|
by Alex Cuff/ PoorNewsNetwork Community Journalist
Room 551 at 850 Bryant Street was filling up when I arrived for the Police Commission meeting this past Tuesday,
January 8th. Before it began we all stood to go through the motion of pledging allegiance to the amerikan flag. (I
was amused later on to look at the official meeting agenda and see that the Pledge of Allegiance was actually the
first item.) The reason I was there was to cover the scheduled hearing regarding the banning of SFPD practice of
consent searches. I was ready for a comprehensive report from those who are advocating the ban and accounts of folk
who have been victims of racial profiling. What I got was almost 2 hours of police-affiliated speeches on the
necessity and constitutionality of consent searches and less than an hour of personal accounts where folks have been
victims of consent searches.
A consent search is when police officers ask permission to search an individual, or the belongings of an individual, in the
absence of probable cause. Although people have the absolute right to refuse, most of us don’t know we have that right. Data
collected by the SFPD shows that the practice of consent search is used twice as often against African Americans as whites and
that the searches usually don’t find anything. According to an ACLU report on stops and searches of motorists titled "A
Department in Denial - The San Francisco Police Department’s Failure to Address Racial Profiling" the SFPD is failing to take
the issue of racial profiling seriously. The author of the report Mark Schlosberg, who was present at Tuesday’s meeting, states
"The department’s consistent failure shows the need for a clear policy prohibiting racial profiling and an independent auditor to
oversee the data collection program."
The first speaker to address this report claims "we didn’t see racial profiling as an issue until we saw a report. The data we
have is clearly flawed...We need to work to change the perception because racial profiling isn’t a part of the SFPD." He assured
us that by June 2004, all SFPD officers would have received racial profiling training. He said that the proof of racial profiling in
the report is flawed due to "statistical problems" or a problem of "technology."
Although it’s nothing new, I am always terribly dumbfounded that individuals and organizations that devote their entirety
to a specific topic such as police brutality, homelessness or mental health issues are not paid any mind by the state when it
comes to a remedy for the proposed problem. A great example is the Care Not Cash campaign victory over folks who knew the
"care" wasn’t there and who are veterans of poverty and homeless advocacy such as the Coalition on Homelessness and Poor
Magazine. So there we all sat for almost 2 hours while the SFPD took up our time and the Police Commission’s time defending
consent searches and the US Constitution while those who had experienced the intimidation and injustice of these unwarranted
searches, were given 3 minutes each to speak sometime around 7:30pm.
I was sitting next to Gregg Lowder, the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. The entire time before he went up
to speak, he was pouring over a document filled with so many red marks and scribbled out sentences that it looked like
anyone’s
worst nightmare of a graded paper. At the podium, he claimed that a consent search is a sound strategy for criminal
investigations because it is a psychological strategy that catches those who are guilty. He pointed out that a guilty person
thinks differently than someone who is not guilty so they consent to a proposed search. According to Mr. Lowder, a guilty
person will a) think they are too clever to be caught and consent or b) figure they are already caught and will win favor with the
police for cooperating.
Lowder apparently believes that in most cases of consent searches, the police are not using intimidation, threats (verbal
or with drawn guns) or other forms of coerciveness such as telling a victim that a warrant is on its way. He did though relate
that "the mayor is aware of this problem – nobody tolerates racial profiling, racism, certainly not in the police department." He
went on to say that the stats are wrong since the police didn’t collect the data they were supposed to and that "the mayor is
concerned about inaccurate numbers." We were told that a leading authority in this area, from Harvard…I’ll stop right there and
say, Who gives a shit what an academic from Harvard has to say about the relationship between the SFPD and the men,
women and children who are being targeted by them, in their own neighborhoods, as criminals? Stay in Cambridge with your
analysis – we are trying to address local topics such as the military-esque intervention of a fight in a Bayview Hunter’s Point
high school or the epidemic of youth who are sleeping in their cars due to HUD’s One Strike policy. These
issues are not quantifiable especially by ivy league numbers - they have to do with accountability of police practices
in SF and of oppressive policy effecting the poor, people of color, and disabled persons and youth.
Another SFPD affiliate remarked that consent searches are embedded in our law and social systems – we learn from our
parents that if we want something, we ask politely for it - which is what the police are doing when they seek compliance for a
consent search. When it was finally time for those who are trying to get consent searches banned to speak (the same persons
who actually asked for this hearing to take place) it was 2 hours since the meeting had begun.
Mark Schlosberg was given 5 minutes and it was said that each additional citizen that wanted to make a public comment,
would be given 3 minutes! Schlosberg began by pointing out that after an hour and a half, he probably wouldn’t be able to
respond to the pro-consent search rally in 5 minutes. He responded to SFPD’s "wrong stats" excuse by admitting that the
"unreporting" doesn’t invalidate the ACLU report but that it could be worse! He pointed out that we don’t have the data from
those officers who didn’t do what they were supposed to do. He also talked to the fact that among the persons who spoke
earlier about consent searches, some said they are used a lot; others said they are hardly used. He proposed that both of
those claims couldn’t be right…who could argue that?
"Plug the biggest loophole in the 4th Amendment – consent searches." These words came from our own Public Defender,
Jeff Adachi, who went on to say that if he had a dollar for every police report which said that the accused consented when the
accused denied the consent, he would be a very rich man. He said the 3 problems with consent searches are 1) most people
don’t know their rights 2) it’s a coercive environment (being stopped by the police) 3) it is ineffective – less than 10% of
consent searches result in finding anything.
Now the line of citizens waiting to speak their mind about consent searches filled the room and poured into the brightly lit
hallway. Ishmael Tarik of the Bay Area Police Watch, a project of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, took part of his 3
minutes to tell the overcrowded hearing room a story: The story was about Mr. Lies who was naked, and Mr. Truth who was
clothed. Mr. Lies steals Mr. Truth’s clothes while Mr. Truth is asleep. Mr. Truth who is now naked chases Mr. Lies around town.
The moral of the story is: When you see Lies, you’ll soon see the Naked Truth. After the amusing and palpable anecdote,
Ishmael’s clear voice of reason related that consent searches are inherently coercive – to everyday citizens who unfortunately
don’t know their rights (as I surely didn’t when the cops busted into my apartment and scared the shit out of me), a search is
clearly an affront.
Quentin Adams, an African American network engineer and SF resident, told his story of being stopped by 2 officers for
stepping off of the sidewalk and then back onto the sidewalk when the light was red. I can’t even count how many times I’ve
"jayed" all over town in the presence of passing police vehicles. I’ve never been confronted like Quentin was: he was asked if
he was on parole, if he had any sharp objects on him, he was patted down, asked for ID. They found nothing on him but he
was given a citation.
When he asked how much the ticket would be, one of the officers replied that the fine for running a red light is $170. The
only other interaction Quentin has had in the past with the police is through the check he sends each year in support of the
Police Activities League. Before he stepped away from the podium he commented that he doesn’t want to vilify the SFPD but
there seems to be a problem with racial profiling when a "computer geek gets stopped and frisked on the street."
A white woman came up and testified that while driving home she saw several police cars pulled over and they had 5 or 6
youth cuffed against a wall near 3rd Street. She pulled over to see what the problem was and learned that the cops found
nothing on the kids. Another time while at home, she heard sirens and saw lights outside of her house. Someone had been
pulled over. The cars were blocking another woman’s car who was yelling that she had to get around because her children were
home with a babysitter who was due to leave. The cops pulled her out of her car too. After the officers released both of the
victims she heard one say "It’s not even worth writing up but I don’t feel like getting yelled at." She commented that the
police actions are demoralizing for the youth in the city and although the police have no problem harassing the kids, she
knows of actual shootings that aren’t even investigated.
Although a ban on consent searches won’t eradicate the racism and classism that infects our criminal justice system and
fills our prisons, it is a start to prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement. I didn’t know that we have the right to say no to
police. If you are asked for consent to be searched, remember you have the right to say no! If you do consent, keep the
following in mind: the request for consent must be uncontaminated with duress or coerced stress; once consent is given, it can
be withdrawn; you can consent to only certain areas of a house or car – for example, you can search the car but not the trunk,
etc.
|
