Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Obama's and Holder's Objections to Profiling: Just Empty BS
If the President and Attorney General actually opposed racial profiling and discrimination in the criminal justice system, they could end much of it at the stroke of a pen. How about an executive order that all components of the U.S. government cease to follow Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), holding that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit searches or seizures based on race, or United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), holding that apparent Mexican ancestry can be used in the probable cause and reasonable suspicion calculus in immigration cases? See Kevin R. Johnson, How Racial Profiling Became the Law of the Land, 98 Geo L.J. 1005 (2010). The President and Attorney General could direct that race not be used in stops or investigations, that any officer using race be terminated, that no tainted evidence should be proffered by any component of the U.S. government, and that where such evidence is essential to a prosecution, deportation action, or other proceeding, it must be dismissed.
But they haven't. And they won't. Because this Administration finds racial profiling useful for immigration enforcement.
Posted by Jack Chin on July 23, 2013 at 04:46 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's and Holder's Objections to Profiling: Just Empty BS:
And, you might add, prosecutors should face sanctions for Batson violations. In that instance the violation is more egregious, since nowadays there will be no finding of race-based pretext at a suppression hearing, because it is not germane to the 4th Amendment issue. In Batson, there is such a finding: that a government official has engaged in race-based discrimination in the jury selection process.
Posted by: Eric Miller | Jul 26, 2013 3:05:13 PM