Racial Profiling Policies and Practices Del Carmen Consulting

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 3 rd largest city in California and the 11 th 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: Asian. American 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 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 DCconsulting@texasracialprofiling. com

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