Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19-cv-02673-VEC

STAYED,ECF

Belle et al v. City Of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Valerie E. Caproni Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Terron Belle on behalf of himself and others similarly situated

Date Filed: 03/25/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Corey Stoughton Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street New York, NY 10036 646-884-2316 Email: cstoughton@legal-aid.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 (212) 806-6419 Fax: (212) 806-7119 Email: dkahne@stroock.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Fuad Farah Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 212-477-8090 Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Bernard Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 212-806-5400 Fax: 212-806-6006 Email: jbernard@stroock.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
William Rios on behalf of himself and others similarly situated

Matthew Keith Handley Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC 777 6th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202-559-2411 Email: MHANDLEY@HAJUSTICE.COM ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard The Legal Aid Society Special Litigation Unit 199 Water Street Ste 6th Floor New York, NY 11216 212-298-3242 Email: mgriffard@legal-aid.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Pearl Chang Phillips & Cohen 2000 Massachusetts Ave Nw Washington, DC 20036 (202)-835-1304 Email: rchang@hfajustice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cyrus Joubin Cyrus Joubin, Esq. 43 W. 43rd Street, Suite 119 New York, NY 10036 347-223-4296 Fax: 718-228-7679 Email: joubinlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Corey Stoughton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Fuad Farah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bonacio Crespi
Plaintiff Jameel Lang

James Lawrence Bernard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Keith Handley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Pearl Chang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cyrus Joubin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Corey Stoughton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Bernard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Keith Handley Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC 777 6th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202-559-2411 Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Corey Stoughton

Plaintiff Richmond Appiah
Plaintiff Edison Quito

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Bernard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Keith Handley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Corey Stoughton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Bernard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Keith Handley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Corey Stoughton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne

Plaintiff Luis Rios
V. Defendant City Of New York

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Bernard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Keith Handley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Corey Stoughton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jonathan Kahne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Bernard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Griffard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Keith Handley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Debra M. March New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)-356-2410 Email: dmarch@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doe 1-50 New York City Police Officers, in their individual and official capacities

Stephanie Michelle Vilella Alonso New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212-356-2318 Email: svilella@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Keaupuni Akina NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356-2377 Fax: (212) 356-3509 Email: wakina@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/26/2019
03/26/2019

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against City Of New York, John Doe 1-50. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-16559255)Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios.(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to City of New York, re: 1 Complaint. Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios. (Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice to attorney Cyrus Joubin. The party information for the following party/parties has been modified: John Doe 1-50. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: Party text entered incomplete. (dnh) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The aboveentitled action is assigned to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at

03/26/2019
03/26/2019 03/26/2019 03/27/2019
03/28/2019
03/29/2019 04/02/2019 04/15/2019 04/15/2019
04/16/2019
04/16/2019 05/10/2019
05/10/2019

http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (dnh) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (dnh) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
Case Designated ECF. (dnh) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
4 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to City Of New York. (dnh) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. City Of New York served on 3/27/2019, answer due 4/17/2019. Service was accepted by Betty Mazyck, docketing clerk. Document filed by Terron Belle; William Rios. (Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
6 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 5/24/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 3/28/2019) (ks) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by George Fuad Farah on behalf of Terron Belle, William Rios. (Farah, George) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
8 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Matthew Keith Handley on behalf of Terron Belle, William Rios. (Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 04/02/2019)
9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Debra M. March on behalf of City Of New York. (March, Debra) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
10 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and an adjournment of the Initial Pretrial Conference addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Debra March dated 4/15/2019. Document filed by City Of New York.(March, Debra) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
11 ORDER: granting 10 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. All Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is extended through June 17, 2019. The initial conference is adjourned to June 21, 2019 at 10:00 A.M. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 4/15/2019) (ama) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: City Of New York answer due 6/17/2019., Set/Reset Hearings:( Initial Conference set for 6/21/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (ama) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
12 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time for the parties to submit their joint letter addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Debra March dated 5/10/2019. Document filed by City Of New York.(March, Debra) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
13 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The joint submission shall be due on June 13, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/10/2019)

05/14/2019 06/13/2019 06/17/2019 06/21/2019 06/21/2019
06/21/2019
07/31/2019 09/03/2019 09/04/2019
09/09/2019

(ks) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
14 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Stephanie Michelle Vilella Alonso on behalf of City Of New York. (Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
15 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Cyrus Joubin dated June 13, 2019 re: Initial Conference - Case Management Plan. Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by City Of New York.(Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Valerie E. Caproni: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 6/21/2019. (jp) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
17 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Deposition due by 7/31/2020. Fact Discovery due by 4/30/2020. Expert Discovery due by 7/31/2020. Pretrial Conference set for 5/1/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. This case is to be tried to a jury, and as further set forth in this Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/21/2019) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
18 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties must file a monthly status report, on the first business day of each month, starting on August 1, 2019. The reports must update the Court on the progress of discovery and any disputes or issues that may need the Court's attention, including whether the parties jointly believe that a settlement conference would be helpful. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/21/2019) (ne) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
19 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios. (Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
20 STATUS REPORT. Second Status Report Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios.(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
21 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 20 Status Report filed by William Rios, Terron Belle. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are directed to appear for an in-person status conference on September 13, 2019, at 10:00 A.M. The parties must promptly inform the Court if the disputes are resolved before then. SO ORDERED., ( Status Conference set for 9/13/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/04/2019) (ama) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
22 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference The undersigned writes respectfully to request an adjournment of the Status Conference,

09/10/2019
09/24/2019 10/10/2019 11/01/2019 12/02/2019 12/03/2019
12/09/2019
12/09/2019 12/13/2019 12/17/2019
12/30/2019

presently scheduled for September 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Document filed by City Of New York. (Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
23 ORDER: granting 22 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The status conference is adjourned to September 24, 2019, at 11:00 A.M. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 9/24/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/10/2019) (ama) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Valerie E. Caproni: Status Conference held on 9/24/2019. (anc) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
24 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Rebecca Pearl Chang on behalf of Terron Belle, William Rios. (Chang, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
25 STATUS REPORT. Third joint status report Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios.(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
26 STATUS REPORT. 4th Joint Status Report Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios.(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
27 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 26 Status Report filed by William Rios, Terron Belle. ENDORSEMENT: The parties must submit another status report on or before December 9, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/03/2019) (ama) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
28 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant City of New York writes respectfully pursuant to the Courts December 3, 2019 Order to request an extension of time to file an additional status report until December 13, 2019. addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Document filed by City Of New York.(Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
29 ORDER: granting 28 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/09/2019) (ama) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
30 LETTER addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni re: Fifth Status Report. Document filed by City Of New York.(Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
31 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 30 Letter filed by City Of New York. ENDORSEMENT: The parties must continue filing monthly status reports and promptly inform the Court if they reach an impasse during discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/17/2019) (jca) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
32 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Matthew Handley dated December 30, 2019. Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B )proposed Amended Complaint), # 3 Exhibit C (Red-lined Proposed Amended Complaint))

01/02/2020 01/02/2020 01/02/2020 01/03/2020 01/16/2020 01/16/2020
01/16/2020 02/03/2020 02/14/2020

(Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
33 ORDER: granting 32 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint as proposed is GRANTED. The amended pleading must be filed on or before January 9, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/02/2020) (ama) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/9/2020. (ama) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
34 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Terron Belle, William Rios. (Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
35 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint against City Of New York, John Doe 1-50 with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by William Rios, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Richmond Appiah, Edison Quito, Luis Rios. Related document: 1 Complaint.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Order Granting Leave to Amend)) (Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2020)
36 PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios. (Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
37 STIPULATED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(b), on this 16th day of January 2020, jointly recite and stipulate as follows: IT IS STIPULATED, subject to court approval, that the pretrial litigation schedule in this case, is as follows: Deadline for defendants to answer the amended complaint: February 14, 2020. Deadline for completion of fact discovery regarding individual claims of the named plaintiffs: April 30, 2020. Deadline for parties to move for summary judgment regarding individual claims of the named plaintiffs: May 14, 2020. Deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery: October 14, 2020 or five months after resolution of motions for summary judgment, whichever is later. The parties are reminded that the status conference on May 1, 2020, at 10:00 A.M., remains as scheduled. A joint pre-conference letter is due by April 23, 2020. The parties must continue submitting monthly status reports until the close of discovery. And as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. Motions due by 5/14/2020. Fact Discovery due by 10/14/2020. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/16/2020) (ama) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: City Of New York answer due 2/14/2020; John Doe 1-50 answer due 2/14/2020. (ama) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
38 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
39 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by City Of New York..(Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

03/02/2020 03/17/2020 03/18/2020
04/02/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020
04/06/2020
04/06/2020 04/06/2020 04/09/2020 05/22/2020

40 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
41 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
42 STIPULATED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, IT IS STIPULATED, subject to court approval, that the pre-trial litigation schedule in this case, is as follows: Deadline for completion of fact discovery regarding individual claims of the named plaintiffs July 30, 2020. Deadline for parties to move for summary judgment regarding individual claims of the named plaintiffs August 14, 2020. Deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery January 14, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Fact Discovery due by 1/14/2021., Motions due by 8/14/2020.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 3/18/20) (yv) (Entered: 03/18/2020)
43 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
44 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by James Lawrence Bernard on behalf of Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Bernard, James) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
45 LETTER MOTION to Stay Defendant City of New York writes respectfully to request that the Court stay the present civil proceeding in its entirety for ninety (90) days in light of the recent developments surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Document filed by City Of New York..(Vilella Alonso, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
46 ORDER granting in part 45 Letter Motion to Stay: The case sh all be stayed for 45 days. On or before May 22, 2020, the parties must file a joint update with the Court, indicating whether the stay should be continued and proposing an amended schedule. The May 1 status conference is adjourned pending further order. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 4/6/2020) (jwh) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
Case Stayed (jwh) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
47 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Jonathan Kahne on behalf of Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Kahne, David) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Corey Stoughton on behalf of Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Stoughton, Corey) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
49 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron

05/26/2020
06/12/2020 07/01/2020 07/02/2020
08/03/2020
08/03/2020
08/03/2020 08/04/2020

Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amended Scheduling Order).(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
50 STIPULATED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: IT IS STIPULATED, subject to court approval, that the pre-trial litigation schedule in this case, is as follows: Deadline for completion of fact discovery regarding the individual claims of the individual named plaintiffs: October 14, 2020. Motions due by 10/29/2020. Deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery by 3/29/2021., IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/26/2020) (ama) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
51 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by William Keaupuni Akina on behalf of City Of New York..(Akina, William) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
52 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
53 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 52 Status Report filed by Luis Rios, Richmond Appiah, William Rios, Edison Quito, Terron Belle, Jameel Lang, Bonacio Crespi. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are reminded that they may jointly request a referral to the assigned magistrate judge for a settlement conference if they believe that a conference would aid the resolution of the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/02/2020) (ama) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
54 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 9/24/2019 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Rose Prater, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/24/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/3/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/2/2020..(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/03/2020)
55 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 9/24/2019 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days....(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/03/2020)
56 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Terron Belle..(Chang, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/03/2020)
57 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 56 Status Report filed by Terron Belle. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are directed to appear for a teleconference at 2:30 P.M. on August 6, 2020, to resolve the Monell discovery dispute. All parties and any interested members of the public

08/05/2020 08/06/2020 08/17/2020
08/17/2020
08/19/2020 08/19/2020 09/02/2020 09/08/2020

must attend by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and the security code 2673. All attendees are advised to mute their phones when not speaking and to self-identify each time they speak. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 8/6/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/04/2020) (ama) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
58 LETTER addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from W. KeAupuni Akina dated August 5, 2020 re: August 6, 2020 Conference regarding Monell bifurcation. Document filed by City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Transcript of 9/24/2019 Conference).(Akina, William) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Valerie E. Caproni: Telephone Conference held on 8/6/2020. Attorneys Cyrus Joubin, Matthew Handley and Rebecca Chang present for plaintiffs. Attorneys William Akina and Stephanie Villela present for the Defendants. Court Reporter Rose Prater present. (anc) (Entered: 08/06/2020)
59 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 8/6/2020 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Rose Prater, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/8/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/17/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2020..(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
60 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 8/6/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days....(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
61 PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 08/19/2020)
62 STIPULATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/19/2020) (nb) (Entered: 08/19/2020)
63 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amended Scheduling Order).(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
64 STIPULATED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: IT IS STIPULATED, subject to court approval, that the pre-trial litigation

09/08/2020 10/01/2020

schedule in this case, is as follows: Deadline for completion of fact discovery regarding the individual claims of the named plaintiffs. January 18, 2021. Deadline for the parties to move for summary judgment with respect to the individual claims of the named plaintiffs February 1, 2021. Deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery June 29, 2021 or five months after resolution of motions for summary judgment, whichever is later. Deadline for disclosure of plaintiffs' expert reports One month after deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery. Deadline for disclosure of defendants' expert reports Two months after deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery. Deadline for completion expert discovery Three months after deadline for completion of class-wide fact discovery. Deadline for filing motion for class certification One month after deadline for completion of expert discovery. The parties are advised that absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of fact discovery regarding the individual claims of the named plaintiffs is likely to be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Motions due by 2/1/2021. Fact Discovery due by 6/29/2021. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/08/2020) (ama) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
65 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Molly Griffard on behalf of Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Griffard, Molly) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
66 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Richmond Appiah, Terron Belle, Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, Edison Quito, Luis Rios, William Rios..(Joubin, Cyrus) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/18/2020 21:25:27

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Yu

Description: Docket Report

Search 1:19-cvCriteria: 02673-VEC

Billable Pages:

11

Cost:

1.10

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Not Exempt

 
 Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x TERRON BELLE, WILLIAM RIOS, RICHMOND APPIAH, EDISON QUITO, BONACIO CRESPI, JAMEEL LANG, and LUIS RIOS,

on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Others Similarly

Situated,

19 cv 2673 (VEC)

-against-

Plaintiffs,

FIRST AMENDED CLASS COMPLAINT

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS “JOHN DOE” 1-50, in their individual and official capacities,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------x

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This action, brought by seven New Yorkers on behalf of a class of similarly situated

people, challenges the New York City Police Department’s (“NYPD”) unconstitutional

practice of detaining people for the purpose of conducting searches of NYPD internal and

external databases (hereinafter “NYPD records search”) for records related to the person

detained, including but not limited to warrants, investigation cards (hereinafter “I-cards”),

orders of protection, arrest records, suspected gang affiliations, and suspected matches to

open cases through predictive policing tools without individualized reasonable suspicion.

2. By exploiting surveillance technology, the NYPD has replaced traditional—and

largely discredited—police practices such as stop and frisk with invasive digital searches

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 28
that rely on surveillance systems to provide a detailed snapshot of people’s lives, from daily movements to financial footprints.
3. In order to conduct these unconstitutional searches, the NYPD utilizes systems, including the Domain Awareness System (“DAS”) the Z FINEST system, and the Criminal Group Database, that aggregate warrant and summons information and a wide range of other data. These advanced technologies disparately impact communities of color.
4. The harassing and unwarranted searches and related seizures stand in stark contrast to their stated purpose—for identifying weapons and preventing violent crime. Instead, on information and belief, the practice disproportionately targets communities of color without any meaningful correlation to crime levels.
5. The NYPD’s policy and practice of detaining people without individualized lawful justification in order to search NYPD databases violates the United States Constitution and is the latest tactic in a long history of unwarranted search and seizure practices. The plaintiffs here, who seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals, seek a declaration that the NYPD’s practices are unlawful, damages for the harms they have suffered and an injunction against those practices moving forward.
II. JURISDICTION 6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (a)(3) and (a)(4), 2201, and 2202, as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 28
III. VENUE 7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the acts complained of occurred in this district.
IV. JURY DEMAND 8. Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on each and every one of their claims as pled herein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
V. PARTIES Plaintiffs
9. Plaintiff Terron Belle is an African-American male who at all relevant times, was a resident of Manhattan.
10. Plaintiff William Rios is a Latino male who, at all relevant times, was a resident of Manhattan.
11. Plaintiff Richmond Appiah is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was a resident of the Bronx.
12. Plaintiff Edison Quito is a Latino male who, at all relevant times, was a resident of the Bronx.
13. Plaintiff Bonacio Crespi is a Latino male who, at all relevant times, was a resident of Manhattan.
14. Plaintiff Jameel Lang is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was a resident of Manhattan.
15. Plaintiff Luis Rios is a Latino male who, at all relevant times, was a resident of Manhattan.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 4 of 28
Defendants 16. Defendant City of New York (“Defendant City”) is a municipality created,
authorized, and existing under the laws of New York State. It authorizes, maintains, directs and supervises the NYPD, which acts as its law enforcement agent and for which it is ultimately responsible.
17. The individually named defendants Police Officers “John Doe” 1-50 (“Defendant Officers”) are and were at all relevant times officers, employees and agents of the NYPD who acted under color of state law and within the scope of his or her employment. Each individual defendant is sued in his or her individual and official capacity.
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. NYPD’s Pattern and Practice of Unlawful Searches and Seizures 18. The named Plaintiffs and the class they represent are not the first victims of NYPD’s clear pattern and practice of conducting unlawful searches and seizures. 19. The City has long known that the NYPD maintains unconstitutional policies and practices surrounding the illegal stop and search of its residents. A clear history of civil rights cases, verdicts and settlements, independent monitors and consent decrees have long put the City on notice of these issues. For example:
a. 1999: The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) released a report on NYPD’s stop and frisk program, following a comprehensive study of stop and frisk data. The OAG report found broad racial disparities in stop and frisk rates, and a pattern of underreporting such stops by NYPD officers.
b. 2003: The City reached a settlement in Daniels, et al., v. The City of New York, et al., which challenged the NYPD’s unconstitutional stop and frisk

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 5 of 28
practices and the impermissible use of race and/or national origin as the determining factor in executing such stops. The Stipulated Settlement mandated that the NYPD to adopt a written policy against racial profiling, and to report quarterly data on stop and frisk activity. c. 2013: Following a trial in Floyd, et al. v. the City of New York, et al. and its companion cases, the District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the NYPD had violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging in a pattern and practice of conducting unreasonable searches and systematically conducting stops and frisks in a racially discriminatory manner. 20. Concerns surrounding these practices have also consistently been reported in the media and raised before the City Council. 21. In addition to broad class actions against the NYPD on the basis of its practices, the City has also been repeatedly sued by individual citizens victimized by the NYPD’s policies. 22. As technology has developed, agency practice has adapted to allow officers to conduct comprehensive searches of City databases from remote locations, including patrol cars. 23. This development along with corresponding policy changes, led, upon information and belief, to a practice of encouraging officers to detain people for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. 24. NYPD officials possessing authority to establish police procedures instructed line officers to adhere to this policy and practice even when no reasonable suspicion for such

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 6 of 28
detention exists. The practice is so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom that was known to policy-making officials at NYPD.
25. Beyond the custom of the Department, NYPD officials failed to properly train and supervise police officers regarding the unconstitutionality and impropriety of detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. NYPD officials knew to a moral certainty that police officers would confront situations where they (1) were tempted to detain an individual even when no reasonable suspicion for that detention existed and (2) had detained an individual to conduct a stop-and-frisk or other search based on a reasonable suspicion, but that suspicion was entirely extinguished when the stop-and-frisk or other search produced no drugs, weapons or contraband of any kind. This failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Plaintiff classes, who were predictably and unlawfully detained for purposes of conducting a warrant search when they came into contact with police offers employed by the NYPD.
26. The NYPD persistently fails to discipline police offers who follow the custom and practice. When faced with a clear pattern of police officers conducting such unlawful detentions for the purpose of conducting warrant searches, the NYPD did not investigate or discipline those officers, thereby acquiescing in and tacitly authorizing the police officers’ unlawful actions.
27. At all relevant times, the Department has made at least two databases available to officers conducting searches for warrants during unconstitutional stops: The Domain Awareness System (“DAS”) and the Z FINEST system.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 7 of 28
28. The NYPD’s Domain Awareness System (DAS) is a searchable citywide database available from mobile smartphones, tablet devices and precinct desktops that contains at least two million warrants, 11 million arrest records, and 100 million summonses.
29. The NYPD Z FINEST system contains warrant and summons information that, on information and belief, officers may search by calling either the NYPD’s Administrative Impact Office or Central Dispatch to request a search by name and/or license number.
2. Arrest Quotas Fuel Unconstitutional Warrant Searches 30. On information and belief, NYPD’s custom is motivated in part by pressure officers face to meet arrest quotas. 31. The quota system has been well documented. In a 2014 interview featured in 2018’s Crime + Punishment, police officer Sandy Gonzalez explained the existence and implementation of the quota system and noted that NYPD officials are “retaliating against me because of my numbers. I would have to massively write summonses and arrest people to come up with the number close to the number that they want to come up with.” 32. Other officers have sued the NYPD over the last four years alleging that they were unlawfully retaliated against for blowing the whistle on, and complaining about, the existence and implementation of an unlawful arrest quota system. In a response to these lawsuits, in February 2018 the NYPD mandated officer training that emphasizes that quotas for enforcement activity violates department policy. 33. Nonetheless, in August 2018, Sergeant Edwin Raymond reported to the Gothamist that “[t]he quota system is absolutely happening. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. It’s every single week.”

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 8 of 28
34. That same month, officer Pedro Serrano told NBC News that NYPD officials “will retaliate if you don’t get the numbers.”
35. In September 2018, The New York Post reported that members of the NYPD’s elite Strategic Response Group, which consists of 700 highly trained police officers, were under pressure from their bosses to meet “secret” arrest quotas. Whistleblowers interviewed by The New York Post explained that police officers in the Strategic Response Group who fail to meet the quotas are “given undesirable shifts and denied overtime.”
36. According to a December 2018 article published in The Appeal, the arrest quota system “continues in other, more subtle forms” and operates through “new, less explicit methods supervisors use to enforce an unofficial quota system today.”
37. As a result of the arrest quota system that has existed and continues to exist, NYPD police officers were incentivized to detain or further detain individuals for purposes of conducting warrant searches even when there was no reasonable suspicion meriting such detention.
3. Defendant Officers Violated Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights by Illegally Detaining Them for the Purpose of NYPD Records Searches. a. Terron Belle
38. One evening in 2017, Terron Belle—an African-American male—was walking home from the subway station at 145th Street and St. Nicholas Avenue in Upper Manhattan.
39. As Mr. Belle walked north along Bradhurst Avenue, he was not engaged in any wrongdoing or suspicious activity. Rather, he was simply alone, walking home.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 9 of 28
40. Around 150th Street and Bradhurst Avenue, an unmarked police car pulled up near Mr. Belle and stopped. Four male NYPD officers in plain clothes—PO Does 1 through 4—emerged from the car.
41. The four officers approached Mr. Belle and surrounded him on the sidewalk. The officers ordered Mr. Belle to turn around and face a gate in order to search him. Mr. Belle complied and turned around.
42. One of the officers thoroughly searched Mr. Belle, frisking him up and down his body and emptying his pockets. There was nothing unlawful, dangerous or suspicious in Mr. Belle’s possession. Nor did Mr. Belle say or do anything suspicious or incriminating.
43. After completing the thorough search of Mr. Belle, the officers demanded his identification even though there was no reasonable suspicion to further detain him. Mr. Belle complied and handed over his New York State identification, which included his home address, 267 West 152 Street, located just a few blocks away.
44. One of the officers, PO Doe 1, took Mr. Belle’s identification and stepped away from the other officers in order to conduct an NYPD record search related to Mr. Belle. PO Doe 1 spoke into a radio and audibly spelled out Mr. Belle’s full name, using words to signify letters. PO Doe 1 spelled out Mr. Belle’s name so that another officer receiving the transmission could electronically search for records pertaining to Mr. Belle.
45. During this warrant search, the officers purported to explain their behavior by informing Mr. Belle, in sum and substance, that they were looking for guns.
46. No warrants existed for Mr. Belle. 47. The record search took approximately five minutes.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 10 of 28
48. After conducting the record search over the radio, PO Doe 1 walked back to Mr. Belle and returned his identification. PO Does 1 through 4 subsequently walked away without an apology.
b. William Rios 49. One morning in 2017, William Rios took food to his ailing mother at Metropolitan Hospital in Upper Manhattan. After leaving the hospital around noon, Mr. Rios walked toward the subway station at 103rd Street and Lexington Avenue. His plan was to take the 6 train uptown to 116th Street and to walk home from there. 50. Mr. Rios walked north along Second Avenue and took a left at 103rd Street. At that point, 103rd Street becomes a pedestrian walkway that cuts through the George Washington housing project. Mr. Rios walked west along the pedestrian walkway toward Third Avenue. 51. Along the pedestrian walkway, about halfway between Second and Third Avenues, Mr. Rios saw two male police officers wearing baseball hats emerge from an unmarked car in front of him. One of the officers—PO Doe 5—wore his cap forward, while the other officer— PO Doe 6—wore his cap sideways. 52. PO Doe 6 shouted at Mr. Rios to stop and not to move, peppering his command with profanity. 53. PO Doe 5 and PO Doe 6 approached Mr. Rios, with their hands on their holstered guns. 54. Mr. Rios was not engaged in any wrongdoing or suspicious activity. Rather, he was simply walking. Mr. Rios wore basketball shorts and a Michael Jordan tank-top jersey. Mr. Rios had no idea why the officers approached him in this manner.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 11 of 28
55. The officers ordered Mr. Rios to stand against a fence bordering the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Rios immediately complied with their order. He faced the fence and put his hands on the metal bars.
56. PO Doe 5 and PO Doe 6 stood on either side of Mr. Rios, with their hands still holding their holstered guns. One of the officers reached into the pockets of Mr. Rios’ shorts and removed the contents, which consisted of mundane items like a wallet, pack of cigarettes, lighter, house keys, handball gloves and cell phone.
57. One of the officers also thoroughly frisked Mr. Rios’ entire body. Nothing unlawful or suspicious was found. Mr. Rios possessed no drugs, weapons or contraband of any kind.
58. One of the officers asked Mr. Rios for his name, and Mr. Rios responded truthfully “William Rios.”
59. One of the officers asked where Mr. Rios was coming from. Mr. Rios explained that he was returning home from the hospital.
60. Mr. Rios was so frightened by the officers’ behavior, including their aggressive tone and continuous placement of their hands on their guns, that his stomach churned and he began to audibly flatulate.
61. Upon hearing this, PO Doe 6 asked, “Is your asshole asking for cock?” 62. PO Doe 6 subsequently took Mr. Rios’ wallet, which contained Mr. Rios’ Medicaid and Social Security cards, back to the unmarked police car. PO Doe 6 went inside the car to run an NYPD records search of Mr. Rios’ name. 63. During the search, PO Doe 5 stood with Mr. Rios. 64. PO Doe 6 found that there were no warrants for Mr. Rios. 65. The search took approximately five minutes.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 12 of 28
66. After conducting the search in the car, PO Doe 6 emerged from the car and walked toward Mr. Rios.
67. PO Doe 6 returned Mr. Rios’ wallet and told Mr. Rios, in sum and substance, to have a nice day, and that they had just been looking for weapons. The officers then walked back to their car and drove away.
c. Richmond Appiah 68. On the afternoon of October 19, 2019, Richmond Appiah walked toward a deli on the corner of 155th Street and Courtlandt Avenue in the Bronx. 69. As Mr. Appiah walked, he was doing nothing illegal or suspicious. 70. Suddenly, an unmarked police car heading north on Courtlandt Avenue stopped and three male officers – PO Does 7-9 – emerged from the vehicle and approached Mr. Appiah. 71. In the middle of Courtlandt Avenue near 155th Street, the officers put Mr. Appiah against their vehicle, ordered him to put his hands on top of it, and thoroughly frisked and searched him. 72. Mr. Appiah possessed nothing unlawful. 73. Confused and scared, Mr. Appiah asked, “What did I do?” 74. The officers told Mr. Appiah to shut up. 75. After searching Mr. Appiah and finding nothing unlawful, the officers demanded Mr. Appiah’s identification. 76. The officers said they wanted to check Mr. Appiah for warrants. 77. Mr. Appiah handed his New York state driver’s license to one of the officers.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 13 of 28
78. The officer with Mr. Appiah’s ID used his NYPD-issued cell phone to check whether Mr. Appiah had any active warrants.
79. Mr. Appiah questioned the legality of the officers’ conduct. 80. In response, the officers sarcastically told Mr. Appiah to file a lawsuit against them. 81. During this interaction, a man who lived in the neighborhood approached Mr. Appiah and the officers. 82. The man took the following photograph of Mr. Appiah with the officers.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 14 of 28
83. “Is this a shakedown?” the man asked the officers 84. “Yes,” replied one of the officers. 85. After the NYPD records search was complete, the officers handed back Appiah’s identification. 86. When the officers saw the man holding his phone in their direction, seemingly recording them, they got back in their car and drove away. 87. The officers never identified themselves or gave Mr. Appiah any identification cards. 88. When the officers left, Mr. Appiah walked into the deli on the corner of 155 and Courtlandt Ave. 89. The man who took the photograph of Mr. Appiah and the officers followed Mr. Appiah inside the deli. 90. Inside the deli, Mr. Appiah was clearly upset and shaken up by his encounter with the officers. 91. The man spoke with Mr. Appiah and offered to text Mr. Appiah the photograph he had taken. 92. The man took Mr. Appiah’s phone number and around 4:22 p.m., he texted Mr. Appiah the photograph.
d. Edison Quito 93. One evening in the summer of 2017, Edison Quito was standing on the sidewalk outside his apartment building at 351 Saint Nicholas Avenue in upper Manhattan. 94. Mr. Quito was waiting for his wife, who was on her way home.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 15 of 28

95. A large group of NYPD officers drove up to the front of Mr. Quito’s apartment

building, got out of their cars, and entered his apartment building.

96. Meanwhile, Mr. Quito was doing nothing suspicious or unlawful outside his

apartment building. Nevertheless, two male, plain-clothes police officers – PO Does 10-

11, one white, the other Hispanic – emerged from their unmarked car, which was parked

in front of Mr. Quito’s apartment building, and approached Mr. Quito.

97. The officers asked Mr. Quito what he was doing there.

98. Mr. Quito responded that he lived in the apartment building and that he was waiting

for his wife to come home.

99. The officers demanded Mr. Quito’s ID.

100.

Mr. Quito asked why they wanted his ID if he was doing nothing wrong.

101.

The officers replied that they were just following procedure.

102.

Mr. Quito handed the officers his New York State learner’s permit, which

confirmed that he in fact lived in the apartment building in front of which he was standing.

103.

While one of the officers remained with Mr. Quito, the other officer went

inside the unmarked police car with Mr. Quito’s ID.

104.

Inside the car, the officer ran a NYPD records search for Mr. Quito.

105.

No warrants existed for Mr. Quito.

106.

After approximately ten minutes, the officer got out of the car and handed

back Mr. Quito’s ID.

107.

The officers then both returned to their car and drove away.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 16 of 28

e. Bonacio Crespi, Jameel Lang, and Luis Rios

108.

Late one evening in the late winter or early spring of 2018, Bonacio Crespi,

Jameel Lang, and Luis Rios planned to go out together, along with two other acquaintances.

109.

Mr. Crespi left his apartment building, located at 55 East 102nd Street, and

walked to a pedestrian walkway adjacent to his building, where Mr. Lang, Mr. Rios, and

two other acquaintances were waiting.

110.

As Mr. Crespi walked to his friends, a group of three male NYPD officers

– PO Does 12-14 – approached them, walking north on the pedestrian walkway from 102nd

Street.

111.

Mr. Crespi, Mr. Lang, Mr. Rios, and the two other men were doing nothing

unlawful or suspicious.

112.

The officers demanded ID from the five men.

113.

The officers explained their need for IDs by saying the neighborhood had

been crazy with crime.

114.

The five men gave the officers their IDs.

115. One of the officers took their IDs and went into an NYPD vehicle parked on 102nd

Street.

116. The other two officers remained with Mr. Crespi, Mr. Lang, Mr. Rios, and the two

other men.

117. The officer in the vehicle conducted NYPD records searches for all five men, and

found that one of the men – but none of the named Plaintiffs – did in fact have a warrant.

118. After conducting the NYPD records searches, the officer returned to the pedestrian

walkway where the two other officers and the five men were standing.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 17 of 28
119. The officers arrested the man with an active warrant. 120. The officers patted down the other four men, and found nothing unlawful. 121. The officers handed back Mr. Crespi, Mr. Lang, Mr. Rios, and the other man their IDs. 122. Soon thereafter, the officers left the area. 4. The City is on Notice of Widespread Illegal Seizures by NYPD Officers as a
Result of its Policies, Practices, and Customs 123. The NYPD has engaged in a clear pattern and practice of conducting unlawful NYPD records searches by detaining persons for the purpose of conducting NYPD records searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. 124. The NYPD adopted a policy of conducting records searches of detained persons even when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. NYPD officials possessing authority to establish police procedures instructed police officers employed by NYPD to conduct records searches of detained persons even when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. 125. The practice of NYPD police officers detaining persons for the purpose of conducting records searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists, is so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom that was known to policy-making officials at NYPD.
a. The Ramirez Lawsuit Demonstrates that Illegal Seizures for Purposes of Conducting NYPD Records Searches is “Just Procedure.”
126. In a civil rights lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, Ramirez v. City of New York, et al., 16 cv 4174 (ER) (the “Ramirez Lawsuit”), plaintiff Richard Ramirez alleged, inter alia, that three officers employed by NYPD unlawfully detained him.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 18 of 28
127. Mr. Ramirez was a passenger in a livery cab when three plain-clothed NYPD officers from the Anti-Crime Division approached him, interrogated him, ordered him out of the car, and frisked him. Although nothing unlawful or dangerous was discovered in the course of the interrogation and frisk, and although there was no reasonable suspicion to further detain Mr. Ramirez after the frisk, the NYPD officers asked for Mr. Ramirez’s license in order to run a warrant search.
128. The NYPD officers detained Mr. Ramirez while the warrant search was being conducted.
129. The warrant search took approximately five minutes. 130. Police officer Dwight Powell is one of the three NYPD officers who detained, interrogated, frisked and conducted an NYPD records search of Mr. Ramirez. In connection with the Ramirez Lawsuit, Officer Powell was deposed on June 23, 2017. During the deposition, Officer Powell was asked why he and two other NYPD officers conducted an NYPD records search for Mr. Ramirez. Officer Powell responded that it was “just procedure” to do so. 131. Officer Powell further testified during his deposition that warrant searches take approximately five minutes to complete. 132. On December 18, 2017, Mr. Ramirez moved for partial summary judgment in the Ramirez Lawsuit on the basis that his approximately five-minute detention while NYPD officers conducted an NYPD records search constituted a constitutional violation. See Ramirez v. City of New York, et al., 16 cv 4174 (ER), Dkt. Nos. 43-45. 133. On August 31, 2018, the court granted Mr. Ramirez’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the unconstitutionality of the five-minute warrant search. See

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 19 of 28
Ramirez v. City of New York, 16 cv 4174 (ER), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149293 at *11-13 (S.D.N.Y Aug. 31, 2018). The court held that it “cannot see how running a warrant check on a passenger after it is clear that he does not possess weapons or contraband could be considered anything but an ‘endeavor to detect crime in general.’” Id. at *13. (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616 (2015)).
134. The court also granted Mr. Ramirez’s motion to amend his complaint to add a claim of Monell liability based on the alleged policy or procedure of the NYPD to unconstitutionally prolong traffic stops by running warrant searches on the occupants of vehicles when no reasonable suspicion for prolonging those occupants’ detention existed. Id. at 15.
b. Despite Widespread Use of Illegal Seizures for Purposes of NYPD Records Searches, the City Continues to Fail to Train, Supervise, Investigate, and Discipline Officers for this Misconduct.
135. NYPD officials failed to properly train or supervise police officers regarding the unconstitutionality and impropriety of detaining persons for the purpose of conducting records searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists.
136. NYPD officials knew to a moral certainty that police officers would confront situations where they (1) were tempted to detain an individual even when no reasonable suspicion for that detention existed and (2) had detained an individual to conduct a stopand-frisk or other search based on a reasonable suspicion, but that suspicion was entirely extinguished when the stop-and-frisk or other search produced no drugs, weapons or contraband of any kind.
137. The NYPD should have properly trained police officers to refrain from detaining individuals for purposes of conducting records searches when no reasonable suspicion exists, and to refrain from further detaining individuals for purposes of conducting records

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 20 of 28

searches when reasonable suspicion has been extinguished. Had the NYPD conducted

such proper training, police officers would have been far less likely to detain individuals

for the purpose of conducting records searches when no reasonable suspicion for such

detention exists.

138.

The need for such training was evident considering the widespread practice

and history of police officers improperly detaining individuals for the purpose of

conducting records searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists.

139.

This failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the

rights of Plaintiffs and the other members of the classes alleged herein, who were

predictably and unlawfully detained for purposes of conducting an NYPD records search

when they came into contact with police offers employed by the NYPD.

5. Plaintiffs Suffered a Deprivation of Rights, Loss of Liberty, and Emotional Damages, Continue to Suffer, and Reasonably Fear Future Illegal Seizures by NYPD Officers.

140.

As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of the Defendants, the injuries

and damages sustained by the named Plaintiffs and other members of the class from the

deprivation of civil rights include: violation of their clearly established rights under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; personal injuries;

pain and suffering; emotional distress; extreme fear; humiliation, indignities, and

embarrassment; degradation; injury to reputation; and loss of liberty.

141.

Since their illegal seizures, Plaintiffs fear that future encounters with NYPD

officers will result in additional illegal seizures for the purposes of NYPD records searches.

Plaintiffs are apprehensive when encountering NYPD officers, and they are hesitant to

reach out to NYPD officers should they need the assistance of law enforcement.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 21 of 28

a. The NYPD’s Historical and Ongoing Approach of Broken Windows Policing Make it More Likely that Plaintiffs Will Be Illegally Detained

142. Plaintiffs’ fears of future illegal seizures are reasonable and credible, especially

because Plaintiffs were not engaged in criminal conduct when detained by NYPD officers.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs understand that NYPD officers’ improper seizures are not

dependent on the presence of criminal conduct.

143.

Policing of non-criminal conduct, particularly in communities of color, is a

historical norm for the NYPD. In 1994, the NYPD began targeting what it characterized as

“quality-of-life offenses” such as marijuana possession and urinating in public, to drive

down felony-level crime. See Mark G. Peters, and Philip K. Eure, An Analysis of Quality-

of-Life Summonses, Quality-of-Life Misdemeanor Arrests, and Felony Crime in New York

City, 2010-2015 (Jun. 22, 2016). Many summons are issued without probable cause or any

legitimate basis. Between 2004 and 2009, 6.2% of summons filed were dismissed as

defective and 17.2% were dismissed prior to arraignment as facially insufficient. The

number dismissed before trial was consistently over 50%. Id. Since 1994, there has been

a 500% increase in summons activity under this “quality-of-life” policing theory that

expanded targeting of public offenses.

144.

Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the NYPD has continued its approach to

broken windows policing, which the Mayor has described as “address[ing] the little things

that come from big things. You respond to quality of life concerns that come from the

community.”

145.

Upon information and belief, in addition to being deployed

disproportionately in communities of color, these policing strategies disproportionately

impact men of color.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 22 of 28

146. The NYPD’s continued policy of targeting “quality-of-life” offenses results in

continued pressure on officers to document their quality-of-life enforcement through

summons activity. These same policies and officer incentives make it highly likely that

Plaintiffs will face the effects of over-policing, including illegal seizures for purposes of

NYPD records searches, again, until a change is made.

VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

147. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for

violations of their constitutional rights.

148.

The Rule (b)(2) class is comprised of all persons who were or will be

detained for the purpose of running an NYPD records search in the absence of reasonable

suspicion to detain such persons (“Rule (b)(2) Class”). The Rule (b)(2) Class is comprised

of all persons detained pursuant to this policy or practice during the fullest period permitted

by the applicable statute of limitations.

149.

Defendants have acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally applicable

to the Rule (b)(2) Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect

to the Rule (b)(2) Class as a whole.

150.

Upon information and belief, the Rule (b)(2) Class includes thousands of

individuals and is so numerous that joinder of all Rule (b)(2) Class members is

impracticable.

151.

Plaintiffs also bring this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(3) for violations of their constitutional rights.

152.

The Rule (b)(3) Class is comprised of all persons who were or will be

detained for the purpose of running an NYPD records search in the absence of reasonable

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 23 of 28

suspicion to detain such persons (“Rule (b)(3) Class”). The class is comprised of all

persons detained pursuant to this policy or practice during the fullest period permitted by

the applicable statute of limitations.

153.

All members of the Rule (b)(3) Class were injured as a result of

Defendants’ misconduct.

154.

Upon information and belief, the Rule (b)(3) Class includes thousands of

individuals and is so numerous that joinder of all Rule (b)(3) Class members is

impracticable.

155.

The questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs are common to

members of the Rule (b)(2) Class and the Rule (b)(3) Class (collectively “the Classes”).

156.

Common issues of law and fact predominate over any individual issues.

157.

This unconstitutional policy, pattern and practice has resulted in the

wrongful detention, deprivation of liberty, psychological injury, physical injury and

emotional injury of individuals who have committed no crime or violation of law. The

claims and practices alleged in this complaint are common to all members of the Classes.

158.

The violations suffered by Plaintiffs are typical of those suffered by the

Classes. The members of the Classes will benefit from the remedial and monetary relief

sought.

159.

Plaintiffs have no known conflict of interest with any members of the

Classes and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Counsel that is

competent and experienced in federal class action and federal civil right litigation has been

retained to represent the Classes.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 24 of 28

160.

This action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this legal dispute, as joinder of all members of the Classes is not only

impracticable, but impossible given the volume and continuing nature of the violations as

well as the transient nature of the members of the Classes. The damages suffered by

members of the Classes, although substantial, are small in relation to the extraordinary

expense and burden of individual litigation and therefore it is highly impractical for

members of the Classes to attempt redress for damages incurred due to their wrongful

detention.

161.

There will be no extraordinary difficulty in the management of the class

action.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Illegal Seizure in Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments

162.

Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as if stated fully herein, and further alleges as follows:

163.

By the actions described, the Defendants deliberately deprived Plaintiffs

and the other members of the Classes of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of

unreasonable or unwarranted restraints on personal liberty, specifically their right to be free

from unlawful seizures.

164.

The Defendant Officers detained or further detained Plaintiffs and the other

members of the Classes without reasonable suspicion or probable cause in order to conduct

records searches.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 25 of 28

165.

These illegal seizures violated the Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

166.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes sustained the damages and

injuries herein alleged.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 – MONELL CLAIM Unconstitutional Custom or Policy and Failure to Supervise and Train

167.

Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as if stated fully herein, and further alleges as follows:

168.

The City of New York, by and through its final policymakers, had actual or

constructive knowledge that during the relevant time period and for years before, the

NYPD had in force and effect a policy, practice or custom of detaining individuals in the

absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause in order to conduct records searches,

thus depriving the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class of their clearly established

constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

169.

The City, by and through its final policymakers, knew or should have

known that, as a consequence of this policy, practice or custom, these constitutional

violations would result, and their failure to correct it amounted to deliberate indifference

to the constitutional rights of the City’s resident, including the named Plaintiffs, and was

the moving force behind the illegal seizures, as well as the other injuries and damages set

forth above.

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 26 of 28

170.

The City, by and through its final policymakers, systematically failed to

adequately train its police officers, detectives and investigators not to stop individuals in

the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause in order to conduct records searches

and warrant checks.

171.

The City, by and through its final policymakers, systematically failed to

adequately supervise its police officers, detectives, and investigators in appropriately

conducting citizen stops and in proper use of the Domain Awareness System and

ZFINEST. NYPD employees knew that in this climate of lax supervision, they were free

to deviate from constitutional requirements in these areas.

172.

The City, by and through its final policymakers, systematically failed to

adequately discipline their police officers, detectives and investigators for investigative

wrongdoing, though it was highly predictable that constitutional violations of the type the

named Plaintiffs and members of the Classes suffered would result from such failures.

173.

As set forth above, final policymakers for the City had actual or constructive

notice of such failures to train, supervise and discipline its employees, and failed to provide

training or supervision despite an obvious need for such training and supervision, where

the final policymakers knew that officers would confront these situations and as a

consequence of the failure to train and supervise, it was highly predictable that

constitutional violations of the type the named Plaintiffs and members of the Classes

suffered would result.

174.

Such failures to train, supervise and discipline, and such unconstitutional

municipal customs, practices and/or policies, amounted to deliberate indifference to the

constitutional rights of the City’s residents and visitors, including the named Plaintiffs and

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 27 of 28
the members of the Classes, and were the moving force behind the unconstitutional seizures, as well as the injuries and damages set forth above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief jointly and severally against the Defendants: a. An order determining that this action may be maintained as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), and directing that notice of this action be given to members of the Classes; b. A judgment declaring that Defendants have committed the violations of the law alleged in this action; c. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining and directing Defendants to cease detaining persons for the purpose of conducting records searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion to detain such persons; d. An order directing that immediate remedial training on the legal grounds for detaining persons for the purpose of conducting records searches be provided to all current members of the NYPD; e. An order directing Defendants to implement a system for monitoring the records searches conducted and the legal bases for such searches; f. An order awarding compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes in an amount to be determined at trial; g. An order awarding punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 35 Filed 01/03/20 Page 28 of 28

h. An order, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements; and
i. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

DATED:

January 3, 2020 New York, New York

___________/s/__________ CYRUS JOUBIN, ESQ. 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 119 New York, NY 10036 (703) 851-2467 joubinlaw@gmail.com
___________/s/__________ HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC MATTHEW HANDLEY 777 6th Street NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-559-2411 mhandley@hfajustice.com
___________/s/__________ HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC GEORGE FARAH REBECCA P. CHANG 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 212-477-8090 gfarah@hfajustice.com rchang@hfajustice.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes

 
 Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x TERRON BELLE, WILLIAM RIOS,
on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
19 cv 2673

Plaintiffs,

ECF Case

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS “JOHN DOE” 1-50, in their individual and official capacities,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------x

Plaintiffs Terron Belle and William Rios, on behalf of themselves and others similarly

situated, by their attorneys, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC and Cyrus Joubin, Esq.,

complaining of the Defendants, respectfully allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs bring this class action seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages

and attorneys’ fees for the violation of their civil rights as well as the civil rights of others

similarly situated. Under a pattern and practice enforced by New York City officials, the

New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) has engaged in an unconstitutional practice

of detaining people for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable

suspicion exists to detain such people.

1

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 2 of 18
JURISDICTION 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (a)(3) and (a)(4), as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights.
VENUE 3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the acts complained of occurred in this district.
JURY DEMAND 4. Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on each and every one of their claims as pled herein, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Terron Belle is a United States citizen, an African-American male, and a resident of Manhattan. 6. Plaintiff Williams Rios is a United States citizen, a Latino male, and a resident of Manhattan. 7. The individually named defendants Police Officers “John Doe” 1-50 (“Defendant Officers”) are and were at all times relevant herein officers, employees and agents of the NYPD. 8. Each individual defendant is sued in his or her individual and official capacity. At all times mentioned herein, each individual defendant acted under the color of state
2

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 3 of 18
law, in the capacity of an officer, employee and agent of defendant City of New York (“Defendant City”).
9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the actions of the Defendant Officers, their agents, and employees were carried out under the color of state law in the course and scope of their duties.
10. The actions of the Defendant Officers deprived Plaintiffs of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and of their constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
11. The Defendant Officers acted willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
12. Defendant City is a municipality created and authorized under the laws of New York State. It is authorized by law to maintain, direct and supervise the NYPD, which acts as its law enforcement agent and for which it is ultimately responsible.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Constitutional Violations against Terron Belle
13. One evening in the summer of 2017, Terron Belle—an African-American male— was walking home from the subway station at 145th Street and St. Nicholas Avenue in Upper Manhattan.
14. As Mr. Belle walked north along Bradhurst Avenue, he was not engaged in any wrongdoing or suspicious activity. Rather, he was simply alone, walking home.
3

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 4 of 18
15. Around 150th Street and Bradhurst Avenue, an unmarked police car pulled up near Mr. Belle and stopped. Four male NYPD officers in plain clothes—PO Does 1 through 4—emerged from the car.
16. The four officers approached Mr. Belle and surrounded him on the sidewalk. The officers ordered Mr. Belle to turn around and face a gate in order to search him. Mr. Belle complied and turned around.
17. One of the officers thoroughly searched Mr. Belle, frisking him up and down his body and emptying his pockets. There was nothing unlawful, dangerous or suspicious in Mr. Belle’s possession. Nor did Mr. Belle say or do anything suspicious or incriminating.
18. After completing the thorough search of Mr. Belle, the officers demanded his identification even though there was no reasonable suspicion to further detain him. Mr. Belle complied and handed over his New York State identification, which included his home address, 267 West 152 Street, located just a few blocks away.
19. One of the officers, PO Doe 1, took Mr. Belle’s identification and stepped away from the other officers in order to conduct a warrant search. PO Doe 1 spoke into a radio and audibly spelled out Mr. Belle’s full name, using words to signify letters: “Terry (T)...Echo (E)….” PO Doe 1 spelled out Mr. Belle’s name so that another officer receiving the transmission could electronically search for outstanding warrants for Mr. Belle.
20. During this warrant search, the officers purported to explain their behavior by informing Mr. Belle that they were “looking for guns.”
21. No warrants existed for Mr. Belle.
4

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 5 of 18
22. The warrant search took approximately five minutes. 23. After conducting the warrant search over the radio, PO Doe 1 walked back to Mr. Belle and returned his identification. PO Does 1 through 4 subsequently walked away without an apology. The Constitutional Violations against William Rios 24. One morning in the summer of 2017, William Rios took food to his ailing mother at Metropolitan Hospital in Upper Manhattan. After leaving the hospital around noon, Mr. Rios walked toward the subway station at 103rd Street and Lexington Avenue. His plan was to take the 6 train uptown to 116th Street and to walk home from there. 25. Mr. Rios walked north along Second Avenue and took a left at 103rd Street. At that point, 103rd Street becomes a pedestrian walkway that cuts through the George Washington housing project. Mr. Rios walked west along the pedestrian walkway toward Third Avenue. 26. Along the pedestrian walkway, about halfway between Second and Third Avenues, Mr. Rios saw two male police officers wearing baseball hats emerge from an unmarked car in front of him. One of the officers—PO Doe 5—wore his cap forward, while the other officer— PO Doe 6—wore his cap sideways. 27. “Stop! Don’t you fucking move,” PO Doe 6 shouted at Mr. Rios. 28. PO Doe 5 and PO Doe 6 approached Mr. Rios, with their hands on their holstered guns. 29. Mr. Rios was not engaged in any wrongdoing or suspicious activity. Rather, he was simply walking. Mr. Rios wore basketball shorts and a Michael Jordan tank-top jersey. Mr. Rios had no idea why the officers approached him in this manner.
5

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 6 of 18
30. The officers ordered Mr. Rios to stand against a black metal fence bordering the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Rios immediately complied with their order. He faced the fence and put his hands on the metal bars.
31. PO Doe 5 and PO Doe 6 stood on either side of Mr. Rios, with their hands still holding their holstered guns. One of the officers reached into the pockets of Mr. Rios’ shorts and removed the contents, which consisted of a wallet, pack of cigarettes, lighter, house keys, handball gloves and cell phone.
32. One of the officers also thoroughly frisked Mr. Rios’ entire body. Nothing unlawful or suspicious was found. Mr. Rios possessed no drugs, weapons or contraband of any kind.
33. “What’s your name?” asked one of the officers. “William Rios,” responded Mr. Rios.
34. “Where are you coming from?” asked one of the officers. Mr. Rios explained that he was returning home from the hospital.
35. Mr. Rios was so frightened by the officers’ behavior, including their aggressive tone and continuous placement of their hands on their guns, that his stomach churned and he began to audibly flatulate.
36. Upon hearing this, PO Doe 6 asked, “Is your asshole asking for cock?” 37. PO Doe 6 subsequently took Mr. Rios’ wallet, which contained Mr. Rios’ Medicaid and Social Security cards, back to the unmarked police car. PO Doe 6 went inside the car to run a warrant search of Mr. Rios’ name. 38. During the warrant search, PO Doe 5 stood with Mr. Rios. 39. PO Doe 6 found that there were no warrants for Mr. Rios.
6

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 7 of 18
40. The warrant search took approximately five minutes. 41. After conducting the warrant search in the car, PO Doe 6 emerged from the car and walked toward Mr. Rios. 42. PO Doe 6 returned Mr. Rios’ wallet and said, “Have a nice day. We were just looking for weapons.” The officers then walked back to their car and drove away. Evidence and Rulings in the Ramirez Lawsuit 43. In a civil rights lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, Ramirez v. City of New York, et al., 16 cv 4174 (ER) (the “Ramirez Lawsuit”), plaintiff Richard Ramirez alleged, inter alia, that three officers employed by NYPD unlawfully detained him. 44. Mr. Ramirez was a passenger in a livery cab when three plain-clothed NYPD officers from the Anti-Crime Division approached him, interrogated him, ordered him out of the car, and frisked him. Although nothing unlawful or dangerous was discovered in the course of the interrogation and frisk, and although there was no reasonable suspicion to further detain Mr. Ramirez after the frisk, the NYPD officers asked for Mr. Ramirez’s license in order to run a warrant search. 45. The NYPD officers detained Mr. Ramirez while the warrant search was being conducted. 46. The warrant search took approximately five minutes. 47. Police officer Dwight Powell is one of the three NYPD officers who detained, interrogated, frisked and conducted a warrant search of Mr. Ramirez. In connection with the Ramirez Lawsuit, Officer Powell was deposed on June 23, 2017. During the deposition, Officer Powell was asked why he and two other NYPD officers conducted a
7

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 8 of 18
warrant search for Mr. Ramirez. Officer Powell responded that it was “just procedure” to do so.
48. Officer Powell further testified during his deposition that warrant searches take approximately five minutes to complete.
49. On December 18, 2017, Mr. Ramirez moved for partial summary judgment in the Ramirez Lawsuit on the basis that his approximately five-minute detention while NYPD officers conducted a warrant search constituted a constitutional violation. See Ramirez v. City of New York, et al., 16 cv 4174 (ER), Dkt. Nos. 43-45.
50. On August 31, 2018, the court granted Mr. Ramirez’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the unconstitutionality of the five-minute warrant search. See Ramirez v. City of New York, 16 cv 4174 (ER), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149293 at *11-13 (S.D.N.Y Aug. 31, 2018). The court held that it “cannot see how running a warrant check on a passenger after it is clear that he does not possess weapons or contraband could be considered anything but an ‘endeavor to detect crime in general.’” Id. at *13. (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616 (2015)).
51. The court also granted Mr. Ramirez’s motion to amend his complaint to add a claim of Monell liability based on the alleged policy or procedure of the NYPD to unconstitutionally prolong traffic stops by running warrant searches on the occupants of vehicles when no reasonable suspicion for prolonging those occupants’ detention existed. Id. at 15. Arrest Quotas Fuel Unconstitutional Warrant Searches
8

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 9 of 18
52. Substantial evidence exists that NYPD officers are motivated to conduct unconstitutional warrant searches because of the pressure they face to meet illegal arrest quotas.
53. Crime + Punishment, an award-winning documentary that was broadcast in August 2018, details the existence and implementation of the arrest quota system. In the documentary, police officer Sandy Gonzalez explains that NYPD officials are “retaliating against me because of my numbers. I would have to massively write summonses and arrest people to come up with the number close to the number that they want to come up with.” The interview with Officer Sandy Gonzalez was conducted in 2014.
54. During the last four years, multiple police officers have filed lawsuits against the NYPD alleging that they were unlawfully retaliated against for blowing the whistle on, and complaining about, the existence and implementation of an unlawful arrest quota system.
55. In February 2018, in response to these lawsuits, the NYPD directed police officers to undergo a training that emphasizes that quotas for enforcement activity is against department policy.
56. Nonetheless, the NYPD continues to operate an arrest quota system. In August 2018, Sergeant Edwin Raymond told the Gothamist publication, “The quota system is absolutely happening. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. It’s every single week.”
57. In August 2018, police officer Pedro Serrano told NBC News that NYPD officials “will retaliate if you don’t get the numbers.”
58. In September 2018, The New York Post reported that members of the NYPD’s elite Strategic Response Group, which consists of 700 highly trained police officers, were
9

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 10 of 18
under pressure from their bosses to meet “secret” arrest quotas. Whistleblowers interviewed by The New York Post explained that police officers in the Strategic Response Group who fail to meet the quotas are “given undesirable shifts and denied overtime.”
59. According to a December 2018 article published in The Appeal, the arrest quota system “continues in other, more subtle forms” and operates through “new, less explicit methods supervisors use to enforce an unofficial quota system today.”
60. As a result of the arrest quota system that has existed and continues to exist, NYPD police officers were incentivized to detain or further detain individuals for purposes of conducting warrant searches even when there was no reasonable suspicion meriting such detention. The NYPD’s Pattern and Practice of Conducting Unlawful Warrant Searches
61. The NYPD has engaged in a clear pattern and practice of conducting unlawful warrant searches by detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists.
62. The NYPD adopted a policy of conducting warrant searches of detained persons even when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. NYPD officials possessing authority to establish police procedures instructed police officers employed by NYPD to conduct warrant searches of detained persons even when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists.
63. The practice of NYPD police officers detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists, is so
10

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 11 of 18
persistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom that was known to policy-making officials at NYPD.
64. NYPD officials failed to properly train or supervise police officers regarding the unconstitutionality and impropriety of detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. NYPD officials knew to a moral certainty that police officers would confront situations where they (1) were tempted to detain an individual even when no reasonable suspicion for that detention existed and (2) had detained an individual to conduct a stop-and-frisk or other search based on a reasonable suspicion, but that suspicion was entirely extinguished when the stop-and-frisk or other search produced no drugs, weapons or contraband of any kind. The NYPD should have properly trained police officers to refrain from detaining individuals for purposes of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion exists, and to refrain from further detaining individuals for purposes of conducting warrant searches when reasonable suspicion has been extinguished. Had the NYPD conducted such proper training, police officers would have been far less likely to detain individuals for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. The need for such training was evident considering the widespread practice and history of police officers improperly detaining individuals for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention exists. This failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and the other members of the classes alleged herein, who were predictably and unlawfully detained for purposes of conducting a warrant search when they came into contact with police offers employed by the NYPD.
11

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 12 of 18
65. The NYPD persistently failed to discipline police offers who detained persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention existed. The NYPD was faced with a clear pattern of police officers conducting such unlawful detentions for the purpose of conducting warrant searches, and yet the NYPD did not investigate or discipline those officers, thereby acquiescing in and tacitly authorizing the police officers’ unlawful actions.
DAMAGES 66. As a direct and proximate cause of the said acts of the Defendants, Plaintiffs and other members of the classes alleged herein suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. Violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. Loss of liberty; c. Emotional distress, degradation, and suffering.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 67. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for violations of their constitutional rights. The Rule (b)(2) class is comprised of all persons who were or will be detained for the purpose of running a warrant search in the absence of reasonable suspicion to detain such persons (“Rule (b)(2) Class”). The Rule (b)(2) Class is comprised of all persons detained pursuant to this policy or practice during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of limitations. 68. Defendants have acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Rule (b)(2) Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Rule (b)(2) Class as a whole.
12

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 13 of 18
69. Upon information and belief, the Rule (b)(2) Class includes thousands of individuals and is so numerous that joinder of all Rule (b)(2) Class members is impracticable.
70. Plaintiffs also bring this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for violations of their constitutional rights.
71. The Rule (b)(3) Class is comprised of all persons who were or will be detained for the purpose of running a warrant search in the absence of reasonable suspicion to detain such persons (“Rule (b)(3) Class”). The class is comprised of all persons detained pursuant to this policy or practice during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of limitations.
72. All members of the Rule (b)(3) Class were injured as a result of Defendants’ misconduct.
73. Upon information and belief, the Rule (b)(3) Class includes thousands of individuals and is so numerous that joinder of all Rule (b)(3) Class members is impracticable.
74. The questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs are common to members of the Rule (b)(2) Class and the Rule (b)(3) Class (collectively “the Classes”). Among others, the questions of law and fact common to the Classes are:
a. whether the NYPD had a policy, pattern and/or practice, explicit and/or tacit, of detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion for such detention;
b. whether the practice of police officers detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such
13

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 14 of 18
detention exists, is so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom that was known to policy-making officials at NYPD; c. whether the NYPD has shown deliberate indifference to the training and/or supervision of officers regarding the circumstances under which individuals can or cannot be detained, or further detained, for the purpose of conducting warrant searches; d. whether the NYPD persistently failed to discipline police offers who detained persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches when no reasonable suspicion for such detention existed; e. whether the policy, pattern and/or practice of detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion resulted in unconstitutional detentions of persons in violation of their constitutional rights; and f. the appropriate injunctive and compensatory remedies that will be needed to ensure (a) that this unconstitutional policy, pattern and/or practice is terminated, and (b) that its harmful effects are remedied. 75. Common issues of law and fact such as those set forth above predominate over any individual issues. 76. This unconstitutional policy, pattern and practice has resulted in the wrongful detention, deprivation of liberty, psychological injury, physical injury and emotional injury of individuals who have committed no crime or violation of law. The claims and practices alleged in this complaint are common to all members of the Classes.
14

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 15 of 18
77. The violations suffered by Plaintiffs are typical of those suffered by the Classes. The members of the Classes will benefit from the remedial and monetary relief sought.
78. Plaintiffs have no conflict of interest with any members of the Classes and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Counsel that is competent and experienced in federal class action and federal civil right litigation has been retained to represent the Classes.
79. This action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this legal dispute, as joinder of all members of the Classes is not only impracticable, but impossible given the volume and continuing nature of the violations as well as the transient nature of the members of the Classes. The damages suffered by members of the Classes, although substantial, are small in relation to the extraordinary expense and burden of individual litigation and therefore it is highly impractical for members of the Classes to attempt redress for damages incurred due to their wrongful detention.
80. There will be no extraordinary difficulty in the management of the class action. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM Illegal Seizure
81. Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if stated fully herein.
82. By the actions described, the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable or unwarranted restraints on personal liberty, specifically their right to be free from unlawful seizures.
15

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 16 of 18
83. The Defendant Officers detained or further detained Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct warrant searches.
84. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes sustained the damages and injuries herein alleged.
SECOND CLAIM Municipal Liability Under Section 1983 85. Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if stated fully herein. 86. By the actions described, the Defendant City deprived Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes of their constitutional rights through the NYPD’s policy, pattern and practice of detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion to detain such persons. 87. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant City, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes sustained the damages and injuries herein alleged.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief jointly and severally against the Defendants: a. An order determining that this action may be maintained as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), and directing that notice of this action be given to members of the Classes;
16

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 17 of 18
b. A judgment declaring that Defendants have committed the violations of the law alleged in this action;
c. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining and directing Defendants to cease detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion to detain such persons;
d. An order directing that immediate remedial training on the legal grounds for detaining persons for the purpose of conducting warrant searches be provided to all current members of the NYPD;
e. An order directing Defendants to implement a system for monitoring the warrant searches conducted and the legal bases for such searches;
f. An order awarding compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes in an amount to be determined at trial;
g. An order awarding punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
h. An order, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements; and
i. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

DATED:

March 25, 2019 New York, New York

___________/s/__________
CYRUS JOUBIN, ESQ. 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 119
New York, NY 10036 (703) 851-2467

17

Case 1:19-cv-02673-VEC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 18 of 18
joubinlaw@gmail.com
___________/s/__________
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC MATTHEW HANDLEY 777 6th Street NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 202-559-2411 mhandley@hfajustice.com
___________/s/__________
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC GEORGE FARAH 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 212-477-8090 gfarah@hfajustice.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes
18