Floyd v. City of New York
861 F. Supp. 2d 274
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Fourth Amendment limits on stop-and-frisk rests on reasonable suspicion; district court acts as gatekeeper for expert testimony.
- NYPD stop-and-frisk data from UF-250 worksheets (2.8 million stops, 2004–2009) forms the evidentiary basis for evaluating policy compliance and racial disparities.
- Jeffrey Fagan, a criminology professor, offers statistical analyses of stop-and-frisk patterns and disparate treatment; defendants challenge his qualifications and methodology.
- Court permits Fagan’s generalizations when reasonable and rejects them where inaccurate; ruling partially grants and partially denies the motion to exclude his expert opinions.
- Court discusses admissibility of expert methods under Rule 702/Daubert, the use of mixed questions of fact and law, and trial management to present the complex dataset to jurors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Fagan’s disparate treatment analysis | Fagan’s benchmark valid to test race-based disparities | Benchmark should use race-crime participation data | Admissible; benchmark appropriate for jury consideration |
| Admissibility of Fagan’s reasonable suspicion analysis | UF-250 data reveal patterns indicating lack of reasonable suspicion | Paperwork cannot prove stop legality alone | Largely admissible with limitations and trial-management safeguards |
| Use of UF-250 forms and ‘Indeterminate’ category | Forms provide probative insight into stops | Cannot generalize from forms to stop legality | Admissible with modifications and cautions; certain generalizations limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes reasonable suspicion standard for stop and frisk)
- Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (two factors (high crime area, flight) can support suspicionifferent contexts)
- United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1988) (Daubert-type gatekeeping for expert testimony in mixed questions of fact and law)
- United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991) (admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- People v. Fernandez, 16 N.Y.3d 596 (N.Y. 2011) (per se limitations on certain stop analysis; use of staggered factors)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1989) (proper benchmark in discrimination claims; not sole basis for admissibility)