AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability
of Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel


     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Racial/National Origin Discrimination

See also, in the AELE Correctional Library, summaries of cases on Racial Discrimination and Racial Harassment.

A - Racial or ethnic profiling on traffic or street stops or enforcement efforts

     A city’s police department stated a program of focused surveillance of repeat violent offenders. One of the ten repeat offenders originally targeted by the program sued, claiming that he was selected because of his race and that doing so deprived him of liberty without due process. He also contended that doing so stigmatized him and subjected him to increased surveillance, penalties, and reporting requirements. He argued that blacks such as himself were only 4.6 percent of the city’s population, but made up 37.6 percent of all arrests, as well as 86 percent of those targeted for enhanced surveillance. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit. The plaintiff failed to present evidence that could support a reasonable fact finder concluding that the targeted surveillance program had a discriminatory purpose or effect, or that his inclusion violated his rights. His evidence did not show whether black, repeat violent offenders were treated differently from white, repeat violent offenders. Alston v. City of Madison, #16-1034, 853 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2017).

     A man who is of Kurdish and Turkish descent claimed that two police officers arrested him because of his ethnicity in violation of equal protection. The officers came upon him while investigating a report of a suspicious person “casing” the neighborhood, and he fit the reported description. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on claims of selective enforcement and failure to intervene, finding that the officers’ actions had no proven discriminatory effect or purpose. Gilani v. Matthews, #16-1689, 843 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2016).
     The City of Chicago Police Department and the Illinois ACLU, without litigation, negotiated a settlement agreement which will result in monitoring how officers in the city conduct street stop and frisks. The ACLU sought the agreement based on concerns that officers were disproportionately targeting minorities for such searches. The monitoring will involve documenting all such searches, not only those which result in an arrest. A jointly named independent consultant, a former U.S. magistrate judge, will issue public reports based on the monitoring twice a year and will recommend changes in policy. Additional training will be conducted, pursuant to the settlement to try to make sure that officers do not use race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation when deciding to stop and frisk, except when those are listed characteristics in a specific suspect description. The complete text of the agreement may be read at the link. Investigatory Stop and Protective Pat Down Settlement Agreement, City of Chicago and Illinois ACLU (August 6, 2015).
     A class action federal lawsuit was filed against a sheriff and the county sheriff's office claiming that they had a policy, practice, or custom of "racially profiling" Hispanic drivers and passengers and conducting pretextual vehicle stops for the purpose of enforcing federal and state immigration related laws. A federal appeals court found that the county sheriff's office was improperly named as a defendant instead of the county. The sheriff's office had no separate capacity to be sued. It further ruled that trial court did not err in finding that there were unconstitutional policies in place going beyond the context of saturation patrols, even though the evidence presented of the violations mostly addressed saturation patrols.. The named plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims of absent class members stopped during such non-saturation patrols. An injunction issued by the trial court against the complained of practices was not overbroad because it included non-saturation patrols. Some provisions of the injunctive order, however, in mandating that a court appointed monitor look at internal investigations and reports concerning officer misconduct, were problematic, however, to the extent that such material was unrelated to the constitutional violations at issue. An order requiring officer training properly focused on the racially discriminatory profiling of Latinos for traffic stops and unjustified prolongation of traffic stops. Melendres v. Arpaio, #13-16285, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015).
     A police officer arrived at an apartment building in response to a complaint about minors drinking outdoors there. A minor white female drinking with a group of three African-American males, was so intoxicated that she could not stand up by herself, so one of them had to hold her up from behind. The officer arrived and talked to the males, allowing them to leave with the female without asking for identification. One of the males was on probation for armed robbery and the other two males were minors. The three males then carried the female to a laundry room, and the apartment site manager again called police. Officers arrived and caught the probationer sexually assaulting the girl in the laundry room. In a failure to protect lawsuit, a federal appeals court found that the officer had not created the danger to the girl or done anything to make it worse. He was entitled to qualified immunity from liability. The court also rejected arguments that the officer was a racist who wanted the girl to come to harm because she as white and socializing with African-Americans. The plaintiff's reference to another incident in which the officer while operating an unmarked police car, ran over and killed an eight-year-old African-American boy and lied to cover it up was not similar to the immediate incident, and any connection was speculative. Doe v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, #14-1461, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5972 (7th Cir.).
     A man who previously worked as a confidential drug informant sued a DEA agent and city police for false drug charges allegedly brought against him, claiming malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and deprivation of (and conspiracy to deprive him of) his constitutional rights on the basis of race or color. The DEA agent was entitled to absolute immunity for his allegedly false grand jury testimony against the plaintiff. The alleged cooperation between the DEA agent and the city police did not support an inference that they acted for an improper motive, and no discriminatory animus was shown. Abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and racial discrimination claims were all rejected. Morales v. City of New York, #13-2126, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9157 (2nd Cir.).
     Six Muslim individuals and a number of Muslim-owned businesses, mosques, and a student organization claimed that the New York City Police Department's surveillance of the Muslim community in New Jersey following the attacks of September 11, 2001 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by targeting Muslims solely on the basis of their religion. The federal trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself. The court also stated that, Nowhere in the complaint do plaintiffs allege that they suffered harm prior to the unauthorized release of the documents by the Associated Press. This confirms that plaintiffs alleged injuries flow from the Associated Presss unauthorized disclosure of the documents. The harms are not fairly traceable to any act of surveillance. An appeal in the case is expected. Hassan v. City of New York, #2-12-3401, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20887 (D.N.J.).
     A federal judge ruled that the stop-and-frisk tactics employed by the New York City Police Department violated the constitutional rights of many thousands of people detained. The court found that police routinely systematically stopped innocent people on the street without an objective reason to suspect them of any wrongdoing. Predominately young minority males were stopped and frisked for weapons or drugs before being let go. The searches increased over the years, the courtfound, even as crime declined, and violated the Fourth Amendment.
The city acted with deliberate indifference to the widespread practice and violated the equal protection rights of minorities. The court also found that the practices that led to unconstitutional stops and frisks were sufficiently widespread that they had the force of law. Floyd v. City of New York, #08-1034, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113271 (S.D.N.Y). In an order concerning remedies, the judge appointed a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms of the stop-and-frisk practices, and mandated the officers wear body cameras in selected precincts, among other measures. Floyd v. City of New York, #08-1034, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113205 (S.D.N.Y).
     Finding that an Arizona sheriff violated the constitutional rights of Hispanic drivers by stopping motorists of that origin in the course of an intended crackdown on illegal immigrants, a federal judge enjoined the practice of using race or ancestry as grounds for stopping, detaining, or holding occupants of vehicles, including in crime sweeps labeled "saturation patrols." In the quest for illegal immigrants, the court found, many U.S. citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin were stopped and detained. Melendres v. Arpaio, #CV-07-02513, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73869 (D. Ariz.).
     The highest court in Maryland has upheld an order requiring the state police to release records the NAACP requested concerning internal investigations of complaints of racial profiling during traffic stops and searches. The records were to be released with the names and identification of individual officers redacted. The court found that, after officers' names, the names of complainants, and all identifying information were removed, the reports were not personnel records or the "records of an individual" for the purpose of any exemption from disclosure under a state public information law. Md. Dep't of State Police v. Md. State Conf. of NAACP Branches, #41-10, 2013 Md. Lexis 15.
     An African-American motorist fleeing from police stopped his car, and then started moving backwards in a circular path. An officer, believing that he might be run over, fired four or five shots, killing the driver. The decedent's mother sued the municipality, claiming that it exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of black people. A federal appeals court rejected this claim, finding no evidence that a "policymaking official was aware of constitutional injury, or the risk of constitutional injury, but failed to take appropriate action." It noted that "isolated acts of excessive force by non-policymaking municipal employees are generally not sufficient to demonstrate a municipal custom, policy, or usage that would justify municipal liability." Jones v. Town of East Haven, #104731, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 15928 (2nd Cir.).
     A jury awarded an African-American arrestee $80,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages on illegal seizure and equal protection claims. The arrestee had called 911 after a Caucasian auto body shop owner had allegedly fought with him, and threatened to get his gun, and an employee of the shop chased him away with a bat. Officers arriving on the scene allegedly did not listen to the African-American man's story, but instead placed him under arrest and in handcuffs, on charges of which he was later acquitted. Overturning the trial court's rejection of the jury's verdict, the federal appeals court ruled that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the plaintiff was unlawfully seized and detained, and had been subjected to discriminatory treatment. Pitts v. Delaware, #10-3388, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12215 (3rd Cir.).
     Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for conducting searches of the members of a high school soccer team following a heated match with another school. The officers were searching for items of personal property athletes from the opposing school's football team claimed were missing from the locker room. The search was conducted with the apparent consent of the team's coach, although he subsequently claimed that the officers coerced his consent. The appeals court rejected the largely Hispanic plaintiffs' claim that the officers engaged in "racial profiling" in conducting the searches. Lopera v. Town of Coventry, #09-2386, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6757 (1st Cir.).
     A motorist sought to assert a claim for unlawful racial profiling--selective law enforcement by a New Jersey state trooper. The plaintiff was a native of Colombia, and the two passengers in his vehicle were Hispanic. He was stopped by the trooper for alleged speeding and during the stop, the trooper noticed that a passenger had a white powdery substance in his mustache, causing the trooper to request consent to search the car, which was granted, leading to the finding of cocaine in the vehicle, and the motorist's arrest by a second trooper who arrived on the scene. The motorist was convicted on the drug charges nine years later, and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Almost three years later, however, the state moved to vacate his conviction, stating that "colorable issues of racial profiling" existed at the time of arrest. Approximately a year and a half later, or fourteen years after the initial arrest, the motorist sued, asserting claims for false arrest and selective enforcement. Holding that the motorist's claims were time barred, a federal appeals court found that the motorist did not have to wait until his conviction was overturned to bring his lawsuit, since his claim for selective enforcement, in particular, did not necessarily depend on the invalidity of his conviction. But his claim did not accrue until he was aware of facts indicating racial profiling and selective enforcement. In this case, that was at least by July of 2001, when his attorney became aware of extensive documents describing the state's alleged selective enforcement practices. Since it was over two years later that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit, his claims were time barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Dique v. New Jersey State Police, #05-1159, 603 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2010).
     A racially and ethnically Korean motorist adequately alleged racial bias in the failure of two racially and ethnically Micronesian police officers to investigate a crime of intoxicated driving or to arrest a Micronesian motorist for DUI after his vehicle crashed into the Korean motorist's car. Both a failure to investigate and a failure to arrest, if based on racial bias, can violate the right to equal protection of law, which is clearly established. Elliot-Park v. Manglona, #08-16089, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 723 (9th Cir.).
     Occupants of a van, containing between twelve and fourteen passengers, questioned by an officer following a traffic stop, claimed that he violated their civil rights by asking about their immigration status. The appeals court found that it was not clear that the brief questioning on the issue by the officer or the few minutes it took him to receive a response from immigration had resulted in the unreasonable extension of the time of the stop, or that he was required to have independent reasonable suspicion to make a brief inquiry into immigration status. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity on civil rights claims arising from asking the plaintiffs' status and contacting immigration, as well as requiring that the van go to the local immigration office, particularly as it appeared that many passengers in the van essentially admitted to being in the country illegally. The officer was also entitled to qualified immunity on claims under the Rhode Island Racial Profiling Prevention Act. Estrada v. Rhode Island, #09-1149, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2390 (1st Cir.).
    During a time of "violent unrest" on a Mohawk Indian reservation in New York, state officials responsible for policing the area were accused of violating the residents' rights to equal protection by responding to the violence in an inadequate way. The plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit argued that an improper express racial classification was used by the defendants in establishing roadblocks at the edge of the reservation and using them to keep non-residents out or give them information about the ongoing violence. The plaintiffs also objected to the defendants allegedly having informed an armed Mohawk organization when police entered the reservation, and the cessation, during that period, of regular police patrols on the land. The court found no violation of equal protection. It found that the roadblocks aimed at limiting the area of the violence, that notifying the armed group of police presence, even if it amounted to accommodation of that group's demands, was not based on race. There was neither an express racial classification nor discriminatory intent, according to the court. Pyke v. Cuomo, #07-0334, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11119 (2nd Cir.).
     Two African-American owners of rental property were given several citations for alleged violations on the premises, which was subsequently padlocked on the basis that it was unfit for human beings to live in. Rejecting claims of racial discrimination, the court pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to show that any similarly situated uninhabitable homes not owned by African-Americans had not been
     A Pakistani Muslim was arrested on suspicion of terrorist activity by federal agents following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and detained in restrictive conditions. He filed a federal civil rights action against a number of federal officials, including the Attorney General and the F.B.I, director, claiming that he had been unjustly labeled a person of "high interest" because of his race, religion, or national origin. The lawsuit also objected to the arrest and detention of thousands of Arab Muslim men during the September 11th investigation, as well as to purportedly overly harsh conditions of confinement. The Court overturned the denial of the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that there were insufficient facts pled to show purposeful and unlawful discrimination. There was no showing that the policy under which the plaintiff was detained was the product of discrimination. The Court noted that because the September 11th terrorist attacks were carried out by Arab Muslims, "it is not surprising" that a legitimate policy directing law enforcement to arrest and detain individuals because of their suspected link to the attacks would produce a disparate, incidental impact on Arab Muslims, even though the policy's purpose was to target neither Arabs nor Muslims. The Court stated that the appeals court below should determine whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07-1015, 2009 U.S. Lexis 3472.
     An African-American resident failed to show that a police officer subjected him to racial discrimination because he and his family, the only African-Americans on the block, were the only residents investigated after graffiti appeared there. He failed to show that he was treated differently than other similarly situated people, since he had just moved to the area, and a gang investigator, whether correctly or not, had told the officer that he was the uncle of a gang member who belonged to a gang that the graffiti related to. Other residents on the block were not identified as being related to gang members, and were all long-standing residents of the area. Flowers v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota; #07-2705, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5215 (8th Cir.).
     In a malicious prosecution lawsuit in which the plaintiffs also claimed that police officers engaged in racial profiling in making a traffic stop, an appeals court upheld a jury verdict for the defendant officers. The plaintiffs failed to successfully carry the burden of showing the jury that the marijuana found in their vehicle was not in plain view. King v. Brando, No. 07-3678, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25642 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     For purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, the vacating of a motorist's guilty plea to a drug offense on the basis of a state report indicating that state police engaged in unlawful racial profiling in stopping motorists did not establish his innocence, as required to show a "favorable termination" of the criminal case against him. Hilton v. Whitman, Civil Action No. 04-6420, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 102157 (D.N.J.).
     A white couple claimed that a private club and a state trooper engaged in racial discrimination in violation of their First Amendment freedom of association rights in ending their wedding reception early, allegedly because of the presence of African-American guests. The club, in requesting police assistance to oust them, was not a state actor for purposes of federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and the claim against the trooper was rejected on the basis that the First Amendment did not protect the association involved in the wedding reception. Schultz v. Wilson, #08-1023, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26248 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Two long time friends of Arab ethnicity flying from San Diego to New York claimed that they were improperly seized after they got off the plane and confronted with shotguns and police dogs, after which they were placed in police station cells for four hours and questioned about alleged terrorist surveillance actions on the plane. No evidence of wrongdoing on their part was found, they stated. In a federal civil rights and Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit against a police detective, an FBI agent, and two counter-terrorism agents, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' Arab ethnic origin could not be used, under the Fourth Amendment, as a factor in deciding whether their detention was justified, and that race can not be used to show criminal propensities. Farag v. U.S., Case No. 05-CV-3919, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 95331 (E.D.N.Y.).
     African-American failed to show that Nebraska state trooper's stop of vehicle was based on racial profiling, when trooper's unopposed statement of facts indicated that the stop was made because the car was speeding and following another vehicle too closely. There was also no evidence that either the Nebraska governor or Attorney General promoted policies constituting racial profiling in traffic stops. Ballard v. Heineman, No. 08-1103 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24297 (8th Cir.).
     When a police officer followed a man's vehicle after he left a building believed to be the site of drug trafficking, no reasonable jury could infer that his actions were only taken because the man was African-American. The mere fact that the plaintiff was an African-American who was followed by an officer was insufficient to assert a claim for racial profiling. Starr v. Downs, No. 07-5161, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6615 (10th Cir.).
     Plaintiff in federal civil rights lawsuit over two incidents in which officers allegedly pointed their guns at him without justification failed to provide any evidence that the city had a policy authorizing the use of excessive force against African-Americans such as himself, or that the incidents occurred as a result of a municipal policy or custom. The evidence in the record showed official orders telling officers to use the minimum amount of force necessary, and to use deadly force only as a last resort in response to a "grave" threat. Additionally, the two incidents at issue, since they occurred 13 months apart, did not show the existence of a custom. Wakefield v. City of Pembroke Pines, No. 07-11687, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6044 (11th Cir.).
     Police officers followed a suspect's vehicle on the basis of reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in drug activity, and observed him commit what they reasonably believed were multiple traffic offenses. They also did not issue the arrestee a traffic summons until after his vehicle had collided with an unmarked police vehicle. In light of that, the plaintiff failed to show that the officers, as he claimed, caused the accident, filed a false report for the purpose of violating his constitutional rights, or engaged in traffic stops based on race. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also rejected claims against an auto dealer asserting that it lent the police department vehicles knowing that the officers would carry out traffic stops on the basis of race. Martin v. Lakewood Police Dept., No. 07-4542, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3786 (3rd Cir.).
     African-American business owner failed to show that racial discrimination was the basis of police conduct that allegedly wound up putting his bar and grill out of business. The defendants allegedly cited him for numerous violations, but never pressed charges, and he claimed that they singled out his business on the basis of racial animus. Claims against the city were abandoned, and the plaintiff failed to show that a police sergeant's actions violated the Fourth Amendment or violated his right to equal protection of the law. Richards v. City of Los Angeles, No. 06-55593, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29979 (9th Cir.).
     Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that he improperly continued to detain two Hispanic family members at a store after determining that they had a receipt for the merchandise he suspected them of stealing. He allegedly forced them to continue to wait at the store until the border patrol arrived on the basis of nothing other than the fact that they were Hispanics, and should have known, at that time, that he lacked a basis to continue their detention. Flores v. J.C. Penney Corp., No. 06-55570, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28039 (9th Cir.).
     Police officers were not involved in racial profiling or stereotyping by conducting an investigation looking for young black males who had cuts on their hands or arms. The victim of a home invasion had told them that she was attacked by a black male, and their investigation focused, for legitimate reasons on suspects who matched the physical description provided by the crime victim. Brown v. New York, No. 501702, 2007 N.Y. App. Lexis 9286 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
     Owners of now defunct nightclub failed to present any evidence from which a jury could reasonably believe that race played any role in the suspension of the club's liquor license, or that the city, its police chief, or the county liquor commissioners harassed and intimidated the club's patrons because the club sponsored "hip hop" nights that attracted a mostly black clientele. Orgain v. City of Salisbury, No. L-02-2797, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57770 (D. Md.).
     There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that the police department had a custom or practice of "deliberate indifference" to African-Americans' constitutional rights, and that the Chief of Police was aware of the custom or policy, and was deliberately indifferent to it. The court granted a motion by the plaintiff for a hearing on compensatory damages, but granted a motion by the town to set aside the jury's determination that punitive damages should be awarded against it. Jones v. Town of East Haven, No. 3:99CV00632, 2007 U.S. Dist. 48838 (D. Conn.).
     African-American motorist's claim that he was stopped for having a broken side-view mirror on the basis of racial profiling and selective enforcement, and that the officer acted on the basis of a county policy, was sufficient to provide notice of the basis of his lawsuit. Aikman v. County of Westchester, No. 04 Civ. 7543, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42014 (S.D.N.Y.).
     Arrestee failed to show that police officer or police department engaged in intentional racial discrimination when they arrested him and conducted a visual body cavity search at the police station, based on his fitting the description of a person allegedly involved in drug dealing. The officer acted on the basis of a description from a reliable informant, and had the informant positively identify the plaintiff prior to carrying out his arrest. Nothing showed that these actions were based on race. Harrison v. Christopher, No. 03-243, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38224 (D. Del.).
     African-American college student placed under arrest following an armed bank robbery failed to show that officers' actions constituted racial discrimination. His clothing matched a description of the clothing worn by the robber, and the auto license plate on a dispatch concerning the robbery matched the license plate of a student at the college. Godette v. Stanley, No. 05-11354, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35807 (D. Mass.).
      African-American occupants of a car, who were stopped and then arrested when allegedly found in possession of cocaine, in stating that they were subjected to unlawful racial profiling, and that ranking police officers had "allowed" a violation of their constitutional rights through racial profiling made only an "unsupported conclusion." They failed to provide any supporting facts. The claims of plaintiffs against the individual defendants were therefore dismissed. Claims against state police troopers in their official capacities were claims against the state of New Jersey, and were therefore also dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Arnold v. State of New Jersey, Civ. No. 03-3997, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33982 (D.N.J.).
    The plaintiff failed to show that a police officer or the city that employed him acted with racially discriminatory intent by approaching him at his home and asking him to provide a DNA sample while investigating alleged sexual assaults. The defendants were approaching youthful-looking black males, but not youthful-looking white males because of a physical description provided by the victims of the assaults, not because of racially discriminatory policies or animus. Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia, Civil No. 3:05cv00074, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6909 (W.D. Va.).
     Maryland State Police Department, on the basis of its anti-discrimination policy, and other actions urging compliance with that policy, was entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit concerning alleged unlawful traffic stops and searches claimed to be based on racial profiling. Summary judgment was also granted to all but one supervisory officer named as a defendant. Court allows claims to proceed against all but three of the individual state troopers named as defendants in the lawsuit. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Maryland State Police, No. JKB-98-1098, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73862 (D. Md.). [N/R]
     Complaint in lawsuit brought by Hispanic and African-American motorists claiming that county police had a policy of racial profiling in traffic stops was sufficient to meeting the minimum requirements of pleading in federal court, including claims against the county for municipal liability. Feliciano v. County of Suffolk, No. 04-CV-5321, 419 F. Supp. 2d 302 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     There were issues of fact as to whether an officer's stop of a vehicle and search of a passenger in it was motivated by racial bias, and whether the stop of the vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion of a crime, barring summary judgment. Johnson v. Anhorn, No. 03-2424, 416 F. Supp. 2d 338 (E.D. Pa. 2006). [N/R]
     African-American man detained by police officer in front of his home as a suspect in an assault and robbery was entitled to a new trial in his unlawful detention lawsuit when the officer's detention of him was not based on any articulated facts. Subsequent pressing of criminal charges against him and another African-American male for alleged involvement in the crime, while failing to bring similar charges against a white male also identified by the victim as involved in the crime, were not shown to be racially motivated. Mitchell v. Boelcke, No. 04-2219, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5120 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
     Man exonerated, by DNA evidence, of attempted rape after serving five years of a 70 year sentence failed to show that his constitutional rights were violated, or his wrongful conviction and imprisonment caused, by improperly conducted photo arrays or lineup, destruction of evidence, racial discrimination, or claimed city policies of inadequate training and supervising of officers. Alexander v. City of S. Bend, No. 042535, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 2 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
     Factual disputes concerning a traffic stop barred summary judgment for deputy sheriffs who stopped motorist who claimed that the stop was based on racial profiling rather than legitimate suspicion of violation of traffic laws concerning speeding. Court finds no basis, however, for claims against the county or sheriff as there was not a history of alleged race-based traffic stops, and the deputies involved had been trained to enforce laws without regard to race or ethnicity. Christopher v. Nestlerode, No. CIV. A. 104CV0977, 373 F. Supp. 2d 503 (M.D. Pa. 2005). [N/R]
    No reasonable officer could have believed that there was arguable probable cause to arrest, for obstruction, an African-American attorney who allegedly watched a traffic stop of two young black men by white police officers from forty to fifty feet away, and did nothing to interfere or intervene. Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, No. 04-1969, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14802 (8th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory traffic stop based on a number of factors, including traffic violations, and the location and time of day, entitling him to qualified immunity on racial profiling claims asserted by vehicle's occupants. Anderson v. Bott, No. 03-16169, 127 Fed. Appx. 266 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Jury in federal civil rights lawsuit by Arabic owners of New York delicatessens could properly find, from the evidence presented, that a special task force did not single their business out for enforcement efforts on the basis of their national origin. The enforcement efforts concerned outdated food, trash buildup, loitering, overpricing of goods, and improper sales of drug paraphernalia and single cigarettes. The list of delis to be targeted by the task force was based on those with the greatest number of complaints. On an unlawful search and seizure claim, the jury could find, from the evidence, that the business owners consented to the search of the premises. While the jury verdict came three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center attributed to persons of Arabic ethnicity, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of possible bias by the jury, when they failed to seek either a delay of the trial or a mistrial after the attacks occurred. Saleh v. City of Buffalo, #01-9298, 80 Fed. Appx. 119 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Officer's action in stopping a vehicle driven by an African-American motorist did not constitute racial discrimination when he made the decision to do so based on a problem with the license number of the car, which was for another vehicle, and suspicion that it was the car used in an earlier crime, prior to seeing the motorist. Wright v. Santopietro, 325 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Plaintiff in federal civil rights lawsuit against officers and city claiming summons was improperly issued to him in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights and because of racial animus was not entitled to disclosure of a defendant officer's home address for the purpose of asking whether neighbors had overheard officer make racist remarks. Trial court also rejects plaintiff's arguments that plaintiff was entitled to disclosure of officer's home address for the purpose of aiding his investigation of her ability to pay punitive damages. The officer's interests in privacy and safety outweighed the plaintiff's "extremely weak" interest in obtaining her home address, the court rules. Collens v. City of New York, 222 F.R.D. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers' stops and detentions of African-American bicyclists, in response to information that "two black males" had stolen bicycles in the area, did not constitute selective enforcement of law based on race, in violation of equal protection. King v. City of Eastpointe, No. 01-2303, 86 Fed Appx. 790 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee's claim that city had a policy or custom of condoning a "systemic practice" of racial profiling on individuals with prior criminal records which resulted in his false arrest and imprisonment was adequate to state a claim against the city for municipal liability. Anderson v. County of Nassau, 297 F. Supp. 2d 540 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Collective Bargaining - Duty to Bargain: California Supreme Court stays and depublishes an appellate court decision that held that a city must bargain with the union over the adoption of a traffic stops "profiling" policy that was implemented to prevent racial profiling; the justices will hear the city's appeal. Claremont POA v. City of Claremont, #S120546, 82 P.3d 747, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, 2004 Cal. Lexis 11; prior decis. at 112 Cal.App.4th 639, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 1529 (3d Dist. 2003). [N/R]
     Differences in officer's version of incident in charges filed after arrest and in affidavit filed in civil rights lawsuit, along with other circumstances, such as his unexplained accusation that arrestee was "on crack," provided an adequate basis for motorist to proceed with his claim that he was targeted for a traffic stop and arrest on the basis of his African-American race. Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital, #02-2184, 345 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     Whether or not police officers initially decided to stop a motorist on the basis of impermissible "racial profiling," once he refused to stop, they had probable cause to seek to stop him and arrest him for the crime of fleeing, and they were therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the death of a vehicle occupant caused by a collision with the pursued car and injuries to another occupant of that vehicle. Slusarchuk v. Hoff, No. 02-3601, 346 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     Several African-American women subjected to pat-down and strip searches by airport security officers satisfied the requirements for showing discriminatory purpose and effect by presenting evidence of officers' false statements in their incident logs (such as falsely stating that a canine had alerted to the presence of drugs) and that the searching officers conducted intrusive searches on more than twice (and as high as three times) as many African-American women as white women. Anderson v. Cornejo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     Older African-American motorist taken into custody after being stopped with an expired driver's license, did not present adequate evidence of racial motivation for either the stop or the arrest. Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for making the initial traffic stop, because of a factual dispute as to whether the motorist was driving erratically, but holding the driver in custody to determine whether he was the person sought in an outstanding 22-year-old felony warrant for someone at his address was objectively reasonable. Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, #01-56044, 341 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
     Assuming, without deciding, that an officer's issuance of citations for "enticement" to a motorist was a Fourth Amendment seizure, it was reasonable, based on statements by two young boys that a man resembling the motorist had asked them if they wanted a ride home and by one of the boys giving the license plate number of the motorist's truck, along with the motorist's admission to having spoken to the boys. Appeals court also rejects plaintiff's claim that he was subject to racial discrimination as black person by the issuance of the citation. "Generic evidence that 44% of the people arrested in his county are black," although they constitute only 11% of the population, standing alone, does not indicate a discriminatory effect in arrests generally, and it certainly does not indicate a discriminatory effect with respect to the specific ordinance at issue in this case.Jefferson v. City of Omaha Police Department, No. 02-3085, 335 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     African-American motorist's complaint adequately alleged facts which, if true, could support a claim that a state trooper lacked any legitimate reason to stop him, but did so on the basis of his race. Motorist claimed that at the time of the "traffic stop," he was obeying all traffic laws and staying in his lane, which would not have been possible if he had been, as the trooper claimed, reclining in his seat to the extent that he could not see the road. Wilson v. Department of Public Safety, No. 02-6236, 66 Fed. Appx. 791 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     In a class action lawsuit against a city and two of its officers, claiming racially discriminatory law enforcement practices, African-American advocacy organization would be permitted to withdraw as class representative when a civil liberties organization would continue to adequately represent the class. In Re: Cincinnati Policing, No. C-1-99-3170, 214 F.R.D. 221 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [N/R]
     African-American motorist did not show that police officer's traffic stop of her vehicle was racially motivated. The officer had grounds to stop her based on observations of her vehicle crossing the center line of the highway, and there was no evidence that similarly situated persons of another race were not stopped and ticketed. Johnson v. Crooks, No. 02-1915, 326 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jul]
     Officer did not deny a black detainee equal protection when he singled him out for interrogation from a group of six people, all the rest of whom were white. A police dispatcher had told the officer that the detainee had the same last name as a suspected bank robber, and that, rather than race, was the basis for the detainee being singled out for questioning. Arrington v. City of Davenport, 240 F. Supp. 2d 984 (S.D. Iowa 2003). [N/R]
     State park visitors of Hispanic origin stated a viable claim that park officials enforced the regulations prohibiting swimming after hours against them on the basis of race, precluding summary judgment for officials in the lawsuit. Visitor was not precluded from pursuing her claim on the basis that she had pled guilty and paid a fine for swimming after hours. Carrasca v. Pomeroy, #02-1127, 313 F.3d 828 (3rd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Police officers did not engage in racial discrimination or selective enforcement of laws in stopping African-American motorist whose car was weaving in traffic and in shooting him when an altercation occurred during which he stabbed one officer. There was no evidence that any defendant had failed to enforce the law in a similar manner against similarly situated people of other races. Gaddis v. Redford Township, 188 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Mich. 2002). [N/R]
     344:125 Federal appeals court rejects class action racial profiling lawsuit against Illinois State Police; plaintiffs failed to provide adequately reliable statistics of either the race of motorists stopped in drug interdiction program or of the racial composition of motorists on Illinois state highways; defendant agency's training materials tell officers not to make stops based on racial profiling. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, #99-3691 & 00-1462, 251 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2001).
     340:57 New Jersey reaches $12.9 million settlement with four occupants of a vehicle who claimed they were stopped on the highway by state troopers because of "racial profiling," three of whom were shot by troopers when the vehicle began to back up while the troopers approached on foot. Brown v. New Jersey, U.S. Dist. Ct., Trenton, N.J., settlement reported in The New York Times, p. A12 (Feb. 3, 2001).
     332:124 Plaintiffs who claimed that police department unit's policy contained an "express racial classification" concerning who to stop and frisk did not have to point to similarly situated nonminority individuals who were not stopped in order to pursuit their lawsuit. National Congress for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 191 F.R.D. 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
     332:125 Description of a suspect's race and gender alone will "rarely" provide reasonable suspicion justifying a police search or seizure; several black college students who were stopped and questioned, however, did not show that law enforcement officers acted with discriminatory racial animus. A plaintiff may plead an equal protection violation by pointing to a law or policy "that expressly classifies people on the basis of race." Brown v. Oneonta, #98-9375, 195 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1999).
     335:173 Trial court could not presume that police officers' allegedly selective enforcement of criminal laws against the plaintiff were racially motivated; race discrimination lawsuit rejected, even if plaintiff's beliefs were sincerely held, in the absence of factual evidence to support them. Lane v. Shulman, 75 F.Supp. 2d 35 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
     317:78 Federal appeals court reinstates class action lawsuit claiming that Border Patrol agents stopped motorists without reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration activity solely on the basis of Hispanic appearance in the day; class of all motorists' driving in the area after dark also approved, since ethnic origin cannot be determined in the dark. Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, #97-16449, 165 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1999).
     316:63 Since defendant state of New York admitted that each of the plaintiffs was stopped by officers solely on the basis of race, state had the burden of proving that this was "necessary to promote a compelling state interest." Brown v. State of New York, 681 N.Y.S. 2d 170 (A.D. 1998).
     297:134 Federal appeals court declines to turn every allegedly "arbitrary" traffic stop into a potential constitutional claim; arrest of stopped motorist for failure to sign individual recognizance bond after receiving ticket was justified; mere fact that officer was a different race than motorist stopped and arrested was insufficient to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination Ford v. Wilson, 90 F.3d 245 (7th Cir. 1996).

B - De-policing or claims of unequal police protection

     A police officer arrived at an apartment building in response to a complaint about minors drinking outdoors there. A minor white female drinking with a group of three African-American males, was so intoxicated that she could not stand up by herself, so one of them had to hold her up from behind. The officer arrived and talked to the males, allowing them to leave with the female without asking for identification. One of the males was on probation for armed robbery and the other two males were minors. The three males then carried the female to a laundry room, and the apartment site manager again called police. Officers arrived and caught the probationer sexually assaulting the girl in the laundry room. In a failure to protect lawsuit, a federal appeals court found that the officer had not created the danger to the girl or done anything to make it worse. He was entitled to qualified immunity from liability. The court also rejected arguments that the officer was a racist who wanted the girl to come to harm because she as white and socializing with African-Americans. The plaintiff's reference to another incident in which the officer while operating an unmarked police car, ran over and killed an eight-year-old African-American boy and lied to cover it up was not similar to the immediate incident, and any connection was speculative. Doe v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, #14-1461, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5972 (7th Cir.).

     A racially and ethnically Korean motorist adequately alleged racial bias in the failure of two racially and ethnically Micronesian police officers to investigate a crime of intoxicated driving or to arrest a Micronesian motorist for DUI after his vehicle crashed into the Korean motorist's car. Both a failure to investigate and a failure to arrest, if based on racial bias, can violate the right to equal protection of law, which is clearly established. Elliot-Park v. Manglona, #08-16089, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 723 (9th Cir.).
     County was not liable to domestic violence arrestee on his claim that his rights were violated by conditioning his release on bail on his attending a domestic violence program which was also utilized as part of the sentence for others convicted for the same offense. The plaintiff failed to show that this was imposed as a condition of his release on bail pursuant to an official county policy or custom. The arrestee, who was a black man who had been dating a white woman, also failed to show that there was a county policy of treating black men who date white women differently than others accused of domestic violence when it came to setting the conditions of their bail. In fact, the court ruled, the county did not make or control the making of bail decisions, which was solely within the powers of the county court. McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers, No. 03-CIV-10037, 368 F. Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
      Residents of "off-road," pre-dominantly Alaska Native villages failed to show that the State of Alaska discriminated on the basis of race in allegedly adopting a law enforcement system that provided more police protection for communities on the state's road system. They also failed to show that they were similarly situated with communities on the state road system, based on their geographical isolation and the impossibility of traveling to them by road vehicle. Alaska Inter-Tribal Council v. State, 110 P.3d 947 (Alaska 2005). [N/R]
     Arab-American man who became involved in domestic dispute with his ex-wife did not show that officers violated his rights by accompanying her into the home to retrieve her belongings or that they engaged in gender or national origin discrimination in failing to pursue an investigation into her conduct when he claimed that she had "broken in" and stolen his property. Officers reasonably believed that ex-wife had the right to consent to their entry into the home and there was no showing that the man was treated any differently than similarly situated women or non-Arab-Americans. Harajli v. Huron Tp., 02-2169, 365 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     Operators of school bus business stated a possible federal civil rights claim by alleging that a Massachusetts state trooper engaged in a campaign designed to make it difficult for them to operate their business, resulting in the non-renewal of at least one bus contract, on the basis that they had hired a number of employees of Russian heritage. Lecrenski Bros. Inc. v. Johnson, 312 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
     African-American plaintiff's claim that officers discriminated against her by not investigating threats against her or arresting the person who made the threats because of her race and her prior lawsuit against the city was sufficient to state a claim for violation of the right to equal protection of law. Farrar v. City of Chicago, 291 F. Supp. 2d 747 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     While there was no general duty to provide police protection or investigate a particular crime, an African-American man stated a claim for violation of the right to equal protection of the law by asserting that officers failed to conduct any substantial investigation of shots being fired at his car solely on the basis of his race. Roman v. City of Reading, 257 F. Supp. 2d 799 (E.D. Pa. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
     Alleged eight minute response time to 911 call reporting attack on African-American pool hall co-owner by his fellow investors, even if true, did not show denial of equal protection. Plaintiff did not show that any delay was racially motivated or that response time was unreasonable. Brew v. City of Emeryville, No. C-99-4720, 138 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (N.D. Cal. 2001). [2002 LR Jan]
     319:102 City was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs against plaintiffs and their attorney in case where it was frivolously alleged, without sufficient evidence, that city failed to evacuate black residents in the same manner as non-black residents following chemical plant explosion. Walker v. City of Bogalusa, #97-31331, 168 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 1999).
     316:62 Sister of adult black male buried as "unknown person" when police department failed to notify family of his death did not show that racial discrimination motivated allegedly inadequate investigation of his death or rude treatment of family. Judge v. City of Lowell, #98- 1248, 160 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 1998).
     293:77 Despite assurances that downtown area of city would be "secure" following Rodney King verdict, city had no special duty to provide protection to businesses or persons of Korean shopkeepers, and, in fact, did provide some protection, rescuing them from mob after delay; decision to move officers away was not based on nationality and so did not violate equal protection Park v. City of Atlanta, 938 F.Supp. 836 (N.D.Ga 1996).
     If department fails to respond to calls from a neighborhood because of its racial makeup, it violates equal protection Neighborhood Action Coalition v. Canton, Ohio, 882 F.2d 1012 (6th Cir. 1989).

C - Mistreatment because of race or ethnicity
     A jury awarded an African-American arrestee $80,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages on illegal seizure and equal protection claims. The arrestee had called 911 after a Caucasian auto body shop owner had allegedly fought with him, and threatened to get his gun, and an employee of the shop chased him away with a bat. Officers arriving on the scene allegedly did not listen to the African-American man's story, but instead placed him under arrest and in handcuffs, on charges of which he was later acquitted. Overturning the trial court's rejection of the jury's verdict, the federal appeals court ruled that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the plaintiff was unlawfully seized and detained, and had been subjected to discriminatory treatment. Pitts v. Delaware, #10-3388, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12215 (3rd Cir.).
     African-American man who was convicted of assault and rape, but later cleared of involvement in those crimes failed to show that officers' investigation of him was based on racial animus. He was stopped and questioned based on his similarity to the description of the black male alleged to have engaged in the crimes. Alexander v. City of South Bend, No. 0-2535, 433 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     A Florida police officer allegedly hit an undercover Hispanic police detective with his car, believing that the detective was one of the two robbery suspects being pursued. The detective claimed that the officer intentionally aimed the car at him and hit him because he believed he was one of the robbers and that he was African-American, doing so for racial reasons. The officer claimed that the incident was an accident and that he lost control of his car. Federal appeals court vacated summary judgment for the defendant county, finding that there was sufficient evidence of a custom of excessive force based on the failure to investigate and discipline. The officer who struck the detective with his car was allegedly involved in "numerous" auto collision, and was known to use racially derogatory terms, and there was evidence that the county disciplined only 16 officers for excessive force over a ten year period, with most discipline being minor. Perez v. Miami-Dade County, No. 05-10261, 168 Fed. Appx. 328 (11th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Truck driver of Iranian national origin failed to show that he was prevented from using a gasoline restroom or paying for his gas on the basis of his race, but was entitled to further proceedings on his assertion that an off-duty police officer working as a security guard there arrested him for disorderly conduct and trespass without probable cause. Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Inc., No. 05-1107, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9875 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
     Man arrested during officers' response to domestic violence call failed to show that excessive force was used against him. While officers allegedly hit him about the neck, shoulders, and wrist with their nightsticks and wrestled him to the ground, the arrestee refused to cooperate with the officers, fought with them, disarmed one of them, and grabbed a second officer by the groin. Under these circumstances, the amount of force used by the officers was not objectively unreasonable. Plaintiff arrestee also failed to establish, as he claimed, that the city had a "widespread practice" of abusing "men of color" who dated white women. McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers, #03 CIV. 10037, 373 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     African-American mother and her friends stated a viable claim for racial discrimination based on allegation that a police officer, who she asked be sent to the scene after her children and herself faced racial harassment and assault by white neighbor's children and neighbor, only spoke to white residents when he arrived there, and then arrested three African-Americans, allegedly for complaining that they were being ignored. Hardy v. Emery, 241 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D. Maine. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Hispanic gunshot victim did not produce any evidence that he was subjected to differential treatment, ill will, or vindictive action by a police officer who allegedly delayed summoning an ambulance for him. Plaintiff did not adequately plead facts to support an equal protection "class of one" claim. Additionally, there was no "special relationship" between the plaintiff and the city imposing a duty to protect him from harm when he was not in custody and the police officers did not create his need for medical assistance. Torres v. City of Chicago, 194 F. Supp. 2d 790 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
     Issue of fact as to whether doctor experienced racially abusive harassment during his detention and questioning and whether this was motivated by a discriminatory purpose barred summary judgment for defendants on his equal protection claim, despite the fact that he failed to show that others similarly situated did not experience similar conduct. Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, #01-55972, 39 Fed. Appx. 533 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Arrestee subsequently acquitted on drug charges failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that he was subjected to unequal treatment, including his arrest, because of his African-American race, in violation of his right to equal protection. No evidence was presented that police were aware of other people who were not African-Americans who should have been arrested and prosecuted for drug sales, but failed to act. Silberberg v. Lynberg, 186 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D. Conn. 2002). [2002 LR Jun]
      Arrested taxi passenger's claim that arresting officers "were apparently prejudiced against" his Iranian nationality and therefore "treated him inferiorly" was a "mere bald assertion and conclusory statement" which failed to state a claim for national origin discrimination. State troopers had probable cause for warrantless misdemeanor arrest of passenger for allegedly cutting taxi seat with a sharp object he was in possession of, but were not entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim that they dragged him in handcuffs across the floor when he had not resisted arrest. Tavakoli-Nouri v. State of Maryland, No. 0048, 779 A.2d 992 (Md. App. 2001). [N/R]
     339:44 Officer's use of racial slurs to four black men during investigatory stop of their vehicle was insufficient to show that the town had a policy or custom of racial hostility towards blacks; there was also no showing of inadequate training or supervision where officer was suspended for his actions and required to undergo cultural sensitivity training. Polite v. Town of Clarkstown, 120 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
     339:36 African-American arrestees stated claim for racial discrimination based on assertion of city practice or custom of using pepper spray and excessive force against them based on race; alleged breaking of arrestee's arm, use of pepper spray against him, and biting by police dog during "nnecessary" subduing was conduct which, if true, no reasonable officers could have believed was warranted. Wilkerson v. Thrift, 124 F. Supp. 2d 322 (W.D.N.C. 2000).
     330:85 Federal appeals court upholds $245,000 award of compensatory and punitive damages to three 17- year-old boys, two African-American and one white, on claim that two police officers illegally stopped and searched their vehicle and used excessive force, including pulling and squeezing their testicles, during pat-down search, and were motivated by racial bias in carrying out one-hour stop, search and detention; alleged racial bias was a proper basis for punitive damages award. Price v. Kramer, #97-56580, #98-55484, 200 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2000).
     331:99 $4.95 million settlement reached in lawsuit over death of man, who allegedly was beaten by officer, when police used pepper spray on his brother during a traffic stop. Plaintiffs claimed the action was racially motivated. Smith v. Village of Hoffman Estates, No. 97 L-605, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill.), June 27, 2000, reported in Chicago Tribune, Sec. 2, p. 1 (June 28, 2000).
     326:30 Police officer use of a racial epithet in response to a request for his name and badge number did not, standing alone, constitute a violation of the equal protection rights of the person so addressed; claim that another officer engaged in choking suspect during and after search of his mouth for drugs reinstated because of disputed facts. Williams v. Bramer, #98-10254, 180 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1999).
     319:101 N.Y.C. reaches $2.75 million settlement with man allegedly beaten on his way to work by five police officers solely because he fit the very general description of a black suspect sought for brandishing a knife. Dusenbury v. N.Y.C., U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y.), reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p. A23 (April 26, 1999).
     314:30 Police officer's statement to black motorist in overwhelmingly white county that he should "go back" to where he came from (neighboring county with significant black population) did not constitute racial discrimination when jury did not believe statement was made with discriminatory intent. Berry v. Brown, # 97-2439, 140 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 1998).
     298:157 County reaches $700,000 settlement with black man called "Nigger Roy" in official report and sheriff's computer database; lawsuit asserted that sheriff's department failed to seriously investigate a series of assaults against him, and that this failure was based on racial animus Smith v. Gilpin County, Colo, 949 F.Supp. 1498 (D.Colo 1996). A $700,000 settlement between the parties was reached In addition to the payment of damages, the county issued an official apology to the plaintiff The New York Times, National Edition, p. A12 (Jan 16, 1997).
     298:158 Federal appeals court upholds award of $10,000 each to two black men stopped in car for purported investigatory stop and ordered out of vehicle at gunpoint, when they did not fit details of descriptions of suspects sought; officer's conduct, under the circumstances, violated the Fourth Amendment and officer was not entitled to qualified immunity Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1996).
     {N/R} Officers who took action against youth involved in rock-throwing incident were not liable to him under federal statute barring exclusion from participation in federally funded program on the basis of race, when race did not play any role in their decision to arrest student or to tell him to wash police cars Buchanan v. City of Bolivar, Tenn, 99 F.3d 1352 (6th Cir. 1996).

D - Other race or origin claims or civil actions

     Village violated the rights of mostly Latino day laborers by its aggressive ticketing of commercial vehicles in a parking lot where they gathered to seek work from contractors, and other alleged harassment, including maintaining a police presence there, and actions which had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from getting work. The court found that the municipality violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights by engaging in intentionally discriminatory enforcement of otherwise facially neutral laws. Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck, No. 06 Civ. 3243, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86249 (S.D.N.Y.). [N/R]
     Simply because there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment in shooting and killing a suspect that an officer reasonably could have believed was armed and was holding a person against her will did not mean that the appeals court could say that there were no set of facts from which the plaintiff could establish a claim for either violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131-12134,  based on the suspect's mental illness or for race discrimination. The appeals court, therefore, ordered further proceedings on both claims. Waller v. City of Danville, Virginia, No. 06-1107, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30799 (4th Cir.). [N/R]
     The application of a California statute, prohibiting "unauthorized" emergency vehicles from using emergency light bars, to the law enforcement department of a recognized Indian tribe was discriminatory and preempted by federal law. There was no rational justification for treating tribal emergency vehicles differently than other authorized state, federal or private emergency vehicles. County sheriff's department therefore acted improperly in repeatedly stopping and citing the tribe's police officers for violating the statute whenever they traveled on non-reservation roads to respond to emergency calls from noncontiguous sections of the reservation. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Smith, No. 02-56943, 388 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     African-American man convicted of assault and rape and imprisoned for a time, but subsequently exonerated of the charges did not present any evidence that the city and its police department had a widespread practice or custom of racial discrimination or allowing officers to deny persons their civil rights, as required for the imposition of municipal liability for his arrest and prosecution. Alexander v. City of South Bend, 320 F. Supp. 2d 761 (N.D. Ind. 2004). [N/R]
     New Jersey appeals court rules that township police department, including its building and an individual officer, were a "place of public accommodation" under a state civil rights statute, so that an arrestee could pursue his claim against them that he had been subjected to racial discrimination by being denied "accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges" on account of race. Ptaszynski v. Uwaneme, 853 A.2d 288 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2004). [N/R]
     Employee fired from her job after police detective allegedly falsely told her employer that she had been identified as using a credit card from a co-employee's stolen wallet did not present any evidence that the detective was motivated by racial animosity towards her as an African-American. Detective was also not liable, in any way, for her firing, which was the independent decision of her employer and did not involve governmental action. Freeman v. City of Hackensack, 200 F. Supp. 2d 458 (D.N.J. 2002). [2002 LR Sep]
     Police department's pursuit of indictment and prosecution of former teacher for alleged sexual assault of minor student, based on student's false accusations was not racial discrimination, since teacher did not allege or show that the conduct was motivated by racial considerations. Clark v. La Marque I.S.D., 184 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D. Tex. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers were not entitled to summary judgment on claim that they detained a shopping mall customer on suspicion of shoplifting without reasonable grounds to do so, but plaintiff customer failed to adequately allege a claim against the city for failure to train officers in arresting, detaining, and interrogating racial and ethnic minorities by citing only this incident in which officers allegedly subjected him to illegal seizure. Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 LR Jun]
     347:173 Motorist who fled into the desert following his involvement in a two car collision and subsequently died had no due process right to a thorough search by officers, but his estate could pursue an equal protection claim and inadequate training claim based on alleged policy of not searching for him because of mistaken belief that he was a Native American fleeing to a nearby reservation. Amos, Estate of, v. City of Page, Arizona, No. 99-16214, 257 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001).
     [N/R] White arrestee could amend complaint to eliminate state as a defendant in order to continue to pursue his claim for racially motivated failure to provide equal law enforcement; stay of lawsuit until prosecution against him was completed was appropriate, rather than dismissal. Adam v. Hawaii, #99-15988, 235 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000).
     347:174 Tennessee Supreme Court rules that a city or county could be vicariously liable for an officer's actions alleged to violate a state "hate crimes" statute, without requiring a showing of an official municipal policy or custom. Washington v. Robertson County, #M1999-01332- SC-R23-CV, 29 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2000).
     299:173 Lounge did not state claim for violation of civil rights by alleging that police observed business on "disc jockey" nights that attracted black patrons; mere attempt to deprive business or patrons of First Amendment rights was not actionable when no actual deprivation took place R&V Pine Tree Inc v. Village of Forest Park, 947 F.Supp. 342 (N.D.Ill. 1996).
     277:13 Officers did not engage in racial discrimination or other misconduct when they asked African American couple, suspected by store management of being present to shoplift, to leave store premises at the request of the store's management Robinson v. Town of Colonie, 878 F.Supp. 387 (NDNY 1995).
     279:47 Giving African-American female homeowner a trespass warning when she kept crossing neighbor's land to deposit garbage did not constitute race discrimination Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs, 891 F.Supp. 1548 (N.D.Fla 1995).
     280:61 Parents of young black man shot and killed by police officer could not sue for loss of companionship of son under California "anti-hate crime" statute Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court (Hall), 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 887 (Cal App. 1995).
     Federal appeals court overturns injunction against county sheriff's department restraining alleged mistreatment of Black and Hispanic citizens; evidence and allegations did not support an injunction covering the entire county and was over broad in failing to define which policies officials were being ordered to comply with Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1992).
     Jury was properly instructed that officers' intent to discriminate against black customers of skating rink attending "soul night" had to be shown before imposing liability for safety check roadblock Wilson v. Cross, 845 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1988).

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu