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.