Call Us Now
Email Us Now
Criminal defense lawyers William Pernick and Alena Wilson explore a critical observation: how the expansion of police powers in the U.S. has disproportionately impacted people of color. Drawing on their experience and Alena’s role teaching criminal law, they discuss three key legal doctrines and their real-world consequences.
Stop and Frisk: Stereotypes Over Effectiveness
The “stop and frisk” doctrine, originating from the 1968 Terry v. Ohio case, allows officers to briefly detain and pat down individuals for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion. However, statistics reveal a stark racial disparity in its application. A 1999 New York study showed that while people of color made up 50% of the population, they accounted for 84% of stop-and-frisk incidents. Crucially, these stops were less likely to yield contraband or weapons when the individual was a person of color. Between 2004 and 2012, over 4.5 million people were stopped, with over 80% being Black or Latino males, despite these groups being half as likely to possess contraband. This points to a potential implicit racial bias, where officers, perhaps unconsciously, base suspicions on stereotypes rather than objective facts, leading to ineffective and discriminatory policing.
The Automobile Exception and Pretextual Traffic Stops
The “automobile exception” grants law enforcement broad authority to stop vehicles for even minor traffic violations. With nearly 30,000 provisions in the California Vehicle Code alone, officers have ample grounds for a stop. This opens the door to pretextual stops, where a minor violation serves as an excuse to investigate something else, often based on observed behavior (e.g., seeing marijuana). This practice disproportionately affects people of color, who are more likely to be pulled over but less likely to have contraband than white individuals. Such stops fuel fear and anxiety, particularly within African American communities, potentially leading to tragic escalations from simple traffic encounters.
Knock and Announce: When Lives Are Lost
The “knock and announce” doctrine requires police to knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable time before entering a home, even with a warrant. However, the 1996 Hudson v. Michigan Supreme Court case ruled that violating this rule doesn’t necessarily invalidate evidence, effectively reducing consequences for non-compliance. This doctrine gained tragic notoriety with the 2020 case of Breonna Taylor, who was killed when police entered her home during a no-knock raid looking for a suspect who wasn’t there. Such incidents amplify the fear among people of color that they are treated as guilty until proven innocent, and foster deep distrust of law enforcement.
The Path Forward: Addressing Bias in the Justice System
These doctrines, while seemingly neutral, lead to stark racial disparities in practice. The problem extends beyond law enforcement to the entire justice system, including courts and prosecutors. California is making strides with bias training for legal professionals and the Racial Justice Act (RJA), enacted in 2020. The RJA allows criminal defendants to appeal convictions if they believe racial bias influenced the outcome, even allowing for statistical analysis of prosecutorial decisions to uncover implicit bias. This is a crucial step towards acknowledging and correcting systemic issues that may not be immediately visible.
Ultimately, addressing these deeply ingrained biases requires a national effort to train and “rewire” all members of the legal profession and law enforcement. This aims to increase access to justice, ensure fair outcomes, and rebuild trust within communities, preventing further civil unrest and tragic incidents born from fear and systemic bias.
