Floyd vs. City of New York: A Socio-Legal Analysis

• In Event: New Policing Strategies

Abstract

In Floyd vs. City of New York, the U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York found that the New York City Police Departments stop and frisk policies violated the plaintiff’s – blacks and Hispanics who were stopped - constitutional rights. The court enjoined the New Your City Police from engaging in their stop and frisk policies and ordered remedial relief after finding New York City liable to the plaintiff’s for violating their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches by authorizing the stop and frisk searches without having reasonable suspicion and that this practice resulted in stops based solely on the plaintiff’s race in violation the Equal Protection Clause. The Stop and Frisk polices in question are the product of New York City Police Chief William J. Bratton. Advocates of the aggressive stop and frisk polices claim they have resulted in a dramatic decline in New York City’s rates of violence over the past decade. Bratton has also served as a consultant to police departments in other cities contemplating importing his policies giving Floyd vs. City of New York national importance. In this presentation, the socio-legal aspects of the case will be reviewed.

Authors

• Gary J. Kowaluk, Cameron University

• Leona Deborah Jochnowitz, University at Albany, SUNY