Supreme Court ruling
protects cops
By
Anya Mukarji-Connolly
On
Jan. 12 the Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous decision that police officers
may sometimes stop and frisk any person who flees from the sight of a police
officer. This ruling gives the police more power by expanding the rules that
allow a police officer to stop and frisk someone. It comes at a time when police
brutality runs rampant in the poorest and most oppressed
communities.
The
decision stems from the case of Illinois v. Wardlow, in which a young Chicago
man ran when he saw four police cars approach. The court stopped short of
allowing the Illinois blanket rule, which said that the police could stop anyone
who fled at the sight of an officer. This rule is in place in 17 other
states.
Still,
the court expanded police power. This latest ruling said that a person fleeing
at the sight of the police is an important factor that creates enough suspicion,
along with other factors, for a police officer to stop and frisk him or
her.
According
to the court, however, merely running away from an officer is by itself not
enough to allow an officer to stop and search that person. People in the poor
and oppressed communities know that this technicality will have little effect on
how police treat them. The ruling was made to protect the police, not to help
the
people.
The
police rule the streets. They have to answer to no one. They shoot and then
explain. Only where a mass protest greets police outrages are police even
brought into court for their blatant
brutalities.
Justice
John Paul Stevens and three other justices concurred in their opinion that there
are some individuals, particularly people of color, who are innocent but have
reason to fear the police and as a result may flee from a police officer
believing that contact with an officer may be dangerous. These four justices,
however, also joined the chief justice in his opinion that allows flight to be
an important factor in an officer's decision to stop someone.
Had
these justices actually understood the terror felt in most communities towards
the police, they would not have joined the majority in this decision, which adds
more fuel to the police terror that already runs the
streets.
In
oppressed communities, fear of the police is well understood. In Riverside,
Calif., police shot Tyisha Miller, a young Black woman, 27 times in December
1998. Miller's friends had called 911 because Miller was suffering from a
seizure.
New
Jersey is famous for state troopers' bias in stopping non-white drivers for
violations. People even said the crime there is DWB, or "driving while Black,"
after one study showed more than three-quarters of those stopped were people of
color.
In
one case in April 1998 troopers stopped four young Black men on their way to a
North Carolina basketball clinic and fired into their van after they pulled them
over on the New Jersey
Turnpike.
This
latest Supreme Court ruling fails to account for the relationship between the
police and oppressed communities. Police have shot youths on the street, in
their cars, and in front of their families, in these communities--all for
looking
"suspicious."
Now
the Supreme Court has declared that "reasonable suspicion" is enough for
stopping a suspect. What do the police consider "suspicious"? Being poor, being
a person of color and fearing the terrorist police that control their
communities.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME :: U.S. NEWS :: WORLD NEWS :: EDITORIALS :: SUBSCRIBE :: DONATE