News (Media Awareness Project) - US NJ: Racial Profiling A Cause For Drug Case Appeals |
Title: | US NJ: Racial Profiling A Cause For Drug Case Appeals |
Published On: | 2000-06-09 |
Source: | New York Times (NY) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 20:16:03 |
RACIAL PROFILING A CAUSE FOR DRUG CASE APPEALS
A New Jersey appellate panel ruled yesterday that defendants in drug
cases arising from motor vehicle stops can seek dismissals based on
claims they were victims of racial profiling, even off the New Jersey
Turnpike, the road most closely associated with the practice. The
ruling, which involved three cases in which defendants had filed
similar dismissal motions, did not address whether the defendants were
actually the victims of racial profiling and therefore should have
their cases dismissed. Rather, the decision by a three-judge panel of
the Appellate Division of State Superior Court directed that the cases
be heard by a special judge appointed by the State Supreme Court.
The ruling establishes a standard procedure for such
claims.
The decision said, "There is a sufficient basis shown in the record of
each case" to allow those defendants to seek police records to help
build cases of racial profiling.
Two of the cases involved stops on roads other than the turnpike,
where state troopers shot and wounded three black and Hispanic men
they had stopped in April 1998. The shootings led to a state report
last year that confirmed the existence of racial profiling, the
practice of stopping drivers based on skin color.
Chuck Davis, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, said
the state would comply with any future orders to provide state police
records that may help determine whether there was a pattern of racial
profiling. About 150 such motions are pending on the state trial court
level, he said.
William Buckman, a lawyer for Ramona Maiolino, one of the defendants
involved in yesterday's ruling, said the special judge appointed for
racial profiling cases, Walter R. Barasonek of Superior Court in Union
County, would determine what kinds of police documents each defendant
was entitled to. Mr. Buckman said the original trial judge in each
case would then rule on whether racial profiling was indeed involved
and whether to dismiss the case.
Mr. Buckman said Ms. Maiolino's October 1998 arrest on Route 78 in
Hunterdon County on charges of marijuana possession resulted from a
racial profiling stop. He said Hispanic drivers make up 2.5 percent of
the drivers on Route 78, but 16 percent of those arrested. Of
yesterday's ruling, Mr. Buckman said, "It is significant in that the
state had tried to pretend that profiling was confined to the turnpike."
A New Jersey appellate panel ruled yesterday that defendants in drug
cases arising from motor vehicle stops can seek dismissals based on
claims they were victims of racial profiling, even off the New Jersey
Turnpike, the road most closely associated with the practice. The
ruling, which involved three cases in which defendants had filed
similar dismissal motions, did not address whether the defendants were
actually the victims of racial profiling and therefore should have
their cases dismissed. Rather, the decision by a three-judge panel of
the Appellate Division of State Superior Court directed that the cases
be heard by a special judge appointed by the State Supreme Court.
The ruling establishes a standard procedure for such
claims.
The decision said, "There is a sufficient basis shown in the record of
each case" to allow those defendants to seek police records to help
build cases of racial profiling.
Two of the cases involved stops on roads other than the turnpike,
where state troopers shot and wounded three black and Hispanic men
they had stopped in April 1998. The shootings led to a state report
last year that confirmed the existence of racial profiling, the
practice of stopping drivers based on skin color.
Chuck Davis, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, said
the state would comply with any future orders to provide state police
records that may help determine whether there was a pattern of racial
profiling. About 150 such motions are pending on the state trial court
level, he said.
William Buckman, a lawyer for Ramona Maiolino, one of the defendants
involved in yesterday's ruling, said the special judge appointed for
racial profiling cases, Walter R. Barasonek of Superior Court in Union
County, would determine what kinds of police documents each defendant
was entitled to. Mr. Buckman said the original trial judge in each
case would then rule on whether racial profiling was indeed involved
and whether to dismiss the case.
Mr. Buckman said Ms. Maiolino's October 1998 arrest on Route 78 in
Hunterdon County on charges of marijuana possession resulted from a
racial profiling stop. He said Hispanic drivers make up 2.5 percent of
the drivers on Route 78, but 16 percent of those arrested. Of
yesterday's ruling, Mr. Buckman said, "It is significant in that the
state had tried to pretend that profiling was confined to the turnpike."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...