## Facts

- In September 1992, a 77-year-old woman near Oneonta, New York reported that an intruder entered her home at night and attacked her.
- The victim could not identify the assailant, but told police he was a young Black male and that he appeared to have cut his hand during the incident.
- Police used a dog to track the suspect’s scent from the victim’s home toward the State University of New York College at Oneonta (SUCO), where the dog lost the trail.
- Believing the suspect might be connected to SUCO, investigators requested and obtained from SUCO officials a computer-generated list of Black male students and their local addresses.
- Officers attempted to locate and question the listed students and to check their hands for cuts.
- When the campus effort did not identify a suspect, police expanded the effort in the city, stopping and questioning young nonwhite males on the street and visiting homes of some Black residents, again looking for cuts on hands.
- More than 200 people were questioned or stopped during the investigation, and no suspect was ultimately identified or arrested.
- Individuals who were listed, contacted, or stopped (plaintiffs) filed a class action against the City of Oneonta, police officers, and SUCO-related defendants, alleging racial profiling and violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plus claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), and 1986.
- The district court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment for defendants on others; the remaining claims were dismissed by stipulation, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether acting on a victim-provided description identifying the suspect as a young Black male (and possibly cut on the hand) by seeking a list of Black male students and questioning nonwhite males constituted intentional race discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether the questioning and hand inspections amounted to Fourth Amendment seizures, and if so, whether they were supported by individualized reasonable suspicion.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated viable claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), and 1986 given their intent and conspiracy requirements.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed judgment for defendants on the Equal Protection claims, holding that, on this record, plaintiffs did not show discriminatory intent or racial animus beyond police reliance on the victim’s description.
- The court concluded that using race as part of an identified suspect description supplied by a crime victim did not, by itself, establish an unconstitutional racial classification by the state.
- The court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), and 1986, finding the required intentional discrimination and (for § 1985(3)) conspiracy motivated by racial animus were not supported, and § 1986 failed without a valid § 1985(3) claim.
- On the Fourth Amendment claims, the court held that many encounters alleged by plaintiffs were not seizures (for example, mere questioning without coercive circumstances) and therefore did not state a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The court held, however, that some individual plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to show they were seized and that “race and gender alone will rarely provide reasonable suspicion” to justify a stop; those specific Fourth Amendment seizure claims were allowed to proceed (i.e., the judgment was vacated in part and the case remanded as to those claims).

## Legal Principles

- Equal Protection claims based on law enforcement action generally require proof of discriminatory purpose, not only a racially disparate effect.
- When police act on a suspect description provided by a victim that includes race (along with other identifying features), reliance on that description alone does not necessarily amount to a state-created racial classification or prove intentional discrimination.
- Fourth Amendment limits apply even when race is part of a suspect description; a description based mainly on race and gender will seldom supply reasonable suspicion for a stop or detention.
- A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; consensual questioning without a show of authority is not a seizure.
- Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) require a conspiracy and class-based discriminatory animus; 42 U.S.C. § 1986 is dependent on a valid § 1985(3) claim; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 requires intentional race discrimination within its covered subject matter.

## Conclusion

Brown v. City of Oneonta held that the investigation’s use of a victim’s “young Black male” description did not, without additional proof of discriminatory intent, establish an Equal Protection violation or related liability under §§ 1981, 1985(3), or 1986, but the Second Circuit allowed certain plaintiffs to pursue Fourth Amendment claims where the alleged encounters plausibly amounted to seizures unsupported by individualized reasonable suspicion.


Brown v. City of Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329 (2000)