Case: Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk
2:15-cv-02431 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Filed Date: April 29, 2015
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about the Suffolk County Police Department’s failure to investigate and eliminate discriminatory patterns and practices such as targeting Latinos for traffic and pedestrian stops, stealing their personal property, and engaging in harassing behavior. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs, 20 Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the County of Suffolk, the Suffolk County Police Department, and various individual police officers and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Represented by LatinoJustice PRLDEF and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. The plaintiffs claimed the county and police department showed deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ rights by failing to remedy the practice of conducting race-based stops and searches in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Arthur D. Spatt. However, on April 11, 2018, Judge Spatt recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Finally, on March 25, 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge William F. Kuntz, II, and Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged the police department failed to adopt reforms—such as implementing a system to collect traffic stop data and investigating complaints of officer misconduct in a timely manner—despite a settlement agreement that the Department of Justice entered into with the police department in 2013. The settlement resulted from a 2007 event where a group of teenagers in Suffolk County calling themselves the “Caucasian Crew” murdered an Ecuadorian immigrant. Following the murder, Latino residents began voicing complaints of discriminatory policing. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York began an investigation into the police department’s practices. The resulting limited settlement agreement outlined recommendations for new policies and procedures and was to remain in effect until the police department substantially complied with the agreement for at least one year. The Department of Justice had completed its most recent assessment report in December 2019 and found that the police department was not in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement.
While the Department of Justice conducted its investigation into the practices of the police department, a police officer named as a defendant in the plaintiff’s lawsuit both individually and in his official capacity was perpetrating a years-long scheme wherein he conducted race-based traffic stops and then stole money from the stopped drivers. In 2016, a jury found this officer guilty of theft and official misconduct and he was sentenced to three years in prison. The plaintiffs alleged that other officers in the police department perpetrated similar stop-and-rob schemes and that the county and police department failed to investigate and eliminate such discriminatory practices despite being aware of the department’s pattern of biased policing for years.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 18, 2015, to correct the spelling of a police officer defendant’s last name. The county, police department, and the individual defendants still employed by the police department filed an answer on November 4, 2015, and the officer in prison filed an answer on his own behalf on May 29, 2019. That officer also filed a crossclaim against the county and police department for failing to represent him in the lawsuit, and he filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The county and police department filed an answer to that crossclaim on June 7, 2019, and the plaintiffs filed an answer to the counterclaim on June 19, 2019.
On October 14, 2015, Judge Spatt granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously, because the plaintiffs demonstrated reasonable fear of retaliation and harassment by police officers still employed by the police department. 138 F.Supp.3d 264. Judge Spatt also stayed discovery relating to the officer in prison until his criminal case was resolved. Judge Brown lifted the stay on July 26, 2016.
For the next five years, the parties engaged in discovery. Then, on July 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification for damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought to define the damages class as “all Latino or Latina persons who, from January 2012 to the date of a final judgment, were unlawfully ticketed, searched, arrested, or otherwise subject to unlawful police action, including the unlawful deprivation of personal property, following a vehicular or pedestrian stop or detention by an agent of the Suffolk County Police Department in the county of Suffolk.” The plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the police department to cease discriminatory conduct and adopt policies to prevent discriminatory conduct in the future. The plaintiffs sought to define the injunctive relief class as “[a]ll Latino or Latina persons who, at any time after January 2012, have been or in the future will be subject to a vehicular or pedestrian stop or detention by an agent of the Suffolk County Police Department in the county of Suffolk.” Judge Kuntz referred the motion for class certification to Judge Bloom.
Regarding the class certification motion, Judge Bloom filed a Report & Recommendation on March 12, 2021, finding the plaintiffs met the threshold requirements for class certification. 2021 WL 1255011. She recommended the plaintiffs’ class be certified for injunctive relief but not for monetary damages, because an injunction to reform the police department’s policies and practices would benefit the entire class whereas an award of damages would require an individual inquiry into the harm each plaintiff suffered. On April 5, 2021, Judge Kuntz adopted Judge Bloom’s Report & Recommendation and certified the injunctive class as the plaintiffs had sought. 2021 WL 1254408.
Along with their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs requested an adverse inference that the defendants failed to adequately collect and analyze traffic stop data in an effort to shield the police department’s practice and pattern of biased policing against Latinos. In the alternative, the plaintiffs requested a rebuttable presumption that the uncollected traffic stop data would have shown that race-based “traffic stops, searches, tickets, arrests, and/or wrongful deprivations of property” were part of the police department’s traffic-stop practices. In an order on August 5, 2021, Judge Kuntz denied the plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference, because the plaintiffs did not allege the defendants destroyed harmful evidence but only that they failed to collect evidence to avoid liability. However, Judge Kuntz granted the plaintiffs’ request for a rebuttable presumption that the uncollected data would have shown biased policing practices, explaining that the defendants should not be allowed to benefit from failing to maintain adequate records.
Meanwhile, on October 16, 2020, the police department, county, and all individual defendants not including the imprisoned officer filed a motion for summary judgment.
Judge Kuntz issued an order regarding the motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2021. The defendants had asserted that the plaintiffs failed to show municipal liability under § 1983. Additionally, the defendants alleged that the DOJ could have initiated court action against the county in response to a breach of the settlement agreement, and so the Department of Justice’s choice not to initiate court action showed that no such breach occurred. First, Judge Kuntz noted that other factors, such as limited resources, affected which cases the Department of Justice pursued in court and held that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support a theory of ongoing biased policing practices stemming from the county’s policies. Second, Judge Kuntz denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the county’s liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the plaintiffs showed sufficient evidence to support a theory that the county was aware of its discriminatory policies and showed deliberate indifference to the discriminatory practices that resulted. Third, the defendants moved for summary judgment concerning the supervisory liability of the police deputy chief and the police commissioner. Judge Kuntz denied the motion because the plaintiffs asserted the defendant supervisors received complaints of the discriminatory policing practices but failed to interview the complainants for almost six months. Judge Kuntz also rejected the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity for the supervisors because factual disputes existed about whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendant supervisors to believe their actions were lawful. Finally, Judge Kuntz held that the plaintiffs showed evidence of ongoing constitutional violations, rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' rights were violated by only one individual officer no longer employed by the police department. He also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the imprisoned officer’s cross-claim against the county and police department for failing to provide him with representation, because defendants do not have a right to representation in civil suits.
On March 24, 2022, the court ordered the case to engage in mediation that would end on May 27, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Anthony DiCaprio was chosen as the mediator. On May 27, 2022, a mediation report was submitted asking the court to approve an extension to proceed with additional mediation. The parties notified the court that mediation was progressing, but that there were many issues to work through and more time was needed. The court granted an extension on the same day.
On June 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On July 26, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had been able to settle the claims except for those against the imprisoned officer. On March 6, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion for settlement.
In the settlement, the county defendants agreed to establish Precinct Level Advisory Boards, ensure that all officers take part in an Implicit Bias 2.0 training, expand the procedures for collecting and analyzing traffic stop data, ensure that officers are properly trained in traffic and pedestrian stop related procedures, improve language accessibility, implement a civilian oversight review process, and incorporate additional changes to the SCPD’s policing customs and practices. They also agreed to pay $2,250,000 for plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.
On March 28, 2023, the court granted the motion for settlement. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot on the same day.
On August 23, 2023, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice against the county defendants, but kept the case open as to the imprisoned officer defendant.
On August 30, 2023, the court approved the final settlement, which also ordered an additional $75,000 to be paid to each plaintiff, resulting in additional damages of $1,500,000.
As of November 14, 2023, this case was ongoing.
Summary Authors
Laura Irei (11/11/2021)
Rhea Sharma (11/22/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4324349/parties/1-21-v-the-county-of-suffolk/
Alicea, James Robert (New York)
Bench, Zach (New York)
Alexander, Kimberly Ann (New York)
Baptiste, Rudolph Max (New York)
Bassett, Jason (New York)
Alicea, James Robert (New York)
Brennan, Katherine Mallory Tosch (Texas)
Case, Andrew Claude (New York)
Cuevas Ingram, Joanna Elise (New York)
esqTrasande, Nancy Milagros (New York)
Fell, Katherine Kelly (New York)
Fernandes, Jordan Benjamin (New York)
Hershon, Bradley James (New York)
Hoggatt, Katherine Mallory (New York)
Ingram, Joanna Elise (New York)
Lamberg-Kafele, Heather (District of Columbia)
Leon, Fulvia Vargas-De (New York)
Marcou, David Samuel (District of Columbia)
Mirdamadi, Michael Ehson (New York)
Olshansky, Barbara J. (New York)
Paslawsky, Alexandra (New York)
Pitaro, Isabel Christophorou (New York)
Trasande, Nancy Milagros (New York)
Varela, Nathalia Alejandra (New York)
Vargas-De Leon, Fulvia (New York)
Alexander, Kimberly Ann (New York)
Baptiste, Rudolph Max (New York)
Burwell, Kaye Woodard (New York)
Department, Suffolk County (New York)
Gatto, Christopher M. (New York)
Kopping, Donnamarie (New York)
Leonardo-Beckmann, Diane C. (New York)
McNamara, Jennifer K. (New York)
McSloy, Christiana Stover (New York)
Perkins-Hooker, Patrise M. (New York)
Petrowski, John Richard (New York)
Rosenberg, Steven E. (New York)
Schulman, Michael B. (New York)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4324349/1-21-v-the-county-of-suffolk/
Last updated June 26, 2026, 5:52 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 29, 2015
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Twenty Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, who experienced racial profiling by Suffolk County police officers.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
County
Suffolk County Police Department
The County of Suffolk
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of New York 2:15-cv-02431
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Provide antidiscrimination training
Amount Defendant Pays: $3,750,000.00
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Policing:
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Case Summary of Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/18195/ (last updated 11/22/2023).