TRAFFIC STOPS AS CRIME-FIGHTING TOOL A NO-NO

OLYMPIA - A common crime-fighting tool - a traffic stop for a minor
infraction in order to check out the driver for suspected criminal activity
- - was declared unconstitutional today by the state Supreme Court.

In a narrow ruling written by Justice Richard Sanders, the court said
"pretextual" traffic stops amount to warrantless searches or seizures in
violation of the state constitution.

The 5-4 majority acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld
pretextual traffic stops, but said the state constitution offers citizens
more protection and takes precedence.

In dissent, Justice Barbara Madsen contended that the court has no business
peering into the mind of a police officer.

Police groups were not immediately available for comment.

The case stems from a 1995 traffic stop made by Lacey Police Officer Jim
Mack and Thurston County sheriff's Detective Cliff Ziesmer while on a patrol
using routine traffic stops to detect gang activity.

They tailed for a time and then stopped and cited Richard Fogle, whom they
suspected of drug dealing, for expired registration plates. His passenger,
Thomas Ladson, was searched and charged with unlawful possession of
marijuana with intent to deliver while armed with a deadly weapon, and with
possession of a stolen firearm.

Ladson filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him on grounds it
was, as police admitted, a pretextual traffic stop. Thurston County Superior
Court Judge Thomas McPhee granted the motion, which was upheld by the high
court.

"Officer Mack's suspicions about Fogle's reputed drug dealing was his
motivation in finding a legal reason to initiate the stop of Fogle's
vehicle," Sanders wrote.

Police don't need warrants to make legitimate traffic stops. But, Sanders
wrote, that exception to needing a warrant "does not justify a stop for
criminal investigation."

"The ultimate teaching of our case law is that the police may not abuse
their authority to conduct a warrantless search or seizure under a narrow
exception to the warrant requirement," he wrote.

Sanders' opinion was joined by Justices Gerry Alexander, James Dolliver,
Charles Johnson and Charles Smith.

In dissent, Madsen asserted that "the motive of a law-enforcement officer is
irrelevant when assessing constitutionality of a stop for a minor traffic
infraction."

"Nothing in the statutes limits an officer's authority to make a traffic
stop depending upon the motive of the officer, nor is a stop prohibited
depending on the duties to which the officer is assigned," she wrote in an
opinion joined by Chief Justice Richard Guy and Justices Phil Talmadge and
Barbara Durham.