E.D.Mo.: Claim that stop was racially biased fails on merits

Defendant’s equal protection claim that his stop was racially motivated fails on the merits because there was a factual basis for the stop and the claim of racial bias has no evidentiary support. His effort to put the officer’s social media posts into evidence has a relevance problem. United States v. Buford, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165598 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2020):

While Bennett’s social media postings might support a finding that he harbored some racial bias, when those postings are considered together with the other evidence presented, the evidence in this case falls far short of evidence that Bennett initiated this particular traffic stop because of Buford’s race.

For instance, Bennett testified that because of the position of the driver’s seat as Burford’s truck drove by, he was unaware of the race or gender of the driver before he pulled over the pickup truck. Although Bennett conceded that he had seen enough of the driver to observe the driver’s hairstyle, the evidence of record is muddled, at best, and does not affirmatively establish that Bennett knew Buford’s race before the stop.

The United States also presented data from the MSHP regarding Bennett’s traffic stops during the year preceding the stop and during the week of the traffic stop. This evidence was also equivocal. The data reflects that during the week Bennett stopped Buford, approximately 55% of the traffic stops by Bennett were of black motorists and 37.03% were of white motorists. See Govt. Ex. 2. However, data for the year preceding the traffic stop shows that, over the course of a year, 32.4% of all traffic stops by Bennett were of black motorists and 62.5% of stops by Bennett were of white motorists. See Govt. Ex. 3. Although defense counsel asked Bennett some questions about this data, there was no expert testimony or other information provided to the Court to explain or otherwise contextualize the information.

Finally, at the hearing, Bennett testified he initiated the traffic stop after observing Buford’s truck slow down as it approached his patrol car, then drift across the center line into the left lane without signaling and then swerve back into the right lane. As Buford has noted, Bennett’s observations of the alleged traffic violation were not captured by the video recording. However, Bennett’s discussion with Buford shortly after Buford was pulled over was recorded. The video recording of Bennett’s post-stop interactions with Buford supports, and is consistent, with Bennett’s hearing testimony. On the recording, almost immediately after Buford and Bennett entered the patrol car, Bennett explained to Buford why he stopped him. Bennett also described what he observed and explained that although Buford was not speeding, he had violated Missouri law. Buford did not immediately deny that he had crossed the center line without signaling. Instead, he conceded he may have been distracted indicating he was definitely “fiddling” with the radio. Bennett’s description of the alleged violation was credible and supported by the video recording presented. As such, I credit and accept Bennett’s testimony that he observed Buford cross into the left lane without signaling; and, for the reasons more fully set out below, I find that based on this observation, Bennett had probable cause to believe Buford committed a traffic violation.

In sum, Buford has not properly asserted a violation under the Equal Protection Clause based on discriminatory racial profiling. Even if Buford did properly raise such a claim, for all of the foregoing reasons, such a claim is not supported by the evidence of record.