Floyd v. The City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:08-cv-01034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Floyd v. The City of New York, Judge Torres ordered the City and NYPD to provide the court-appointed monitor broad access needed to oversee reforms.
The City of New York and the New York Police Department must provide access and information to court-appointed monitor Peter Zimroth; the order also affects the parties to the related cases.
What happened
In Floyd v. The City of New York, the court had previously found New York City liable for constitutional violations caused by New York Police Department stop-and-frisk policies and practices. The court had also issued a permanent injunction and appointed Peter Zimroth to oversee reforms.
This order clarified how the City and the New York Police Department must support the monitor. They must provide timely, complete, and direct access to personnel, facilities, training, meetings, reviews, and other materials the monitor reasonably needs.
Judge Analisa Torres also ordered the City and NYPD to provide requested records electronically when readily available. If they withhold records based on attorney-client or work-product protection, they must identify the withheld materials and the protection claimed; the monitor may challenge those claims in court.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. The City of New York · No. 1:08-cv-01034
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
The court stated that, in a 2013 opinion, it had found the City of New York liable for violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments through New York Police Department policies and practices involving stops and frisks. On the same day, the court granted and defined a permanent injunction based on those violations and appointed Peter Zimroth as monitor to oversee the reform process.
The monitor’s assigned duties included working with the parties to develop reforms needed to end the constitutional violations and conducting compliance and progress reviews concerning the NYPD’s implementation of required reforms. The court had said that the relationship between the monitor and the City should be collaborative rather than adversarial.
Order
To clarify the City’s and NYPD’s responsibilities, the court ordered the following:
- The City and NYPD must provide the monitor timely, complete, and direct access to all NYPD personnel, facilities, trainings, meetings, and reviews that the monitor reasonably considers necessary to perform his duties. They must provide that access cooperatively. - The City and NYPD must provide timely, complete, and direct access to NYPD documents, communications, notes, recordings, and data that the monitor reasonably considers necessary, except materials restricted by court order or covered by attorney-client or work-product protection when asserted under the order. - The monitor must give reasonable notice when requesting those materials, and the City and NYPD must provide them electronically when that format is readily available. - If the City or NYPD withholds materials based on attorney-client or work-product protection, it must timely notify the monitor and provide a log describing each withheld item and identifying the protection claimed. If the monitor objects, he may challenge the protection claim before the court.
Judge Analisa Torres entered the order on April 8, 2021. The opinion does not describe a separate motion or identify any party as having requested this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.