A trooper’s vindication

It is disappointing that a Rhode Island state trooper had to be dragged through the courts and held up to excessive scrutiny for doing his job well, but it is encouraging that two courts have now upheld his actions during a 2007 traffic stop. These rulings represent a victory for common sense and the rule of law.

A Boston federal appeals court this month affirmed a lower-court ruling exonerating the actions of Trooper Thomas Chabot.

The Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union had alleged that Mr. Chabot engaged in racial profiling and violated the rights of 14 Guatemalan nationals when he stopped a van transporting them on Route 95 in Richmond. The trooper, who has a sworn duty to enforce the law, inquired about the immigration status of those in the van, twice patted down the driver, contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and transported the driver and his passengers to ICE.

Rather than receive thanks for his vigilance, Trooper Chabot earned an ACLU lawsuit.

In 2008, U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi ruled against the ACLU, concluding that Mr. Chabot acted reasonably and was legally justified. After the ACLU challenged the ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled more narrowly that Mr. Chabot was protected by “qualified immunity” from a lawsuit. He “could reasonably have believed that he had sufficient facts to warrant first reasonable suspicion, and later, probable cause of immigration violations,” the court ruled.

In other words, a state trooper has the right to do his job, and people cannot sue him into not doing his job because they might dislike the enforcement of U.S. immigration policy.

While police should be sensitive to concerns about racial profiling, they also need to act on reasonable suspicions in doing their jobs.

Source:
A trooper’s vindication
projo.com