APPEALS COURT VOIDS ETHNIC PROFILING IN SEARCHES

LOS ANGELES, April 12 -- In a potentially far-reaching decision
contradicting a 25-year-old Supreme Court opinion, a federal appeals court
has ruled that in most circumstances, law-enforcement officials cannot rely
on ethnic appearance as a factor in deciding whether to stop someone
suspected of a crime. In a strongly worded decision, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared on Tuesday that because of the
growth in the Hispanic population in this region, ethnicity was an
irrelevant criterion for law officers to stop a person, unless there was
other very specific information identifying the suspect.

While the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States
attorney's office in San Diego said the ruling would not affect their
policies, since they did not rely on racial profiling, some civil liberties
experts said the opinion could have a far-reaching effect on actions ranging
from stops at the border to traffic stops in other cities.

"This is a significant decision because every law-enforcement agency came to
believe race was one of the factors they could use in stopping people," said
Michelle Alexander, an expert on racial profiling with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California. "This puts an end to that."

Stephen Hubacheck, a public defender in San Diego who represented one of the
men who appealed their arrest and conviction, Lorenzo Sanchez-Guillen, said:
"We quite regularly get cases where ethnicity is cited as a factor in why
someone was stopped. This case will be frequently cited in motions and
appeals here."

The case involved three Mexicans who were stopped in the desert, about 115
miles east of San Diego, by Border Patrol officers acting on a tip in 1996.
The three were found to have two large bags of marijuana, a handgun and
ammunition. They were convicted of various drug and weapons charges, served
sentences and have been deported.

The Border Patrol had cited five factors in the decision to stop the three,
including a U-turn just before reaching an immigration checkpoint, other
suspicious behavior and their Hispanic appearance.

In their appeal, the men argued that when the officers relied on their
ethnic appearance, they violated their Fourth Amendment protections against
unreasonable search and seizure.

In a 7-to-4 vote, the court upheld an earlier decision that the Border
Patrol was justified in making the stop, but it firmly rejected ethnic
appearance as an acceptable criterion. The judges said that officers must
have very clearly defined suspicions before stopping people in most
circumstances, and that ethnic appearance generally did not pass that test.

The opinion contradicted a Supreme Court ruling that said it was generally
justifiable to use racial appearance as one such factor. The appeals court
majority said it was diverging from that earlier opinion because the huge
increases in the Hispanic population in the border region required a change
in the way the law was applied.

"We decide no broad constitutional questions here," the majority wrote.

But the judges added, "We conclude that, at this point in our nation's
history, and given the continuing changes in our ethnic and racial
composition, Hispanic appearance is, in general, of such little probative
value that it may not be considered as a relevant factor where
particularized or individualized suspicion is required."

Legal experts said that it was unclear whether the Supreme Court would agree
with that reasoning, but that it appeared likely it would eventually be
tested. The defense lawyers in this case said they did not plan any further
appeals.

"That's a significant change from what the Supreme Court said 25 years ago,
and though it's a plausible distinction, it's uncertain whether it's one the
Supreme Court would accept," said David Sklansky, an expert on racial
profiling at the University of Southern California at Los Angeles law
school.