JONES, PANEL DISAGREE ON EXTENT OF SEARCHES

Critics Say Policy Cuts Total Of Guns Seized; Chief Says It Protects Citizens

Police Chief Arthur Jones' controversial policy on so-called consent
searches has supporters both locally and nationwide, including the man
whose "Broken Windows" policing strategy has been credited with driving
down crime in New York City and across the country.

But there are others - including state and national law enforcement leaders
- - who side firmly with the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, which has
ordered Jones to broaden the department's consent search policy as part of
its directive mandating that Jones come up with a plan to reduce gun crime.

As with many issues surrounding the tense saga between Jones and the
civilian commission, the topic is viewed by many through the prism of race
and, in this case, often amounts to a litmus test on where a person stands
on racial profiling.

In consent searches, officers ask drivers pulled over for routine traffic
violations for permission to search their vehicles.

Jones' supporters say his policy - which forbids officers from conducting
such a search unless they are prepared to defend it to commanders -
provides needed safeguards against police abuse. Jones enacted the policy
in 1999, during the height of national controversies on racial profiling
and after receiving citizen complaints here.

Detractors say Jones' policy is a key reason why gun seizures have fallen
dramatically under his tenure, although statistics do not completely bear
that out. But they say the version of the policy the commission has ordered
Jones to adopt - allowing officers to conduct consent searches of vehicles
during routine traffic stops, period - makes good police sense because it
encourages officers' discretion and will increase drug and gun confiscations.

The problem with that, Jones argues, is that law-abiding citizens will be
affected, too. But the supporters of the commission's policy say the extra
layer Jones built into the policy has chilled officers from asking for the
searches at all, reducing community safety for all.

Commission Chairman Robert "Woody" Welch called Jones' policy a "paper
straitjacket" and said consent searches are "an essential tool in the
arsenal, if you will, of the police in an effort to reduce gun violence and
increase confiscation of illegal guns."

He stressed that part of the commission's policy directive was that
officers be trained to make sure the searches are "appropriately applied.
It (Jones' policy) nullifies an officer's experience, discretion and
initiative."

Counters Jones: "The past policy had a chilling effect on a whole community."

Under his policy, Jones said, officers could, for example, conduct the
searches if they had seen the motorist lean down suspiciously, as if
putting something under a seat; if they smelled marijuana; or if the
motorist had been seen leaving a drug house. Examples such as these are not
spelled out in the policy, however.

"Would we rather, as a society, have 10 cars stopped and searched and maybe
in those 10 a gun was found in one, but the other nine people and
passengers had to suffer those indignities, having their back seat lifted
out, having their glove compartment gone through?" Jones asked.

Milwaukee police statistics show gun seizures have dropped sharply since
Jones became chief. However, the biggest yearly drop - and the start of a
pattern of decline - took place from 1997 to 1998, before Jones put his
consent search policy in place. The year 1997 was, however, also Jones'
first full year as chief. Since the policy was installed, gun seizures did
drop slightly from 1999 to 2000 but rose slightly from 2000 to 2001. Since
2000, the percentage of guns seized as evidence of crimes - as opposed to
safekeeping - has risen.

While his detractors blame the chief's policies for the sharp decline in
gun seizures overall, Jones said he believes it's because "fewer people are
illegally carrying guns" - a contention he attributes to collaborative
state, local and federal law enforcement efforts in Milwaukee involving
guns, gangs and drugs.

But leaders of police organizations believe Jones' consent search policy is
simply not good policing. Jim Pasco, executive director of the national
Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police labor organization in the
country, said Jones' policy sounds like "bureaucratic policing."

"In the more successful police departments and the best-managed police
departments, police officers have discretion to do it," he said. "It's good
proactive law enforcement."

Brad DeBraska, a frequent critic of Jones' and head of the Milwaukee Police
Association, the union that represents rank and file officers, called
consent searches "constitutionally protected tools" for law enforcement and
said the chief's rule is so vague that officers don't know what is allowed
under it.

In Chicago, police also allow consent searches during routine traffic
stops. "The officer uses his discretion," said Pat Camden, spokesman for
the department.

But George Kelling, the Rutgers University professor who helped pioneer the
landmark "Broken Windows" concept that cracking down on smaller offenses
would lead to larger drops in crime, endorsed Jones' policy.

"There is tremendous opportunity for police abuse" with consent searches.

Kelling stressed that a policy like Jones' should incorporate "police
wisdom" and be specific enough to give officers sufficient direction.

Greg O'Meara, assistant professor of law at Marquette University and a
former Milwaukee County prosecutor, said that while Jones' policy "goes
further than what the law requires, that's acceptable. Does it (the extra
language) make a difference to people in the inner city? It might. I worry
a lot about how minorities are treated by police officers sometimes."

And Gerard Randall, a UW System regent and president and chief executive
officer of the Private Industry Council, said the problem with the
commission's policy is that routine traffic stops also involve many
"law-abiding citizens."

Randall, who was a member of Gov. Tommy G. Thompson's Racial Profiling
Commission, said the chief "seems to want to ensure that at the time the
search is proposed that there are good reasons to do that."

The New Jersey State Police and California Highway Patrol both limited
consent searches after allegations that the searches were being used as
racial profiling tools.

In Los Angeles, police also are trained that they must have an "articulable
reason" to ask people to search their cars, although the concept is not
codified in a written policy, said Jack Richter, that department's spokesman.

While departments legally can allow consent searches without any reasoning,
doing so would strain police and community relations, particularly in
minority communities, Richter said. It would not be worth it to a
department in the long run, he said.

"If an officer is routinely searching every car in every single traffic
stop, it is going to tick a lot of people off," Richter said. "It may not
be illegal, but the majority of people pulled over in traffic stops are
law-abiding citizens. Even if you ask for consent every time, people wonder
why you are doing it."

Although he acknowledged that traffic stops have led to arrests of such
notorious criminals as "Nightstalker" serial killer Richard Ramirez,
Richter said Los Angeles is a "diverse community, and we are not going to
do searches at random unless we have a suspicion."