APPEALS COURT MADE THE RIGHT CALL ON BORDER-AREA STOPS

Rights Go Before Skin Color

The Constitution was not set up for the convenience of the police, but
for the protection of the people. All the people.

Americans like it just fine that way. They enjoy knowing that the
police need a darn good reason to stop them, question them or have a
look at their personal possessions.

But what if the people whom the Constitution is supposed to be
protecting look like the people the police are seeking? What about
Latinos who live near the U.S.-Mexico border? Should they be viewed
with heightened suspicion by the Border Patrol?

A group of learned judges said no. And they were right.

In reviewing a case in which two cars were stopped by the Border
Patrol, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the fact that the
people in the cars were Latino should not have been a factor in the
decision to stop the vehicles.

The court ruled that the stop was justified based on other factors:
Officers had been tipped that the cars had made U-turns shortly
before, and just out of sight of, an immigration checkpoint; the turn
was made in an area where smugglers frequently tried to avoid
inspection; the cars were driving in tandem; they had Mexicali license
plates.

Those reasons were enough to rouse the suspicion and justify the stop
that netted two large bags of marijuana, a loaded .32-caliber pistol
and an ammunition clip.

But the court said ethnic background should not have been added to the
list of suspicious factors.

Why not? After all, most of the people who cross the Mexican border
illegally are Latinos. It only makes sense for the Border Patrol to
look at Latinos with more scrutiny. It makes their job much easier.

But it also makes the lives of all those who look Mexican harder --
and most of those people are not lawbreakers. In fact, Latinos make up
the majority of the population in the area where the stop took place.
They should not be expected to surrender some of their constitutional
rights for the convenience of the police.

"Stops based on race or ethnic appearance send the underlying message
to all our citizens that those who are not white are judged by the
color of their skin alone," the court wrote. "Such stops also send a
clear message that those who are not white enjoy a lesser degree of
constitutional protection -- that they are in effect assumed to be
potential criminals first and individuals second."

Treating people like potential criminals first and individuals second
would make police work much easier. But it is not what the
Constitution is all about treating people like potential criminals
first and individuals second would make police work much easier. But
it is not what the Constitution is all about.