Colen, B. D. 1976. Karen Ann Quinlan: Dying in the Age of Eternal Life. New York: Nash. Risley, Robert L. 1994. “Ethical and Legal Issues in the Individual’s Right to Die.” Ohio Northern University Law Review 20 (winter). Stevens, M.L. Tina. 1996. “The Quinlan Case Revisited: A History of the Cultural Politics of Medicine and the Law.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 21 (spring). Weinberg, Joanna K. 1988. “Whose Right Is It Anyway? Individualism, Community, and the Right to Die: A Commentary on the New Jersey Experience.” Hastings Law Journal 40 (November). CROSS REFERENCES Death and Dying; Patients’ Rights; Physicians and Surgeons. QUIT To vacate; remove from; surrender possession. When a tenant leaves premises that he or she has been renting, the tenant is said to quit such premises. A notice to quit is written notification given by a landlord to a tenant that indicates that the landlord wants to repossess the premise s and that the tenant must vacate them at a certain designated time. QUITCLAIM DEED An instrument of conveyance of real property that passes any title, claim, or interest that the grantor has in the premises but does not make any representations as to the validity of such title. A quitclaim deed is a release by the grantor, or conveyor of the deed, of any interest the grantor may have in the property described in the deed. Generally a quitclaim deed relieves the grantor of liability regarding the ownership of the property. Thus, the grantor of a quitclaim deed will not be liable to the grantee, or recipient of the deed, if a competing claim to the property is later discovered. A quitclaim deed is not a guarantee that the grantor has clear title to the property; rather it is a relinquishment of the grantor’s rights, if any, in the property. By contrast, in a warranty deed the grantor promises that she owns the property with no cloud on the title (that is, no competing claims). The holder of a quitclaim deed receives only the interest owned by the person conveying the deed. If the grantee of a quitclaim deed learns after accepting the deed that the grantor did not own the property, the grantee may lose the property to the true owner. If it turns out that the grantor had only a partial interest in the property, the quitclaim deedholder holds only that partial interest. In some states a quitclaim deed does not relieve the grantor of liability for all encum- brances, or clouds, on the title. In these states a grantor must warrant that neither the grantor nor anyone associated with the grantor has a claim to the title. The grantor must defend the title for the grantee if a cloud on the title arose under or through the grantor. For example, if a contract made by the grantor resulted in a lie n being placed on the property, the grantor would have to defend against that claim for the grantee, even under a quitclaim deed. If the property has changed hands several times after the cloud first appeared, however, the grantor may not be liable to the grantee. FURTHER READINGS Anding, Gregory. 1994. “Does This Piece Fit In? A Look at the Importation of the Common-Law Quitclaim Deed and After-Acquired Title Doctrine into Louisiana’s Civil Code.” Louisiana Law Review 55 (September). QUO ANIMO [ Latin, With what intention or motive. ] A term sometimes used instead of the word animus, which means design or motive. QUO WARRANTO A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. However, it has not been used for centuries, because the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical. Currently, the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which he or she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdic- tions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than CRIMINAL ACTION. Quo warranto is often the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 228 QUIT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL DOCUMENT AND TAX STATEMENT TO: NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE TITLE ORDER NO. ESCROW NO. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY QUITCLAIM DEED Quitclaim Deed APN: The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ computed on full value of property conveyed, or computed on full value less liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. Unincorporated Area City of FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I (We) hereby remise, release and quitclaim to , County of the following described real property in the City of State of California, with the following legal description: Date MAIL TAX STATEMENT AS DIRECTED ABOVE * There are various types of deed forms depending on each person’s legal status. Before you use this form you many want to consult an attorney if you have questions concerning which document form is appropriate for your transaction. STATE OF COUNTY OF personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of (Name of person signing) satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/ they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of officer (Seal) , (Date) On (Name and title of the officer) before me, A sample quitclaim deed. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION QUITCLAIM DEED 229 only proper legal remedy; however, the legisla- ture can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief. Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. For example, New York law states that quo warranto is the proper vehicle for changing the results if a voting machine malfunction results in an election being challenged. The power to com- mence a quo warranto proceeding is vested in the Attorney General of New York, and can only be exercised after the wrongly elected candidate has taken office. In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the DEFENDANT is entitled to hold the office he or she claims, or to exercise the authority he or she presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challen ge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of busine ss corporations. A prosecuting attorney ordinarily com- mences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the PROSECUTOR.In California, for example, the law specifically provides that a private person can bring a quo warranto proceeding against any person allegedly holding or exercising public office unlawfully. Quo warranto is not available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license. For example, quo warranto is not a proper remedy to test the legality of the acts of an officer or his or her miscondu ct in office, nor to compel, restrain, or obtain a review of such acts. QUORUM A majority of an entire body; e.g., a quorum of a legislative assembly. A quorum is the minimum number of people who must be present to pass a law, make a judgment, or conduct business. Quorum re- quirements typically are found in a court, legislative assembly, or corporation (where those attending might be directors or stockholders). In some cases, the law requires more people than a simple majority to form a quorum. If no such defining number is determined, a quorum is a simple majority. A quorum also might mea n the numb er of members of a body defined as competent to transact business in the absence of the other members. The purpose of a quorum rule is to give decisions made by a quorum enough authority to allow binding action to be conducted. In both houses of Congress, a quorum consists of a simple majority of members. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 230 QUORUM RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION Acts of bias based on the race or ethnicity of the victim. Racial and ethnic discrimination have had a long history in the United States, beginning with the importation of African slaves in the seventeenth century. The U.S. CIVIL WAR and the THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT may have ended SLAVERY, but they did not end racial DISCRIMINATION.In fact, the U.S. legal system embraced for over 70 years a system of state-sponsored racial SEGREGATION in schools, transportation, and public accommodations. In addition, blacks and other minorities were denied the vote. Ethnic discrimination has also been common, beginning with the first wave of Irish IMMIGRA- TION in the 1830s. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, discrimination based on race and ethnicity developed with the first arrivals of each alien group. Thus, the Chinese, Japanese, Italians, Jews, Hispanics, Vietnamese, Somalis, and other groups have encountered hostility and bias when they have tried to find jobs or places to live. Since the 1960s, federal CIVIL RIGHTS laws and U.S. SUPREME COURT decisions have sought to combat illegal discrim- ination based on race or ethnicity. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Radical Republicans in the Congress were determined to protect the civil rights of blacks. They enacted the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments partially out of concern that future Congresses could easily revoke statutory solutions. The Thirteenth Amendment abol- ished slavery and gave Congress the power to eradicate all vestiges of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT proved to be the most profound and far-reaching of all federal RECONSTRUCTION legislation. In its three main clauses, the amendment guaranteed citizens protection from the actions of state and local officials, based on EQUAL PROTECTION, due process, and the concept of PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES . The FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT declared that federal and state government could not deny or abridge the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Radical Republicans used these constitu- tional amendments as the basis for many pieces of civil rights legislation. The CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS of 1866, 1870, and 1871 are usually called the Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts. The provi- sions of these acts are both civil and criminal in nature, and several of these statutes have assumed great importance in modern civil rights LITIGATION. The most important of these statutes, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, provides that any person who under COLOR OF LAW subjects another individual to the deprivation of any federal right shall be liable to the in jured party in an action at law or in equity. A similar provision in the federal criminal code imposed penal sanctions against persons who willfully engage in such conduct (18 U.S.C.A. § 242). R 231 The federal government ceased to enforce these and other Reconstruction statutes in the Southern states after federal MILITARY OCCUPATION ended in 1876. African Americans lost their right to vote and were excluded from juries as the white power structure reasserted control of the political and legal systems in the South. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down civil rights laws, including a broad statute that barred racial discrimination in public transpor- tation and accommodations, in large part because the court perceived a dangerous tilt in the federal-state power relationship. By the end of the nineteenth century, the court had made clear that it favored giving the states more power than the federal government in regulat- ing the actions of their citizens. The 1896 decision in PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896), which endorsed the concept of separate but equal, legitimized state-mandated racial segregation. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the tidal wave of immigrants from Europe and the presence of more Chinese on the West Coast led to calls for immigration restriction. Discrimination against immigrants was com- monplace. The Chinese in California had obtained a ruling a generation earlier from the Supreme Court that established a powerful legal weapon against racial or ethnic discrimination. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), the Court stated for the first time that a state or municipal law that appears to be fair on its face will be declared unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because of its discriminatory purpose. The National Association for the Advance- ment of Colored People ( NAACP) in 1909 signaled that the twentieth century battle for civil rights had begun. The NAACP used the federal courts to challenge various types of voting discrimination in the 1920s and 1930s, and by the 1940s it had initiated litigation against segregated public education that led to the landmark case of BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). In this case, the court ruled that the “separate but equal” doctrine violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Though the court mandated that the South’s racially segregated schools be dismantled “with all deliberate speed,” it took more than 20 years for some school districts to comply. The modern CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT began with the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott in 1955 and 1956, led by Rev. Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR . King’s approach, which centered on nonviolent CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, was met by public and private resistance in the South. In the 1960s, Congress responded by enacting a series of laws designed to end discrimination based on race and ethnicity: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.), the VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.), and the FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968 (42 U.S.C.A. § 3601 et seq.). The Supreme Court found these acts constitu- tional, which signaled federal dominance over matters previously thought to be within the scope of state and local governments. As of 2003, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in U.S. history. Congress enacted it to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. Title I of the act guarantees equal voting rights by removing registration requirements and procedures biased against minorities. Title II prohibits segregation or discrimination in places of public accommodation involved in interstate com- merce. Title IV deals with the desegregation of public schools, Title IV broadens the duties of the Civil Rights Commiss ion, and Title VI mandates nondiscrimination in the distribution of funds under federally assisted programs. The most important section is Title VII, which bans discrimination by trade unions, schools, or employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government. Title VII also established the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) to enforce the provisions of the act. Congress extensively amended Title VII in 1972. It authorized the EEOC to file judicial actions. Time limitations were lengthened, coverage was extended to public employees, and many clarifications were made in the statute. Title VII was amended again in 1991 to include the right to jury trials and the allowance of COMPENSATORY DAMAGES for intentional discrimination. Title VII has also been the source of controversy over the policy of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION . Affirmative action is a concerted effort by an employer to rectify past discrimination against specific classes of individuals by giving temporary preferential treatment to the hiring and promoting of individuals from these classes until true equal opportunity is achieved. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 232 RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION Though the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of affirmat ive action plans, they have remained a source of litigation. However, the Supreme Court in GRATZ V. BOLLINGER, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L. Ed.2d 257 (2003), reaffirmed the constitution- ality of affirmative action in education. It held that higher education institutions may use race as one factor in evaluating applicants but warned against the use of racial quotas or policies that gave race too prominent a role in the selection process. The passage of the VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 was a significant moment in U.S. history. For the first time, the federal government under- took voting reforms that had traditionally been left to the states. The act prohibits the states and their poli tical subdivisions from imposing voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting; or standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Congress extended the act in 1970 and again in 1982, when its provisions were given an additional term of 25 years. The act has enabled the election of blacks and individuals from other minority populations in the South and other parts of the United States that the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE has identified as problem areas. The FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968 prohibits racial and ethnic discrimination in the rental and sale of private residences when agents or brokers handle such transactions. Transactions by private individuals are not covered. The act authorizes the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) to refer cases of racial discrimination to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution. The Fair Housing Act gave rise in the 1970s to cases that focused on the legality of zoning practices. Court decisions have concluded that, absent a discriminatory purpose or intent, cities do not violate the federal Constitution through exclusionary zon- ing practices as a general rule. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arlington Heights v. Metropoli- tan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977), made it difficult to desegregate suburban communities. Members of racial and ethnic communities are protected by a Supreme Court standard of review that places a heavy burden on the government to justify laws and regulations that are allegedly discriminatory. The Supreme Court has made race and ethnicity “suspect classification” for JUDICIAL REVIEW. This means that it will subject the government’s action to “strict scrutiny” review. Using this standard reverses the ordinary presumption of constitu- tionality, with the government carrying the BURDEN OF PROOF that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand STRICT SCRUTINY, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling STATE INTEREST. If this is proved, the state must then demon- strate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result. Although strict scrutiny is not a precise test, it is far more stringent than the traditiona l “rational basis” test, which only requires the government to offer a reasonable ground for the legislation. Another form of discrimination that has gained attention since the 1990s is “racial profiling.” This refers to the practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Two common examples of RACIAL PROFILING are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations, and the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal CONTRABAND. Profiling can also affect ethnic groups. Since the attacks of SEPTEMBER 11TH, Ara bs, Muslims, and South Asians have been held for detention on minor immigration violations, and some have been screened more aggressively at airports. FURTHER READINGS Del Carmen, Alejandro. 2007 Racial Profiling in America. New York: Prentice Hall. Coussey, Mary. 2002. Tackling Racial Equality: International Comparisons. London: Home Office Research, Devel- opment and Statistics Directorate. Free, Marvin D. 2003. Racial Issues in Criminal Justice: The Case of African Americans. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Acts; Hate Crime; Section 1983. RACIAL PROFILING The consideration of race, ethnicity, or national origin by an officer of the law in deciding when and how to intervene in an enforcem ent capacity. Police officers often profile certain types of individuals who are more likely to perpetrate crimes. Many of these suspects are profiled because of activities observed by police officers. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RACIAL PROFILING 233 For example, if someone who is obviously poor is frequently seen in a more affluent neighbor- hood, such a person may be profiled as someone with possible criminal intent. Sim i- larly, if an individual living in an obviously poor neighborhood has in his or her possession several expensive items, that person may be profiled as someone involved in crime, such as drugs or theft. Although this type of profiling is not always considered fair, law enforce ment officers consider it necessary to identify possible criminal activity before it occurs and causes injury to others. One of the most heated issues in law enforcement is the profiling of individuals based solely upon the race, ethnicity, or national origin of the individual. Statistics show that African Americans are several times more likely to be arrested and incarcerated than white Americans. As of 2000, fewer African American men were in college than w ere in prison. Moreover, black children were nine times as likely as white children to have at least one parent in prison. The most common form of racial profiling occurs when police stop, question, and search African American, Hispanic American, or members of other racial minorities dispropor- tionately based solely on the individuals’ race or ethnicity. In 1996, the television network ABC aired a report entitled “Driving While Black,” in which it paid three younger black men to drive ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Racial Profiling in Traffic Stops, 2005 SOURCE: U.S. De p artment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Contacts between Police and the Public, 2005. NUMBER OF TRAFFIC STOPS WHAT POLICE DID DURING TRAFFIC STOP 1 time 2 times 3 times or more Ticketed driver Searched driver or vehicle Gave a verbal warning Arrested driver Percentage of drivers stopped Percentage of drivers White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic 71.7 70.1 70.7 17.3 17.7 18.4 11.0 12.2 10.9 56.2 55.8 65.0 3.6 9.5 8.8 18.6 13.7 14.5 2.1 4.5 3.1 0102030405060708090 0102030405060708090 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 234 RACIAL PROFILING around the city of New Brunswick, New Jersey, in a Mercedes-Benz. Three officers in the city pulled over the car for a minor traffic infraction and then proceeded to search the car and the young men. The show demonstrated with little doubt that the only reason the three men were pulled over was their race. Nevertheless, the officers brought a defamation suit against ABC, claiming that ABC had defamed their character and had violated New Jersey’s anti- wiretapping law. In 2000 a New Jersey Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit. The incident in “Driving While Black” demonstrated that racial profiling does occur, but lawmakers and courts have had some difficulty controlling its influence. Under federal CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, a police officer who stops a car for a minor traffic violation may search the car and its driver if the driver consents. Such searches sometimes result in arrests if drugs or weapons are discovered, but they have become a controversial law-enforcement technique, even when such searches do not involve incidents of racial profiling. The frequency with which racial profiling occurs against minorities has spurred civil liberties and CIVIL RIGHTS groups to demand stricter limitations on when officers may request a vehicle search. New Jersey has remained in the national spotlight with respect to incidents of racial profiling. Former New Jersey Governor Chris- tine Todd Whitman and the state attorney general admitted that New Jersey state police had engaged in racial profiling. In late 1999 the New Jersey state police entered into a CONSENT DECREE in a federal case by which the police agreed to require reasonable suspicion of a crime before asking for consent searches during traffic stops. In a decision in 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court made the policy a mandatory requirement under the Constitution of New Jersey for all law enforcement officers in the state. Other states have made similar concessions. In January 2003 the Maryland State Police settled a CLASS ACTION lawsuit brought by the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) regarding the use of racial profiling in that state. The settlement included an agreement by the Maryland police to enact sweeping changes to prevent profiling of racial minorities. The ACLU has targeted other state law enforcement offices as well. By 2009, 24 states had enacted legislation that banned the practice of racially profiling motorists and 19 of those states also barred the profiling of pedestrians. The United States has a history of racial profiling. In some cases, the incidents were particularly egregious. During WORLD WAR II, the U.S. government, fearful of potential spies from Japan, sent hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans to detention camps in southern California. Many of those incarcerated were American citizens. In a decision that has largely been considered one of the most iniquitous in the history of the Supreme Court, KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1944), the court found that during times of war, the military should have discretion to make decisions regarding the INCARCERATION of certain groups and that the government’s actions in incarcerating Japanese Americans were justified. During the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS,19 Middle Eastern terrorists carried out a terrorist plot that resulted in the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, severe damage to the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a major loss of life. After the attacks, the United States announced it would wage a WAR ON TERRORISM , which included enhancements in the ability of law enforcement personnel to track, question, and even arrest individuals suspected of terrorist activities. In the first two weeks after the attacks, federal officials arrested or detained more than 500 people. Thousands of resident ALIENS were also questioned. The vast majority of those questioned or arrested were Arab Americans or of Middle Eastern nationalities. Some commen- tators have suggested that the questioning of members of these nationalities and ethnic backgrounds is justified because a dispropor- tionate number of terrorists are Arabic or Middle Eastern. However, civil rights groups have decried the practice of subjecting these individuals to questioning based solely on their race or ethnicity. In 2008 the FBI revised its surveillance guidelines, called Domestic Investigative Oper- ational Guidelines (DIOGs). These guidelines provide FBI agents with rules on how they can cultivate informants, initiate investigations, and track and spy on Americans. The bureau briefed civil liberties and U.S. Muslim groups on the draft guidelines, which established rules for profiling Muslims, but refused to release the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RACIAL PROFILING 235 final draft. Muslim groups expressed concern that the final guidelines greatly expanded the profiling of U.S. Muslims. One of the most significant differences between racial profiling of African and Hispanic Americans and the profiling of potential terrorist threats is the level of support expressed by citizens for such profiling. According to statistics in 1999, 81 percent of respondents in a national poll disapproved of the practice of racial profiling, defined narrowly as the practice of police officers stopping motorists based solely on the race or ethnicity of those motorists. However, a 2006 poll revealed that 60 percent of respondents favored the practice of subjecting people looking “Middle Eastern” to more intensive scrutiny when they boarded planes. Racial profiling has been raised in other contexts. For example, commentators have suggested that the war on DRUGS AND NARCOTICS has clear overtones of racism. According to a study in 1986, an African American was six times as likely as a white American to go to jail for a drug related offense. By 1996, an African American was 22 times as likely to be incarcerated for such an offense. Because the war on dru gs has been an ongoing battle, several commentators have suggested that profiling in this war has become perpetual. U.S. law is very clear that racially profiling potential members of a jury is illegal. The Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), held that prosecutors are forbidden from excluding Should Police Practice Racial Profiling? T he 1998 shooting death of three young minority men by state troo- pers during a traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike helped spark a national debate on the issue of so-called “racial profiling” by law enforcement officials. Critics of profiling charge that the practice is inherently racist, because law enforcement officials tend to stop and search African Americans and other minorities more often than whites. Critics also charge that aggressive stop- and-search tactics erode public confi- dence in law enforcement and violate the civil rights of all citizens. In 1999 they led the charge for federal legislation to determine the extent to which racial profiling is practiced. Defenders of pro- filing concede that some law enforce- ment officials may stop and search blacks and other minorities at a disproportion- ately high rate. However, they ascribe this to overzealous police work and believe it can be addressed through training. Furthermore, they credit profil- ing, in part, with a significant decrease in America’s crime rate and oppose efforts to collect data on stop-and-search tactics. Critics of profiling acknowledge that law enforcement officials have broad discretion when it comes to stopping and searching citizens. On the highway, evidence of a traffic infraction alone is justification for stopping a motorist. Off the highway, a police officer must have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is armed and presents a danger, and must be able to articulate why he or she felt that way. This “reasonable suspicion” standard evolved from a landmark 1968 Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio,392,U.S.1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), and it is significantly lower than the “probable cause” standard that police must meet to make an arrest or to obtain a search warrant. Just how much lower hasbeenthesubjectofmuchdebateand considerable litigation. The courts have consistently held that simply being of a certain race or fitting a certain type or loitering in a high-crime area does not constitute sufficient grounds for frisking. Making a furtive gesture or having a bulge in your pocket, on the other hand, does. The extent to which racial stereotyp- ing is used in identifying “suspicious” individuals is a key point of contention in the debate over profiling. Critics of profiling point to statistics that indicate that African American and other minor- ity drivers are stopped and searched at a disproportionately high rate in compari- son with white motorists. In Maryland, for example, a study revealed that 70 percent of those stopped and searched on a stretch of I–95 were African American—despite the fact that they represented only 17 percent of drivers on the road. A demographic expert who examined the data described the odds of this disparity’s occurring by chance as “less than one in one quintillion.” A similar study conducted in New Jersey in 1994–95 showed that on the southern section of the New Jersey Turnpike cars with black occupants represented only 15 percent of those violating the speed limit, yet they accounted for 46 percent of the drivers pulled over. Profiling’s detractors renounce efforts to defend profiling on the grounds that tendency toward criminality, not race or ethnicity, is being profiled as reflecting a pattern of stereotyping by police. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 236 RACIAL PROFILING prospective jurors on the basis of race through the use of peremptory challenges. A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE permits a party to remove a prospec- tive juror without giving a reason for his or her removal. This type of challenge has been viewed as a way to insure an impartial jury. Under the Batson test, a DEFENDANT may object to a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge based on an ALLEGATION of racial bias. The PROSECUTOR must provide the judge with a neutral explanation for challenging the prospective juror. If the prose- cutor cannot offer a neutral explanation, the court will not excuse the juror. Complaints of racial profiling are not limited to law enforcement personnel. Some department and other retail stores have been accused of denying service or giving inferior service to members of minority groups. Several establishments, including national restaurant and retail chains, have been sued in highly publicized cases in which plaintiffs have alleged that the establishments discriminated on the basis of race. Complaints of DISCRIMINATION against Arabic and Middle Eastern individuals have also been raised against private companies. Since the September 11th attacks, Muslims have sued U.S. airlines for removing them from flights or preventing them from boarding. FURTHER READINGS Carmen, Alejandro del, 2007. Racial Profiling in America. New York: Prentice Hall. Ellmann, Stephen J. 2003. “Racial Profiling and Terrorism.” New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law 22. When police look for minorities, these critics say, it is minorities they will arrest. While acknowledging the role of aggressive policing in the recent drop in crime, they decry the deleterious effect of pr ofiling on p ublic confidence in l aw enforcement, particularly in minority communities. How many innocent citi- zens have to be inconvenienced, these critics ask, in order to keep the streets free of criminals? The lack of national data on profiling has led critics of the practice to call for national legislation to study the problem. In 1999, both the House and the Senate introduced bills entitled the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999 (H.R. 1443, S. 821, 106th Cong., 1st Sess.), which would have required the attorney general to conduct a study of stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers. However, the bills died after committee deliberations. Defenders of profiling are quick to deny or deemphasize its racial compo- nent. They condemn profiling solely on the basis of race, but defend profiling by looking for signs that a person might be a lawbreaker as good police work. If blacks are being stopped and search at a disproportionately high rate as compared to whites, they charge, it is because they commit a disproportionately high number of crimes. Defenders of profiling point to statistics that show, for example, that whereas blacks comprise only about 13 percent of the population, they make up 35 percent of all drug arrests and 55 percent of all drug convictions. Where there is unreasonable racial stereotyping, these defenders assert, the problem is easily solved by training and discipline. Police Academy graduates in New York City, for example, are drilled insistently on what does and does not constitute reasonable grounds for a frisk. Members of the city’s elite Street Crimes Unit receive a copy of the department’s training manual, “Street Encounters,” which expressly stipulates that if an officer’s reason for approaching someone “is a personal prejudice or bias, such as the person’s race or hair length, the encounter is unlawful.” Furthermore, defenders of profiling argue that it has proven to be an effective tactic in the fight against crime. Profiling, they say, allows law enforcement officials to focus their attention on those thought most likely to commit crimes. If this sometimes results in law-abiding citizens being inconvenienced when police ag- gressively enforce the laws and investi- gate crimes, this should not cause those stopped and searched to believe that their rights were violated. As the nation’s violent crime rate continues to plummet, profiling advocates ask, is it an acceptable time to change police practices that have contributed to this drop in crime? Law enforcement groups have been almost universal in their opposition to legislation requiring a study of traffic stops, such as the the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act. They claim that it would be costly and could lead to lawsuits against police. The bill, they say, would place an unfair burden on the police and lengthen traffic stops. In addition, collecting information on per- sonal characteristics would likely be considered highly offensive by many individuals. If an officer is uncertain of someone’s ethnic background, for exam- ple, the officer would often have to ask for this information and an uncomfort- able situation could result. In June 1999 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a 5–2 decision that police in Massachusetts cannot order people out of their cars unless they pose a threat, which is a stricter standard than the U.S. Supreme Court handed down in its decision that police may order people out of their cars on routine traffic stops. The majority opinion cited concerns of racial discrim- ination by police in its ruling, taking note of allegations that police stop African Americans disproportionately. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RACIAL PROFILING 237 . being profiled as reflecting a pattern of stereotyping by police. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 236 RACIAL PROFILING prospective jurors on the basis of race through the use of peremptory. perpetrate crimes. Many of these suspects are profiled because of activities observed by police officers. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RACIAL PROFILING 233 For example, if someone who. quorum consists of a simple majority of members. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 230 QUORUM RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION Acts of bias based on the race or ethnicity of the victim. Racial