|
 t
was a pleasure to watch the president's speech before Congress last
week, but not an unqualified one. How
heartening
it was to behold, when the camera was trained on the assembled legislators,
the contrast between the gleeful miens of the Republicans and the
dour expressions of the Democrats. I suspect that at the conclusion
of the evening's program a certain senator from Massachusetts badly
scuffed his brogans on some bar rail while crying in his beer. (Something
stronger, perhaps?) And there was poor John Lewis, representative
of Georgia and erstwhile hero of the civil-rights era, watching
with the countenance of a man who had sat on a nail but didn't dare
stand to remove it lest someone think he approved of something Mr.
Bush had said.
But, about halfway through the speech came what I suppose was the
inevitable sop to the Left, one that had the Democrats on their
feet — unsteadily, in at least one instance — and brought
renewed hope to those glum faces. "Earlier today," said the president,
"I asked Attorney General Ashcroft to develop specific recommendations
to end racial profiling. It is wrong and we must end it."
Must we? I have a bit of news for anyone who honestly thinks racial
profiling is widespread in American law enforcement: It is already
against the law, and prophylactic measures against the practice
are already in place. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Terry
v. Ohio that a police officer may stop and detain an individual
based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is occurring,
or is about to occur. If during the course of that detention the
officer develops probable cause to arrest the individual, the officer
must articulate in his reports the reasonable suspicion for the
detention as well the probable cause for the arrest. If the underlying
reasonable suspicion is later found to be lacking, the subsequent
arrest will be ruled unlawful and the officer will be exposed to
potential civil liability regardless of the factual culpability
of the arrestee.
We in the LAPD are currently operating in an environment in which
anyone, for any reason, can walk into a police station and lodge
a complaint against an officer. If a citizen presents himself at
the front desk of my station and informs a sergeant that he didn't
much care for the way Officer Dunphy looked at him as he drove past
that morning, that sergeant must sit down with the citizen, tape
record his statement, and complete an investigation into the manner
in which I look at people when I drive past. If the following day
another person comes in to report that I presented a scowling visage
as I motored by, I will be perceived by my superiors in the department
to be a exhibiting a pattern, and a notation to that effect will
forever linger in my computerized personnel file.
Similarly, if I issue a citation to someone for driving 63 miles
per hour through a school zone, that person may complain that I
cited him only because I harbor some animus toward persons of his
ethnic group. In the ensuing investigation, the sergeant will examine
my citation book so as to detect any patterns that might reveal
inordinate attention directed at persons of that ethnicity. That
the area I patrol is populated almost exclusively by people of that
same ethnicity will matter little to those who presume to know the
hearts and minds of others based on a study of such statistics.
The solution to this, as put forth in a yet to be implemented consent
decree between the LAPD and the Department of Justice, is to track
the ethnicity of individuals arrested, cited, or otherwise contacted
by police officers. If an officer's
| “'If
you should happen to see any Peruvians, Poles, or pairs
of Pakistanis prowling about, please do give us a call.'” |
|
statistics
indicate a pattern of prejudice toward one group or another, that
officer will soon find himself looking for another job, if not for
a defense attorney.
And so we may well ask, What will be the harvest of such a policy?
Let us examine this utopian future as it may be experienced by two
ordinary police officers, whom we'll call Archibald and Basil. They
are on patrol one day when they are summoned to the scene of a purse-snatching.
A distraught woman describes for them the harrowing details of her
encounter with two villainous creatures who have only moments before
set upon her and threatened her with a hiding if she failed to turn
over her handbag. Fearing for her safety she has of course done
so, leading Archibald and Basil to conclude that what they have
here is a case of robbery, pure and simple, viz. the taking of another's
property by means of force or fear.
The woman describes the devils as being 20 years old, blond and
blue-eyed, and driving a gray Volvo sedan. She then adds an important
clue.
"Their breath," she says, "smelled distinctly of fish."
No words are necessary as Archibald and Basil exchange knowing glances.
"Might it have been the aroma of herring?" says Basil.
"It might well have been," says the woman. "If forced to offer a
guess, I'm certain herring would be my first."
There is a silent nod between Archibald and Basil: The Swedes, again.
There is in the district they patrol an enclave of Swedish immigrants,
and though the great majority of them are law-abiding citizens,
certain of their number — primarily fatherless males between
the ages of 16 and 24 — are responsible for a disproportionate
amount of mayhem in the neighborhood.
"We have an idea," says Archibald to the woman, "of where we might
locate the culprits. Please wait here while we investigate."
And with that the officers proceed to the local fishmonger, where
their suspicions are quickly confirmed. Parked outside the shop
they see a gray Volvo sedan, and soon thereafter appear in the doorway
two blond, blue-eyed men near the age of 20. They each carry parcels
wrapped in brown paper, through which is seeping the distinctive
oil so readily recognizable even from the officers' vantage point
across the street. The crime was surely motivated by the perpetrators'
herring habit, and they have come directly here to find satisfaction.
"And there they are, Archie," says Basil. "Let us act swiftly."
"Just a moment," says Archibald. "May I remind you that you are
due to be promoted shortly to the rank of detective, and that I
am expecting to be transferred to a more desirable assignment."
"The point is well taken," says Basil. "Let us pause to consult
the charts and tables."
They produce from their notebooks a number of papers on which is
printed the latest statistical information on their enforcement
efforts.
"Yes, it is just as I feared," says Archibald. "We have been heavily
into Swedes this month. If we proceed along this course, we will
push our statistics further from the bounds of the prescribed demographic
norms and thereby risk bringing down upon our heads the wrathful
vengeance of the Justice Department, the New York Times,
and Greta Van Susteren. You may well be denied your promotion, and
I my transfer."
"Indeed," says Basil.
"In fact," continues Archibald, "if we wish to bring our statistics
into a more demographically representative and acceptable pattern,
we must eschew Scandinavians altogether and by midnight Saturday
arrest a Peruvian, a Pole, and two Pakistanis."
"Quite right," says Basil. "Drive on."
The officers return to find the victim where they had left her,
and they see her hopeful expression fade to one of resignation as
she realizes they have come empty handed.
"We're so sorry," says Basil to the woman, "but it appears as though
the scoundrels have made good their escape."
"Thank you for your efforts," says the woman. "It must be a difficult
job."
"More so every day," says Archibald.
"We'll be pushing off, then," says Basil, "but perhaps we might
ask a favor of you."
"Certainly," says the woman.
"If you should happen to see any Peruvians, Poles, or pairs of Pakistanis
prowling about, please do give us a call."
(*Jack
Dunphy is the author's nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are
his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management
.)
|
