High Court puts brakes on narcs

"We don't do [random stops] anyway, so it is not really an issue for us," said San Mateo Police Sgt. Kevin Raffaelli. "Officers have to determine first why the traffic stop is happening before they stop someone."

After a a driver is stopped, Raffaelli said the officers must have further probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle or the person. Typically, officers have the right to conduct a search if the driver is asked to get out of the vehicle or if an arrest is about to be made.

Searches may also be made if a driver smells of alcohol or appears to be under the influence of narcotics. Alcohol, drugs and paraphernalia or other incriminating materials in plain sight is also reason for further searching of a vehicle.

There are many factors that must be taken into consideration, but Raffaelli said generally the law requires that an officer have a valid reason for conducting a search on a vehicle.

A search may also be made if an individual gives an officer consent.

The issue of consent has in the past been a tricky situation, according to Michelle Alexander, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Project.

"People aren't genuinely giving consent. No one ever says 'great, go ahead, I give consent for you to search my car.' People don't really believe they have a choice. So you're not genuinely giving consent," Anderson said. "When there's a police officer there with his hand on his gun, people fear that if they say 'no,' they are risking injury or escalating a situation. And they are often right. People who try to assert their rights are often times victimized by retaliation."

The Supreme Court's ban on random drug checks stemmed from a situation in Indianapolis where police officers were setting up roadblocks in predominately minority neighborhoods. Officers would tag-team drivers - one would ask for license and registration while the other officer accompanied by a canine would sniff the automobile for drugs. These roadblocks systematically stopped all vehicles that channeled through it and did not single out cars based upon reasonable cause or suspicion.

By Nov. '98 1,161 cars were stopped at six roadblocks throughout the city of Indianapolis.

The Supreme Court's decision to stop this practice was a big relief to the ACLU, according to Anderson. "If the court had gone the other way, it would have encouraged police officers to set up more roadblocks like this," Anderson added.

Anderson does not agree with the practice of sobriety checks either, but understands why the Supreme Court made the distinction between the two. "Ultimately, we believe that evidence of criminal activity should be the basis for stopping people. But what is most important is that the Supreme Court has put the brakes on this particular evisceration of the fourth amendment."

Anderson alleges, despite what law enforcement officials say, that minorities are routinely stopped without any evidence of wrongdoing. Anderson went on to say there are various types of racial-profiling that occur - and different law enforcement agencies typically use different tactics.

There is the use of DEA-type tactics where larger departments such as the California Highway Patrol, that reportedly utilizes federal funds to hire additional officers to cruise around targeted stretches of highway searching for those that might be trafficking drugs. This particular tactic is currently the subject of a class-action law suit recently filed by the ACLU against the CHP. The suit stems from a CHP program called "operation pipeline" operating between San Jose and Gilroy.

There is "border patrol," according to Anderson, "This is not your American-Mexican border patrol. This occurs in many suburban neighborhoods. Officers post themselves on the boundaries of a white neighborhood and stop black drivers on their way in."

Another form of racial-profiling is community checkpoints, according to Anderson. Anderson said that this happens routinely in urban neighborhoods when officers routinely stop African-American and Latino males just for the sake of checking them out. "In this situation, the officer is not there to protect anyone. But simply trying to assert control over that person," Anderson said. "It is this type of racial-profiling that is many people's first introduction into the criminal justice system."

Despite local law enforcement's contention that they do not routinely search automobiles or persons without probable cause that a crime has occurred, members of the National Advancement for Colored Persons have levied accusations that those types of practices do occur.

An ACLU bill was vetoed by Gov. Gray Davis that would have required all California law enforcement to keep mandatory data collection on traffic stops. A watered down version of this bill was later passed into law by the state legislature. Anderson stated that 50 of the larger law enforcement agencies in Northern California currently provide data collection on all traffic stops on a voluntary basis. Alameda County, San Francisco and Alameda Police Departments all currently provide data collection on traffic stops. It was not immediately known if San Mateo County Sheriffs Department or the San Mateo, Foster City or Burlingame Police Departments currently provide that data.