AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
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
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, #10–4731, 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 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).