Intelligent Life Discovered in an L.A. Jury Room: Rejects claim of racial profiling.

National Review ^ | August 30, 2002 9:00 a.m. | Jack Dunphy

[aculeus]

Saints be praised! My faith in the jury system, having been crushed, shredded, and ripped to bits years ago by the O. J. Simpson travesty, is at last on the mend. On Monday, a unanimous federal-court jury ruled that a group of Los Angeles Police Department officers did not violate three black motorists' civil rights during a 1999 traffic stop. The jury debated seven hours before rejecting the plaintiffs' claims that they were victims of racial profiling, excessive force, and unlawful search. Making the victory all the sweeter was the fact that the plaintiffs were represented by Stephen Yagman, a man who has derived a handsome income and, it seems to me, inordinate glee from hauling most of the police officers in Southern California into various courtrooms over the years.

On the afternoon of July 3, 1999, two LAPD officers were patrolling in the heavy, holiday-weekend traffic near Venice Beach. When they saw a red Volvo make a right turn without stopping for a red traffic signal, they began following it with the idea of issuing the driver a citation. Observing customary procedure, the officers checked the Volvo's license number on their police car's computer before pulling it over. The return from the Department of Motor Vehicles' database indicated that the license plate did not belong to a Volvo, but rather to some other type of car. "Well now," one officer probably said to the other, "something's fishy here." Believing they may have been following a stolen car, the officers broadcast a request for additional units, several of which responded. A police helicopter was shortly overhead, also.

The officers stopped the Volvo and, at gunpoint, ordered the male and two female occupants to exit and lie facedown on the ground. The three were handcuffed and searched, then helped to their feet and escorted to the side of the street, all through which they were screaming bloody murder about how they were being mistreated. The officers soon discovered that the Volvo was not in fact stolen, nor was there anything at all in the way of criminal behavior afoot. (Alas, being a crybaby is still perfectly legal.) The DMV, being the ever-efficient government behemoth it is, had sent the wrong set of license plates to the Volvo's owner, who, never suspecting there had been a snafu, put them on her car to await the fateful encounter. A mistake, certainly, but not on the part of the cops.

The officers and their sergeant fell all over themselves apologizing to the three, one of whom was a juvenile-court judge from Portsmouth, Virginia. Stuff your apologies, they said, we'll see you in court. So now they have, and they walked out of court on Monday with a big goose egg for their troubles. The Los Angeles Times reported that the plaintiffs declined to comment as they left the courtroom. You can bet they would have had plenty to say if the jury had gone the other way, as would have the Times, which buried the story on Page 4 of the second section in Tuesday's paper. If the jury had bought the plaintiffs' argument, the story would have been above-the-fold, front-page stuff, and would have included plenty of editorializing about the need for "reform" and "sensitivity" in the LAPD.

Granted, I'm sure it was an altogether unpleasant experience to be pulled over at gunpoint and ordered to lie on the asphalt on that hot July afternoon. But the California Court of Appeal has wisely noted that "[o]urs is a government of laws, to preserve which we require law-enforcement officers — live ones." And to remain alive we must sometimes `follow certain procedures, one of which is to point guns at people we reasonably believe might be dangerous. Yet the theory adopted by the plaintiffs in this case would demand that police officers somehow intuit that they are confronting law-abiding citizens, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. It is the cop who lets his guard down, the cop who ignores the danger signs for fear of getting a complaint, the cop who leaves his gun in his holster because he's afraid he might be sued, this is the cop whose family will hear the knock on the door in the middle of the night. He is the cop who won't be coming home.

Every cop has heard the old saw: Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Better still to be tried by twelve who, like those jurors in L.A. on Monday, can summon the courage to fling a group of whiny plaintiffs down the courthouse steps.

[vbmoneyspender]

If you have to go to trial in front of a jury in Los Angeles, you always want to go in front of federal jury rather than a county jury because the federal courts have a wider area of people to draw from. In other words, you have less chance of getting whacked out liberals on a federal jury than you do on a superior court or municipal court jury.

[FreeTally]

The officers stopped the Volvo and, at gunpoint, ordered the male and two female occupants to exit and lie facedown on the ground. The three were handcuffed and searched, then helped to their feet and escorted to the side of the street,

I'm sorry. I just can not agree with this. The tag doesn't match, so they order all three out of the car at gun point, and make them lie face down. No way. This just can not be allowed. The article says they called for more officers, and a helicopter. But three people who have done nothing wrong except tunred against a light and have a wrong tag are so dangerous, that several officers can only feel safe with guns drawn and the motorists put face down.

They simply should have asked the driver to step out. One officer could question the driver while the other kept an eye on the other two. But no, cops can not give up an opportunity to intimidate and demean people.