New York City police unions recently attempted to intervene to halt a settlement between plaintiffs and New York City in the stop-and-frisk cases.  Judge Analisa Torres denied the unions’ motions. Last summer, in Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of New York’s Southern District held that the New York City Police Department’s practice of routinely targeting people of color and subjecting them to Terry frisks without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.  A monitor was appointed to ensure that the NYPD complied with Judge Scheindlin’s remedial order, and the city appealed.   Various police unions made Rule 24 motions to intervene as defendants.  The Second Circuit remanded the case to Judge Torres.  Upon Mayor de Blasio’s inauguration, the city announced its willingness to settle. Though the city was ready to settle, the police unions still sought to intervene as defendants to prosecute the appeals.  Judge Torres denied the motions to intervene, noting that “the motions are untimely, the Unions have no significant protectable interests relating to the subject of the litigation that would warrant intervention, and even if their alleged interests were cognizable, the Unions lack standing to vindicate those [read more]