In Brown v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 (1996), plaintiffs alleged that state and local law enforcement officials investigating a reported knifepoint attack allegedly engaged in racially motivated interrogations, citywide, of nonwhite males in violation of their State constitutional rights; none of the plaintiffs was charged with a crime. The Court held that implying a damage remedy was not only consistent with the purposes of the Search and Seizure and Equal Protection Clauses that had allegedly been violated but also "necessary and appropriate to ensure the full realization of the rights they state." Id., at 189. The remedy recognized in Brown, supra, addressed two interests: the private interest that citizens harmed by constitutional violations have an avenue of redress, and the public interest that future violations be deterred. Under the facts of Brown, supra, neither declaratory nor injunctive relief was available to the plaintiffs, nor--without a prosecution--could there be suppression of illegally obtained evidence.