Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 11

USOC SONY

DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DOC#:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

.11 "

--­

S__O__U__T__H__E__R__N__D___l_S_T__R__l_C__T__O___F__N__E_•W••_Y__O__R__K_______------------- x lEATE FILED:

5/14111. 
 _.

TERRENCE BATTLE and MUNIR PUJARA,
Plaintiffs,
-against­
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department; WENDELYN COSTANZA, PHILIP FACENDA, MICHAEL MILLER, TOMAS REYES. and JEFF TORREDA, members of the New York City Police Department,

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SEITLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
11 Civ. 3599 (RMB)(HBP)
nsJ~©~D\Yl~ 1m 

1MI LW MAY 142012 f

Defendants.
__ ...... __.................""...,..""""" ...""_ ..............- .. 1\0< ...*"'_.................................- ..........- ...- .......- ..............---- X

CMAMElSRfOf RICHARD M, BEAMAN
U.S.O,J.

WHEREAS, plaintiffs commenced this action by tiling a complaint on or abollt May 26, 2011, and an amended complaint on July 21, 2011, alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's federal civil rights; and
WHEREAS. defendants have denied allY and all liability arising out of plaintiffs' allegations; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to resolve the issues raised in this litigation, without further proceedings and without admitting any fault or liability; and
WHEREAS. plaintiffs have authorized their counsel to agree to the terms set forth below;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undet'signed, as follows:
1, The above~refel'enced action is hereby dismissed against defendants, with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amounts specified in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 below.

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 11
2. Detendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff Terrence Battle Ten Tho~\sand ($10,000.00) Dollars, the relief set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 herein, plus the portion of the total attorneys' fees. costs and expenses set forth in paragraph 7 below, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims tor costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to dismissal of all the claim:! against defendants and to release the defendants and any present or former employees and agents of the City of New York or any entity represented by the Office of the Corpomtion Counsel. from any and all liability. claims, or rights of action alleging a violation of plaintiff's civil rights from the beginning of the world to the date of the General Release, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees,
3. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff Munir Pujara Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) DoUal's. the relief set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 herein, plus the portion of the total attorneys' fees, costs and expenses set forth in paragraph 7 below, in fuJI satisfaction of a\l claims, including claims fOl' costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of lbis sum, plaintiff agrees to dismissal of all the claims against defendants and to release the defendants and any present or fonner employees and agents of the City of New York or any entity represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action alleging a violation of plaintiff s civil rights from the beginning of the world to the date of the General Release, including claims for costs, expenses a.nd attorneys' fees,
4. The defendant City represents that an NYPD FINEST message in the form annexed hereto as Appendix A has been read at 10 consecutive roll calls in all NYPD commands following the standard procedure for communication of FINEST messages, For those officers who do not participate in roll calls. the FINEST message has been conveyed to said officers in the manner that such officers customarily receive such messages, The NYPD will repeat tIle !lctions specified in this paragraph 6 months and then again 12 months after the date of entry of this Stipulation and Order. Upon each subsequent reading, defendant City will notify plaintiffs' counsel in writing that the reading has occurt'ed and provide a copy of the FINEST message to plaintiffs' counsel.

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 11
S. The defendant City represents that an NYPD Operations Order in the form Ilnnexed hereto as Appendix B has been issued in the standard procedure for issuance of such
operations orders.
6. The training memorand\.lm ill the form annexed hereto as Appendix C will become a part of the NYPD Police Student's Guide, to which recruits in the NYPD Police Academy
may be tested as part or their regular training. Defendant City represents that this has occurred.
7. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiffs the total sum of Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred ($37,500) Dollars in fuB satisfactlon of any costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have assigned their rights 10 attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to their attorneys, the New York Civil Liberties Union. As such, said check will be made payable to plaintiffs' attorneys, the New York Civil Liberties Union.
8. Plaintiff'S shall each execute and deliver to defendants' attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including. without limitation, a General Release based on the terms of paragraphs 2 through 7 above and an Affidavit of Status of Liens. If Medicare has provided payment and/or benefits for any injury ai' condition that is the subject of this lawsuit, prior to tendering the requisite documents to effect this settlement, plaintiff shall have notitied Medicare and shall submit with the settlement documents a Medicare final demand letter for conditional payments. A Medicare Set-Aside Trust may also be required if future anticipated medical costs are found to be necessary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. §§411.22 through 411.26.
9. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by the defendants that they have in any manner or way violated plaintiffs rights, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defin.ed in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations of the United States, the State of New York, or the City of New York or any other rules, regulations or bylaws of any department or subdivision of the City of New York. This stipUlation shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other litigation or settlement negotiations.

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 4 of 11
10. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the City of New York or any agency thereof.
11. Plaintiffs agree to hold harmless the City of New Yotk and the individual defendants regarding any liens or past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown in connection with this matter. If conditional andlor futtlre anticipated Medicare payments have not been satisfied, the City reserves the right to issue a multiparty settlement check, naming Medicare as a payee or to issue a check to Medicare directly based upon Medicare's final demand letter.
11. This Stipulation and Order contains all the tenus and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and 110 oral agreement ente1'ed into at any time 110r any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation and Order regal'ding the subject matter of the instant

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 5 of 11

proceeding shaH be deemed to exist. or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.
l!:/:, Dated: New York, New York 
 May 2012 


Christopher Dunn, Esq, New York Civil Liberties Union 
 125 Broad Street, Jgill Floor 
 New York, N.Y. 10004 
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
 (212) 607·3300
Christopher Wr -- . 

Attomey for Plaintiff 

soo~._ 

-u.~P"-:; )~)

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York New York, New York 10007 Attorney for Defendants City, Reyes. Facenda, Miller. Constanza and Torreda 100 Church Street. Room 3-2 J J New York, N,Y. 10007 (212) 442·8248
By; umJ~ Mark D. Zuckenmm, Esq. Senior Counsel

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 6 of 11
VXION:lddV 


Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 7 of 11

.... ~-:..-­

FINEST MESSAGE SWITCHING SYSTEM GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

DATE: 05/10/12 TIME: 00 I 01.49

SENT 5/10/12 - 00:00.18 '-'IIMU. FROM: ­

MESSAGE I

TO ALL COMMANDS

TAXI/LIVERY ROBBERY INSPECTION PROGRAM

IN LIGHT OF REPORTS ABOUT IMPROPER TREATMENT OF PASSENGERS RIDING IN

LIVERY CARS ENROLLED IN THE TAXI/LIVERY ROBBERY INSPECTION PROGRAM, OR TRIP,

THE pURPOSE OF THIS FINEST MESSAGE IS TO RE-EMPHASIZE DEPARTMENT POLICY WITH

REGARD TO TRIP, INCLUDING AS TO WHEN, IF AT ALL, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE,

DETAIN, QUESTION OR FRISK PASSENGERS IN TAXIS AND LIVERY CABS PARTICIPATING

IN THE PROGRAM.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE CONDUCTING SAFETY CHECKS 
 OF PARTICIPATING VEHICLES IN THE TAXI/LIVERY ROBBERY INSPECTION PROGRAM (TRIP)
 MAY NOT REMOVE OCCUPANTS OF SUCH VEHICLES ABSENT INDEPENDENT FACTORS THAT 
 CAUSE MOS TO FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY, REASONABLY SUSPECT THE PASSENGER IS ARMED 
 WITH A WEAPON, OR THAT A VIOLENT CRIME HAS BEEN OR IS BEING COMMITTED. 


ALL MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE ON PATROL, INCLUDING THOSE IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES, UPON OBSERVING A TAXI/LIVERY BEARING A TAXI/LIVERY ROBBERY INSPECTION PROGRAM

DECAL, MAY BRIEFLY STOP AND VISUALLY INSPECT THAT VEHICLE. IF THE DRIVER CONSENTS, A VISUAL INSPECTION MAY INCLUDE OPENING THE DOORS OF THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT OF THE VEHICLE. HOWl!WER, VEHICLE OCCUPANTS MAY NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE, ABSENT INDEPENDENT FACTORS THAT CAUSE THE OFFICERS CONDUCTING THE STOP TO FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY.

THEREFORE, VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLE SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE ROUTINE REMOVAL OF PASSENGERS FROM THE VEHICLE OR VEHICLE B~CHES. FURTHERMORE, PASSENGERS WISHING TO LEAVE WILL NOT BE ASKED FOR IDENTIFICATION OR OTHERWISE DETAINED ABSENT FACTORS LEADING AN OFFICER TO REASONABLY SUSPECT THAT A CRIME IS BEING, HAS SEEN OR IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED BY A PASSENGER. PASSENGERS WILL BE FRISKED ONLY WHEN SUCH REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EXITS AND THE CRIME SUSPECTED IS VIOLENT IN NATURE (I.E.ROBBERY) OR, IF NOT A VIOLENT CRIME, THE OFFICER DEVELOPS INDEPENDENT REASONABLE SuSPICION THAT THE PASSENGER IS ARMED WITH A WEAPON.

IF PASSENGERS ARE DETAINEO AND/OR FRISKED, A STOP, QUESTION AND FRISK REPORT (PD344-1S1) WILL BE PREPARED AS PER PATROL GUIDE PROCEDURE 115·33, II STOP AND FRISK." OFFICERS WILL RECORD TAXI/LIVERY ROBBERY INSPECTION PROGRAM s'rops WITH A DETAILED ACTIVITY LOG (PD;I.l2-l45) ENTRY/ INCLUDING THE NAKS AND DRIVER/HACK LICENSE NUMBER OF THE DRIVER. ALSO, THE ACTIVITY LOG ENTRY WILL INCLUDE THE MAKE, MODEL, COLOR, YEAR AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE VEHICLE STOPPED.

MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE WHO MAY HAVE QOESTIONS REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS ORDER OR ANY OTHER ISSUE RELATING TO THE TAXI/LIVERY ROBBERY INSPECTION PROGRAM ARE ENCOURAGED TO CALL THE LEGAL BURBAO AT 646-610·5400.

THE CONTEN~S OF THIS DIRECTIVE ARE TO BE READ AT TEN CONSECUTIVE ROLL CALLS. COMMANDING OFFICERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE TASKED WITH ROBBERY INVESTIGATIONS, ARE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER.

AUTHORITY: CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT

OPR: PO HESS

AUTHORIZING TERMINAL: ~ 


OPS UNIT BROADCAST MESSAGE NO: IS; i ,. 


2356 HOURS 


Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 8 of 11
g XIGN:tIddV 


Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 9 of 11

OPERATIONS ORDER 


SUBJECT: TAXI/L!VERY ROBBERY INSPECl'ION PROGRAM (T,R.I.P.)

OATB1SS\JSO:
04-27·12

NuMBBR:
20 


1. The New York City TaxVLlvery Robbery Inspection Program (T.RI.P.) was implemanted in an effort to promote the safety of taxi and livery drivers throughout New York City. It is a voluntary program which encompasses a preventive police response to crimes against taxi and livery
drivers, by authorized sofety cheeks of partiolpating vehicles that display Taxi/Livery Robbery
Inspection Program deoaJa.

2. All members of the service on patrol, including those in civilian clothes, upon observing a taxillivery bearing a Tax1ILlvery RobMry Inspeotion Program deoal, may briefly stop and visually inspect the vehicle. If the driver oonsents, a visual inspection may include opening the doors of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Howevert vehlcle ocoupants may Dot be removed iTom the vehicle. absent independent factors that cause the members conducting the stop to fear for their safety.
,b.n Therefore, "visual inspection" of the vehicle not Include the routine removal of the passengers
from the vehicle or vehicle scarohes. Furthennore, pusengers 'Wishing 10 leave will not be aaked for identification or otherwise detained, absent factors leading a momber to reasonably suspect that a orime is being, has been, or is about to be committed by a passenger. Passengers wilJ be frisked only when such reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, and the orlme suspected is violent in nature (i.e., robbery) or, if not II violent crime., the member devefops ludependen1 reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed with a weapon. If passengers lite detained and/or frisked, a STOP, QUESTION
AND FRISK REPORT (pD344-151A) will be propared as per Patrol Guide 212-11, "Stop and FriskII.

3. Members will record TaxilLivery Robbery Inspection Program stops 'With II detailed ACTlVITY LOG (pDlll.145) entry, including: the Dame and driverlhack license number of the driver, make, model, color, year, and vehicle registration number oftbe vehiole stopped.

4. Commanding officers 'Win ensure that the contents of this Order are brought to the attention of members of their commands.

BY DIRECTION OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
DISTRIBUTION All Command.

loti

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 10 of 11
3XIGN3ddV

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 50 Filed 05/14/12 Page 11 of 11

POLICE STUDENT'S GUIDE 

Auto Related Crimes and Procedures
'..., . ..• riMiUt• • t;.:.1,~.~'~~.i

Taxi I Livery Robbery Inspection Program (T.R.I.P.)
T.RI.P. wae implemented In an effort to promote the safety of taxi and liVery drivers throughout New York City. It Is a voluntary program which encompasses a preventive police response to crimes against taxi and livery drivers, by authorizing safety checks of participating vehicles that display Taxi I Livery Robbery Inspection Program decals.
All members of the service on patrol, including those In clvilian clothes, upon
observing a taxi I livery bearing a T.RI.P. decal may briefly stop and visually inspect that vehtcle. If the driver consents, a visual inspection may Include opening the doors of
the passenger compartment of the vehicle. However, vehicle occupants MAY NOT be removed from the vehicle, absent independent factors that cause the officers conducting the stop to fear for their safety. Therefore, "visual inspection" of the vehicle SHALL NOT include the routine removal of passengers from the vehicle or vehicle searohes. Furthermore. passengers wishing to leave WILL NOT be asked for identification or otherwise detained absent factors leading an officer to reasonably suspect that a crime is being, has been or is about to be committed by the passenger. Passengers WILL be frisked only when such reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists and the crime suspected is violent in nature (Le., robbery) or if not a violent crime, the officer develops Independent reasonable suspicion that the passenger Is armed with a weapon. If passengers are detained and lor frisked a Stop. Question and Frisk Report (PO 344-151) will be prepared as per Patrol Guide Procedure 212-11, "Stop and
Frlsk~.
Officers will record Taxi I Livery Robbery Inspection Program stops with a detailed Activity Log entry, including the name and driver I hack license number of the driver. Also the Activity Log entry will include the make, model, color, year and vehiole registration number of the vehicle stopped.
Preliminary Investigation, RecordIng and Transmission of Alarms for Stolen Vehicles (P.G. 207-11)
A complainant, present at a preCinct command, or other Department facility to report a stolen vehicle, must be transported by Department vehicle to the place of occurrence, or be requested to await the arrival of a uniformed member(s) of the service at the location where the crime occurred. The assigned uniformed member of the

JANUARY 2012

AUTO RELATED CRIMES & PROCEDURES

1

 </s> ..

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

f ïs» Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 14 ~':'.:,.¡~·c W1JJt .,i;¡~~,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---~-~-------------~-------------------------------------------)C TERRENCE BATTLE and MUNIR PUJARA,

v:~ ~.,. : .. JIJ~;~·i'..... . . ~7i/J'.~~"'\~.', .
ZOll 1jjh
. ~g~

Plaintiffs,

11 Civ. 3599 (~~

-versus-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department; WENDEL YN COSTANZA, PHILIP FACENDA, MICHAEL MILLER, TOMAS REYES, and JEFF TORREDA, members of the New York City Police Department,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ECF Case

Defendants. ---;,-~--~--- ;,--~;:,-------- ------ -------- -..-.------- ------ ------ ---)C

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a civil rights action seeking to halt a New York City Police Department practice of detaining, questioning, frisking, and searching law-abiding New Yorkers -- primarily African-Americans, Latinos, and other non-whites -- who ride in livery cars. These innocent New Yorkers are targeted for this aggressive and frightening mistreatment, often late at night, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Rather, the NYPD is using a program that allows it to stop livery cars to ask the drivers about their well-being and to visually inspect the cars as a license to remove passengers from the cars and to question, frisk, and search the passengers and to search their possessions.
2. Plaintiff Terrence Battle, an African-American radio executive, was riding home in a Brooklyn livery car late at night in October 2010 when police officers stopped the car. Even though the driver told the officers there was no problem and even though the officers had no reason to suspect Mr. Battle of any wrongdoing, they ordered him out of
1

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 14
the car and then questioned, friskëd, and searched him and his bag. Plaintiff Munir Pujara, an attorney and of South Asian descent, had a similar experience when riding home in a livery car in the Bronx in September 2010. In. both instances the officers who questioned, frisked, and searched Mr. Battle and Mr. Pujara stated that this was routine NYPD practice and claimed that each man had consented to this treatment by riding in a livery car that was participating in the livery-car safety program. 3. Under the NYPD's Taxi/Livery Robbery Inspection Program (TRIP), police officers may pull over livery cars with decals indicating they have enrolled in the program, visually inspect the vehicles, and briefly question drivers. The plaintiffs do not challenge these aspects of the program. Nothing about the program, however, can or does authorize officers to detain, question, frisk, or search passengers without independent suspicion of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the NYPD has a practice of doing so, with officers apparently believing that driver participation in the program means that passengers consent to this treatment. And because livery cabs operate predominantly in non-white neighborhoods, it is African-Americans, Latinos, and other non-whites who bear the brunt ofthis unlawful practice, just as is true with the NYPD's notorious practice of stopping and frisking lawabiding pedestrians. 4. The NYPD's practice of detaining, questioning, frisking, and searching passengers without suspicion under its TRIP program violates the United States and New York Constitutions. Mr. Battle and Mr. Pujara seek a declaration that their treatment was unlawful, a declaration that the NYPD' s practice is unlawful, and an injunction against the practice.
2

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 3 of 14
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff TERRENCE BATTLE is a resident of New York City. 6. PlaintiffMUNIR PUJARA is a resident of New York City. 7. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation within the State of
New York. 8. Defendant RAYMOND KELLY is the Commissioner ofthe New York City Police
Department. He is sued in his official capacity. 9a. Defendant PHILIP FACENDA is a member of the NYPD who participated in the
- encounter with Mr. Battle. He is sued irï hisofficial and personal capacities. 9b. Defendant MICHAEL MILLER is a member of the NYPD who participated in the
encounter with Mr. Battle. He is sued in his official and personal capacities. 9c. Defendant TOMAS REYES is a member ofthe NYPD who participated in the encounter
with Mr. Battle. He is sued in his official and personal capacities. 9d. Defendant JEFF TORREDA is a member of the NYPD who participated in the encounter
with Mr. Pujara. He is sued in his official and personal capacities. lOa. Defendant WENDEL YN COSTANZA is a member of the NYPD who participated in the
encounter with Mr. Pujara. She is sued in her official and personal capacities.
FACTS Terrence Battle 11. Terrence Battle is a native N ew Yorker who currently lives in the Bedford-Stuyvesant
neighborhood of Brooklyn with his two children. Mr. Battle is African-American and is 38 years old.
3

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 4 of 14
12. Mr. Battle is a manager af prominent New York City radio stations Hot 97 and KISS FM and has worked in the radio business since 1991. He also works as a stand-up comedian performing throughout N ew York City.
13. Mr. Battle frequently takes livery cars, especially when his comedy performances end late in the night, because yellow cabs rarely are available in his neighborhood.
14. On Saturday, October 30, 2010, Mr. Battle returned to Brooklyn after performing in a comedy show in Manhattan. He got off the subway at the Broadway Junction stop in Bedford-Stuyvesant sometime after 3:00 a.m.
15. Mr. Battle got into a livery car to take him home from the station. He sat in the backseat of the car and placed his bag beside him. He was wearing a j acket, tee shirt, j eans, and a Hot 97 hat.
16. The livery car turned on to Mr. Battle's street around 3:30 a.m. As the car approached his home, Mr. Battle noticed police lights flashing behind him. Initially unconcerned, he assumed the livery car was being pulled over for a minor reason such as a broken taillight.
17. The livery driver pulled the car over to the side of the road. Sitting in the rear passenger seat, Mr. Battle saw three men in street clothing step out of the police car. They walked over to the parked livery car and stood by the driver's window. The men wore badges around their necks identifying them as police officers, but their names were not displayed. The officers since have been identified as defendants Philip Facenda, Michael Miller, and Thomas Reyes.
18. One of the officers asked the driver if everything in the vehicle was alright. The driver said that everything was fine.
4

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 5 of 14
"
19. The officers, shining their flashlights, looked through the interior of the car. Mr. Battle was still sitting in the rear passenger seat.
20. One ofthe officers then ordered Mr. Battle to get out ofthe car. Though fearful, Mr. Battle cooperated and stepped out ofthe car.
21. Mr. Battle stood next to the car door, with his back to the car. The three officers faced him from the street, blocking any movement.
22. Mr. Battle was alone in the street with the officers in the middle of the night. Vulnerable and exposed to the officers, Mr. Battle felt afraid. He made sure not to make any sudden movements and kept his hands in view.
23. Mr. Battle thought of incidents where African-Americans were killed or injured by NYPD officers without provocation. Surrounded by three arrned police officers, Mr. Battle was in extreme fear for his personal safety.
24. One of the of the officers demanded identification from Mr. Battle. Mr. Battle gave the officer his driver's license.
25. The police officers then searched Mr. Battle. He was patted down, and his jacket pockets were searched. Mr. Battle did not consent to this.
26. Mr. Battle's bag, which he had placed on the ground next to him, was searched by one of the officers. Mr. Battle did not consent to this.
27. As he was being patted down, Mr. Battle asked the police officers why they were searching him. One officer said that it was routine. He pointed to a TRIP decal on the car, which Mr. Battle had not previously noticed, and told Mr. Battle they were allowed to search him under TRIP.
28. After searching Mr. Battle and his bag, the officers told him they were done with him.
5

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 6 of 14
29. Though free to go, Mr. Battle told the officers that he was upset at their treatment of him. The officers replied that he had consented to being questioned and searched when he entered a livery car that participated in TRIP. They again stated that their actions were part of a routine stop under TRIP.
30. The officers explained that these stops and searches were a method of removing weapons and drugs from the street. Referring to the 81st Precinct, where the stop took place, one of the officers asked Mr. Battle, "Do you know how many murders we have in the eightone?"
31. The 81st Precinct is known for controversial policing. In recently published recordings of 1'011 calls in the 81st Precinct, officers were routinely pressured to stop and frisk individuals as often as possible, even if unlawfully. During one roll call, a sergeant in the Slst Precinct stated, "Anybody walking around, shake them up, stop them, 250 them, no matter what the explanation is." (The term "250" refers to the fonn completed by police officers who conduct stops and frisks.)
32. Aware of this controversy and believing he was the victim of an improper stop, Mr. Battle requested the names ofthe police officers. They gave their names as Officer Facenda, Officer Reyes, and Sergeant Miller.
33. Mr. Battle was not charged with any crime. He had done nothing unlawful or suspicious before or during the encounter. The NYPD officers had no lawful reason to detain, question, frisk, or search him.
34. After being detained and searched by the police officers, Mr. Battle felt fearful, powerless, and indignant. He knew that the officers mistreated him and had no right to do what they had done to him.
6

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 7 of 14
35. The following Monday, November 1, Mr. Battle filed complaints with the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau and the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board. Mr. Battle attended an interview with the Civilian Complaint Review Board on November 23, 2010.
36. On January 21,2011, Mr. Battle filed a timely Notice of Claim. 37. At all times during the encounter with Mr. Battle, the police officers were acting under
color oflaw. 38. Because he often has no other choice, Mr. Battle continues to use livery cabs at night. He
is anxious, however, when he is in a livery car because he fears that he may have another similar encounter with police officers.
Munir Pujara 39. Munir Pujara lives in Harlem. He is of South Asian descent and is 37 years old. 40. Mr. Pujara is an attomey and works for Part ofthe Solution (POTS), a social service
organization located in the northwest Bronx. 41. Mr. Puj ara regularly takes livery cars to travel between his Bronx office, the Bronx
courthouse, and his home in Harlem. Like Mr. Battle, Mr. Pujara often takes livery cars to return home from work late at night. He does this because yellow cabs are generally not available and because he has at times tried to avoid the subway after having been stopped repeatedly at NYPD subway bag-search checkpoints because, he believes, of his ethni city. 42. At approximately 11:30 p.m. on Friday, September 3, 2010, Mr. Pujara left work in the Bronx to return home and got into a livery car. After traveling only a Sh01i distance, the car was pulled over by a police car. Two officers stepped out of the vehicle.
7

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 8 of 14
43. A female officer, later identified as defendant Wende1yn Costanza, walked over to the passenger side. Meanwhile, a male officer, later identified as defendant Jeff Torreda, approached the driver of the car.
44. Officer Torreda asked the driver if everything was alright. The driver responded that everything was fine.
45. Officer Torreda then joined Officer Costanza at the passenger side of the car. One ofthe officers opened Mr. Pujara's door and told him to get out ofthe car.
46. Mr. Pujara was surprised at the officer's command. Mr. Pujara asked the officers if they had any suspicion or cause to ask him to leave the car. They said they did not. He then asked what would happen ifhe did not leave the car. The officers told him he would be arrested.
47. Mr. Pujara stepped out of the car. He noticed that the Officer Torreda's hand was on his gun.
48. The officers told Mr. Pujara to tum around, place his hands on the roof of the car, and spread his legs. Mr. Pujara told the officers that they were not allowed to search him without his consent. Officer Torreda replied that he could.
49. Troubled by this exchange, Mr. Pujara repeated that the officers had no legal basis for searching him. Officer Torreda insisted that he did because of "the program," referring to TRIP.
50. Mr. Pujara was familiar with TRIP because he had previously defended a client in the context of a vehicle passenger search. He correctly told Officer Torreda that TRIP allowed them to stop the car only under some circumstances and that he could not be
8

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 9 of 14
searched as a passenger without suspicion. The officer continued to disagree. He pointed to the TRIP decal on the livery car and said "it shows it right there." 51. Officer Torreda suddenly pushed Mr. Pujara and frisked his waist area and patted down and searched the front and back pockets of his pants. Mr. Pujara had not consented to be searched. 52. After the frisk, Mr. Pujara continued to dispute the lega1îty ofthe police officers' actions. 53. Officer Torreda stated that police officers were doing these stop-and-frisks oflivery passengers and that it was part of "the program." Officer Torreda said that officers would continue frisking passengers during TRIP stops, saying, in substance, "We'll be doing them more often." 54. Finally, Mr. Pujara was allowed to walk away from the car, though the officers did not expressly consent to it and he was fearful as he stepped away from them. As Mr. Pujara was leaving the scene, the livery car began to drive away. Mr. Pujara stopped the car and paid the driver ten dollars. 55. The officers did not find anything illegal on Mr. Pujara or charge him with any crime. At no point before or during the encounter with the police officers did Mr. Pujara do anything unlawful or suspicious, and the NYPD officers had no lawful basis to detain, question, or frisk him. 56. At all times during the encounter with Mr. Pujara, the police officers were acting under color oflaw. 57. Mr. Pujara filed a complaint with the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board about his encounter. 58. On November 23, 2010, Mr. Pujara filed a timely Notice of Claim.
9

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 10 of 14
- 59. Because he has little choice, Mr. Pujura continues to use livery cars, but he is anxious when riding in them out of fear that he will have another similar encounter with the police. For a while after the September incident, Mr. Pujura made an effort to avoid liveries with TRIP decals, but he abandoned this when livery drivers in cars without decals told him that they too were being stopped for driver safety checks.
Taxi/Livery Robbery Inspection Program 60. The Taxi/Livery Robbery Inspection Program (TRIP) was created by the NYPD in 1994.
Upon information and belief, a large number oflivery cars enrolled in the program. 61. In2009 the NYPD initiated Operation Safe Cab, which led to the enrollment in TRIP of
hundreds of additional livery cars. On information and belief, virtually all of the vehicles enrolled in TRIP are livery cars. 62. Livery cars are the main fonn of for-hire passenger car service in minority-populated neighborhoods in New York City. According to the Taxi & Limousine Commission, 97% of yellow taxi pickups are in Manhattan or at airports. 63. Drivers participating in TRIP affix a decal to their cars stating, "This vehicle may be stopped and visually inspected by the police at any time to ensure driver's safety." An NYPD operations order about TRIP provides that passengers may not be removed from vehicles absent independent factors causing the officers conducting the stop to fear for their safety. The operations order further states that passengers may not be frisked during stops absent reasonable suspicion of the existence of violent criminal activity or the possession of a weapon.
10

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 11 of 14
64. Nonetheless, the NYPD has a pattern and practice or custom of detaining, questioning, frisking, and searching passengers in livery cars that participate in TRIP without any suspicion of unlawful conduct by the passenger.
65. NYPD officers stated to both Mr. Battle and Mr. Pujara that it was routine to detain, question, and search or frisk passengers riding in vehicles enrolled in TRIP. In both cases, the officers explicitly stated that they were authorized to search or frisk passengers merely because they were riding in a vehicle enrolled in TRIP. When their authority was questioned, the police officers brought the TRIP decal to the attention ofthe plaintiffs. Both sets of officers also described their actions as part of a larger crime-fighting strategy. Officer Torreda told Mr. Pujara that stop-and-frisks of livery passengers were occurring and would continue to occur.
66. Livery drivers of vehicles enrolled in the TRIP program report that police officers pull over their cars and detain, question, frisk, and search passengers, even after the drivers inform the police officers that there is nothing wrong in the car.
67. The detention, questioning, frisking, and searching of law-abiding passengers in livery cars under the TRIP program closely resembles the treatment of pedestrians under the NYPD's program of aggressively stopping and frisking pedestrians. Since 2003 there have been over 4 million such stops, with nearly 90% of those stopped being entirely innocent. That program is also racially skewed, with over 80% of the stops being of African-Americans and Latinos and only 10% being of whites.
68. As evidenced by the statements and actions ofthe officers the plaintiffs encountered and by the reports oflivery cab drivers and others, the NYPD has failed to adequately train and supervise officers conducting stops under the TRIP program to ensure that they are
11

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 12 of 14
",
not violating the constitutional rights of passengers for whom no independent suspicion exists. The NYPD Patrol Guide, which contains policies and procedures for NYPD officers, contains no guidelines governing the actions of officers conducting stops under TRIP.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 69. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C
§§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3)-(4). 70. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state constitutional and state law claims
pursuant to-28 u.s.e. § l367C-a).
71. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) in that Defendant City of New York is located within the Southern District of New York.
JURY DEMAND 72. The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action on each and everyone of their claims.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 73. The defendants' actions violated Terrence Battle's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 74. The defendants' actions violated Munir Pujara's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 13 of 14
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 75. The defendants' actions violated Terrence Battle's rights under section 12 of Article I of
the New York State Constitution.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 76. The defendants' actions violated Munir Pujara's rights under section 12 of Article I of the
New York State Constitution.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 77. The defendants' actions violated Terrence Battle's rights under the common law of the
State of New York to be free from false arrest, assault, and battery.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 78. The defendants' actions violated Munir Pujara's rights under the common law of the State
of New York to be free from false arrest, assault, and battery.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Cami:
(1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter; (2) Declare that the defendants' actions have violated and do violate the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of New York, and the common law of New York; (3) Enjoin the City of New York and its employees from detaining, questioning, frisking and/or searching passengers in vehicles enrolled in TRIP in the absence ofindependent information about the passenger's conduct that would authorize any such action and order any and all relief necessary and appropriate to implement this injunction; (4) Award compensatory damages;
13

Case 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP Document 19 Filed 07/21/11 Page 14 of 14
"
(5) Award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (6) Grant any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Dated: July 21,2011 New York, N.Y.

Respectfully Submitted,
CIJuÆN- hJn-----
CHRISTOPItrER DuNN(CD~3991) ARTHUR EISENBERG (AE~20l2) New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 607~3300
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

On the Complaint: LISA BRAFF EV AN PARZYCH New York University School of Law, Civil Rights Clinic

14

 </s> http://www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-settlement-ends-stop-and-frisk-of-livery-cab-passengers
/ NYCLU SETTLEMENT ENDS STOP-AND-FRISK OF ...
NYCLU Settlement Ends Stop-and-Frisk of Livery Cab Passengers
May 15, 2012 — In settling a federal lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Bloomberg administration has agreed to train NYPD officers to stop the unlawful practice of detaining, questioning and searching innocent New Yorkers – particularly people of color – who are passengers in livery cabs. The NYCLU filed the lawsuit in May 2011, charging that the NYPD had used its Taxi/Livery Inspection Program (TRIP) to expand the reach of its unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices. Plaintiffs Terrence Battle and Munir Pujara, both men of color, were riding in livery cabs and were detained, questioned and searched even though the livery drivers told officers there was no problem and even though the officers did not suspect the plaintiffs of any wrongdoing. “Being pulled out of a livery car late at night when I had done nothing wrong was outrageous and frightening,” Battle said. “I can only hope this settlement saves others from a similar experience.” Under the settlement, the NYPD last week instructed all officers about the lawful treatment of passengers, directing them that they are not to question, frisk, search or demand identification from passengers simply because they are riding in cars participating in the TRIP program. Instead, officers are to take no action against passengers unless the officers have independent suspicion that the passenger has committed a crime. The NYPD will repeat these instructions in six months and again in a year. “Under this settlement, the NYPD will undertake sweeping training of officers and commanders to halt the unlawful treatment of law-abiding passengers in livery cabs,” said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn, lead counsel in the case. “This should put an end to the unjustified stopping and frisking of people whose only crime was to be riding in a livery car.” In addition, the NYPD has issued an operations order to commanding officers throughout the Department directing them to assure that passengers are not mistreated under the TRIP

program. Finally, the NYPD will add a training memorandum on TRIP to the NYPD Police Student’s Guide, which is used in the training of cadets at the NYPD Police Academy.
“This is a victory for the right of all New Yorkers to go about their business without being unlawfully detained, questioned and searched by police,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. “While the NYPD has agreed to take steps to end this discriminatory practice, its officers continue to subject record numbers of black and Latino new Yorkers to unlawful and suspicionless street stops. It’s time for the Bloomberg administration and the NYPD to put a stop to all discriminatory policing.”
Livery cab drivers enroll in TRIP voluntarily. The program authorizes police officers to stop participating cabs, identifiable by a special decal, and to perform driver safety checks.
Under the settlement, the city will pay both plaintiffs $10,000 in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.
NYU Law School Civil Rights Clinic students Lisa Braff and Evan Parzych assisted Dunn on the lawsuit.

 </s> Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 1 of 8
CLOSED, CASREF, ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−03599−RMB −HBP

Battle et al v. The City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Richard M. Berman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Terrence Battle
Plaintiff Munir Pujara

Date Filed: 05/26/2011 Date Terminated: 05/14/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Christopher T Dunn New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 19th floor New York, NY 10004 (212)607−3300 Fax: (212) 344−3318 Email: cdunn@nyclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur Nelson Eisenberg New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 19th floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 607−3300 Fax: (212) 607−3318 Email: arteisenberg@nyclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher T Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur Nelson Eisenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
The City of New York TERMINATED: 05/14/2012

represented by Mark David Zuckerman NYC Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)−442−8248 Fax: (212)−788−9776 Email: mzuckerm@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joey Jackson Koehler &Isaacs, LLP 61 Broadway New York, NY 10006 (917)551−1300 x1310 Fax: 2127914115 Email: JJackson@Koehler−Isascs.com

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 2 of 8

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow NYC Law Department 100 Church Street Rm. 3−187 New York, NY 10007 (212)−788−1575 Fax: (212)−788−9776 Email: sbreslow@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Raymond W. Kelly Commissioner of the New York City Police Department

represented by Mark David Zuckerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joey Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Does 1−4 members of the New York City Police Department TERMINATED: 07/21/2011

represented by Joey Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jane Doe a member of the New York City Police Department TERMINATED: 07/21/2011

represented by Joey Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wendelyn Costanza Member of the New York City Police Department

represented by Mark David Zuckerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Philip Facenda Member of the New York City Police Department

represented by Mark David Zuckerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Miller Member of the New York City Police Department

represented by Mark David Zuckerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 3 of 8

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tomas Reyes Member of the New York City Police Department

represented by Mark David Zuckerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeff Torreda Member of the New York City Police Department

represented by Mark David Zuckerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marie Breslow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/26/2011
05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011 06/02/2011
06/07/2011
06/07/2011 06/07/2011
06/09/2011
06/09/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Jane Doe, John Does 1−4, Raymond W. Kelly, Munir Pujara, The City of New York. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 7712)Document filed by Terrence Battle.(ama) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Jane Doe, John Does 1−4, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (ama) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
2 ORDER: The initial pretrial conference scheduled for 8/16/2011 is hereby rescheduled to 7/11/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/2/2011) (ab) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joey Jackson on behalf of Jane Doe, John Does 1−4, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York (Jackson, Joey) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
4 ANSWER to 1 Complaint. Document filed by Jane Doe, John Does 1−4, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York.(Jackson, Joey) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Intervene served on Christopher Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg Counsel for Plaintiffs on June 7, 2007. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Jane Doe, John Does 1−4, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (Jackson, Joey) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
6 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. The City of New York served on 5/27/2011, answer due 6/17/2011. Service was accepted by Dimitriv Aronov. Document filed by Munir Pujara; Terrence Battle. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
7 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Raymond W. Kelly served on 5/27/2011, answer due 6/17/2011. Service was accepted by Det. Eileen Flaherty. Document filed by Munir Pujara; Terrence Battle. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 06/09/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 4 of 8

06/13/2011 06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/14/2011
06/15/2011 06/15/2011 06/20/2011 06/27/2011
06/27/2011
06/27/2011 07/05/2011 07/11/2011

8 FIRST MOTION to Intervene. Document filed by Jane Doe, John Does 1−4, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York.(Jackson, Joey) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mark David Zuckerman on behalf of Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York (Zuckerman, Mark) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Conference set for 7/11/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman. (cd) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
11 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher Dunn dated 6/14/11 re: Request to extend time to respond to the complaint for the City of NY. ENDORSEMENT: The conference date of 7/11/11 @9:00 is firm. The City's time to answer is extended to the conference date; we can discuss further extension then. The Court suggests the parties work in good faith on settlement before the conference. The City of New York answer due 7/11/2011. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/14/11) (cd) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
10 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 8 FIRST MOTION to Intervene, filed by The City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly, John Does 1−4, Jane Doe. ENDORSEMENT: We can discuss preliminarily at a conference on 7/11/11 @9:00 am. Going forward, please see the Court's (local) rules re: pre−motion letters, etc. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/14/11) (cd) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
12 Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Mark D. Zuckerman dated 6/14/11 re: Counsel requests an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint from 6/17/11 until 8/1/11. Document filed by Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (ft) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
13 Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher Dunn dated 6/16/11 re: Counsel writes to confirm the status of the Motion to Intervene filed on 6/6/11. Document filed by Terrence Battle, Munir Pujara. (ft) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
14 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Mark D. Zuckerman dated 6/24/11 re: Counsel requests a pre−motion conference with respect to a motion to dismiss; also requests, should Your Honor deem the requested pre−motion conference appropriate, that the issues raised herein be discussed at the same time as the Initial Conference in this matter, scheduled for July 11, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs to respond by 7/5/11. We will discuss Defendants' proposed motion at the conference on 7/11/11. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/27/11) (djc) Modified on 6/27/2011 (jar). (Entered: 06/27/2011)
15 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher Dunn dated 6/27/2011 re: Counsel for the Plaintiffs writes to inform the Court that Plaintiff remains ready to agree on a proposed discovery plan prior to the July 11 conference and requests that the Court direct Mr. Zuckerman to make the Operations Order 46 available to the Court and to the plaintiffs prior to the July 11 initial conference. ENDORSEMENT: No stay of discovery is contemplated by the Court. Discovery issues are referred to Magistrate Judge Pitman. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/27/2011) (ab) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
16 ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non−dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/27/2011) (ab) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
17 Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher Dunn dated 7/1/2011 re: On behalf of the plaintiffs and pursuant to your memo endorsement of 6/27/2011, I write in response to the City's premotion letter concerning motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and to stay discovery. Document filed by Terrence Battle.(mbe) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN: Amended Pleadings due by 7/22/2011. Joinder of Parties due by 7/22/2011. Status of settlement discussions: no expected further discussion. Motions: By Defs (Joint) to dismiss &intervene by 8/5/2011. Responses due by 9/9/2011: Replies due by 9/23/2011. Joint Pre−Trial Order to be

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 5 of 8

07/11/2011 07/12/2011 07/21/2011
07/21/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011
07/29/2011
07/29/2011 07/29/2011 08/04/2011 08/04/2011
08/04/2011 08/05/2011 08/10/2011

submitted by: Page limits (30pp). Followup pls' amendment, a MTD would be with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/11/11) (pl) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Status Conference held on 7/11/2011. Case Management entered. (mbe) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 7/12/2011, order to follow. (mro) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Wendelyn Costanza, Philip Facenda, Raymond W. Kelly, Michael Miller, Tomas Reyes, The City of New York, Jeff Torreda with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Terrence Battle, Munir Pujara. (ft) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Wendelyn Costanza, Philip Facenda, Raymond W. Kelly, Michael Miller, Tomas Reyes, The City of New York, Jeff Torreda. (ft) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
20 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Tomas Reyes served on 7/26/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. Service was accepted by Police Officer T. Reyes. Document filed by Terrence Battle ; Munir Pujara. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
21 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Philip Facenda served on 7/26/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. Service was accepted by Police Officer Y. Reyes. Document filed by Terrence Battle ; Munir Pujara. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
22 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Michael Miller served on 7/26/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. Service was accepted by Police Officer Y. Reyes. Document filed by Terrence Battle ; Munir Pujara. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
23 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Wendelyn Costanza served on 7/26/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. Service was accepted by Sergeant Nyell Gilliard. Document filed by Terrence Battle ; Munir Pujara. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
24 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Jeff Torreda served on 7/26/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. Service was accepted by Sergeant Nyell Gilliard. Document filed by Terrence Battle ; Munir Pujara. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
25 MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York.(Zuckerman, Mark) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
26 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss. and motion to intervene by New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers. Document filed by Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (Zuckerman, Mark) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
27 MOTION to Dismiss (amended). Document filed by Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York.(Zuckerman, Mark) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
28 NOTICE of Notice of Motion re: 26 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion. Document filed by The City of New York. (Jackson, Joey) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
29 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Mark D. Zuckerman dated 8/3/2011 re: Counsel respectfully request that the Court sua sponte extend the time for the newly added individual defendants Wendelyn Costanza, Philip Feceenda, Michael Miller, Tomas Reyes and Jeff Torreda to respond to the First Amended Complaint to September 30, 2011. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted as to City and Kelly only; Denied as to all other defendants. Counsel cannot seek relief in behalf of parties it does not represent. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 8/9/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 6 of 8

08/16/2011 09/09/2011 09/16/2011
09/16/2011
09/22/2011 09/27/2011 10/13/2011 12/01/2011
12/08/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011

30 ANSWER to 19 Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Wendelyn Costanza, Philip Facenda, Michael Miller, Tomas Reyes, Jeff Torreda.(Zuckerman, Mark) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
31 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss (amended).. Document filed by Terrence Battle, Munir Pujara. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
32 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 7/11/2011 before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Alena Lynch, (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 10/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
33 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/11/2011 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: 09/16/2011)
34 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss (amended).. Document filed by Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (Zuckerman, Mark) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
35 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Stephanie Marie Breslow on behalf of Wendelyn Costanza, Philip Facenda, Raymond W. Kelly, Michael Miller, Tomas Reyes, The City of New York, Jeff Torreda (Breslow, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
36 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions due by 3/14/2012. All fact discovery due by 1/12/2012. Pretrial Order due by 4/16/2012. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/13/2011) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
37 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Mark D. Zuckerman dated 11/29/2011 re: Counsels jointly request a stay of discovery for 30 days so that the parties may further explore settlement and also request that the existing deadlines in the Case Management Order be extended 30 days to accommodate the requested stay in the event that settlement cannot be reached. ENDORSEMENT: The application for a 30−day stay of discovery is granted. Because experience shows that the presence of deadlines generally tends to promote settlement more effectively than stays, the 30 day stay will not be extended. Counsel are directed to submit a revised scheduling order in the form previously entered reflecting the requested adjourned dates. The dates are not extended until such revised scheduling order is approved. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/1/2011) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ft) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
38 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER:Dispositive Motions due by 4/13/2012. Fact Discovery due by 2/13/2012. Pretrial Order due by 5/16/2012, and as further set forth in this document. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/7/2011) Copies Sent By Chambers. (cd) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
39 LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: I authorize Brian Richici: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/12/2011) (lmb) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
40 LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: I authorize Vadim Glukhovsky (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/12/2011) (lmb) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
41 Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher Dunn dated 11/28/11 re: Counsel for the plaintiffs writes to request that you authorize two students to participate in this case pursuant to the SDNY's student−practice plan.

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 7 of 8

01/13/2012 01/18/2012 02/23/2012 03/08/2012 03/13/2012
03/27/2012 04/09/2012 04/19/2012

Document filed by Terrence Battle, Munir Pujara.(mro) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
42 DECISION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion to Intervene; denying 25 Motion to Dismiss; denying 27 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss [#25, #27] and the Taxi Federation's motion to intervene [#8, #28] are denied. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/13/2012) (jfe) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
43 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Marc D. Zuckerman dated 1/13/12 re: Counsel for the defendants writes jointly with plaintiffs' counsel to request an additional stay of discovery of 40 days so that the parties may finalize a settlement in this matter. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. No further extensions in the absence of a representation that all material terms of the settlement have been finalized. So ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/18/2012) (mro) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
44 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magissrate Judge Henry Pitman from Christopher Dunn dated 2/23/2012 re: counsel for plaintiffs request that you continue your stay for another two weeks, to Wednesday, March 7. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 2/23/2012) (pl) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
45 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christopher Dunn dated 3/7/2012 re: The parties request that you extend the existing stay until Monday, March 12. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/8/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
46 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christopher Dunn dated 3/12/2012 re: I now write to inform You that the parties have agreed to all substantive terms of a settlement. which will include actions to be taken by the NYPD, monetary settlements for the plaintiffs, and attorney' fees and costs. Having reached substantive agreement on terms, the parties now need to prepare a formal settlement document to be submitted to the Court. Accounting for time out of the office next week, we expect to submit the settlement to Judge Berman by Wednesday, March 28. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/12/2012) (ama) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
47 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Mark D. Zuckerman dated 3/26/2012 re: I write jointly with plaintiffs' counsel to respectfully request that the time be extended to submit final settlement documents to Judge Berman from March 28, 2012 to April 6, 2012, and that the pre−trial stay of discovery be extended to that date as well. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/27/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
48 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Henry B. Pitman from Mark D. Zuckerman dated 4/6/2012 re: counsel for Defendants write jointly with p1aintiffs' counsel to respectfully request that the time be extended to submit settlement documents−to Judge Berman from April 6, 2012 to April 18, 2012, and that the pre−trial stay of discovery be extended to that date as well. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted., ( Request for Production of Documents due by 4/18/2012.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/9/2012) (pl) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
49 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christopher Dunn dated 4/18/2012 re: While we have made progress, we still have several issues that require more discussion. We therefore respectfully request that you extend your stay until Wednesday, April 25, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: The stay of proceedings is extended through 4−30−12. If the case is not settled by that date, counsel are to report to courtroom 18A at 2:00 PM on 4−30−12 for a settlement conference., ( Settlement Conference set for 4/30/2012 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/19/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-03599-RMB -HBP As of: 05/20/2012 03:15 PM EDT 8 of 8

05/03/2012 05/14/2012

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Settlement Conference held on 5/3/2012. Settlement successful. (rjm) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
50 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, as follows: This action is hereby dismissed against defendants, with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amounts specified in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 below. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff Terrence Battle $10,000.00 the relief set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 herein, plus the portion of the total attorneys' fees, costs and expenses set forth in paragraph 7 below, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims tor costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to dismissal of all the claims against defendants and to release the defendants and any present or former employees and agents of the City of New York or any entity represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action alleging a violation of plaintiff's civil rights from the beginning of the world to the date of the General Release, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff Munir Pujara $10,000.00 the relief set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 herein, plus the portion of the total attorneys' fees, costs and expenses set forth in paragraph 7 below, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to dismissal of all the claims against defendants and to release the defendants and any present or former employees and agents of the City of New York or any entity represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action alleging a violation of plaintiff's civil rights from the beginning of the world to the date of the General Release, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiffs the total sum of $37,500 in full satisfaction of any costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have assigned their rights to attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to their attorneys, the New York Civil Liberties Union. As such, said check will be made payable to plaintiffs' attorneys, the New York Civil Liberties Union. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/14/2012) (jfe) (Entered: 05/14/2012)


[CONTENT] May 21, 2011 | two | 42 | 1983 | the City of New York | the United States | District Court | the Southern District | New York | Foley Square ||| the New York Civil Liberties Union | Fourth | Fourteenth Amendment ||| the New York City Police Department | NYPD ||| September 3, 2010 | 11:30 P.M. | one | Bronx ||| the Taxi/Livery Robbery Inspection Program | NYPD ||| TRIP ||| NYPD ||| TRIP |||  ||| October 30, 2010 | 3:00 A.M. | second | Brooklyn |||  |||  |||  ||| NYCLU | the New York University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic ||| May 14, 2012 | Court | Richard M. Berman ||| 10,000 | 20,000 | 38,000 ||| NYPD ||| NYPD ||| NYPD | 10 day | three | the next year |||  [SUMMARY] On May 21, 2011, plaintiffs, two men of color, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law against the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Foley Square. The plaintiffs, represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, asked the court for injunction and compensatory relief, claiming that their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the New York City Police Department (NYPD) had violated their rights by unreasonably searching them during routine livery cab stops.

On September 3, 2010, at 11:30 P.M., one plaintiff, a lawyer in the Bronx, was leaving work and chose to use a livery cab. The cab was enrolled in the Taxi/Livery Robbery Inspection Program (TRIP), which gave consent for the cab to be stopped and inspected by the NYPD. The cab displayed a decal that indicated enrollment in TRIP.  The NYPD stopped the livery cab, and ordered the plaintiff out of the vehicle. The plaintiff protested the search without reasonable suspicion, but the police indicated that enrollment in the TRIP program gave them the right to search passengers in the livery cab.  Nothing was found.

On October 30, 2010, at 3:00 A.M., the second plaintiff, who was a manager at a popular radio station and a comedian, was returning to his home in Brooklyn in a livery cab.  This cab was also enrolled in TRIP. The car was stopped and the plaintiff ordered to exit the vehicle, at which point the plaintiff's person and belongings were searched.  Again, nothing was found. 

The plaintiffs' case was accepted by the NYCLU and the New York University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic, and a complaint was filed alleging that the search of passengers in livery cabs without reasonable suspicion was unconstitutional.

On May 14, 2012, the Court (Judge Richard M. Berman) entered a stipulation and order of dismissal, because the case had settled.  The Settlement contained $10,000 relief for each plaintiff ($20,000 total), $38,000 in attorney's fees, and injunctive-like provisions.  The NYPD agreed to suspend its routine searching of passengers of vehicles that were pulled over as part of the TRIPS program. The NYPD further agreed that it would only search passengers when reasonable suspicion of a violent crime existed.  Furthermore, the NYPD provided information that it was amending its training manual, informing officers at roll-call citywide (repeating it for 10 day periods, for three times over the next year), and issuing an operations order communicating the order to not search passengers absent reasonable suspicion of a violent crime during a TRIP stop.

The case was dismissed with the approval of the settlement.

