Clerk of Court to remove various motions from the list of open motions.