Highway Patrol cars are being equipped with video cameras to record traffic stops and help settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the state Department of Public Safety of racial profiling.

The cameras are part of a proposed settlement expected to be submitted to a federal judge for approval soon, DPS officials and a lawyer for the plaintiffs said. Approval would end a 3-year-old case that originated with traffic stops made along interstate highways in Coconino County.

“We do have a settlement,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Lee Phillips of Flagstaff.

The cameras — which work with officer-worn microphones to provide audio — may help break logjams between accounts of officers and motorists who allege mistreatment, said Rob Covey, a DPS assistant director for criminal justice support.

Garrett: DPS Does Not ‘Profile,’ But Can’t Prove It

DPS Director Dennis Garrett denied that the Highway Patrol has engaged in racial profiling — deciding which motorists to pull over for traffic violations because of race or ethnicity — but said the agency had difficulty producing information to rebut the allegations in court.

“We don’t have a good citation accountability system, so we’re almost at the mercy of anything an attorney would want to say about us,” Mr. Garrett said. “The agreement will state that the Department of Public Safety did not commit racial profiling and we now have a system in place that anybody can look at what we’re doing in the future.”

Although the settlement includes no DPS admission of racial profiling, Mr. Phillips said it’s still a major step forward.

“They do not admit to any acts of wrongdoing or racial profiling but they do agree to proactive measures,” Mr. Phillips said. “We’re very encouraged by their willingness to address the racial profiling concerns that have been raised by the black and Hispanic communities.”

The proposed settlement also will include provisions dealing with training and policies, another DPS official said. He and others familiar with the case declined to discuss those provisions in detail before the settlement is filed in court.

“It’s always tricky at this stage,” Mr. Phillips said.

Cameras In Patrol Cars

DPS officials confirmed that the cameras are being installed in Highway Patrol cars assigned to areas with designated “drug corridors.” They declined to specify those routes before the settlement is filed.

Cars initially are being fitted with one camera pointed forward but DPS is now testing a car fitted with a second camera that points to the roadside where officers question motorists, said Highway Patrol Lt. Bob Ticer.

DPS has already installed cameras in 102 of 248 cars and is seeking $250,000 in its next budget to install cameras in 50 more cars in the next fiscal year.

DPS officials say they’re not seeking any additional funding to pay for other settlement provisions.

Any individual plaintiffs’ damage claims will be resolved in separate legal proceedings, Mr. Phillips said.

The class-action lawsuit, originally filed in 2001 in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, contended that race-based stops by DPS officers violated motorists’ civil rights. It asked that the court prohibit DPS from basing stops on race.

Plaintiffs alleged they were stopped for minor violations, subjected to “intense interrogations” about their travel plans and background and subjected to canine “sniff” checks if they denied officers permission to search their vehicles. Some plaintiffs were arrested on drug-transportation charges, the lawsuit said.

Originally, the suit was filed on behalf of 11 minority motorists stopped on eastbound Interstate 40 and northbound Interstate 17. An amended version filed in 2002 listed 18 minority plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge James Teilborg dismissed the suit in April 2003 for lack of evidence. The plaintiffs appealed, and settlement talks ensued after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case to mediation.

Once the settlement reaches Judge Teilborg, he will hear testimony to rule whether the settlement is in the interest of all black and Hispanic motorists, Mr. Phillips said.

New Jersey and Arkansas are among states that have fitted state police cars with video cameras under racial-profiling settlements. Maryland agreed to require officers to get written permission to search vehicles and to hand out pamphlets with information about how motorists can file complaints. California agreed to ban some car searches and to require officers to articulate a reason for each drug-interdiction traffic stop, instead of offering a hunch the driver may be running contraband.

An accord on a proposed settlement comes as two state appellate courts consider criminal cases involving allegations of racial profiling.

In one criminal case before the state Court of Appeals, Coconino County prosecutors are appealing a judge’s decision to dismiss charges against drug defendants because DPS was unable to produce traffic-stop records that the defense sought to prove claims of racial profiling.

In a case from Yavapai County now before the state Supreme Court, issues include whether racial profiling is a legal defense for criminal defendants and whether indigent defendants are entitled to have a court-paid expert testify on a claim of racial profiling, Mr. Phillips said. —