Suit Documents Violations under Stop-and-Frisk

By Scott Michelman

Late one September afternoon in 2017, on an ordinary residential street in a predominantly African-African neighborhood of the nation’s capital, M.B. Cottingham and his friends had gathered to discuss how to celebrate his birthday that evening. Someone popped a bottle of champagne.

And then everything changed.

In what D.C. residents (and even a federal appeals court judge) recognize as common practice in the city, police cars rolled up and the officers jumped out to confront this group of African-African men congregating peacefully on the streets of their own neighborhood. Though the officers had no reason for suspicion, they demanded to know if the men had guns. The men all said no.

One officer approached Mr. Cottingham, a lifelong D.C. resident who works as an ice-cream vendor, selling frozen treats out of a truck. The officer, Sean Lojacono, asked Mr. Cottingham about a bulge in his sock. Mr. Cottingham pulled out a legal amount of marijuana and — having been stopped and frisked countless times by D.C. police since he was 14 and hoping to keep the situation from escalating — volunteered to let the officer frisk him.

What happened next was shocking both to Mr. Cottingham and the thousands of viewers who would later watch the video of the incident online.

Ranging far beyond what should have been a limited pat-down for weapons, Officer Lojacono jammed his fingers between Mr. Cottingham’s buttocks and grabbed his genitals. Mr. Cottingham physically flinched and verbally protested, making clear that this highly intrusive search was not within the scope of the frisk to which he had consented. Officer Lojacono responded by handcuffing Mr. Cottingham and returning to probe the most sensitive areas of his person — two more excruciating times.

No warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent justified the scope of these probes, which were conducted in broad daylight in public and with no other discernible reason than to humiliate and degrade Mr. Cottingham and to display the officer’s power over him.

“Once he thrust his finger in my bottom, I wanted to turn around and punch him in his face,” Mr. Cottingham said afterwards. “But the thought that kept running across my mind is, they gonna kill you. I thought about teddy bears being up under the tree or becoming a hashtag. I have kids that I have to live for.”

In his three searches of Mr. Cottingham’s anal area, Officer Lojacono didn’t find anything. He didn’t arrest him or anyone else. Instead, as a parting shot, Officer Lojacono taunted Mr. Cottingham and his friends from the loudspeaker on his car as he and his fellow officers drove away.

Depressed, humiliated, and feeling defeated after what he had experienced, Mr. Cottingham turned inward. He didn’t want to go outside. He could barely bring himself to work his ice cream truck. His side-career as a musician that had been taking off, with paid gigs, now fizzled as Mr. Cottingham lost his drive to perform. He hasn’t performed since the search. Meanwhile, Officer Lojacono remains on the D.C. police force.

Last week, we sued Officer Lojacono on Mr. Cottingham’s behalf for the violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have asked a jury to assess the appropriate amount to compensate him for what he has suffered and continues to endure, but the case is not ultimately about money.

Mr. Cottingham is suing for his dignity. He is asserting his basic humanity. He is standing up for his community, too often disrespected by police and viewed as potential suspects rather than as neighbors, employees, friends, and family members.

Sadly, we know that for every Mr. Cottingham who has his story captured on video and brought to public attention, there are many more here in D.C. and across the country who suffer this kind of abuse at the hands of law enforcement without recourse or redress — including some whose names do become hashtags.

That is why it is so important that Mr. Cottingham came forward, despite the trauma of what he experienced, to assert his rights, to call attention to the practice of stop and frisk and the abuses that follow, and to shine a light on a harsh reality that many communities of color face.

Scott Michelman is a Senior Staff Attorney with ACLU of the District of Columbia

Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event

Eventbrite - Immigration Law: Defending Immigrant Rights and Keeping Families Together

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


  1. Jeff M

    Stop and Frisk saves the lives and reduces the incidents of gun crime.  Maybe this is the reason it is so vehemently rejected by liberals as it would serve to reduce the number of incidents that would otherwise be leveraged for the political agenda to ban guns.

    1. David Greenwald

      It doesn’t. Between 2004 and 2011 there were more than four million stop and frisk actions documented by NYPD… They found weapons roughly 1.5 percent of hte time and gun in less than 0.1 percent of the stops. One thinks that there would be a more efficient and less costly way to do these things. One that doesn’t involve turning law abiding citizens in criminal suspects. That comes with a cost as well. It has undermined trust in the police, particularly in the minority community.

      1. Jeff M

        Oh Jesus.   Why yes… because the thugs knew better than to carry when Stop and Frisk was in place.

        You know that airport security rarely finds bombs strapped to passengers?

        1. Jeff M

          What is wrong with you people to use the positive data resulting from strong law enforcement as an argument that we don’t need strong law enforcement?  It is weird.  It is like saying we don’t need airport security because there has been a drop in the number of aircraft being blow out of the sky.

          But officials acknowledged there was still work needed to curb some of the most violent crime.

          Councilwoman Diana Ayala, who represents parts of the Bronx, said the city’s crime reduction still hadn’t hit some neighborhoods in the five boroughs. The Bronx was currently leading the city in murders, with 51—up 20, or 64%, from last year’s statistics.

          And what about Chicago… that city run by Democrats that made it a gun-free zone and that the ACLU attacked to get the police to have to complete a 2-page form for every incident of stop-and-frisk… and hence the police stopped doing it?  Looks like the ACLU is actually killing black people in Chicago.

  2. Eric Gelber

    Jeff – You fail to distinguish between “strong law enforcement” and smart law enforcement. Bull Connor and his modern day equivalent, Joe Arpaio, are examples of the former but not the latter. Same with racially biased stop and frisk practices.

    1. Jeff M

      Eric – unfortunately most of the gun crime happens in neighborhoods with high minority representation.  Last I checked it was predominantly young black men killing other young black men, and young black men in these neighborhoods are over-represented in the stop and frisk data.  So there is a rational correlation with the data that does not hold up to the claims of racial bias.  If young Asian men were killing other young Asian men in these neighborhoods, then you would have a case as there are very few young Asian men being stopped and frisked for weapons.  In most cases when the cops do stop and frisk a young Asian man he is generally only packing textbooks.

      We can save black lives, or we can walk on racism sensitivity eggshells.  But we cannot do both effectively.  It is my opinion that a bunch of hurt feelings are worth the cost of lives saved.

      I agree that we should demand smart law enforcement, but it also has to be strong law enforcement… in that it directly and purposely attempts to prevent crime… especially violent crime.  The opposite of strong is weak.  The opposite of smart is stupid.  We don’t want weak and smart law enforcement.  We don’t want strong and stupid law enforcement.  We want strong and smart law enforcement.  That is the problem here.  We are throwing out useful tools because of racial sensitivity instead of working on ways to be smarter with the tools.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for