-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:26:26 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Elizabeth Wehrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FEAR: US MN: Hennepin Public Defenders Seek New Standard For Searches Send reply to: Elizabeth Wehrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights http://www.fear.org/ Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune (MN) Copyright: 2001 Star Tribune Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.startribune.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/266 Author: Pam Louwagie HENNEPIN PUBLIC DEFENDERS SEEK NEW STANDARD FOR SEARCHES If police don't suspect that a crime is being committed, they shouldn't even be allowed to ask to search a motorist or a car, public defenders in Hennepin County are arguing in court papers. Consent searches too often target minority members whose cars have been pulled over because of racial profiling, the public defenders contend. They're asking a district judge to throw out evidence from such searches when police haven't been able to articulate suspicions for requesting them. If the issue goes to the appellate level, a ruling in their favor would make Minnesota among the first in the country to set that standard. As the law stands, police don't need a person's consent to search if officers have "probable cause," or a fair probability, that a crime is being committed, experts said. And if officers suspect that a person may be carrying weapons and putting police in danger, they can conduct a cursory pat search. But if they have limited or no evidence of a crime, they must get a person's consent to search. People are under no obligation to agree, but most do, experts say.. Defense attorneys argue that too often police seek consent searches solely on the basis of a person's skin color. "We see on a regular basis, on routine traffic stops, police will ask people of color certain questions, like 'Do you have guns?' 'Do you have drugs?' 'Can I search your car?'" said Chief Public Defender Leonardo Castro, who directed his staff to file the brief. Police argue that such inquiries, regardless of whom they're directed to, sometimes lead to arrests, improving public safety. Limiting their ability to ask for such searches would go too far, one said. "The consent to search is really where so much is accomplished toward public safety," said Sgt. Wally Krueger, vice president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. "To have articulable reasons ... it's preventing a law enforcement avenue that leads to numerous arrests. A lot of times, you may think something's wrong, but you can't yet articulate a particular crime." And by linking the issue to racial profiling, the practice of stopping people based on their race, he added, "They're asking you ... to prove first that you did not racial profile before you can further a law enforcement action." A Case In Point The public defender's argument, filed in a brief in Hennepin County District Court, arises from the case of 18-year-old Mustafaa Naji Fort. He was a passenger in a car that was pulled over for speeding and a cracked windshield in March in Minneapolis. An officer asked for consent to search Fort, who is black, court papers say. The officer found lumps of cocaine in a pocket, and Fort was charged. Defense attorneys argue that the officer had no good reason to suspect that Fort was doing anything wrong and shouldn't have even asked for a search. If no "race-neutral reason to suspect wrongdoing" exists, then consent searches should be considered invalid, they contend. "We're not trying to eliminate consent searches," said James Kamin, first assistant public defender. "We're asking that you need a reason to begin to go down the consent path." Some in the legal community say that could mean big changes. "This would change law pretty dramatically in Minnesota," said Scott Hersey, head of the criminal division of the Dakota County attorney's office. Though under federal law an officer doesn't need a reasonable suspicion to ask for a consent search, higher courts in Minnesota, which can rule on the state's view of that issue, haven't addressed it specifically. Hennepin County District Judge Kevin Burke ruled last year that if police have no articulable reason other than a person's race, consent isn't considered valid. Hennepin County public defenders say they want to get a favorable ruling that has more statewide significance. The issue is now before a district judge and needs at least an Appeals Court ruling in order to set a precedent. Some in the legal community say the timing of the brief -- in the midst of racial profiling discussions -- may give defense attorneys the results they're seeking. A New Jersey appeals court has already ruled that police cannot ask for consent to search without at least "an articulable suspicion," according to the brief. St. Paul police spokesman Michael Jordan said he believes that his office has found a good middle ground with a policy adopted this summer requiring officers to give Miranda-style warnings that people don't have to agree to consent searches. The Minneapolis Police Department reiterated its similar policy. The public defenders' brief argues that police should be required to issue such warnings and keep a record of the consent. The Hennepin County attorney's office will file a response to the brief within three weeks. Officials there declined to comment. Attorneys will argue the consent-search issue Aug. 17 in front of Judge Steven Lange. "The very fact they're articulating a new rule suggests they're looking for a change in the law," said Ed Butterfoss, dean and professor at the Hamline University School of Law. "It would be a major step forward in terms of protecting individuals' rights." ------- End of forwarded message ------- -- Best Wishes One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. -Thomas Brackett Reed <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
