TL; DR: When you’re reading, always look for the missing details
One of the many things people hate about lawyers is that they tend to never have a straight or easy answer to anything. But, here’s the thing: When it comes to the law, “it depends” is a perfectly valid answer because the answer will always depend on the facts. And, sometimes, trying to give a definitive answer will lead to an incomplete or incorrect understanding. Especially if you’re dealing with a short-form platform like a news article.
In “The One Big Question About Trump’s DoJ Spying on Dems,” Danny Cevallos wrote:
“The Supreme Court has suggested since at least 1996 that an investigation motivated by a bad reason is not invalidated if there is substantial evidence of an objective violation of the law. Legally, it’s fine for police to stop only Black drivers and spare white drivers, so long as the Black drivers have committed traffic violations.”
When I read this, my first thought was that pulling over Black people while sparing white people is a whole lot of things, but “legal” or “fine”? Not exactly. So, let’s dig deeper:
The Claim: “Legally, it’s fine for police to stop only Black drivers and spare only white drivers, so long as the Black drivers have committed traffic violations.”
The Big Question: What does Cevallos mean by “legally”?
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “legally” as “in a lawful way; in a manner that accords with the law.” Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is pretty much the same. For it to be lawful for police to pull over Black drivers while letting white drivers go, that would mean that the Constitution doesn’t have any provision saying that racially motivated stops are wrong.
So what could Cevallos mean?
Cevallos said that the US Supreme Court addressed a case where Black people were being pulled over more often than white people. To see what law or constitutional right the Supreme Court was talking about, I would try to find the case Cevallos is referring to. If I was wearing my lawyer hat when trying to figure this out, I’d do a search for “1996 pretextual stop” because I know that the legal term for a stop where the police are targeting someone but using a valid legal explanation for it is “pretextual stop.” If I wasn’t wearing my lawyer hat, I’d search for “1996 US Supreme Court traffic stop race.”
Either search is probably going to bring back Whren v. United States as the first result.
What did Whren v. United States say?
Whren v. United States said that, under the Fourth Amendment, a pretextual stop is okay as long as there was a legitimate reason for the police officer to believe that the driver broke the law.
But, I thought that people can’t be treated differently because of their race?
Exactly. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t deal with bias or discrimination. It only deals with the question of whether the police had a good reason to interrupt your day.
…So, where does the protection against bias come in?
The Constitution says that everyone is entitled to “equal protection” under the law. Which is a lawyer’s way of saying that everyone is supposed to be treated equally. While pulling over Black drivers while excusing white drivers is fine under the Fourth Amendment, it isn’t under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, the claim that it is legally fine for the police to pull over Black drivers but not white drivers is wrong.
But, Lea: Wasn’t Cevallos was half right?
Much like being pregnant, when it comes to whether something is “legal” or not, it’s an all or nothing thing.
Key Takeaways:
- When you read a statement of fact, ask yourself if that’s the whole story.
- If someone makes a blanket statement about whether something is legal or illegal, dig deeper.
- Always check the original source to see what they actually said.
For my lawyer friends out there:
You may not be able to win on a motion to suppress, but try a motion to dismiss due to selective prosecution. Also: Remember that the US Constitution is the floor, not the ceiling, so check to see if your state’s constitution offers greater unreasonable search and seizure protections based upon equal protection.
