Subtracting Race from the "Reasonable Calculus": An End to Racial Profiling? United States V. Montero-Camargo 208 F.3D 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) Cert. Denied Sub Nom

Authors

Elisabeth R. Calcaterra, University of Michigan Law School
Natalie G. Mitchell, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

This Case Note presents the facts of Montero-Camargo, describes the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in historical context, and analyzes the effect of the Court's holding. The Case Note argues that while the Ninth Circuit's decision to prohibit the use of race as a factor in determining the reasonableness calculus in traffic stops is progressive in spirit, implementing the decision will be difficult. Thus far, mechanisms designed to limit officers' use of race in traffic stops have been ineffective and have left victims with little recourse, resulting in a disproportionate number of innocent African American and Latino drivers being stopped pretextually.

Recommended Citation

Elisabeth R. Calcaterra & Natalie G. Mitchell, Subtracting Race from the "Reasonable Calculus": An End to Racial Profiling? United States V. Montero-Camargo 208 F.3D 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) Cert. Denied Sub Nom, 6 Mich. J. Race & L. 339 (2001).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol6/iss2/6