Eight years after a judge ruled New York City police violated the constitution by stopping, questioning and frisking mostly Black and Hispanic people on the street en masse, people in communities most affected by such tactics say they’ve been shut out of the legal process to end them.

Lawyers for plaintiffs in two landmark stop-and-frisk lawsuits said in court papers Thursday that community stakeholders have had “very little contact” in the last three years with the court-appointed monitor overseeing reforms and that reports he’s issued don’t reflect their experiences.

They’re demanding greater input, including an advisory board comprised mostly of reform advocates and public housing residents, annual community surveys and biannual audits of NYPD stop-and-frisk and trespass enforcement activity — the results of which would then be summarized in public reports every six months.

“There has been a disconnect and a drift of this reform process run by the monitor and the impacted communities — the people who are experiencing these patterns of police activity,” Corey Stoughton, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Society, said in an interview.

The monitor, Peter Zimroth, was appointed in 2013 by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin after she ruled that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk tactics were a form of indirect racial profiling that violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Scheindlin also ordered what’s known as a joint-remedial process seeking input from more than 2,000 people in communities most impacted by police stop-and-frisk and trespass enforcement practices. That process, which led to more than dozen reform proposals, ended in 2018.

Since then, according to lawyers involved in Thursday’s court filing, Zimroth has excluded community members’ perspectives from his semi-annual assessments. Instead, they said, he has relied on NYPD data, statements of police personnel and civilian complaints that have been seen by the court as a dubious measure of whether a stop was motivated by race.