New York City lawyers are arguing in a recent court filing that the NYPD is not constitutionally required to protect individuals from attack. The argument surfaced in response to a lawsuit filed by Amanda Luci, who alleges officers failed to protect her during an assault in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in 2025.
The Incident in Crown Heights
According to Luci’s lawsuit, she was surrounded, kicked, and threatened by a large group of people, many wearing traditional Orthodox Jewish garb, after they mistakenly believed she was a pro-Palestinian protester near a historic synagogue. The lawsuit claims responding NYPD officers did not intervene, potentially emboldening the attackers due to their own beliefs about Luci’s views.
The city’s attorneys are seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed, asserting that the NYPD has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from attack. They cited prior cases to support their argument, suggesting judges may agree with this interpretation.
Legal Precedent and Expert Opinions
Legal experts consulted by Gothamist generally agreed that the Constitution does not mandate officers to protect people. However, they as well noted potential exceptions to this rule, which could be relevant to Luci’s case. One officer did escort Luci through the group to a police vehicle, and another drove her home that night.
Attorneys for the city pointed to a previous case involving a man who assisted police in a drug sting. When the suspect slashed the man with a box cutter, the city successfully argued that police had no obligation to protect him. Luci’s attorney, Leo Glickman, expressed confidence that the lawsuit will proceed, stating, “We look forward to litigating this issue before Judge [Frederic] Block and are confident that the case will survive this motion.”
Potential Paths Forward
Legal scholars suggest that a key factor in Luci’s case could be whether a judge finds that police inaction was influenced by a belief that she was a pro-Palestinian protester. Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, stated, “Even if you have no free-standing obligation to protect everyone, you can’t decide who you protect and who you don’t on the basis of race, religion and freedom of speech.” It is possible the court could require the city to provide more information about the events of April 24, 2025, before ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the city’s argument in this case?
The city argues that the NYPD is not constitutionally required to protect individuals from attacks by others, and that Luci’s lawsuit is not grounds for legal action.
What do legal experts say about the NYPD’s obligations?
Legal experts generally agree that the Constitution does not require police officers to protect people, but there may be exceptions to this rule.
What happened to Amanda Luci after the attack began?
According to the lawsuit, one police officer escorted Luci through the crowd to a police vehicle, and another officer drove her home that night.
As this case moves forward, will the court consider the circumstances surrounding the officers’ response, and how those circumstances may affect their legal obligations?
Keep reading