Brief Stress-Tester

62/ 100

Floyd v. City of New York -- Stop-and-Frisk Class Action

S.D.N.Y.completed

Major revision required5 findings across 3 rounds

Created 2/15/2026, 9:30:00 AM | Completed 2/15/2026, 9:31:42 AM

Finding Severity Distribution

critical (1)

high (2)

medium (1)

low (1)

Round 1

2 findings

criticalfactual92% confidence

Brief claims 88% of stops resulted in no further action, but the cited dataset (2004-2012) includes years after policy changes. Opposing counsel can argue the aggregate figure is misleading for the class period at issue.

Suggested Fix

Narrow the statistical claim to the specific class period (Jan 2004 - Jun 2012) and cite the UF-250 database directly with date-bounded queries.

highlegal87% confidence

The brief applies strict scrutiny to the equal protection claim without establishing that the stop-and-frisk policy constitutes a racial classification on its face. Under Arlington Heights, a facially neutral policy requires showing discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact.

Suggested Fix

Add a section establishing discriminatory intent through the Arlington Heights factors: (1) historical background, (2) sequence of events, (3) departures from normal procedures, and (4) legislative history of the policy directives.

Round 2

2 findings

highcitation95% confidence

Brief cites Terry v. Ohio (1968) for the reasonable suspicion standard but omits Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), which established that presence in a high-crime area is a relevant factor. Opposing counsel will use Wardlow to justify many of the challenged stops.

Suggested Fix

Preemptively address Wardlow by arguing that high-crime area alone is insufficient without individualized articulable suspicion, citing United States v. Sokolow and Floyd's own UF-250 data showing officers rarely documented specific suspicious behavior.

mediumlogical78% confidence

The brief's causation argument is circular: it uses the high volume of stops as evidence of a policy, then uses the policy as evidence that individual stops lacked reasonable suspicion. This conflates systemic and individual analysis.

Suggested Fix

Separate the Monell municipal liability argument (policy/custom) from the individual Fourth Amendment analysis. Use statistical evidence for Monell and specific stop narratives for individual violations.

Round 3

1 finding

lowfactual65% confidence

Footnote 23 references a precinct-level analysis but does not specify which precincts were included in the sample. Defense can challenge the representativeness of the sample.

Suggested Fix

Specify the precincts analyzed and explain the sampling methodology, or cite the Fagan expert report which covers all 76 precincts.

Brief Stress-TesterAdversarial Legal Analysis