California Highway Patrol Accused Of Racial Profiling In 2003, Settled Case - SF Gate

The question is does the CHP still do this and who's minding the store? If the CHP is using a device that gives higher than actual blood-alcohol reading and sill stop moslty minorities, then the problem still exists but at an even more dangerous level because Latinos and Blacks are being not only infairly stopped, but wrongly convicted.

CHP settles profiling lawsuit
Safeguards against racial bias include limits on car searches
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 28, 2003

Printable Version
Email This Article
Settling a class-action lawsuit accusing it of targeting minority drivers, the California Highway Patrol agreed Thursday to unprecedented restrictions designed to ensure that traffic stops are made on the basis of wrongdoing, not race.

The agreement, subject to approval by a federal judge, ends a 1999 lawsuit by three motorists who claimed they were victims of racial profiling. The settlement follows the CHP's own finding in 2001 that blacks and Latinos were far more likely than whites to be pulled over for routine stops by its officers.

Racial profiling of drivers already is illegal. The settlement is directed at law enforcement practices that affect all motorists but are used disproportionately against minorities, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which represented the plaintiffs.

KEY PROVISION

A key provision is a ban on so-called consent searches, which allow officers to inspect cars by relying on the driver's permission even without evidence of drugs or other contraband. Consent searches, a common police practice, have been upheld by courts, but civil rights groups say the practice is coercive and invites discrimination, particularly for drivers with language barriers.

The CHP banned consent searches in April 2001, the first law enforcement agency in the nation to do so, after its own study showed that Latinos were three times as likely as whites to be pulled over in central California, while African Americans were twice as likely as whites to be stopped.

The settlement will extend the ban for three years, making the CHP the first agency in the United States to be bound by a court order against consent searches, lawyers in the case said.

The agreement also will ban officers from stopping vehicles for traffic violations as a pretext for looking for drugs. Drug searches would have to be based on objective evidence -- not just a mere suspicion or hunch -- that drugs are likely to be found.

Pretext searches were upheld in 1996 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said an officer can search a car for contraband after making a legal traffic stop. But attorneys for the drivers in the profiling suit said the practice took on a more sinister cast when minority motorists are stopped and searched at disproportionate rates.

DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENT

The settlement also requires the CHP to continue collecting data on every traffic stop, including noting the driver's race or ethnicity, the reason for the stop and the results. A new element will require a record of the duration of each stop. ACLU lawyers said they wanted to keep track of routine stops that turned into half-hour detentions and searches.

Patrol supervisors will be required to keep track of officers' daily records. The CHP will designate an auditor to review the data and citizen complaints.

A federal judge in San Jose is scheduled to consider preliminary approval of the settlement in April.

Attorneys for the ACLU called the settlement a landmark that would protect minorities from harassment without hindering law enforcement.

"It protects motorists from racial discrimination and, if vigorously implemented, will increase public trust and confidence in the CHP," said ACLU attorney Alan Schlosser.

Noting that profiling has been promoted as a weapon against terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, Schlosser said the settlement served as a reminder that profiling was "counterproductive -- it creates distrust and hostilities with the very communities with which law enforcement should be working."

The CHP, which admitted no wrongdoing, said the agreement largely required it to continue its current practices.

"We feel very strongly that we do not racially profile and never have," said CHP Commissioner Dwight "Spike" Helmick.

Helmick said the patrol does not conduct pretext searches for drugs and has not been hampered by its voluntary ban on consent searches.

STATE PAYS PLAINTIFFS' COSTS

In addition to the restrictions, the settlement requires the state to pay $875,000 for the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs, of which $50,000 will go to each of the three drivers in the original case, said plaintiffs' attorney Jon Streeter.

The first to sue was Curtis Rodriguez, a San Jose attorney who was pulled over and searched by the CHP in June 1998 after watching patrol officers stop other Latino drivers in Pacheco Pass on Highway 152.

"I think they did stop the wrong guy," Rodriguez said at Thursday's news conference in the ACLU's San Francisco office.

Racial profiling has been a contentious issue in California. Davis vetoed a bill in 1999 that would have required all police departments in the state to compile racial and ethnic information on vehicle stops, saying it would be too burdensome. He later issued an executive order requiring the CHP to collect the data of its stops and signed legislation requiring police training to prevent profiling.

The extent and causes of racial profiling remain hotly disputed. Faced with statistics showing that minorities are stopped and searched more often than whites, law enforcement agencies have commonly explained that the disparities reflect high crime rates and enforcement needs in particular neighborhoods.

But plaintiffs' attorneys said curbing consent searches would reduce discriminatory enforcement.

"Most people will simply give consent, particularly when you've got a language barrier," said Streeter. As a result, he said, an encounter that may begin with a stop for a broken taillight turns into a "fishing expedition for drugs, usually a half hour or more, with intrusive questioning" unrelated to the traffic stop.

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHP SETTLEMENT

-- Extend its current ban on consent searches after vehicle stops.

-- Require its officers to have objective evidence that drugs will be found before searching a vehicle for drugs.

-- Require that its officers document every vehicle stop, recording driver's race or ethnicity, the reason for the stop and any subsequent search, the duration of the stop and the results.

-- Require that each officer's supervisor review the documentation each day.

-- Designate an auditor, who will report directly to the CHP commissioner, to review the data regularly. -- Pay $885,000 to the plaintiffs for legal fees and costs.