Opinion ID: 1810393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial on the Merits

Text: Assignment of Error No. 7 presents reversible error. It relates to certain evidence admitted over objection at the trial on the merits. The evidence concerned the so-called Detroit Profile used by narcotics agents in arresting suspected drug traffickers arriving at airports. In the state's opening statement, the prosecutor referred to evidence to be submitted to the jury concerning a federal narcotics agent with the specific duty at the airport of watching passengers arrive and depart on airplanes, looking at them to determine whether or not they fall into the category known as the `Detroit Profile'. . . [which] is composed of thirteen elements whereby they view passengers as they come off of planes to determine whether they meet any of the points in the profile, and if they determine that a passenger falls within that category, it's possible that that person will be stopped for questioning in order to ascertain if they are carrying any type of narcotics. The defense objected to this argument and reiterated its objection (first made at the motion to suppress heard outside the jury's presence) as to the admissibility of this type of evidence. The trial court overruled the objection and made it general as to evidence thereafter to be introduced. At the trial on the merits, two federal agents were called, apparently to testify specifically as to the use of the Detroit Profile in detaining persons suspected of being couriers in the drug traffic, as well as to their participation in the arrest. As we noted in Part I of this opinion, evidence as to the Detroit Profile may be relevant in determining whether, with additional particularized information, there is reasonable cause to stop a person to question him as to a possible drug offense. However, we are unable to see how such evidence is relevant to any issue of innocence or guilt at the trial on the merits. La.R.S. 15:441 provides: Relevant evidence is that tending to show the commission of the offense and the intent, or tending to negative the commission of the offense and the intent. Facts necessary to be known to explain a relevant fact, or which support an inference raised by such fact, are admissible. At the trial on the merits, the legality of the stop resulting in seizure of the heroin is no longer at issue. On the denial of the motion to suppress, the evidence seized is admissible and the alleged illegality of the seizure is irrelevant for purpose of the trial of innocence or guilt. As will be elaborated, the circumstance that the accused on arriving at the airport shared certain of the characteristics (nervousness, etc.) of other persons suspected of engaging in the drug traffic is completely irrelevant to the issues of the prosecution, i. e., whether he possessed the heroin, and did so with intent to distribute it. The federal Drug Enforcement Agency has developed a drug courier profile, commonly called the Detroit profile, to aid them in identifying suspects as drug couriers. The profile consists of thirteen characteristics, e. g., arrival from a source city, [4] nervousness, a limited amount of luggage, use of an alias, one-way tickets being used, relatively short period of time between departure and arrival, etc. [5] The essential irrelevance of this testimony to innocence or guilt is illustrated by the testimony of one of the two federal agents who testified. See also footnote 5, for the other agent's testimony. The testimony essentially concerned why the narcotics officers stopped the accused for questioning, whereas the issues on the merits were whether the accused possessed the heroin and did so with intent to distribute it. Nevertheless, Agent Fuller testified at length concerning the profile, see, e. g., Tr. 71-72: A. My function is to work along with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the work is what is called the airport detail, using what is known as the Detroit Profile. Q. What does that consist of? A. Well, it deals with narcotic trafficking from various cities into this city, and we are out there to arrest people for narcotics from these source cities.    Q. Now, have you ever had to go to any particular school with regards to the Detroit Profile?
Q. Is that special education? A. Yes, sir. Q. What does that consist of? A. Well, it's a one day deal and they explain the profile to you and how it came about. Q. How was this used at the airport? A. It is used to arrest heroin traffickers.    Under cross-examination, Agent Fuller testified again as to his learning the characteristics of the Detroit Profile in his one day of schooling and attempted to tick off the thirteen points of the profile. [6] However, when asked what points he observed about Brown when he got off the plane, he admitted that he had identified him immediately on the basis of the informant's description, Tr. 77, and he failed otherwise to specify any relevance of the testimony to the stopeven assuming that the reason for the airport stop, at which time heroin was discovered in the defendant's baggage, was relevant under the circumstances to the issues tried on the merits. In Part I of this opinion, we cited the uniform jurisprudence that the Detroit Profilean estimation on an unshown basis by narcotics agents that drug couriers (along with many innocent travelers) often exhibit certain characteristics of behavior in arrival at airportsdoes not by itself serve as a reasonable basis to believe that any particular traveler might be guilty of criminal conduct. For similar reasons, it is even less probative of or relevant to the determination of the innocence or guilt of the traveler of a criminal offense charged. The apparent reason of the state for introducing the profile at the trial on the merits illustrates the reversible prejudice caused by its admission: To prove possession of heroin with intent to distribute, the state (improperly) sought by evidence of the Detroit Profile to imply that the defendant was part of a national network of drug distributors. The circumstances of the accused's arrest at the airport may well be relevant for such purpose. However, the reasons for the airport stopthat drug couriers (along with many innocent people) often exhibit nervousness and carry little or no luggage on arrival (and have some ten other characteristics not shared by the accused)is irrelevant to and not probative of that issue. The record in this case doe not contain any showing, other than the agent's statement on an unsupported basis, that the Detroit Profile is reliable evidence that any considerable proportion of air travelers sharing its characteristics are drug couriers. Nor do we find the profile to have any more validity as proof of this defendant's criminal activity or criminal intent than, for instance, his race, dress habits, personal appearance, persons with whom he associates, or other personality traits or behavior characteristics which he might (or might not) share with drug couriers as well as innocent travelers. [7] We find that evidence as to the Detroit Profilethat drug couriers when they arrive at an airport often behave like the defendant is alleged to have behaved, insofar as nervousness, etc.simply does not tend to prove that this defendant is guilty of the offense charged, nor does it explain any relevant fact with regard to guilt or innocence. That others believe to be drug couriers arrived with little or no baggage, were nervous on arrival, etc. (see footnote 5) simply does not tend to prove that this defendant was a drug courier. Moreover, the evidence was impermissibly prejudicial. By the narcotic agents' emphasized and reiterated testimony on the subject, the state improperly suggested to the trial jury the agents' expert determination that the accused was indeed a drug courier (although their testimony was essentially based only on other persons who were drug couriers (along with innocent travelers, behaved similarly upon arrival at an airport).