The Arizona Supreme Court agreed Dec. 1 to rule on whether motorists can use claims of racial profiling as a defense in criminal trials stemming from traffic stops by police.

The Supreme Court said it will hear arguments on an appeal filed by motorists charged in Yavapai County after being stopped by state Department of Public Safety officers.

Judge Janis Sterling of Yavapai County Superior Court had ruled Feb. 13 that whether DPS officers made traffic stops based on race is irrelevant in criminal cases.

Judge Sterling’s ruling said allegations of racial profiling are not a defense to criminal conduct and are instead civil rights claims that can best be addressed by a lawsuit against the DPS.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case comes as lawyers for the DPS and motorists work on terms to settle a federal civil-rights lawsuit. Also, the state Court of Appeals is weighing a related case on alleged racial profiling by DPS officers in Coconino County.

DPS officials have denied that Highway Patrol officers have engaged in racial profiling when deciding which motorists to pull over for alleged traffic violations and, in some cases, searches that lead to arrests for possession of drugs or other contraband.

But agency officials have said they’re willing to settle the federal lawsuit because the DPS lacks a way to prove that officers have not engaged in profiling.

In the Supreme Court’s brief order, justices said they would consider only whether alleged select enforcement or racial profiling provides suspects with a possible legal defense or a basis to ask a court to disallow use of prosecution evidence that resulted from a stop.

The appeal, filed by attorney Lee Phillips on behalf of black and Hispanic motorists, had asked the justices to also rule on whether indigent defendants are entitled to have a court-paid expert testify on claims of racial profiling.

In the federal lawsuit, Mr. Phillips and DPS officials confirmed last week that a settlement is imminent and that its provisions will include equipping many Highway Patrol cars with video cameras to record traffic stops.

A DPS official said other provisions related to training and policies would be included in the proposed settlement, but neither he nor Mr. Phillips would discuss them in detail before the settlement is filed in court.

In the case pending in the Court of Appeals, prosecutors are appealing a Coconino County Superior Court 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. —