Racial Profiling: Policies and Practices

1. Racial Profiling: Policies and Practices Del Carmen Consulting, LLC

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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”

12. 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”

13. 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.”

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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).

17. 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).

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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?

22. The Texas Experience Senate Bill 1074

23. Texas Racial Profiling Law Requirements: • 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

24. 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

25. Contacts Defined • Contact: A traffic related contact where a citation was issued. • Must be: • Traffic related • Citation issued

26. 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

27. Search Audits • Allow departments to determine two important factors: • Quality of the search data (is data RELIABLE?) • Is Department collecting ENOUGH information?

28. 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?

29. 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”

30. 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

31. 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

32. Tier 1 Data Table

33. Baseline Options: 1. U.S. Census Data 2. Fair Roads Standard 3. DPS

34. 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”

35. 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”

36. 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

37. Tier 2 Data: Only required if agency: • Did not apply for video cameras, or • Does not have video cameras in vehicles

38. 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

42. 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

43. Group Exercise As chief of police, provide 5 different ways in which you could: • Measure “racial profiling” in your police department • Act in a “pro-active” manner to deter racial profiling incidents from taking place • Deal with a racial profiling problem in your department

44. Future of SB 1074 • 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

45. 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

46. Reacting to a Profiling Incident (Exercise) 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

47. The Early Models: What Others are Doing The Early Models of Racial Profiling Measures

48. The Early Models Designed to Measure Racial Profiling • San Jose California: designed a simple letter-code system allowing information to be collected verbally (via radio) or by computer • North Carolina: became the first state to collect data on traffic stops pursuant to state legislation • Great Britain: Uses a paper-based system to collect information on both traffic and pedestrian stops and searches • New Jersey: Collecting information on traffic stops pursuant to a consent decree with the U. S. Department of Justice

49. The San Jose, California Model: A Case Study • 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

50. 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