84 3 Police and Law Enforcement—Civil Forensicspercent of all persons arrested for violations of city ordinances during the years of
1871 — 1885" (Schifferle, 1997, p. 4). Although police may or may not use selective
enforcement to oppress minorities as they did years ago, they do use selective en-
forcement. One researcher describes how the jail at the police station in which she
worked was filled with Mexican and African Americans, and the watch sergeant
never questioned it (Texeira, 1995). Unfortunately, the law allows for such selective
overenforcement because there are no guidelines or limitations helping police de-
termine when they should or should not enforce a law. Although there is no specific
law that allows it, police have nearly unlimited discretion in deciding whether to
enforce a particular violation (Hecker, 1997; Schifferle, 1997).
The traffic code is where many police exercise selective enforcement (Schifterle,
1997). Police are given discretion in determining who to stop for traffic violations
or when they suspect criminal activity (Hecker, 1997; Schifferle, 1997). Traffic
stops have been used by police officers who suspect criminal activity such as drug
trafficking (Schifterle, 1997). Ben was a victim of such selective enforcement. Police
officers saw an African-American man dressed in casual clothing driving an expen-
sive vehicle and automatically suspected criminal activity. Much of the justification
for such stops are gang and drug-dealer profiles. Police departments have compiled
information on what the "typical" drug dealer or gang member looks like (Hecker,
1997; Schifferle, 1997). Such profiles result in stereotyping in which police equate
race with criminal activity (Schifferle, 1997). Most likely, police suspected Ben to
be a drug dealer and police profiles of drug dealers probably supported their belief.
A police officer can pull over any automobile, and if he or she needs justification
tor such a stop, the officer is allowed to follow a vehicle until a traffic violation
occurs (Hecker, 1997). If a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
individual is breaking another law, such as drug trafficking, he or she may conduct
a plain-view search of the vehicle and seek consent tor a complete search. If the
individual does not consent to the search, a narcotics dog can be brought in to
search the vehicle for drugs; this is exactly what happened in Ben's case.
Traffic stops have been challenged in court cases, providing some limits to such
stops. For example, in Icnj v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court indicated searches
and seizures without probable cause could only be conducted if the officer has a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (Hecker, 1997; E. Long, Long, Leon, &
Weston, 1975). This ruling also indicates that reasonable suspicion requires "specific
and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,
reasonably warrant" a search (Hecker, 1997, p. 7). Although this ruling attempted
to protect minorities from unreasonable searches, it most likely does little. Police
profiles of drug traffickers and gang members provide police the factual information
they need to justify stopping and searching vehicles.
Another more recent case that challenged traffic stops wras the case of Michael
Whren (United States of America v. Wliren, 1997). Whren and another occupant
in his car were driving a Nissan Pathfinder with temporary plates in Washington,
DC. Officers in an unmarked car indicated that the driver was not paying full