Transcript Racial Profiling - SHSU - College of Criminal Justice

Racial Profiling:
Policies and Practices
Del Carmen Consulting, LLC
Learning Objectives
• Describe the rise of racial profiling as a
paradigm in contemporary police practices
• Discuss the ACLU report on racial profiling
• Identify the early models designed to
measure racial profiling in law
enforcement settings
• Discuss the academic literature’s
contributions on issues pertaining to racial
profiling
Learning Objectives (cont.)
• Understand the importance of
implementing an educational campaign on
racial profiling
• Discuss the benefits of training police
personnel on racial profiling issues
• Understand the concept of “culture”
• Discuss the concepts of “Symbolic
Interaction” as they pertain to racial
profiling
Learning Objectives (cont.)
• Discuss the recommended changes to
selected aspects of police culture in an
attempt to establish a long-term solution to
racial profiling practices
• Understand the importance associated
with the implementation of an evaluation
component designed to measure police
attitudes and practices on racial profiling
Learning Objectives (cont.)
• Discuss the future of racial profiling in light
of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
against the United States
• Identify the major areas in which policing
is likely to change in the near and distant
future as these relate to racial profiling
practices and legislative mandates
Defining Racial Profiling
(U.S. House of Representatives)
Racial Profiling: The term “racial profiling”
means the practice of a law enforcement
agent relying, to any degree, on race,
ethnicity, or national origin in selecting
which individuals to subject to routine
investigatory activities, or in deciding upon
the scope and substance of law
enforcement activity following the initial
routine investigatory activity, except that
Defining Racial Profiling (cont.)
that racial profiling does not include
reliance on such criteria in combination
with other identifying factors when the law
enforcement agent is seeking to
apprehend a specific suspect whose race,
ethnicity, or national origin is part of the
description of the suspect.
Defining Racial Profiling
(U.S. House of Representatives)
Racial Profiling: The term “racial profiling”
means the practice of a law enforcement
agent relying, to any degree, on race,
ethnicity, or national origin in selecting
which individuals to subject to routine
investigatory activities, or in deciding upon
the scope and substance of law
enforcement activity following the initial
routine investigatory activity, except that
Defining Racial Profiling (cont.)
that racial profiling does not include
reliance on such criteria in combination
with other identifying factors when the law
enforcement agent is seeking to
apprehend a specific suspect whose race,
ethnicity, or national origin is part of the
description of the suspect.
International Association of
Chiefs of Police Definition
Racial Profiling: “The detention, interdiction,
or other disparate treatment of any person
on the basis of their racial or ethnic status
or characteristics”
PERF Definition of
Racial Profiling
“Racially biased policing occurs when law
enforcement inappropriately considers
race or ethnicity in deciding with whom
and how to intervene in an enforcement
capacity”
ACLU’s Driving While Black
“On a hot summer afternoon in August 1998, 37-year-old U.S. Army
Sergeant First Class Rossano V. Gerald and his young son Gregory
drove across the Oklahoma border into a nightmare. A career soldier
and a highly decorated veteran of Desert Storm and Operation
United Shield in Somalia, SFC Gerald, a black man of Panamanian
descent, found that he could not travel more than 30 minutes
through the state without being stopped twice: first by the Roland
City Police Department, and then by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
During the second stop, which lasted two-and-half hours, the
troopers terrorized SFC Gerald's 12-year-old son with a police dog,
placed both father and son in a closed car with the air conditioning
off and fans blowing hot air, and warned that the dog would attack if
they attempted to escape. Halfway through the episode – perhaps
realizing the extent of their lawlessness – the troopers shut off the
patrol car's video evidence camera.”
Strengthening Police-Community
Relationships Conference
• Racial Profiling Conference held in
Washington DC (June, 1999)
• President Clinton called racial profiling a
“morally indefensible, deeply corrosive
practice”
• This conference led to the President’s
directive to federal agencies to collect data
on the race/ethnicity of person stopped
Racial Profiling: The Texas
Experience
Texas Senate Bill 1074:
• Passed in May, 2001
• Became effective January 1, 2002
• Mandates law enforcement agencies to
adhere to standards regarding racial
profiling
• Ignores that before it was passed, racial
profiling practices were already prohibited
Senate Bill 1074 Timeline:
January 1, 2002 (SB 1074 becomes
effective)
• March 1, 2003 (First Racial Profiling
Reports are Due)
• March 1, 2004 (Second Year of Reporting
for ALL agencies; Tier 2 reporting required
from some agencies).
Racial Profiling
• Racial Profiling is, for the most part, an
individual-based problem and NOT an
institutional issue
• Racial Profiling emerges from “social
issues” and it will not be solved by “law
enforcement agencies”
• Aggregate data does not reveal if racial
profiling practices are in place (or not).
Leadership Responsibilities
• Remind officers of their responsibility to
honor their oath to uphold the Constitution
• Ensure that the police officers function
lawfully and with high standards of ethics
and integrity
• Set the tone by word and deed--- “walk
your talk”–- by personal example, setting
policy and mandating training
Leadership Responsibilities
(cont.)
• Hold officers and their supervisors
accountable for treating citizens lawfully,
respectfully, and courteously in all
interactions
• Ensure that the various community
concerns are addressed openly and with
dignity
Group Exercise
According to the Gallup Poll released
December 9, 1999:
• More than ½ of Americans polled (59%)
believe that police actively engage in racial
profiling
– 56% of Whites believe racial profiling is
pervasive
– 77% of Blacks believe racial profiling is
pervasive
Group Exercise (cont.)
Question 1:
Given these statistics, how do you think citizens’
perception of racial profiling affect your agency’s
relationship with citizens in your community.
Question 2:
As the leader of your agency, what can you do to
respond to such outcomes to ensure that you
maintain/improve the relationship with the
community?
The Texas Experience
Senate Bill 1074
Texas Racial Profiling Law
Requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Clearly defined act of actions that constitute racial
profiling
Statement indicating prohibition of any peace officer
employed by the police department from engaging in
racial profiling
Implement a process by which an individual may file a
complaint regarding racial profiling violations
Provide public education related to the complaint
process
Implement disciplinary guidelines for officers found in
violation of the Texas Racial Profiling Law
Texas Racial Profiling Law
Requirements (cont.):
6. Collect data (Tier 1) that includes information on Race
and ethnicity of individual detained:
• Indicate whether a search was conducted
• If there was a search, whether it was a consent search
or a probable cause search
• Whether a custody arrest took place
7. Produce an annual report on police contacts (Tier 1) and
present this to local governing body by March 1 of every
year
8. Adopt a policy, if video/audio equipment is installed, on
standards for reviewing video and audio documentation
Contacts Defined
• Contact: A traffic related contact where a
citation was issued.
• Must be:
– Traffic related
– Citation issued
Searches
• Must take place after “contact” is made
• Should be divided into: PC and
Consensual
• National Debate on “how” search data
should be analyzed
• Some argue it is impossible to determine
bias in searches; others obtain “ratio” of
searches by dividing these with contacts
Search Audits
• Allow departments to determine two
important factors:
• Quality of the search data (is data RELIABLE?)
• Is Department collecting ENOUGH information?
Is Search Data Reliable?
• Reporting and Recording of search data
presents problems
• “More hands” means “more problems”
• Lack of understanding of SB 1074 means
“independent judgment” on what
constitutes PC or Consensual searches
• Will the data recorded in your software
program (or courts) match each citation
(paper copy) issued?
Are you Collecting ENOUGH
Information on Searches?
• Do you have a “good” response to the
following point that could be raised about
your department:
“According to the data released, the _____
police department is searching Blacks 3
times more frequently than Whites;
therefore the ______ Police Department
has a racial profiling problem”
Are you Collecting ENOUGH
Information on Searches?
(cont.)
• Therefore, collecting the “right” amount of
information provide the following:
• Allows you to determine if a particular officer has a
racial profiling problem
• Allows you to provide an EDUCATED response to
suggestions that disparity occurs in searches
Residents: An Important
Component
• There is need to collect “resident” and
“non-resident” data
• This will allow for census-based
comparisons to take place in a more
effective manner
• Allows better handling/analysis of data
Tier 1 Data Table
Baseline Options:
1. U.S. Census Data
2. Fair Roads Standard
3. DPS
U.S. Census Data
•
•
•
•
Data is not always accurate
Does not measure “driving population”
Information is/will be dated
Does not take into account “day” vs.
“night” traffic flow issues
• Disregards “non-resident” traffic contacts
• Does not count “illegal aliens”
Fair Roads Standard
• Based on US Census Data
• Counts only “households” with access to
vehicles
• Does not consider “number” of drivers in a
particular residence
• Only considers race/ethnicity of “head of
household”
DPS
(Department of Public Safety)
• Combines “Hispanics” and “Caucasians”
• Data can only be obtained by “zip codes”;
thus, some limiting cities/counties who
“share” zip codes with other jurisdictions
• Does not take into account population who
has moved to or away from city/county
• Assumes that driving population is the
same as the number of individuals who
have a driver’s license
Tier 2 Data:
Only required if agency:
a) Did not apply for video cameras, or
b) Does not have video cameras in vehicles
Tier 2 Data:
• Requires the collection of “qualitative” data
• Only manner of measuring data is to
transform from a qualitative to a
“quantitative” format.
• Should be considered when vehicle
(originally equipped with video camera)
becomes disable
Recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comply with SB 1074
Provide analysis of data
Collect “Resident” vs. “Non-Resident” data
Conduct Data Audits Throughout the Year
Analyze “Search Data”; particularly PC Searches
Seek outside assistance
Be proactive and NOT reactive
Inform/Educate all personnel
Group Exercise
As chief of police, provide 5 different
ways in which you could:
a) Measure “racial profiling” in your police
department
b) Act in a “pro-active” manner to deter
racial profiling incidents from taking place
c) Deal with a racial profiling problem in
your department
Future of SB 1074
1. Legislation:
• Enforcing Mechanism
• Mandate Tier 2 for ALL agencies
regardless of video/audio equipment
• Individual-level data requirement
• Expand data collection to include
“non-traffic” related contacts
• Uniform baseline mechanism
Future of SB 1074 (cont.)
2. Litigation:
• Psychology of being “victimized”
• Town Hall meetings throughout the state
• Misconceptions about the “Rural” immunity
• Some say it is “a matter of time”
• Agendas being set outside the state
• Texas: A Model for Others to Follow
Reacting to a Profiling Incident
(Exercise)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determine how the following individuals
would respond (in your jurisdiction) to
claims that one of your officers has
violated SB 1074:
Civil rights leaders
Religious leaders
City Manager
Council Members
The Early Models: What Others
are Doing
The Early Models of Racial
Profiling Measures
The Early Models Designed to
Measure Racial Profiling
1. San Jose California: designed a simple lettercode system allowing information to be
collected verbally (via radio) or by computer
2. North Carolina: became the first state to
collect data on traffic stops pursuant to state
legislation
3. Great Britain: Uses a paper-based system to
collect information on both traffic and
pedestrian stops and searches
4. New Jersey: Collecting information on traffic
stops pursuant to a consent decree with the
U. S. Department of Justice
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study
1. Background:
• San Jose is the 3rd largest city in
California and the 11th largest in the U.S.
• Population of 900,000
• Diverse Population:
–
–
–
–
43% Caucasian
31% Hispanic
21% Asian
4.5% African American
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
2. Problem:
• Faced rising community complaints about racial profiling
• The Independent City Police Auditor received about 500
complaints each year concerning racial profiling
• Meanwhile, a state senator introduced a bill into the
California legislature requiring all state law enforcement
agencies to collect data on traffic-related stops with the
aim of detecting racial profiling trends, if any
• Although legislation did not advance very far, it served as
basis for the initiative by the San Jose Police
Department to collect race, gender, age, and reason for
stopping motorists
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
3. Program:
• Very simple
• Collects Information on:
– Race of Driver
– Gender
– Age
– Reason for Stopping Motorist
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
4. Codes:
• Race/Ethnicity:
A: AsianAmerican
B: African American
H: Hispanic
I: Native American
O: Other
P: Pacific Islander
S: Middle Eastern/East Indian
W: White
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
• Reasons for Stop (based on 4 scenarios):
V: Victor (A Violation of the California Vehicle
Code)
P: Paul (A California peal code violation, e.g.,
an officer might have seen someone
commit a criminal violation)
M: Mary (A municipal code violation)
B: Boy (A notice or an all-points bulletin was
broadcasted on police radio channels, or a
description of the suspect or car was issued in a
report or bulletin by a police organization in the area)
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
• Dispositions or Outcome of the Traffic Stop:
A: Arrest made
B: Warrant arrest made
C: Criminal Citation Issued—Hazardous
E: Traffic Citation Issued—non-hazardous
F: Field Interview Card
H: Courtesy Service/Assistance
N: No Report Completed
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
5. Difficulties Encountered:
a) Cost:
• The San Jose Police Department opted for a
“simple” system that kept the cost low
• The additional time the officer needs to clear
the call is less than 3 minutes
• The system cost less than $10,000; this
includes the cost of software for training
purposes
• This does not include the cost of evaluation; a
crucial component of this/any program
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
b) Disengagement:
• Officers did not become “disengaged” from
their jobs
• When measuring the number of citations
and traffic stops (after the program was
initiated), these seem to have “increased”
rather than decrease
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
C) Quantity of Data:
• The system covers ALL traffic-relates
stops
• An officer cannot clear a call unless all the
required data is given to the dispatcher
• The system does not measure pedestrianrelated stops or whether a search was
conducted
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
d) Officer Resistance:
• Since it was expected that some officers
would feel insulted by being asked to
collect data, the Chief asked command
staff to conduct training sessions where
officers were issued further information
about the program
The San Jose, California Model:
A Case Study (cont.)
e) Use of Data:
• In order to be supported by the San Jose
Police Officers’ Association (the local
union), the police department made a
promise that it would use the data while
NOT identifying the officer involved or the
suspect or citizen
Journals, Books, and Scholarly
Works on Racial Profiling
The Academic Contributions
The Academic Contributions
1.
•
•
•
•
•
On the Issue of Police Searches:
Dr. Lamberth (professor of psychology at Temple) conducted an
analysis of police searches along I-95 in Maryland
This study was conducted as a result of the Wilkins vs. Maryland
State Police (1993)
Lamberth compared the population of people searched and
arrested with those violating traffic laws in Maryland Highways
He constructed a violator sample using both stationary and rolling
surveys of drivers violating the legal speed limit on a selected
portion of the interstate
His survey indicated that:
–
74.7% of speeders were white
–
17.5% of speeders were black
**In contrast, according to MSP data, Blacks constituted 79.2% of
drivers searched
The Academic Contributions
(cont.)
• Lamberth concluded that the data revealed
“dramatic and highly statistically significant
disparities between the percentage of Black I-95
motorists legitimately subject to stop by the
Maryland State Police and the Percentage of
Black motorists detained and searched by
troopers on the roadway.
• Shortcomings:
– Relies on the “honesty” and “impressions” of survey
participants
– Does not address possible validity concerns
regarding levels of honesty by racial groups
The Academic Contributions
(cont.)
2. On the issue of Racial Profiling Trends:
• Michael R. Smith and Matthew Petrocelli in Racial Profiling: A
Multivariate Analysis of Police Traffic Stop Data (Police Quarterly,
Vol. 4, NO. 1, March 2001) used data from 2,673 traffic stops in
Richmond, VA (2000).
• They explored the treatment by police of motorists of different races
and ethnicities
• The authors found that minority citizens in general, and African
Americans in particular, were disproportionately stopped compared
with their percentage in the driving-eligible population
• However, minorities were searched no more frequently than Whites;
in fact, Whites were significantly more likely than minorities to be the
subjects of consent searches
• Compared with Whites, the authors found that “minority drivers were
more likely to be warned, whereas Whites were more likely to be
ticketed or arrested”
The Academic Contributions
(cont.)
• Examining officer race as a predictor revealed
White officers were no more likely than minority
officers to stop, search, or arrest minority drivers
• Shortcomings:
– Used comparative data from the U.S. Census Bureau
that is dated
– Data is not necessarily representative of potential
minority growth in the area
– Data is made up of Richmond’s population that was at
least 16 years old (legal age for obtaining a license in
VA). Thus, comparative group was not necessarily
representative of driving population
The Academic Contributions
(cont.)
3. On the Issue of “Officer Attitudes Towards a Racial Profiling Measure”:
• Del Carmen, A., and Verdalis, J. in “A Descriptive Analysis of Racial Profiling
in a Community Policing Environment” (Journal of Community Policing,
Vol.1, No. 3, Spring, 2001) examined the attitude of 428 officers towards the
implementation of a racial profiling measure
• The findings suggest that regardless of age, educational level or gender,
officers had overall negative attitudes towards the institutional
regulation/oversight of their traffic stops
• In a later study (pre and post data analysis), del Carmen et al., (Fall, 2001),
found that 6 months after the implementation of a traffic stop data program,
police officers did not seem to be as “negative” or “concerned” about the
racial profiling measure and its effect on their personal/professional lives
• Shortcomings:
– Relies on honesty of respondents
– These studies do not measure if profiling exists; thus, only taking into account
officer attitude
Arguments for Data Collection
Data Collection Can Help Agencies:
1. To send the message that racial profiling
is inconsistent with ethical, effective
policing
2. To “get ahead of the curve”
3. To identify potentially problematic
behavior early on, and to prevent
systematic patterns of behavior related to
racial profiling
Arguments for Data Collection
(cont.)
4.To help officers understand behavior that
they may be familiar with, as it pertains to
racial profiling based on beliefs/culture
5.To evaluate their progress in reducing
profiling behavior
6.To build community trust by showing that
the Department is concerned about racial
profiling
Arguments Against Data
Collection
1. Data collection alone does not yield valid
information regarding the nature and
extent of racial profiling
2. Data may be used to harm the agency,
its personnel and community policing
efforts
3. Data collection may impact productivity,
morale, and workload
Arguments Against Data
Collection (cont.)
4.Resources might be more effectively used
elsewhere and in other ways to combat
racial profiling
5.Lack of technology or technology
infrastructure makes data collection
impossible or difficult
Group Activity
You have 30 minutes to discuss the questions
below and to formulate the responses that your
group will report out to the class.
Choose someone to act as facilitator to keep the
group’s discussion on task
Choose another person to record and report out
the highlights of your group’s presentations
Group Activity (cont.)
Policies and Procedures:
List and describe policies and procedures that
you have found to be useful in assuring that
officers do not engage in racial profiling.
Describe significant problems or issues you have
encountered in efforts to develop policies and
procedures related to racial profiling.
Group Activity (cont.)
Training/Education
As chief of police, what would you identify as the
biggest challenges in training or educating your
officers to prevent racial profiling in traffic related
contacts?
What are some of the ways that your department
can engage the community in dialogue
regarding racial profiling concerns to build or
enhance trust between your agency and the
community?
Group Activity (cont.)
Supervision
As a chief of police, discuss the biggest
challenges your department faces regarding
actions taken by officers during traffic related
contacts related to racial profiling?
What is the role of police supervisors regarding
the actions taken by police officers during traffic
related contacts which can be viewed as racial
profiling?
What Lies Ahead
• 9/11 expanded the need for racial profiling
measures/control
• Federal Bill being considered to fund agencies
with proactive racial profiling measures
• COPS Office already funding “Early Warning
System”
• SB 1074 may be modified in the coming
months—this change would be effective
January 1, 2006
Where to Seek
Information/Assistance
If you need to have your data analyzed,
audited or have a professional team write
your report, visit us at:
www.texasracialprofiling.com
(817) 681-7840
[email protected]
Links of Interest
PERF
http://policeforum.mn-8.net/
Northeastern University Repository Center
http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/
U.S. Department of Justice Publication
on Racial Profiling:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=7
70