But the plaintiffs’ lawyers have not specified what they want the Police Department to do to guard against unconstitutional stops. In essence, they have asked that Judge Scheindlin appoint experts to instruct her on how best to reform the department.

That decision not to delve into specifics “may be an indication of how hard the problem is,” said Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University. But it may also be strategic. “You may think to yourself, ‘she’s smarter than I am and will come up with a solution,’ ” he said.

The approach contrasts with the proposals that another group of civil rights lawyers raised during a smaller stop-and-frisk case, also before Judge Scheindlin.

In the smaller case, which deals with stops made outside certain buildings in the Bronx, the New York Civil Liberties Union proposed several fixes, including changes to training videos that officers are shown, requiring commanders to review the circumstance of all stops and, in some cases, speaking to the officers about what occurred. But the civil rights lawyers in the Floyd case, the broadest legal challenge to police street stops in New York, say their job is to prove that certain police practices are unconstitutional.

“What we’ve done is identify a problem,” one of the lawyers, Jonathan Moore, said. The remedies are “best left to someone with expertise in the area.”

As to specific changes, another lawyer, Sunita Patel of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said specific changes should be decided in “a process involving experts in police practices.” Those experts, Ms. Patel said, would consult with the department to “find out what would actually work.”

At one point during closing arguments in May, Judge Scheindlin seemed to hint that she was strongly considering the appointment of a monitor, who would be given some degree of oversight. Depending on the case and the role that the court envisions for them, monitors’ roles can vary.