A State of Kansas district court judge has ruled in favor of the Wichita Police Department and the City of Wichita, dismissing claims of racial profiling filed by Aaron Patterson.

“This is an important ruling in that a court of law found that the officers did not engage in racial profiling but were doing legitimate police work in stopping Patterson,” City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf said.”

The racial-profiling lawsuit was brought by Patterson, a local resident who was stopped, questioned, and searched, after he conducted an on-street conversation with a suspected drug dealer who had a series of past convictions for drug sales. The stop occurred in a high-crime area targeted by a federal grant for intensive police patrol and drug sales detection activity.

Patterson claims that his stop and the search were racially motivated, and constituted improper racial profiling under a new state statute.

The case began with an investigation before the Kansas Human Rights Commission, which issued an opinion finding in Patterson’s favor. The City and the Police vigorously disputed the Human Rights Commission’s opinion, and challenged its investigation, as well as the state statute. The new state law allowed Paterson to file a lawsuit against the officers and the City once the Human Rights Commission process was done.

“The earlier investigation and ruling by the Human Rights Commission placed severe limits on the police to do their job,” Rebenstorf said.

The officers opposed the Human Rights Commission complaint and the lawsuit on the basis that race was not a determining factor in the vehicle stop and that race was not the sole factor in making the investigative stop and search of the plaintiff’s person and vehicle; both are required elements of the statutory cause of action.

In its defense, the City included claims that it was not liable for the acts of its employee officers, analogizing the statutory claim to a federal section 1983 action. The City also claimed that the statute was unconstitutional and that there was no specific damages allowed under the statute. The City stated that the training, policies, supervision and discipline of its officers, as related to racial profiling, were in conformity with or superior to those of similarly situated communities and police departments.

These legal issues were heard on a motion for summary judgment on Thursday, April 10, 2008. Judge David Kaufman issued his written opinion on April 16. In that opinion, he

concluded that the actions of the officers were predicated on valid law enforcement activities, and were not solely motivated by race. As such, the officers had no individual liability and the lawsuit against them was dismissed. The court also found no basis for separate liability on the part of the City. Therefore, the City was also dismissed from the lawsuit, without even deciding the issues of vicarious liability, constitutionality or objection to damages that had been raised.

This action is one of first impression interpreting the new state racial profiling law. Therefore, the City anticipates that the plaintiff plans to appeal the case to the Kansas Court of Appeals. The individual officers were represented by Art Chalmers, outside counsel. The City was represented by Michael L. North, Assistant City Attorney.