Traffic Stop Study

[MJS]

Came across this in todays paper and thought it was interesting.

WASHINGTON -- Black, Hispanic and white drivers are equally likely to be pulled over by police, but blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to be searched and arrested, a federal study found.

Police were much more likely to threaten or use force against blacks and Hispanics than against whites in any encounter, whether at a traffic stop or elsewhere, according to the Justice Department.

Thoughts?

 

[donald]

Its a sad reality we are confronted with. I guess maybe part of the reasoning behind this. Would be that most of the minorities mentioned live in poorer areas. Therfore some of those mentioned choose illegal means to scratch out a living. This being so would mean that the ratio of caucasions to people of color being arrested. Would be unequal just due to the laws of averages. Then there is profiling too. As far as I know it is not legal to use, but from what I have read is still very common in practice.

1stJohn1:9

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Note it doesnt say "wrongfully arrested".

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Not to be the white guy in denial up in a political backwater, but I'd like to see the statistics on percentages of convictions. Like Blotan Hunka said, there's no mention of 'wrongful arrest'.

I know our culture isn't colorblind, but the media habit of going off half-cocked with stats like that isn't helping the matter any.

 

[JBrainard]

Bushidomartialarts, I don't have any statistics at hand but you have to admit that it is a problem here in Portland. Over the past few years we have had a disturbing amount of instances where black men are shot by police for dubious reasons. The instance that got the most press was where a black man got pulled over because (and this is according to the Portland police department) "he had too nice of a car." When pulled over and asked for his identification, the man reached into his jacket to get his ID. The police officer, assuming he was reaching for a gun, shot him then and there. It was later found that though the man did have drugs on him, he was unarmed.
I can't help but think that if the man wasn't black, he wouldn't have been shot for reaching into his jacket when asked for his ID.

 

[MJS]

Interesting article, but when it lists the percentages, it does not state what the cause was. For example, it states here:

Blacks (9.5 percent) and Hispanics (8.8 percent) were much more likely to be searched than whites (3.6 percent).

Blacks (4.5 percent) were more than twice as likely as whites (2.1 percent) to be arrested. Hispanic drivers were arrested 3.1 percent of the time.

What was the cause for the stop? What came back when the plate was ran? What came back when the occupant(s) of the car were run? I'm not an LEO, but I do dispatch for a PD in CT., and I know for a fact that the officers who pull cars over in high crime areas are going to ask for me to check for warrants, license status, etc. Even moreso if the driver, passenger, etc., is known by the police.

Among all police-public contacts, force was used 1.6 percent of the time. But blacks (4.4 percent) and Hispanics (2.3 percent) were more likely than whites (1.2 percent) to be subjected to force or the threat of force by police officers.

Again, as I said above, more info needs to be given. I'm certainly not advocating harrassing people, abusing people, etc., but I wouldn't be surprised if an article like this stirs the pot a bit.

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Not to be the white guy in denial up in a political backwater, but I'd like to see the statistics on percentages of convictions. Like Blotan Hunka said, there's no mention of 'wrongful arrest'.

I know our culture isn't colorblind, but the media habit of going off half-cocked with stats like that isn't helping the matter any.

Hmmm 10.0 % is greater than 9.9999999999999999999999999 % so the group with the 10.0 % number is more likely.

I agree Data and sample size and ..., I would want to run the numbers myself.


Now, that being said, I am the white guy on paper, but like today this guy comes in and says he found the guy to play my roll in my life story. Carlos from Desperate Housewives. I have been profiled before and been on the wrong end of some bad police, and I understand profiling is a way to accomplish a goal. Yet, if everyone would get the same treatment as me at security and returning back to the USA, and then there would be a lot less problems.

 

[Ninjamom]

WASHINGTON -- Black, Hispanic and white drivers are equally likely to be pulled over by police, ....

I'm surprised no one noticed this tidbit hiding in the noise - This is actually good news! It seems the incidence of being pulled over for D.W.B. (Driving While Black) is down to a statistical nil! Seriously, this was a real (and all-too-common) problem in certain areas, and many African Americans still sting from recent memories of such incidents.

Perhaps that is part of the problem? If recent memory is still filled with lots of examples of injustice and racial profiling for traffic stops, then perhaps both black drivers and white officers would be slightly more prone to enter such a situation with bad expectations and a confrontational attitude. I'm sure the LEO's on this board can attest that 'attitude' can make a world of difference between a routine traffic stop and a confrontation with search and arrest.

 

[fireman00]

I too would be curious on the number of "wrongful arrests" that were made and also the ratio of convictions per race.

 

[redfang]

It's worthwhile to note that the article mentions that the statistics are based on interviewing people. Perceptions are going to influence response and skew the stats.

Also, what the article seems to consider a use of force isn't what some departments would consider a use of force. Where I am, pointing a gun is not considered a use of force. (That doesn't mean we go around pointing guns at everyone we meet.)

Also, the article doesn't say that the searches are illegal. Therefore, the persons being searched are either already under arrest for something, or have consented to the search. Police can't dearch just for the heck of it. Most searches take place because someone has given their consent.

Also, though the article states that their stats debunk the driving while black myth, I wanted to get up on my soapbox for a moment and say that a majority of the time that I make a traffic stop, I have no idea what race someone is until I am out of my car and approaching theirs. I work nights and it is often darn near impossible to tell anything about the person until both cars are stopped. Even if I run a tag before lighting the car up, which I try to do if possible, the last thing I am looking at is race, I am much more concerned with factors like, does the owner show wants, have a valid license, do the tags match the car, are they valid, is there insurance on the car, is the car stolen, does the owner have a concealed carry permit, etc. With all of that to look at, race is not usually something that most officers are going to be too concerned with.

 

[mrhnau]

I'll just make one observation. Doesn't the US have a high Asian population? I failed to notice any mention of Asians in the article? I wonder why?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I'll just make one observation. Doesn't the US have a high Asian population? I failed to notice any mention of Asians in the article? I wonder why?

They dont have as many organizations blowing trumpets.

Or they statistically dont get arrested enough to matter.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

What I wonder is, statistically, HOW do people get arrested/jailed most? From traffic stops or from calls? I always hear how cops predominantly are "reactive", responding after a crime has already been committed. If 90% of people jailed are from car stops then perhaps theres a beef here. If most are from arrests at the scene of a crime or from investigations then thats a different story. The implication here seems to be that not enough whites are being arrested, not that blacks/hispanics are being unfairly arrested. I have little sympathy for a crook, who really IS a crook, crying that the balance isnt "fair".

 

[jks9199]

It's worthwhile to note that the article mentions that the statistics are based on interviewing people. Perceptions are going to influence response and skew the stats.

Also, what the article seems to consider a use of force isn't what some departments would consider a use of force. Where I am, pointing a gun is not considered a use of force. (That doesn't mean we go around pointing guns at everyone we meet.)

Also, the article doesn't say that the searches are illegal. Therefore, the persons being searched are either already under arrest for something, or have consented to the search. Police can't dearch just for the heck of it. Most searches take place because someone has given their consent.

Also, though the article states that their stats debunk the driving while black myth, I wanted to get up on my soapbox for a moment and say that a majority of the time that I make a traffic stop, I have no idea what race someone is until I am out of my car and approaching theirs. I work nights and it is often darn near impossible to tell anything about the person until both cars are stopped. Even if I run a tag before lighting the car up, which I try to do if possible, the last thing I am looking at is race, I am much more concerned with factors like, does the owner show wants, have a valid license, do the tags match the car, are they valid, is there insurance on the car, is the car stolen, does the owner have a concealed carry permit, etc. With all of that to look at, race is not usually something that most officers are going to be too concerned with.

That's my experience... If I happen to know the race of a driver (not particularly common; those who don't believe me ought to try a simple experiment. Sit on the side of a moderately busy road someday, and watch cars. See how many times they can ID the race of a driver. Then think about doing it at night, in bad weather, or on a highway.), it's seldom more than a side issue in the stop decision.

What I wonder is, statistically, HOW do people get arrested/jailed most? From traffic stops or from calls? I always hear how cops predominantly are "reactive", responding after a crime has already been committed. If 90% of people jailed are from car stops then perhaps theres a beef here. If most are from arrests at the scene of a crime or from investigations then thats a different story. The implication here seems to be that not enough whites are being arrested, not that blacks/hispanics are being unfairly arrested. I have little sympathy for a crook, who really IS a crook, crying that the balance isnt "fair".

I'm not sure the exact numbers, and they probably vary a lot by jurisdiction and agency. A lot of my agency's arrests come from traffic stops -- which is a reflection of the community (largely bedroom), and a emphasis on traffic enforcement. Many others come from proactive subject stops in known problem areas. But I know agencies where they have little time between calls to make traffic stops or subject stops; arrests there typically come from warrants or while responding to a call for service. It's said that the most cases are solved nationwide when the suspects are arrested by patrol officers.

Most studies I've seen or read of (I have not closely read articles on it, or this particular study), unless specifically constructed to support desired findings (one study in the northeast US got buried when the results didn't match expectations that cops would be biased!), seem to show that traffic stops reflect the community population, as shocking as that may seem. In other words, in a mostly white community... mostly whites are stopped. In a mostly black community, mostly blacks are stopped... (Oh, and Asians? They, in my experience, drive like crap but seldom commit other offenses while driving -- until the 2nd or 3rd generation that's Americanized.)

As to searches and arrests -- I hate these studies that only look at the numbers; they don't really say much, especially if they don't distinguish between consentual searches and non-consensual searches. Just working from a traffic stop -- if I have probable cause, I'm searching the car. That means smelling weed, seeing evidence of stolen property, seeing weapons, etc. If I'm impounding the car, I'm inventorying it -- which is basically a specialized search. If I go for a consent search, that means I didn't have PC -- but did observe things that made me suspicious. That's a lot more vague; there is indeed room for bias there, and I'll even admit that some officers ARE biased in their consensual searches. The same problem arises with arrests as a result of traffic stops; in certain circumstances, I may arrest the driver for a traffic violation, like driving on a suspended license. Which may be completely independent of a consentual search. I might find stolen property or drugs or whatever while inventorying the car, and add those charges. But I didn't arrest the driver because of that; I arrested based on the driving charge. There might be a warrant, which gets the driver arrested and the vehicle inventoried... Or I might have walked up, almost gotten a contact high from the marijuana smoke emanating from the car, and hooked the driver for DUI(drugs) and possession of marijuana. Not a result of a search at all...

It's a complicated issue, and my personal opinion is that the problem was really created when chiefs started capitulating to vociferious folks like Sharpton, et al. Yes -- there have been biased cops. In fact, there has even been institutionalized bias at various times (think maybe it's going on against Arabs today? There's a good argument... Or against Hispanics), which is often reflective of popular biases. (Arabs are terrorists; Hispanics are illegal alien gang members...) But I don't think that, in the recent past, there has been any concerted, deliberate, and intentional widespread bias problem. It's been a problem of individual officers, not organizations. But people keep listening to the loudmouths, and caving in to their threats. (Ever pay attention to how Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coallition tends to work? They get mad, they threaten lawsuits or blackmail by boycott...)