OFF THE 'PROFILING' BANDWAGON

After years of political hysteria in New Jersey over baseless accusations
of rampant racial profiling, the state's Supreme Court last week issued a
ruling that finally restores a measure of common sense to law enforcement.

By a 3-2 vote, the Garden State justices reinstated the 1998 Newark Airport
arrest of a woman found to be carrying 47 pounds of marijuana.

Two lower courts had suppressed use of the drugs as evidence, saying the
federal drug agent who grew suspicious of the woman, Felicia Stovall, did
so solely on the illegal use of a drug-courier profile.

Here's what happened: A DEA agent in Los Angeles alerted cops to the fact
that Stovall and another passenger both had questionable ID cards (which
turned out to be fake) and carry-on luggage only. Both also used
bulk-purchase tickets from a travel agency known to be used by drug
traffickers.

When cops questioned Stovall, she was visibly nervous: Her hands were
shaking, and she was sweating. On that basis, they brought over a
drug-sniffing dog, who found the pot in her bag.

But because the arresting officer included in his description of suspicious
activity the fact that Stovall appeared to be Hispanic (as it happens, he
was wrong), two courts ruled that she had been the victim of racial profiling.

Her lawyers claimed that the cops needed more specific information about
drug possession. One dissenting Supreme Court justice actually agreed, even
claiming the cops had no evidence whatsoever that Stovall was involved in
criminal activity. (What? They have to spot her actually dealing drugs in
the airport?)

But the majority rightly ruled that the totality of available evidence -
plus the arresting officer's 27 years of law-enforcement experience - made
for legitimate grounds for suspecting that something was amiss.

To most people, that would seem to be self-evident: Cops and drug agents
are trained to recognize activity that would not be suspicious to the
average person.

That it took two appeals before a majority of judges understood this simple
fact is mind-boggling.

In his argument to the court, one of Stovall's attorneys indignantly asked:
"Where do we go if we allow drug-courier profiling? Then who gets stopped?"

The answer, as it was in this case: Drug couriers, that's who.