The three-judge panel reversed a decision tossing the indictment against Keith Rodney Moore. The trial court had found that despite the Richmond police having probable cause to stop Moore, statistical data about stops of white versus Black residents showed Moore was likely stopped because he was Black.
"In addressing Moore's selective enforcement claim, the district court should have remained focused on whether Moore was stopped on Dec. 5, 2020, because he was Black," Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote in the opinion. "The court, however, out of a more general concern about discriminatory law enforcement in Richmond, invited the inquiry to transform into a broad investigation into the Richmond Police Department's traffic enforcement practices of a kind more suited for a legislative committee."
The district court found Moore's argument that he was unfairly targeted for his race had merit — and after a number of hearings found that Black drivers in the city were over five times more likely to be stopped in Richmond than white drivers, the panel noted.
U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney, a white Obama-appointed judge who presided over Moore's case, issued a dire warning in a February 2024 opinion tossing the indictment, finding "Black drivers have a problem in Richmond, Virginia," related to racial disparities in policing.
Yet the appeals court panel said on Friday there was a genuine dispute as to how the racial disparity data was calculated, with both sides hiring experts in racial policing who had very different interpretations of the data.
Moore's expert, a professor of gender, sexuality and women's studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, found 77% of traffic stops involved Black drivers while only 14.6% of stops involved drivers who were white, with the expert concluding Black drivers were 5.12 times more likely to be stopped, the opinion noted.
Prosecutors challenged the theory that the Richmond Police Department was engaged in a systemic practice of discrimination, hiring a professor of criminology and criminal justice from the University of Texas at San Antonio. The professor found Moore's expert used "elementary statistical techniques," including models that could not control for variables like poverty or whether a residence was in a "high crime area," the opinion said.
The appellate court panel found that for the racial disparity claim to hold water, Moore was required to prove, with clear evidence, that the stop had a discriminatory effect and the officers were motivated by discriminatory intent, the opinion said.
The statistical evidence produced by Moore did not pass the requirement to prove intent, the panel found, and even if racial bias exists within the department, Moore would need to demonstrate how that bias impacted his case specifically. The alternative would mean Richmond police could not enforce any traffic laws against Black drivers, the judges said.
The incident in question occurred when police observed Moore's vehicle with what they believed were fake temporary license plate tags and attempted to stop him for the violation. Moore attempted to flee and, after crashing the car and running from police, he was caught, and a search of the car revealed a firearm on the floorboard, the opinion noted.
Even in light of observed racial disparities in enforcement by the Richmond Police Department, officers had a reason to stop Moore for the temporary tags and for running from police, regardless of his race, the panel said.
Spokespersons for both sides did not respond to requests for comment.
Moore is represented by Amy Leigh Austin, Patrick L. Bryant, Geremy C. Kamens and Laura Jill Koenig of the Federal Defenders Office and Brian Timothy Burgess, Kaley Preciado and Rohiniyurie Tashima of Goodwin Procter LLP.
The government is represented by Romy Bechara, Shea Gibbons and Erik Sean Siebert of the Office of United States Attorney General for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The case is U.S. v. Keith Moore, case number 24-4201, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
--Editing by Philip Shea.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
