- About Us
- Our Work
- Get Involved
- Support Us
Case Updates8/30/13Federal Judge Grants Class Certification in Case Challenging Discriminatory Use of Stops-and-Arrests for Trespass in New York City's Public Housing 8/16/13Legal Defense Fund is appalled at Mayor Bloomberg’s comment that people should be “fingerprinted” before entering NYC public housing 8/12/13Landmark ruling declares NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk tactics violate rights 4/01/13Case Brought by LDF and the Legal Aid Society Challenging Unlawful and Discriminatory Policing by the NYPD Moves Towards Trial 10/05/12Fed Ct. Rejects NYC Effort to End Public Housing Residents' Challenge to Illegal Trespass Stops and Arrests 7/12/11Illegal Police Stops Case in NYC Public Housing Moves Toward Trial 9/29/10LDF and Legal Aid Society Testify before City Council 1/29/10NYC Sued Over Unlawful and Discriminatory Policing in Public Housing
Floyd Remedy Opinion 11/01/13
Floyd Liability Opinion 11/01/13
Second Circuit Order 11/01/13
Judge Scheindlin's Response 11/01/13
Davis Opinion 3-28-2013 3/28/13
"Know Your Rights" Handout 1/11/13
Amended Court Opinion Denying, in Part, Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Individual Claims 10/09/12
Davis Amended Complaint 6/08/11
Criminal Justice | Abuse of Police Discretion
Are residents of public housing in New York City entitled to be free from police harassment in their homes just like other New Yorkers? Can they be stopped or arrested without regard for their rights? Has NYC criminalized traveling home or visiting a friend while black or brown?
On January 29, 2010, a group comprised of residents of and visitors to New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residences filed suit against NYCHA and the City of New York. The case challenges the NYPD’s practices of unlawful stops and arrests of NYCHA residents and their visitors for criminal trespass based on their race and/or ethnicity. In recent years, the number of trespass arrests in NYCHA has risen exponentially. Many of these unconstitutional stops and arrests are the product of “vertical sweeps,” an NYPD practice of stopping individuals in or around common areas of NYCHA residences without individualized suspicion. In essence, the NYPD only operates these unlawful pedestrian checkpoints in communities of color. In fact, the rate of stops and arrests for trespass in overwhelming non-white NYCHA residences is significantly higher than in surrounding areas with similar crime rates. NYCHA residences located in white or gentrifying neighborhoods display even starker rates of disparities in trespass stops and arrests.
NYCHA residents and their visitors deserve to feel safe and receive the same police protection provided to other New Yorkers. They should not have to forfeit their constitutional rights to live in public housing. Some of the Plaintiffs were detained or arrested by NYPD police officers in their own buildings or while trying to visit family members and friends. Other Plaintiffs are residents of NYCHA whose family members and friends are the ones being stopped and arrested while trying to visit. At the time of the stops or arrests, the individuals were not engaged in illegal activity, nor were they on NYCHA properties without authorization. Following the arrests, all of the charges were dismissed. The case alleges that the NYPD targets NYCHA residences and only implements these unlawful practices in communities of color. They charge the City of New York and NYCHA with the violation of their Constitutional rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the Fair Housing Act, the United Housing Act, and the laws of New York City and State.
The case against the Defendants aims to establish that officers of the NYPD are stopping individuals at NYCHA residences without individualized suspicion and arresting them without probable cause, that the NYPD practices discriminatory policies against minorities, and that the City of New York and NYCHA violate the housing rights of NYCHA residents. The Plaintiffs are acting on the behalves of themselves and others similarly situated. They seek a class-wide judgment declaring the Defendants’ policies unconstitutional under federal, state, and local laws, an end to the policies in question, and compensation for their individual claims.