Davis v. The City of New York

Background

The opinion addresses related litigation involving the New York City Police Department’s stop, frisk, search, and trespass-enforcement policies. Earlier rulings in the related Floyd and Ligon cases found constitutional violations involving race-based or suspicionless police stops and ordered reforms overseen by an independent monitor. The Davis plaintiffs had settled their case and agreed to participate in that remedial process.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, New York State and New York City officials issued orders concerning stay-at-home requirements, public gatherings, face coverings, social distancing, and a temporary citywide curfew. The Mayor directed the NYPD and other City agencies to enforce those orders.

Plaintiffs’ Requests

The Floyd and Davis Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion alleging that the NYPD enforced COVID-19 rules in a racially discriminatory manner. They cited racial disparities in arrests and summonses, alleged excessive force, and described encounters involving Black and Latinx individuals. They also expressed concern that curfew enforcement would facilitate discrimination against Black and Latinx people. The City disputed facts concerning many of the reported encounters.

The plaintiffs requested four forms of relief:

The Ligon Plaintiffs joined the requests for an investigation and discovery.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that its power to enforce earlier judgments and injunctions is broad but limited. Relief must be no broader than necessary to address the harm previously litigated. The court may not use an earlier injunction to restrain legal conduct or conduct involving practices unrelated to those previously found unlawful.

The court concluded that some alleged conduct involving suspicionless and race-based stops could fall within the ongoing monitoring process created in the earlier litigation. The monitor had already committed to requesting information about stops, frisks, searches, and trespass enforcement occurring during COVID-19 and curfew enforcement.

But the court found that much of the plaintiffs’ allegations—such as disproportionate arrests, excessive force, and alleged failures by City and NYPD leaders to respond—went beyond the policies and practices adjudicated in the earlier cases. The court also found that a blanket order stopping COVID-19 enforcement would reach conduct outside the case and could halt lawful enforcement. It stated that people injured by racial bias in COVID-19 arrests or use of force could pursue those allegations in a separate, full lawsuit, but that this motion was not an appropriate way to address them.

The court also rejected the request to expand the earlier injunctions to cover a different set of potentially unconstitutional practices. For discovery concerning stops, frisks, searches, and trespass enforcement, the court noted that the monitor was already addressing the subject. For discovery reaching beyond those topics, the plaintiffs had not shown that the requested discovery was within, or an appropriate use of, the court’s inherent authority to enforce its judgments.

Disposition

The court denied the request for a declaration, investigation, and injunction. It separately denied the motion to compel discovery. In its conclusion, the court stated that all four requests were denied. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion in the Ligon docket.