Either racial profiling is odious and unconstitutional, with personal and social consequences for communities of color — or it’s not. On April 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, without any dissent, decided that it was not. The ruling obliquely, but forcefully, slammed the courthouse door on any attempts to challenge this widespread law enforcement practice. In the case of Virginia v. Moore,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (5)Page 1 of 1 pages“Under Virginia law, driving with a suspended license is not an arrestable offense, and the officers were obliged to issue him a citation for a future court appearance rather than take him into custody. Disregarding this clear legal mandate, however, the officers arrested Moore.”
—————————
It seems pretty apparent that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment in this action. The skin color of the alleged violator my have been how they singled him out, but the violation is still illegal search and seizure.It is idiotic not to describe a person being sought without including skin coloring. Would it be smart to search for a missing child an simply leave out one of the most distinctive characteristics?
Such political correct baloney is the stuff comedians love.
Posted by whattheheck on May 20, 2008 at 1:10 PM The Court has pretty much made the fourth amendment a toothless thing, since almost nothing is defined as a ‘search’ any more to their minds - and if you don’t have a ‘search’ then you don’t have to get to the other, more difficult questions of reasonableness, etc. The modern Court has gutted this core protection and made it essentially useless.
Posted by Moose on May 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM Moose,
Agreed.
As I recall it was about 20 years ago the S. Court decided the end justified the means when searching for drugs. They OKed the use of road blocks as long as everyone was stopped. (To mess with individual rights is wrong, but doing away with everyone’s is right?)
I, for one, believe this deserves to challenged. There have been stops here to check for seatbelts, city stickers, etc. If stopped I will protest very loudly.
Just yesterday I learned that if a citizen wants to buy a car and pays cash he must disclose his income at the dealership. My first thought was disbelief, but then it was discussed on local radio and verified that this is part of Homeland Security’s protection.
What is the potential danger of a person buying a car and paying cash rather than taking out a loan? I have no idea, but again, I would not cooperate.
Too much of life is being shared with the government already and they have a habit of screwing up whatever they touch.
Posted by whattheheck on May 21, 2008 at 12:20 PM “But the most important fact in this case—which was ignored by the Virginia courts, the Supreme Court and the few media accounts of this litigation—is that David Lee Moore is African-American.”
Why is this the most important fact in this case?
“Scalia and his equally myopic and complacent colleagues refuse to address the problem of racial profiling — or “driving while black” — that has been widely discussed in law and political science journals, as well as reported anecdotally by black males, both ordinary citizens and those who enjoy professional or political prominence.”
“As Scalia noted — presumably with a straight face — Moore “consented” to a search of his person and his room.”
This author is too quick to cry “racism” without putting forth any reasons or proof. Fotunato has quotes around the word “consented”, but doesn’t explain why whatever Moore said or did shouldn’t have been considered giving consent. He also doesn’t give any specifc reasons why he thinks that the stop was racially motivated; for all I know, both of the policemen may have been black. One of the officers already knew that “Chubs” was one of Moore’s nicknames, which suggests that this wasn’t his first time in trouble.
Posted by SteelDragonfly on May 21, 2008 at 4:12 PM I know this is suppose to be a racal profiling thing, but this guy’s race is not the “most important fact.”
This is a 4th Amendment constitutional issue. There is nothing in the constitution reagarding a persons race and illlegal search. Regardless of race they needed to have reasonable cause. If he consented that blows his case as it would with anyone.
Racial profiling is in the eye of the beholder in this case.
As for racial profiling the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be enough to cover it in this or any other case. The problem here is that since 1964 race (and gender) has been used as a means to justify quotas for schools, jobs, and anywhere else it gives an advantage. You can’t have it both ways.
Posted by whattheheck on May 23, 2008 at 7:10 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
- Supreme Court OKs Racial Profiling
- Supreme Court Inc.
The Roberts Court unravels a generation of progress - And Now The Justice Department Eight
- Judging Harriet Miers
Democrats must rise up and challenge conservative claptrap about "activist judges" - Bad on the Basics
John Roberts' affability masks a callous indifference to some of our most fundamental rights - Origin of the Specious
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
