SHED SOME LIGHT ON "RACIAL PROFILING'

Army Sgt. Rossano Gerald didn't sue the Oklahoma Highway Patrol solely
because he was stopped twice within 30 minutes after crossing the state line
last August.

He did not seek out the American Civil Liberties Union only because of
claims:

- -- That he and his 12-year-old son were detained for two hours and held
inside a patrol car in 90-degree heat with the windows rolled up and the air
conditioning turned off.

- -- That troopers looking for drugs searched his car without his permission,
causing a reported $1,089 in damages, before sending him on his way after
finding nothing.

None of these alleged events by itself caused Gerald to sue. He took action,
he claims, because he was arrested for an "offense" that can't be found in
any law book, an "offense," known in the minority community, as DWB, Driving
While Black (or Brown).

Bob Ricks, commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety,
vehemently denies that troopers stopped Gerald for DWB or that the OHP
engages in any racially motivated practices.

Regardless of its outcome, the case has propelled Oklahoma into the middle
of a national debate that has drawn seven other states into similar ACLU
lawsuits.

In April, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who has condemned racial
profiling, asked law enforcement agencies to look hard at an issue that is
breeding distrust from minority communities that increasingly believe that
many of their citizens are being victimized by race-based stops and searches
on highways, in airports, at bus stations and at borders.

Most police agencies deny that racial profiling is a systemic problem. But
leaders in Congress and several state legislatures aren't so sure. They are
pushing legislation requiring the U.S. Department of Justice to order law
enforcement agencies to collect national statistics on the number and reason
for traffic stops and the race, gender and age of motorists stopped.

Police generally oppose collection of such data, arguing that it would be
cumbersome and expensive to collect and likely would reveal nothing more
than good-faith stops for suspected traffic violations. Even proponents of
data collection are divided on how successful such an effort would be. But
in the absence of any meaningful national figures, collection of such data
is the best step toward getting to the bottom of an issue that is eroding
public confidence that everyone is treated fairly. Collection of data is
warranted in light of information on the record strongly suggesting that
racial profiling is not confined to isolated incidents.

In New Jersey, a recent state attorney general's report found that racial
profiling was "real, not imagined" along a heavily traveled stretch of an
interstate. Minority drivers represented 34 percent of drivers stopped. But
77.2 percent of the cars searched belonged to blacks or Hispanics.

A 1992 study by the Orlando, Fla., Sentinel, which reviewed police
videotapes of 1,084 traffic stops, showed that 70 percent of the stops and
80 percent of vehicle searches were of minority motorists although they
represented fewer than 10 percent of all drivers. Only nine of the 1,084
motorists pulled over were cited for traffic violations.

In Maryland, the state settled an ACLU lawsuit and agreed to ban racial
profiling and to collect traffic-stop information after a study revealed
that along just one stretch of interstate, African- American motorists made
up 17 percent of the traffic but accounted for 70 percent of those motorists
who were stopped.

David O'Meilia, a former federal drug task force coordinator here, worked
cases in which claims racial profiling often were raised.

"Profiles are not infallible and there are incidents when the stop turns out
to be that of an innocent person. In my experience, if there was profiling
it would occur only after a stop was made that was based on a legitimate
suspicion of a traffic violation. Often arrests are made at night. I don't
think profiling was occurring first and then officers were coming up with
reasons for a stop."

But as the law now stands, defense attorneys, usually in drug cases, are
limited in how far they can go in trying to find out the reasons for a stop,
said Northern District Federal Defender Stephen Knorr. Once a police officer
says the stop was based on a legitimate suspicion of a traffic violation
defense attorneys can go no further in the inquiry although they may suspect
the stop was for other reasons. "We used to be able to argue that the stop
was just a pretext and that the driver really was stopped because they were
looking for drugs or guns. Now it doesn't make a difference. The real
question is how many stops involving minorities occur where nothing is
found. There aren't any statistics," Knorr said.

John Echols, a Tulsa defense attorney, agrees that racial profiling largely
is "hidden from view."

"A police officer who is following a Hispanic doesn't say in court he was
following him because he was Hispanic. He says he was following him because
of an illegal lane change. Police may stop 10 people who are the victims of
harassment but only one is arrested and gets a lawyer. The bulk of these
encounters are hidden from view unless there is some outrageous conduct
picked up by the press. The problem with the current system is ....that it's
not a healthy way to run a free society but a good way to run a police
state."

While profiling often has been cited as an effective tool by law enforcement
for arresting couriers of drugs and other contraband, profiling based purely
on skin color can be an equally effective tool for harassment.

National Assessment Services recently pointed out the dangers of racial
profiling.

"While crime patterns might make it rational for police to focus more on
blacks and males than on whites and women, most individual blacks, like most
males, never commit serious crimes. The unpleasant truth is that profiling
can be statistically valid and yet have discriminatory, real-world results
since most blacks who are stopped on suspicion -- like most males -- will be
innocent people." Paul Finkelman, the newly named Chapman Distinguished
professor of Law at the University of Tulsa College of Law, has written
extensively on issues involving law and race including racial profiling. He
believes reliable information is needed to shed light on the extent of the
problem.

If the information is honestly reported, one of two things may result,
Finkelman said. "All Americans may turn out to be relieved to discover there
is no racial targeting and happy to know America is a more racially just
society than they thought. Alternatively, we ma find out there is racial
targeting and something needs to be done about it. One can never complain
about having data. It tells us what's going on -- sometimes, such as what
was happening in New Jersey."

If police stop 30 minority citizens and arrest only one, that's a poor
average. "If a pitcher strikes out only one of 30 batters, if a batter gets
only one hit in 30 times or if a student gets only one A in 30 classes, we
wouldn't consider that a very good average," he said.

But random profiling that targets people on the basis of race is not about
getting a good average, he said, or about efficient law enforcement.

"Merely stopping people for the way they look seems to be waste of police
resources that could be better spent finding criminals or preventing
crimes," he said.

In the meantime, many minority citizens who are victimized by racial
profiling often do not have the resources to fight unfair treatment.

Eleven years ago drug police arrested an African-American they suspect of
being a drug courier when he got off the plane at Los Angeles International
Airport. Believing he had an accomplice police asked him for a description
of his traveling companion. The man replied, "he looks like me." A detective
then approached a black man using a pay phone, spun him around and before
the man could provide identification, threw him to the floor and handcuffed
him. Twenty minutes later police found out that second suspect, who they'd
detained simply because he was black, was baseball Hall of Famer Joe Morgan.
Morgan sued and later won $500,000.

For every Morgan who can afford to pursue a complaint for an illegal or
unwarranted search, there may be thousands of other innocent minority
citizens, Finkelman said, who cannot afford to vindicate their rights.

The key issue is not that police find people sometimes or once in a while
carrying contraband. "The question," he said. "is how often they find people
with nothing." Collection of national figures on traffic stops is an idea
well worth pursuing.