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...)