Pretextual Stops and Racial Profiling in San Diego

By Keyana Price

Editor's note: As the Racial Justice Act (RJA) is being implemented around the state of California, participatory defense hubs are court watching and supporting families who have loved ones with potential Racial Justice Act claims. In this piece, Keyana, from the San Diego hub PILLARS, talks about an RJA case that involves yet another pretextual stop and the police racial profiling a young man of color.

---

Last month, we had the opportunity to observe an RJA discovery motion that was

withdrawn due to systemic injustice. The case involved a 20-year-old Latino young man

who was stopped by officers while riding his bike. The stop was pretextual, meaning

officers used a minor reason to justify pulling him over while intending to investigate

unrelated matters. During the encounter, officers proceeded to illegally search him

without cause. Prior to this incident, the young man had never been stopped, detained,

or had any legal trouble. As a result of this unlawful stop and search, he was charged

with additional offenses.

This case is a clear example of the targeting of people of color by law enforcement.

Pretextual stops like these are commonly used against Black and brown individuals,

leading to higher arrest and conviction rates compared to whites.

To quantify the racial bias, we at Pillars of the Community have conducted and

analyzed our own data that exposes these disparities. For instance, our review of

judicial sentencing patterns in San Diego County revealed that Judge Polly Shamoon is

sentencing Latino individuals to an average of 300 more days in prison than white

individuals for similar offenses in San Diego. This reflects a broader pattern of racial

bias within the justice system, where communities of color face harsher penalties and

more frequent legal entanglements.

The attorney of the young man we attended court for initially filed an RJA motion,

arguing that he was stopped solely based on the color of his skin. However, the judge

initially rejected the motion, advising the attorney to reword and refile it. Upon refiling,

the judge acknowledged the motion and instead of fully pursuing the racial bias claim,

she chose to reduce his charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and offered him

summary probation for one year.

A video of the search was available as evidence in the case, further supporting the

defense’s claim of racial profiling and an unlawful stop. This raises serious concerns

about systemic corruption, given his clean record, this young man could have been

offered a misdemeanor from the start. Instead of fully addressing the officers'

misconduct under the Racial Justice Act, the judge's decision effectively protected law

enforcement from accountability while placing the young man back into the system

under a Fourth Amendment waiver.

This young man was unfamiliar with what an RJA motion entailed. When speaking with

him, it was clear that he was overwhelmed by the entire court process from start to

finish. Given that he had never had any prior encounters with the legal system, he was

unaware of how the court operated and what his rights were.

By the time we were able to reach his case, he was already at the final stages, making it

difficult for him to fully grasp all of his options. He accepted the offer primarily due to his

lack of understanding of the legal process.

This case shows the systemic failures that allow racial profiling to continue to happen,

proving how the courts continuously protect law enforcement over ensuring justice. It

highlights the need for continued court watching, community advocacy, and legal

reforms to prevent similar injustices from recurring.