Lino v. City of New York (Challenging aspects of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk database)

This lawsuit seeks an injunction requiring the NYPD to seal all records, including personal information in the Department’s stop-and-frisk database, of people who were stopped and frisked by police officers, arrested or issued a summons, and whose cases ended either in dismissal or only the payment of a fine for a noncriminal violation. It was filed on May 19, 2010 in State Supreme Court for New York County on behalf of what may be more than 100,000 New Yorkers whose personal information is being kept in the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk database even though state laws require that all police records of their stop-and-frisk encounters be sealed and not be available to any public or private agency.

The lead plaintiffs are two New York City residents who have been stopped and frisked by police officers, issued summonses, and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the City of New York and several unnamed police officers are listed as defendants. Plaintiff Clive Lino, a black man and Harlem resident, was stopped at least 13 times by NYPD officers between February 2008 and August 2009. On numerous occasions, he has written to city agencies and officials about his mistreatment by NYPD officers, complaining in one letter that “they make me feel like a criminal or suspect when I haven’t done anything wrong.”

On April 18, 2009, Lino and his cousin were getting into his brother’s car on Morris Avenue in the Bronx when five police officers stopped them. The officers threw Lino against a wall, frisked him, handcuffed him and searched his pockets. After detaining him for about a half hour, the police officers issued Lino summonses for spitting in public and possessing an open container. Both were dismissed. Plaintiff Daryl Khan, a freelance journalist who covered the NYPD for more than a decade, was riding his bike at the corner of Tompkins Avenue and Park Avenue in Brooklyn on Oct. 7, 2009 when two police officers in an unmarked van pulled him over. They accused the 35-year-old of riding on the sidewalk, demanded to see his ID, and repeatedly asked him to tell them where he lived. Khan, a white stay-at-home father of twin toddlers who lives in Brooklyn, was polite to the officers but stood up for his rights as he wasn’t riding on the sidewalk. In response, he was pulled from his bike, thrown against the van, and handcuffed. One officer donned rubber gloves and searched his pockets against his will. The encounter lasted about 45 minutes. Khan, who has never been arrested and has no criminal record, was issued a summons for disorderly conduct and one for riding his bike on the sidewalk. Both were dismissed.

On June 28, 2011, Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe granted the city’s motion to dismiss the case. The Appellate Division, First Department overturned Jaffe’s ruling on Dec. 20, 2012 and reinstated the case. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs: “correctly assert that they have suffered an injury in fact for two reasons: (1) their records remain unsealed, which puts them at imminent risk that their records will be disclosed, and (2) the NYPD is improperly disclosing plaintiffs’ records in the “stop and frisk” database, which may lead to plaintiffs being targeted in future investigations.” The case was settled on August 7, 2013. Under the settlement, the city agreed to end the NYPD’s practice of storing in an electronic database the names and addresses of people who are stopped by police officers, arrested or issued a summons, and subsequently cleared of criminal wrongdoing. It agreed to erase from the NYPD database within 90 days the names and addresses of all people who have been stopped, arrested or issued a summons and whose cases were either dismissed or resolved with a fine for a noncriminal violation. 

State Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 10-106579 (direct) This