Racial Profiling Alleged to Continue on Maryland Highways; NYCLU Asks High Court to Review Racial Profiling Case
Feature Story by Helen Norton - 6/1/2001
According to a May, 16, 2001 story by the Washington Post, nearly two-thirds (63%) of drivers stopped and forced out of their cars by Maryland state troopers on I-95 last year were minorities -even though minorities make up only about 20% of drivers on that highway.
Under a 1995 consent decree with the Maryland affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Maryland State Police became the first major law enforcement agency in the country to collect data on traffic stops. The ACLU has expressed concern that - six years later -- minority drivers continue to be stopped at disproportionate rates by Maryland troopers, and has urged further action.
On May 15, Maryland became the 13th state to address racial profiling legislatively with the enactment of a bill that outlaws race-based traffic stops and requires law enforcement officers to collect data on the race and ethnicity of drivers stopped.
In a related development, on May 18 the New York Civil Liberties Union asked the Supreme Court to review a 1992 police sweep of minorities in Oneonta, NY.
In September 1992, Oneonta police officials said they had received a report that a crime had been committed by a young, black male who may have cut his hand or forearm during the incident. In response, officers targeted every black male at the local college for questioning and physical examination. When no arrests resulted, police sought to question and examine the hundreds of minority residents in the area over a five-day period. Some African American women were even questioned. According to a New York State Police investigator, the sweep's objective was to "examine the hands of all the black people in the community."
The NYCLU's petition asked the high court to review and reverse a lower court ruling rejecting the claim of minority residents of Oneonta that the action constituted illegal racial discrimination. The Court's decision whether to accept the case for review is expected this summer.
