D.C. Must Defend Claims Stop and Frisk Policy is Racially Biased

The District of Columbia failed to shake off a proposed civil rights class action alleging its Metropolitan Police Department policy of stopping and searching for guns is racially biased.

The allegations that the department’s gun recovery unit unlawfully targets Black males without reasonable suspicion or probable cause are sufficient to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Wednesday.

The nine members of the unit named in the complaint aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because the allegations, if true, are clearly illegal, Chutkan said.

“It defies credulity that a law enforcement officer would not know that stopping and searching a citizen with no reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause was plainly unlawful, she said. The allegations are also sufficient to proceed with claims that the city has a “policy or custom that was the ‘moving force’ behind the alleged constitutional injury,” the judge added.

The four lead plaintiffs allege they were stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion. Their complaint alleges that GRU officers are “highly aggressive” and forceful, wearing tactical gear and displaying their weapons, and are “deployed in a manner calculated to convey force and authority well beyond that of an ordinary officer deployed in uniform.”

The plaintiffs sufficiently allege that city “policymakers either knew or should have known that the GRU was engaged in widespread Fourth Amendment violations,” Chutkan said.

The court cited the testimony of one D.C. police officer that the Narcotics and Special Investigations Division, which oversees the gun recovery unit, used “illegal tactics,” and allegations that the GRU “openly displayed flags, banners, and t-shirts, depicting or alluding to their reputation for stopping and searching residents of the areas in which they operated,” which shows that policymakers were aware of their practices.

Bruckheim & Patel LLC represents the named plaintiffs and the proposed class. The D.C. Attorney General’s Office represents the defendants. The office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Crudup v. District of Columbia, 2023 BL 103505, D.D.C., No. 20-cv-1135, 3/29/23.