Davis v. The City of New York

Background

The opinion concerns related litigation about the New York City Police Department’s stop, frisk, search, and trespass-enforcement practices. In an earlier related proceeding, the court found the City liable for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments arising from stop-and-frisk practices and issued a permanent injunction, called the Remedial Order. The Remedial Order appointed an independent monitor to oversee reforms and required a community-based process to develop additional reforms. The parties in Davis later agreed to participate in that remedial process and to incorporate its orders into their settlement.

The motion was brought by the Floyd and Davis plaintiffs. They argued that the end of the community-based joint remedial process had reduced meaningful community involvement in the monitoring process. They asked the court to modify the Remedial Order to require: (1) annual community surveys and twice-yearly field audits of stop-and-frisk activity; (2) public status conferences at least twice a year; and (3) a Community Collaborative Board to advise the monitor and court and provide input on proposed discipline reforms. The City and the monitor opposed the motion.

While the motion was pending, the monitor proposed a community liaison position. Representatives of the plaintiffs, the City, and the monitor formed a selection committee, and a community advisory group also participated in the selection process. On December 16, 2022, the court appointed Germain Thompson as the independent community liaison.

Legal standard

The court explained that a federal district court has broad authority to revise an injunction, including under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Any modification must not undermine the purpose of the injunction.

Analysis

The court concluded that the request for annual community surveys was moot because the monitor had revised its compliance matrix to incorporate community members’ experiences and input. The plaintiffs agreed with those revisions and did not propose further changes.

The court denied the request for twice-yearly field audits using integrity-testing methods. Plaintiffs argued that these audits could address limitations in the monitor’s analysis of stop reports, including possible underreporting by officers. The City questioned whether the method was reliable, and the monitor raised concerns about the difficulty of conducting nearly 400 audits every six months to obtain a representative sample. The court found that plaintiffs had not shown the proposal was appropriately designed for this monitorship or supported by practical examples showing that it would be safe, feasible, or reliable. The court therefore found the proposal unlikely to advance the purpose of the Remedial Order.

The court also denied the request for public status conferences at least twice a year. It found that such conferences were not necessary at that time, while noting that it could schedule one or more conferences later if it determined they would be helpful.

Finally, the court denied the request to appoint a Community Collaborative Board. The court recognized the importance of involving people most affected by stop-and-frisk practices, but concluded that the community liaison was better positioned to obtain community input and address public perceptions of the reform process. The court also noted that the parties, monitor, and community liaison were pursuing community involvement through multiple avenues.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to modify the Remedial Order. It separately denied as moot plaintiffs’ request to hold the motion in abeyance.