ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, May 8, 1996 TAG: 9605080003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: REGINALD SHAREEF
IN JANUARY, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer of New York ruled in U.S. vs. Bayless that police lacked "reasonable suspicion" to search a defendant's car, even though the search turned up nearly 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin.
The police asserted they had reasonable cause to search Carol Bayless' automobile. They argued that (1) at approximately 5 a.m. in the Washington Heights section of New York City, officers observed four men load two duffel bags into the trunk of a car; (2) the auto pulled off and, as the four men stood on the sidewalk, the officers pulled beside the men in their patrol car and stared at them; (3) consequently, the men began running; and (4) the officers proceeded to stop and search the car Bayless was driving.
From the officers' perspective, the event precipitating the search was the men's flight.
Baer rejected the officers' contention that this series of events justified the search of the car. He especially rejected the state's argument that the fleeing men created suspicion: "Even before this prosecution and the public hearing and the final report of the Mollen Commission, residents in this neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive and violent," the judge stated. "After the attendant publicity surrounding the above events, had the men not run after the cops began to stare at them, it would have been unusual."
National politicians, including President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, strongly criticized the judge's decision. Baer reconsidered and on April 3 announced a reversal of his original ruling. The discovered contraband, he said, could be used as evidence.
Many legal scholars fear that the intense political pressure applied to Judge Baer undermines an independent federal judiciary. This is, indeed, a weighty issue that should concern all Americans. Yet, it is also important to understand the basis and legitimacy of Baer's original decision to suppress the evidence because of Fourth Amendment violations.
Social scientists have long recognized that people make sense of the world through the prism of their collective experience. Researchers have noted that "people's behaviors are mainly understandable in terms of the subjective meaning that they, themselves, give them." Sociologists call this the interpretivist paradigm, and note this sense-making approach has a long tradition in Western philosophical thinking.
The subjective experience of Washington Heights residents, both innocent and guilty, had led them to distrust the police. This distrust existed because of the illegal activities that law-enforcement officers had perpetuated against these residents. A footnote in Baer's opinion pointed out that the U.S. attorney had spent four years prosecuting police officers for corruption and unjustified arrests.
According to the Mollen Commission report on the New York Police Department, "[o]fficers also commit falsification to serve what they perceive to be 'legitimate' law enforcement ends - for ends that many honest and corrupt officers alike stubbornly defend as correct. In their view, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is, in fact, guilty and ought to be arrested." Interestingly, Judge Baer was a member of the Mollen Commission.
Given this dreadful experience, it is reasonable to believe that Washington Heights residents would run from glaring police. In another neighborhood - for example, Simi Valley, Calif. - running from police would certainly be suspicious. In Washington Heights, this behavior is prudent. Baer considered the social realities of Washington Heights, not those of more affluent neighborhoods, and ruled accordingly.
The outcry over Baer's decision suggests his approach is novel. Nothing could be further from the truth, since much case law is predicated on this sociological construct.
For instance, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Meritor Savings Bank vs. Vinson, defined sexual harassment solely on the historical and subjective experiences of American women in the workplace. Indeed, the legal definition of sexual harassment established by the court in Vinson was borrowed verbatim from the work of noted feminist legal scholar Catherine McKinnon.
President Clinton and Sen. Dole argue for a vision of social uniformity in this case - that Baer's ruling should have reflected middle-class values and experiences. These values have been institutionalized in the criminal-justice system, which is what makes his ruling seem odd to many American citizens. The social-uniformity paradigm is a much easier framework to make operational, but it begs the fundamental question: Is it a fair system to utilize in socially diverse America?
The police were correct to be suspicious. Judge Baer was equally correct in ruling that their suspicions in this case were unreasonable and suppressing the tainted evidence. This is exactly how a constitutional system of checks and balances should work.
Reginald Shareef is an associate professor of political science at Radford University.
LENGTH: Medium: 90 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: BERNIE COOTNER/Newsdayby CNB