- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 17,855
- Liked Posts:
- 2,554
What do you guys think about this? Justified, or profiling?</p>
</p>
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/needlogin?type=login&redirecturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmoinesregister.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D2013310200043%26nclick_check%3D1</p>
</p>
Shit, need login... let me try to copy and paste.</p>
</p>
</p>
The cruise control on the PT Cruiser was set at the 70-mph limit, but Frank Furillo says his car automatically picked up speed on an Interstate Highway 35 incline in southern Iowa.</p>
Lights flashed, and the Wisconsin man pulled over.</p>
Iowa State Patrol officer Andrew Ehrsam told Furillo he clocked him at 74 mph and asked him to step into his patrol car, Furillo said. A trooper in training sat in the back seat as Ehrsam began to write a warning ticket.</p>
“All of the sudden the trooper who pulled me over starts interrogating me,� said Furillo, 60.</p>
“The questions went on for a long time — so long, it really got my dander up. He was way out of bounds.�</p>
What Furillo experienced in May happens to thousands of drivers in Iowa, according to data obtained under open-records laws by The Des Moines Register Reader’s Watchdog. But out-of-state motorists are far more likely than Iowans to be pulled over by state troopers on interdiction teams, which are on the lookout for speeding, drug trafficking and other crimes, the data show.</p>
A review of about 22,000 traffic warnings and citations issued by two State Patrol crime-interdiction teams from 2008 to last year shows that 86 percent went to out-of-state motorists.</p>
Some lawyers and motorists say the findings raise questions about the tactics being used to pinpoint possible criminals.</p>
</p>
Furillo contacted The Des Moines Register Reader’s Watchdog after he felt he was targeted and interrogated because of his out-of-state license plates.</p>
Similar complaints have been made to the Iowa citizen’s aide ombudsman. And allegations that state troopers have overstepped their authority while questioning motorists and searching their vehicles have spawned legal challenges in recent years.</p>
But Roxann Ryan, an attorney for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, and Sgt. Rob Mordini of the State Patrol say motorists are not being targeted exclusively because they come from other states.</p>
“Does it factor into the totality? Yes,� Mordini said. “But if you’re looking for that alone, you’re not going to have a very successful career.�</p>
Mordini said a license plate from another state may be one factor troopers watch for, particularly the patrol officers who make up the two criminal interdiction teams covering the eastern and western sides of the state.</p>
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Iowa troopers have increasingly used intelligence data along with questions such as “Where are you headed?� and “Who are you traveling with?� to ferret out all sorts of criminals, not just drug dealers, Mordini said.</p>
The troopers are attempting to identify a small percentage of serious repeat criminal offenders, who studies have shown are responsible for more than half of all crime, he said.</p>
Factors that set off troopers’ suspicions, Mordini said, include questionable driver behavior, such as sweating profusely or having dilated pupils; conflicting stories between drivers and passengers; or drivers who do not know exactly where they are going.</p>
Mordini also acknowledged that the legalization of marijuana in states such as Colorado and Washington has “changed the dynamics of interdiction,� but he said troopers are not singling out motorists from drug-source states.</p>
The Reader’s Watchdog review of state data focused on warnings and citations written only by the two five-member interdiction teams. Those officers receive a higher level of training than other troopers, and their goal is to find drugs, weapons, human trafficking and other crimes — as well as write up traffic offenses.</p>
But data from the Iowa’s Department of Public Safety suggest that the vast majority of stops result in warnings for minor traffic violations instead of citations. During the five-year span, troopers on the interdiction teams issued 16,375 warnings versus 5,685 tickets, according to State Patrol data.</p>
The data collected by the patrol’s two interdiction teams were not uniform. But the most common reasons for issuing warnings and citations included speeding, window tint violations and failing to carry insurance.</p>
Conspiracy to deliver marijuana was seldom listed as a violation, and relatively little marijuana was seized. Last year, the interdiction teams seized from all drivers: 48.5 pounds of marijuana, 5.5 pounds of methamphetamine, 1.8 pounds of cocaine, as well as about 110 illegal pills and hits of LSD.</p>
Mordini said whether troopers stop motorists for minor offenses depends on the day and the trooper.</p>
Some days are so slow on Iowa’s interstates, Mordini said, “you can hear the birds chirping. Other days, traffic is too heavy, and you have to take what you can get.�</p>
California, Colorado lead vehicle stops</p>
Drivers from states known for drug trafficking get a lot of attention from the highway patrol’s interdiction teams, the Register’s analysis of state data shows.</p>
By far, drivers with license plates hailing from California, Colorado and Illinois received the most warnings and violations over the past five years — more than 30 percent. Almost 12 percent of the warnings and violations were given to motorists with California plates; 11 percent to Colorado plates; and almost 10 percent to Illinois plates.</p>
Drivers with Iowa plates, meanwhile, accounted for about 14 percent of the warnings and citations.</p>
Studies by Iowa’s tourism department show most out-of-state drivers who pass through Iowa hail from Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin.</p>
But drivers with Minnesota plates received just 623 warnings and citations, or 2.8 percent. Warnings and citations for drivers with Missouri plates made up just more than 1 percent.</p>
When asked about the high number of warnings and citations for drivers from California, Colorado and Illinois, Ryan didn’t deny those are key states for drug trafficking.</p>
But she said the numbers also could be explained by the fact that those states have more drivers than Iowa.</p>
“Iowa is also where we lower the speed limit, and people don’t adjust to that very well,� she said.</p>
Mordini, an assistant district commander, said troopers on the interdiction teams have had other successes in intelligence gathering related to crimes, but he declined to elaborate.</p>
“There’s a perception with interdiction teams that we’re focused almost entirely on drugs,� he said. “The hardest part about what we do is that the successes aren’t public.�</p>
Court rulings put limits on searches</p>
The interrogation of motorists and subsequent searches of vehicles after some traffic stops have led to allegations in state and federal courts of unlawful actions by state troopers, court records show.</p>
Lawyers who routinely handle criminal cases tied to State Patrol stops contend the interdiction teams use relatively minor offenses to conduct questionable interrogations and searches.</p>
Yet, they say, most drivers don’t dispute additional probing unless they are charged criminally.</p>
Robert Rehkemper, a Des Moines attorney who frequently represents drivers in drunken-driving and other cases, said he’s seen a pattern of out-of-state drivers pulled over for “ticky-tack� offenses.</p>
“There are troopers in Iowa who just don’t care if they are crossing the line,� Rehkemper said. “They are going to search that car … and, when questioned, they say: ‘So what, I got drugs off the street.’ �</p>
Troopers in other states, he said, “could give the same justification for targeting Iowans if you wanted to because they make a lot of meth there.�</p>
Mordini disputed the claim that some troopers are more likely than others to target out-of-state drivers for drugs. He said some troopers simply make more stops than others because of their assignments. Those with drug dogs, for example, make fewer stops than others.</p>
Iowa law allows officers to detain drivers while completing “routine tasks� relating to traffic violations. But once the initial investigation is over, further detention and investigation without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or consent is considered unlawful, courts have found.</p>
In some cases, judges have ruled that troopers conducted searches of vehicles without the legal authority to do so. Two years ago, Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled the state’s constitution bars law enforcement from searching vehicles without the consent of motorists.</p>
Iowa attorneys Dean Stowers and Nicholas Sarcone analyzed the citation and violations data from state public safety officials independent of this article. They believe that some interdiction team members are going too far.</p>
“As it stands right now, there does not appear to be any willingness on behalf of the State Patrol to adjust their practices,� Stowers said.</p>
Iowa Department of Public Safety rules require troopers to have motorists sign a “Consent to Search� form before executing such a search. Yet court records show some troopers have proceeded to search without that consent, he said.</p>
In some cases, troopers have cited mere nervousness, youth or the fact drivers are traveling cross country as reasons to search vehicles, even though judges have ruled those reasons alone are not enough.</p>
When asked in depositions and during trials about decisions to pull over drivers for extensive questioning, Iowa troopers have testified they target drivers from states like California because, in their experience, that’s where the bulk of marijuana, meth and other drugs flowing into the state come from.</p>
But the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers a seven-state area in the Midwest including Iowa, has ruled that such reasoning is too broad.</p>
Its ruling quoted from a 1998 decision in which the court noted: “We do not think that the entire state of California, the most populous state in the union, can properly be deemed a source of illegal narcotics such that mere residency in that state constitutes a factor supporting reasonable suspicion.�</p>
A closer look at two drivers' cases</p>
So what about drivers who seem to have nothing to hide?</p>
Furillo was northbound on I-35 in Clarke County last May when he was pulled over, then asked to move to an Iowa State Patrol squad car for questioning by troopers were who part of an interdiction team.</p>
Dashboard video shows trooper Ehrsam questioned Furillo for about a dozen minutes about his trip.</p>
Furillo told the troopers he was returning home to Stoughton, Wis., after traveling to Parsons, Kan., to research his family’s somewhat complicated genealogy. At times, Ehrsam appeared confused by Furillo’s answers.</p>
Trooper Ehrsam not only asked him repeatedly what he was doing, but he questioned how much money Furillo had spent and whether he was really only doing genealogy. He also asked about the contents of two suitcases in Furillo’s car.</p>
“This was very insulting, as he was basically interrogating me, without informing me of why,� Furillo told the Register. “I was very upset, so I pulled over at the first Iowa State Patrol sign I saw and said I wanted to speak to someone.�</p>
After several minutes of questioning, Furillo received a warning ticket.</p>
Though he complained in person at an Iowa State Patrol post, he never filed a formal written complaint with any state official.</p>
Instead, he contacted the Reader’s Watchdog.</p>
In August, attorneys Stowers and Sarcone succeeded in having the Iowa Court of Appeals overturn the drug conviction of a man who, like Furillo, was pulled over and questioned extensively for going 4 miles over the 70-mph speed limit on Interstate Highway 80.</p>
In a 2011 Poweshiek County case, a member of one of the patrol’s interdiction team admitted under oath that he “absolutely� used the opportunity of a minor speeding incident to conduct a separate investigation of California driver Stephen J. Hanrahan, 61.</p>
What the trooper eventually found — under protest from the California-bound driver who resisted the search of his car — was marijuana and cash.</p>
Hanrahan’s attorneys argued that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, by incorrectly expanding the scope of the speeding stop. Court records show Hanrahan denied the officer’s request to search the car without a warrant, and then said he’d rather not wait until a drug dog was brought to the scene.</p>
The court ruled that police cannot unduly prolong detention of a person to secure a drug dog without additional suspicion of wrongdoing that warrants expansion of the stop.</p>
“As for the trooper’s assertion that Hanrahan was still nervous even after he was told he would only receive a warning, nervousness alone under these circumstances did not generate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to provide grounds for a warrantless search,� the court said.</p>
Stowers said once troopers have motorists sitting in a patrol car, they often proceed to question them about their “travel plans, their occupation, their background, prior criminal record, and do not allow people to leave unless or until they agree to have their vehicle searched or they’ve conducted a dog sniff of the vehicle.�</p>
“Many, many people are having to go through this who are completely innocent but nonetheless required to go through this by our State Patrol,� he said.</p>
Ryan, the attorney for the Department of Public Safety, said interdiction team members receive annual training on the boundaries of the law. But she said one reason defendants have been successful in fighting cases is that Iowa courts have given motorists more protection under the state constitution than exists under federal law.</p>
</p>
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/needlogin?type=login&redirecturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmoinesregister.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D2013310200043%26nclick_check%3D1</p>
</p>
Shit, need login... let me try to copy and paste.</p>
</p>
</p>
The cruise control on the PT Cruiser was set at the 70-mph limit, but Frank Furillo says his car automatically picked up speed on an Interstate Highway 35 incline in southern Iowa.</p>
Lights flashed, and the Wisconsin man pulled over.</p>
Iowa State Patrol officer Andrew Ehrsam told Furillo he clocked him at 74 mph and asked him to step into his patrol car, Furillo said. A trooper in training sat in the back seat as Ehrsam began to write a warning ticket.</p>
“All of the sudden the trooper who pulled me over starts interrogating me,� said Furillo, 60.</p>
“The questions went on for a long time — so long, it really got my dander up. He was way out of bounds.�</p>
What Furillo experienced in May happens to thousands of drivers in Iowa, according to data obtained under open-records laws by The Des Moines Register Reader’s Watchdog. But out-of-state motorists are far more likely than Iowans to be pulled over by state troopers on interdiction teams, which are on the lookout for speeding, drug trafficking and other crimes, the data show.</p>
A review of about 22,000 traffic warnings and citations issued by two State Patrol crime-interdiction teams from 2008 to last year shows that 86 percent went to out-of-state motorists.</p>
Some lawyers and motorists say the findings raise questions about the tactics being used to pinpoint possible criminals.</p>
</p>
Furillo contacted The Des Moines Register Reader’s Watchdog after he felt he was targeted and interrogated because of his out-of-state license plates.</p>
Similar complaints have been made to the Iowa citizen’s aide ombudsman. And allegations that state troopers have overstepped their authority while questioning motorists and searching their vehicles have spawned legal challenges in recent years.</p>
But Roxann Ryan, an attorney for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, and Sgt. Rob Mordini of the State Patrol say motorists are not being targeted exclusively because they come from other states.</p>
“Does it factor into the totality? Yes,� Mordini said. “But if you’re looking for that alone, you’re not going to have a very successful career.�</p>
Mordini said a license plate from another state may be one factor troopers watch for, particularly the patrol officers who make up the two criminal interdiction teams covering the eastern and western sides of the state.</p>
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Iowa troopers have increasingly used intelligence data along with questions such as “Where are you headed?� and “Who are you traveling with?� to ferret out all sorts of criminals, not just drug dealers, Mordini said.</p>
The troopers are attempting to identify a small percentage of serious repeat criminal offenders, who studies have shown are responsible for more than half of all crime, he said.</p>
Factors that set off troopers’ suspicions, Mordini said, include questionable driver behavior, such as sweating profusely or having dilated pupils; conflicting stories between drivers and passengers; or drivers who do not know exactly where they are going.</p>
Mordini also acknowledged that the legalization of marijuana in states such as Colorado and Washington has “changed the dynamics of interdiction,� but he said troopers are not singling out motorists from drug-source states.</p>
The Reader’s Watchdog review of state data focused on warnings and citations written only by the two five-member interdiction teams. Those officers receive a higher level of training than other troopers, and their goal is to find drugs, weapons, human trafficking and other crimes — as well as write up traffic offenses.</p>
But data from the Iowa’s Department of Public Safety suggest that the vast majority of stops result in warnings for minor traffic violations instead of citations. During the five-year span, troopers on the interdiction teams issued 16,375 warnings versus 5,685 tickets, according to State Patrol data.</p>
The data collected by the patrol’s two interdiction teams were not uniform. But the most common reasons for issuing warnings and citations included speeding, window tint violations and failing to carry insurance.</p>
Conspiracy to deliver marijuana was seldom listed as a violation, and relatively little marijuana was seized. Last year, the interdiction teams seized from all drivers: 48.5 pounds of marijuana, 5.5 pounds of methamphetamine, 1.8 pounds of cocaine, as well as about 110 illegal pills and hits of LSD.</p>
Mordini said whether troopers stop motorists for minor offenses depends on the day and the trooper.</p>
Some days are so slow on Iowa’s interstates, Mordini said, “you can hear the birds chirping. Other days, traffic is too heavy, and you have to take what you can get.�</p>
California, Colorado lead vehicle stops</p>
Drivers from states known for drug trafficking get a lot of attention from the highway patrol’s interdiction teams, the Register’s analysis of state data shows.</p>
By far, drivers with license plates hailing from California, Colorado and Illinois received the most warnings and violations over the past five years — more than 30 percent. Almost 12 percent of the warnings and violations were given to motorists with California plates; 11 percent to Colorado plates; and almost 10 percent to Illinois plates.</p>
Drivers with Iowa plates, meanwhile, accounted for about 14 percent of the warnings and citations.</p>
Studies by Iowa’s tourism department show most out-of-state drivers who pass through Iowa hail from Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin.</p>
But drivers with Minnesota plates received just 623 warnings and citations, or 2.8 percent. Warnings and citations for drivers with Missouri plates made up just more than 1 percent.</p>
When asked about the high number of warnings and citations for drivers from California, Colorado and Illinois, Ryan didn’t deny those are key states for drug trafficking.</p>
But she said the numbers also could be explained by the fact that those states have more drivers than Iowa.</p>
“Iowa is also where we lower the speed limit, and people don’t adjust to that very well,� she said.</p>
Mordini, an assistant district commander, said troopers on the interdiction teams have had other successes in intelligence gathering related to crimes, but he declined to elaborate.</p>
“There’s a perception with interdiction teams that we’re focused almost entirely on drugs,� he said. “The hardest part about what we do is that the successes aren’t public.�</p>
Court rulings put limits on searches</p>
The interrogation of motorists and subsequent searches of vehicles after some traffic stops have led to allegations in state and federal courts of unlawful actions by state troopers, court records show.</p>
Lawyers who routinely handle criminal cases tied to State Patrol stops contend the interdiction teams use relatively minor offenses to conduct questionable interrogations and searches.</p>
Yet, they say, most drivers don’t dispute additional probing unless they are charged criminally.</p>
Robert Rehkemper, a Des Moines attorney who frequently represents drivers in drunken-driving and other cases, said he’s seen a pattern of out-of-state drivers pulled over for “ticky-tack� offenses.</p>
“There are troopers in Iowa who just don’t care if they are crossing the line,� Rehkemper said. “They are going to search that car … and, when questioned, they say: ‘So what, I got drugs off the street.’ �</p>
Troopers in other states, he said, “could give the same justification for targeting Iowans if you wanted to because they make a lot of meth there.�</p>
Mordini disputed the claim that some troopers are more likely than others to target out-of-state drivers for drugs. He said some troopers simply make more stops than others because of their assignments. Those with drug dogs, for example, make fewer stops than others.</p>
Iowa law allows officers to detain drivers while completing “routine tasks� relating to traffic violations. But once the initial investigation is over, further detention and investigation without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or consent is considered unlawful, courts have found.</p>
In some cases, judges have ruled that troopers conducted searches of vehicles without the legal authority to do so. Two years ago, Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled the state’s constitution bars law enforcement from searching vehicles without the consent of motorists.</p>
Iowa attorneys Dean Stowers and Nicholas Sarcone analyzed the citation and violations data from state public safety officials independent of this article. They believe that some interdiction team members are going too far.</p>
“As it stands right now, there does not appear to be any willingness on behalf of the State Patrol to adjust their practices,� Stowers said.</p>
Iowa Department of Public Safety rules require troopers to have motorists sign a “Consent to Search� form before executing such a search. Yet court records show some troopers have proceeded to search without that consent, he said.</p>
In some cases, troopers have cited mere nervousness, youth or the fact drivers are traveling cross country as reasons to search vehicles, even though judges have ruled those reasons alone are not enough.</p>
When asked in depositions and during trials about decisions to pull over drivers for extensive questioning, Iowa troopers have testified they target drivers from states like California because, in their experience, that’s where the bulk of marijuana, meth and other drugs flowing into the state come from.</p>
But the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers a seven-state area in the Midwest including Iowa, has ruled that such reasoning is too broad.</p>
Its ruling quoted from a 1998 decision in which the court noted: “We do not think that the entire state of California, the most populous state in the union, can properly be deemed a source of illegal narcotics such that mere residency in that state constitutes a factor supporting reasonable suspicion.�</p>
A closer look at two drivers' cases</p>
So what about drivers who seem to have nothing to hide?</p>
Furillo was northbound on I-35 in Clarke County last May when he was pulled over, then asked to move to an Iowa State Patrol squad car for questioning by troopers were who part of an interdiction team.</p>
Dashboard video shows trooper Ehrsam questioned Furillo for about a dozen minutes about his trip.</p>
Furillo told the troopers he was returning home to Stoughton, Wis., after traveling to Parsons, Kan., to research his family’s somewhat complicated genealogy. At times, Ehrsam appeared confused by Furillo’s answers.</p>
Trooper Ehrsam not only asked him repeatedly what he was doing, but he questioned how much money Furillo had spent and whether he was really only doing genealogy. He also asked about the contents of two suitcases in Furillo’s car.</p>
“This was very insulting, as he was basically interrogating me, without informing me of why,� Furillo told the Register. “I was very upset, so I pulled over at the first Iowa State Patrol sign I saw and said I wanted to speak to someone.�</p>
After several minutes of questioning, Furillo received a warning ticket.</p>
Though he complained in person at an Iowa State Patrol post, he never filed a formal written complaint with any state official.</p>
Instead, he contacted the Reader’s Watchdog.</p>
In August, attorneys Stowers and Sarcone succeeded in having the Iowa Court of Appeals overturn the drug conviction of a man who, like Furillo, was pulled over and questioned extensively for going 4 miles over the 70-mph speed limit on Interstate Highway 80.</p>
In a 2011 Poweshiek County case, a member of one of the patrol’s interdiction team admitted under oath that he “absolutely� used the opportunity of a minor speeding incident to conduct a separate investigation of California driver Stephen J. Hanrahan, 61.</p>
What the trooper eventually found — under protest from the California-bound driver who resisted the search of his car — was marijuana and cash.</p>
Hanrahan’s attorneys argued that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, by incorrectly expanding the scope of the speeding stop. Court records show Hanrahan denied the officer’s request to search the car without a warrant, and then said he’d rather not wait until a drug dog was brought to the scene.</p>
The court ruled that police cannot unduly prolong detention of a person to secure a drug dog without additional suspicion of wrongdoing that warrants expansion of the stop.</p>
“As for the trooper’s assertion that Hanrahan was still nervous even after he was told he would only receive a warning, nervousness alone under these circumstances did not generate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to provide grounds for a warrantless search,� the court said.</p>
Stowers said once troopers have motorists sitting in a patrol car, they often proceed to question them about their “travel plans, their occupation, their background, prior criminal record, and do not allow people to leave unless or until they agree to have their vehicle searched or they’ve conducted a dog sniff of the vehicle.�</p>
“Many, many people are having to go through this who are completely innocent but nonetheless required to go through this by our State Patrol,� he said.</p>
Ryan, the attorney for the Department of Public Safety, said interdiction team members receive annual training on the boundaries of the law. But she said one reason defendants have been successful in fighting cases is that Iowa courts have given motorists more protection under the state constitution than exists under federal law.</p>
