Projo 7 to 7 News Blog

By Karen Lee Ziner
Journal Staff Writer

BOSTON -- The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals Thursday that a federal judge erred in dismissing its lawsuit alleging that a state trooper violated the rights of 14 Guatemalan nationals during a traffic stop on Route 95 three years ago.

The suit filed on behalf of 11 of the van's occupants contended that Trooper Thomas Chabot engaged in racial profiling when he stopped the driver for failing to use his blinker while changing lanes, and then detained them for a lengthy period of time and demanded identification from the passengers after the driver's license and registration were found to be valid. U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi had ruled last December that Chabot acted lawfully during the traffic stop.

During brief oral arguments, ACLU volunteer attorney V. Edward Formisano said that Chabot had testified that he demanded ID based "on a hunch" that the passengers may be illegal immigrants. Formisano said the hunch was "not enough" to demand their ID and detain them, and call immigration authorities.

Rhode Island Special Assistant Attorney General John Moreira said, "The emerging circumstances confronting this trooper justified his actions." Moreira said, "In a short amount of time, the trooper had probable cause" to call U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch said, "I find the case a little troubling. One has the feeling it's a little bit more than failing to use a blinker. He's looking for a van filled with immigrants or perhaps the complexion of the driver."

To which Moreira responded, "He didn't know how many [people] were in the van, or who was in the van," until after the trooper opened the passenger side door. And then, "I think the key is, his suspicions progressed from there," he added.

 Tags  ACLU Boston Trooper Thomas Chabot U.S. Court of Appeals

Comments

Jaytoo said:

It's to bad the R.I.highway patrolperson comes off looking like a profiler as well as ignorant of the motoring law's in R.I. A good stop will most likely be dismissed in court (at a tremendous un-nessary expense to the R.I. taxpayers) because a legimate reason for the stop was not given. If the cop said the stop was made because NO SIGNAL was given to warn affected traffic, the stop would not be questionable.
Probally 100% score testing is not required for troopers like the civil service competative testing which 70% final score is passing.
I am unschooled and unqualified to give advice but I can read and I would ask that concerned parties to this case read the following R.I.General Law

31-16-8. Method of giving signals--Any stop or turn signal when required herein shall be given either by means of THE HAND AND ARM OR BY A SIGNAL LAMP OR LAMPS -------------.

You can bet all involved state employees are paid to participate in the trial "win or lose", maybe some overtime and per-diem as well.

Link | October 8, 2009 2:12 PM
Report Abuse

---

Michael said:

I certainly hope those found to be here illegally have been deported and have not returned.

Link | October 8, 2009 3:03 PM
Report Abuse

---

Anon said:

Thanks Again ACLU for making the taxpayer waste more money on a cause that almost all except your ilk think is a waste of time and money for persons who shouldnt have been here in the first place.

Link | October 8, 2009 5:47 PM
Report Abuse

---

Sandra Smith said:

Hmmm. What does the A in ACLU stand for again? Oh yeah, AMERICAN civil liberties. These people were not Americans. They were not here legally, they ignored/flouted the law. Therefore they cannot claim the protections of our Constitution. End of story.

Link | October 8, 2009 6:12 PM
Report Abuse

---

Leave a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.

Name:

Email:

URL:  

Remember personal info?

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.