PBA can intervene in lawsuit over police tactics at 2020 racial justice demonstrations

The racial justice demonstrations in Summer 2020 have given rise to lawsuits that are now making their way through the courts. This one alleges the NYPD subjected demonstrators to excessive force, unreasonable searches and seizures, and free speech violations. This appeal, however, covers a far less exciting issue: can the police union intervene in the case to ensure its interests are protected?

The case is In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations v. City of New York, issued on March 4. This appeal involves multiple lawsuits making similar allegations. The Court of Appeals summarizes the plaintiffs' claims:

Individual plaintiffs allege that such tactics were deployed unlawfully against them when, for example, a “group of at least 100 NYPD officers form[ed] a line” and “began to move towards the protesters with their helmets on and batons out.” An officer then allegedly “pointed his drawn baton at” one plaintiff, “lunged at” her, “forcefully knocked the phone” out of her hands, “struck” her “across her chest,” and “began beating [her] on the arms and upper body,” at which point “[a]dditional NYPD members descended” to “beat her with their batons and kick[ ] her.” The plaintiffs allege that such interactions reflect the NYPD's “long history of violence towards Black and Latinx people,” and “historical brutality against protesters.”

The state Attorney General's office got involved with these cases and asked the district court to enter injunctive relief against the NYPD to ensure they are complying with constitutional standards. Some of the plaintiffs seek the same relief. The PBA then tried to intervene in these lawsuits, arguing that this injunctive relief will affect New York City police officers in such a manner as to require their input into that relief, and the only way for that to happen is allowing the PBA to join the case as an interested party, even if the PBA was not actually sued. Motions like this will be granted in the circumstances warrant it. The trial court rejected that motion, but the Court of Appeals (Menashi, Livingston and Jacobs) disagrees and allows the PBA to join the case.

Since the PBA asserts an interest in the safety of its officers, which may be impaired by a court determination that NYPD policies governing protests are unlawful and must be altered, it can join the case. This is not some outside interest group that wants the court to consider its views on the case. Rather, the PBA has a cognizable interest in these cases. While the district court said the PBA was simply interested in preserving any allegedly unconstitutional policies that the NYPD may be employing, the real issue is that the case has not yet determined that these policies are illegal, and in resolving motions to intervene under FRCP 24, we don't consider the ultimate merits of the case.