RACE PROFILING

No excuse for columnist, Times printing incorrect data Police
profiling based on race is a serious matter, both to law enforcement
and to the community. Race profiling should not occur.

But Alexander Cockburn's column lowers the dialogue to an absurd
level, not only because of his hysterical tone, but also because in at
least two cases he is just plain wrong ("Making eye contact with
overly rapid drug fighters," April 15).

Cockburn quotes a widely reported Supreme Court decision released
April 5. He writes that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion, ". .
. OK'ing the search of passengers in a vehicle without a warrant."
That is not what the Supreme Court decision says.

Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court in the case, which
said it was OK for police to search a passenger's personal belongings
only, and only when the police otherwise have a legal reason to be
searching the car. And even then, it is only permissible if the
belongings have been left inside the car, not, for example, if the
passenger left the vehicle and has her purse over her shoulder.

The second blatant error is his example of stopping a car for a "minor
violation," not getting permission to search the trunk, calling for a
drug-sniffing dog and then searching when ". . . Fido gets a whiff."
There is not a state in the Union where this would be legal. If the
dog indicated drugs in the car, it could still only be searched with a
search warrant.

I've got over 20 years as a police officer. When race-profiling
happens, it is wrong, and must be stopped. But there is no excuse for
Cockburn writing (and The Times printing) such blatantly incorrect
information!

Deputy John Urquhart, King County Sheriff's Office