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
Nine Latino men living in areas of Northern Virginia with many residents of Latino ethnicity, filed suit against federal immigration agents, seeking money damages for the ICE agents’ alleged violations of their rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. They claimed that ICE agents stopped and detained them without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful activity; invaded their homes without a warrant, consent, or probable cause; and seized them illegally while engaged in enforcing immigration law. A federal appeals court overturned the denial of the ICE agents’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on qualified immunity. It held that a remedy for the alleged constitutional violations was not available under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, #301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), under the circumstances of this case. There is no statute authorizing a claim for money damages for such violations, and it was a significant step under separation-of-powers principles for a court to impose damages liability on federal officials. Because the plaintiffs sought to extend Bivens liability to a context the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to recognize and there are special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, the plaintiffs’ action for damages was dismissed. Tun-Cos v. Perrotte, #18-1451, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 12571 (4th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a trial court’s second supplemental injunction and victim compensation order in a class action against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO). In the underlying lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the MCSO racially profiled Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of enforcing federal and state immigration laws. The appeals panel held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the terms of the second supplemental injunction based on the alleged failure of the defendants to fully comply with the initial injunction. The appeals court characterized this as “discovering that the Sheriff’s Office had deliberately violated the court’s previous injunction and committed new constitutional violations.” It rejected the county’s argument that it was not a proper party to this action because the MCSO and its sheriff did not act on behalf of the county, as well as the county's contention that it had no authority under Arizona law to fund compliance with an injunction that arose from willful misconduct. Even assuming without deciding that the county’s interpretation of the state statute was correct, a state statute prohibiting payment for valid federal court-ordered remedies did not excuse a defendant from complying with those remedies. The statute that the county cited would, at the most, prevent payment from either insurance or self-insurance funds. The county failed to explain how this law would preclude it from using other types of funds to comply with the trial court’s orders. De Jesus Ortega Melendres v. Maricopa County, #16-16661, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 21155 (9th Cir.).
A state trooper signaled for a Nigerian university student traveling on an interstate highway with a passenger in his car to pull over. The student motorist complied. The trooper approached and asked why the vehicle’s license plate was inside the windshield, as well as stating that the car’s hood was not entirely closed. After issuing a warning citation, the trooper asked if he could search the car. Consent was denied, and about 20 minutes into the stop, the trooper radioed for a drug sniffing dog, which arrived 10 minutes later and alerted, leading to the discovery of crack cocaine. The student pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute and is serving a ten-year sentence. He subsequently sued for racial profiling as well as violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Qualified immunity was granted on the Vienna Convention claims and other claims were dismissed. A federal appeals court reinstated the student’s claim that the defendants engaged in impermissible racial profiling and unlawfully prolonged the stop. Mordi v. Zeigler, #15-3307, 870 F.3d 703 (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
An SUV rammed the door of a sedan in an intersection. The sedan driver stated that she was briefly unconscious and, after coming to, was dazed and in intense pain. A police officer arrived on the scene and spoke to the SUV driver, who did not look injured. She then went to the sedan driver, still on her back on the median. Because she failed to respond “too many times,” the officer refrained from asking many questions. A Traffic Specialist arrived while paramedics were looking after the sedan driver. The SUV driver told him that he had entered the intersection with a green light when his car was struck by the sedan. This second officer thought that the accident was not severe enough to warrant significant investigation. He determined that the physical evidence corroborated the SUV driver’s account. He did not complete a police incident report but only completed the crash report that Michigan state law requires for highway-safety planning purposes. In the “Hazardous Action?” box, he wrote “none?” for the SUV driver and “disregarded traffic [signal]” for the sedan driver. Such crash reports cannot be used in court. The sedan driver was hospitalized for several days. When she saw the report, she insisted that the SUV driver ran the light and that she had a witness. Officers followed up but decided against amending the report. The sedan driver then sued the SUV driver, but also filed a federal civil rights claim against the officers and city. She asserted that the investigation violated her equal protection rights and her right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court upheld qualified immunity for the defendant officers, characterizing their actions as “mere laxity” rather than racial discrimination. Green v. Southfield, #18-1775, 925 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2019).
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).