Pubdate: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
Source: Amarillo Globe-News (TX)
Copyright: 2000 Amarillo Globe-News
Contact:  P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo, TX 79166
Fax: (806) 373-0810
Website: http://amarillonet.com/
Forum: http://208.138.68.214:90/eshare/server?action=4
Author: Elizabeth Jarnigan

STOP THE DISCRIMINATORY TRAFFIC STOPS

HIBERNIA, N.J. - Here's a TLA (three-letter acronym) many African-Americans 
and Hispanics are all too familiar with: a "criminal" offense known as DWB 
- - driving while black or brown.

Say a white motorist and a black motorist are each driving on a highway, 
both going the same proper speed, both staying in their designated lanes 
and each maintaining appropriate distance from the car in front. Take a 
wild guess which is far more likely to be pulled over for a "random" 
traffic stop.

Yup. DWB strikes again. Sadly, in some - not all, but some - officers' 
eyes, dark skin tone equals probable cause.

A report on racial profiling here in New Jersey came out this week that is 
relevant for the entire nation. This is especially true since the New York 
Times writes that "the textbook on singling out minority drivers was 
written by the federal government."

The American Civil Liberties Union says much of the blame goes to the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. It seems the DEA and the FBI teach state and local 
police departments that racial profiling - targeting minorities as prime 
suspects in drug offenses - is an efficient way to solve crime. In one 
case, the DEA told local officers to specifically target Hispanics and West 
Indians as they allegedly were more likely to be trafficking drugs.

"Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and 
Latinos, they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband," 
wrote David A. Harris, University of Toledo College of Law in an ACLU 
report last year. This means more blacks and Hispanics are prosecuted and 
imprisoned, he wrote. Naturally this further promotes the stereotype.

Harris' report cites case after case from numerous states, including Texas 
and Oklahoma. The Texas example cites the fact that a black person driving 
in a well-to-do part of Houston is twice as likely to be stopped by police 
as a white person. One anecdotal example in Harris' report involved a black 
Desert Shield/Storm veteran driving with his 12-year-old son being stopped 
for no real offense. They were locked in a patrol car for more than two 
hours in the heat, the boy weeping with fear because of the police dog just 
outside the car.

Fortunately, President Clinton last year signed an executive order forcing 
law enforcement officers whose departments receive federal drug 
interdiction money to record the race of people they pull over. That should 
provide positive data in addition to the abundant anecdotal evidence that 
racial profiling happens. Hopefully it will raise consciousness of the 
issue and decrease DBW stops across the country.

Racial profiling shouldn't happen in Texas, in New Jersey, or anywhere. Ever.

Another ominous traffic stop procedure made the news this week. Police in 
Indianapolis thought it would be a nifty idea to set up roadblocks six 
times in 1998 and have drug-sniffing dogs circle each car pulled over. 
Indianapolis apparently has a bad drug problem and thought the roadblocks 
might catch drug smugglers.

The vehicles were supposed to be pulled over in sequence. Racial profiling 
is not cited as an issue in this case, but one has to wonder, given the 
elements of drugs, the DEA promoting the false notion that minorities form 
the majority of drug dealers, and random traffic stops.

The U.S. Supreme Court wisely ruled the Indianapolis roadblocks 
unconstitutional. This is a fairly conservative, law enforcement-friendly 
court but even it - well, a six-member majority - decided that Indianapolis 
was infringing on motorists' Fourth Amendment right to not be subjected to 
unreasonable search and seizure.

Talk about fuzzy logic. The Indianapolis police reasoned that since random 
stops to screen for drunken driving were OK and drug-sniffing dogs in 
airports was OK, it must follow that stopping vehicles at a checkpoint when 
there is no reason to suspect the driver of any wrongdoing and subjecting 
the person's vehicle to canine interrogation must also be OK.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saw right through the Indianapolis police's 
argument. Yes, stopping people randomly to check for signs of drunken 
driving is OK because drunken driving is an immediate threat to other 
people's safety. The same cannot be said for stopping to check for drug 
smuggling. Without strictly limiting when roadblocks are permissible, such 
intrusions could become "a routine part of American life," wrote O'Connor.

Well said - except unwarranted stops already are routine for people of 
color around the nation. And they shouldn't be.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD