ARGUING FOR RIGHTS OF DRIVERS IN TRAFFIC STOPS

Albany - When police stop drivers for traffic infractions, they often see
evidence of more serious crimes. But to use a simple violation as an excuse
for investigating another crime is unconstitutional, lawyers argued in
three cases before the state Court of Appeals yesterday.

"We are asking the court to ban pretext traffic stops," said Abigail
Everett, one of the attorneys. Citing a traffic infraction to act on a
"suspicion or hunch" that a more serious crime has occurred is a ruse to
violate state and federal constitutional protections against illegal
searches, she said.

In one case, police stopped a livery cab in the Bronx for speeding through
a red light. Police said they intended to issue the driver a warning but
saw that a passenger, Frank Robinson, was unlawfully wearing a bulletproof
vest. Robinson was convicted for this and for possession of a handgun. His
lawyer, Everett, said the real reason for the stop was not the driver's
violation but "a general desire to search for crime around the housing
projects" in the area, making the stop and subsequent search illegal.

In the second case, police saw a Manhattan livery cab turn without
signaling but also suspected the passenger, Jerry Glenn, was robbing the
driver. Glenn was later found to have drugs and was convicted. Glenn
appealed, saying the police stopped the cab on a hunch and not for the
traffic violation.

In the third case, Rochester police saw a male prostitute get into Patrick
Reynolds' pickup truck and followed the vehicle. After a computer check
showed Reynolds' registration had expired, the officer stopped him to
investigate the suspected prostitution. Instead, he let the prostitute go
but arrested Reynolds on charges of drunken driving.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that a traffic violation can justify a
pretextual stop and search. Lower courts applied that federal rule in
upholding the Robinson and Glenn convictions. However, in the Rochester
case, lower courts said a "more stringent standard has long been employed
in this state" and reversed the conviction.

This more stringent standard, Everett and the other attorneys argued, would
involve judging police motivation. Judges appeared skeptical of this
inherently subjective process.

"You're suggesting we do a psychoanalysis of the arresting officer," Judge
Howard A. Levine said. However, he and others also pressed government
attorneys on the potential for abuse of pretext stops. Judge Carmen
Beauchamp Ciparick asked whether pretext stops could be used to cover up
racial profiling.

A decision is expected within two months.