Governor Perched on Profiling Fence

by Ed Day

In a classic political move last week, Gov. Ventura acknowledged racial profiling exists, denounced it, and then opposed a mandatory statewide study of racial discrimination in traffic stops, thereby positioning himself firmly on the fence of this touchy subject.
The pilot studies in Minneapolis and St. Paul probably raised more questions than they answered. That's why those supporting a statewide study include an administration task force, Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton and St. Paul Police Chief Bill Finney. Despite all this, Ventura deferred responsibility (shocking) to the local level. In the Star Tribune he said the solution "must be addressed block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood and community by community."
This essentially means cities that don't want to address it don't have to. If the Edina or Maple Grove police forces do not want to monitor themselves they don't have to. And the truth is, most people don't want them to. In fact, most can't even agree on the definition of racial profiling. Most often I have heard it loosely defined as the police practice of stopping "suspicious" looking drivers for minor traffic violations as a reason to search the vehicle for incriminating evidence of a more serious crime.
Until recently, racial profiling has made only small splashes in the news over the last decade whenever a prominent figure complains about it. It makes for some rip-roaring watercooler chat until it is ultimately dismissed as an anecdote without any proof. During one such heated discussion, my friend Hank, a bona fide suburbanite, made some rather astute observations. "If they aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.... All they have to do is cooperate.... It's something they've got to expect when they live in a high crime neighborhood.... If they weren't committing crimes, the cops wouldn't be stopping them."
The words "they" and "them" bore a hole into my head. This was a problem for them, definitely not Hank. They, of course, are black men. But Hank's no racist- he has a friend who is black. I vehemently disagreed. Of course my "evidence" is anecdotal as well. About five years ago while driving with a black client, I was pulled over for failing to signal a lane change on a street that didn't even have lines on it. Although I had driven down this street hundreds of times without signaling my lane changes, this remains the only time I have ever been pulled over in my car (aside from my annual ticket for letting my tabs lapse). And I'm not a good driver.
To this day I believe the critical difference was my client's presence. Sure, we sat in my car for about 10 minutes while the officer checked my record, found nothing and sent us on our way. I wasn't in a hurry so it was not a big deal, but it is still 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. But it was dismissed as an isolated incident. Most people here are comfortable with that rationale and don't want reality to mess with their perceptions.
Then again, a thorough study of collected data might attribute the disproportionate number of minorities arrested to saturation patrols in high-crime neighborhoods, responses to police calls, and the correlation between income and crime. If this is true, we might have to question why so many minorities "choose" to live in such horrible places.
Thanks to Ventura, Minnesotans will only have to wrestle with racial profiling on a case-by-case basis, dismiss it as an anecdote, and say it's an issue only for them: black, poor, inner city residents.