The 2007 statewide data show that compared with whites, police agencies searched blacks three times more often and Hispanics more than twice as often. But police discovered illicit goods roughly twice as often when whites agreed to searches.
The civil rights groups singled out the numbers for the state police, which showed troopers searched minorities three times as often as whites. But troopers found contraband in the vehicles of white motorists almost twice as often as they did in the vehicles of blacks and eight times more often than the vehicles of Hispanics.
"Officers are more trusting of whites than they are of blacks, and they are particularly suspicious of Hispanics," Grossman said of state police. "It's clear from the data that officers require less certainty when they ask Latinos to be searched than they do whites, there are more stringent standards for whites."
Key points to take away from the study and its background:
1. The study is based on police data.
2. The study clearly shows a disparity in who is asked to be searched and in the opposite direction who is caught carrying contraband.
3. The study shows insignificant difference in rate of agreement to being searched.
4. Even if you are uninterested in racial issues, it demonstrates a clear inefficiency in policing--it wastes resources when we unnecessarily search people who do not have contraband in their cars.
5. If the police had not been compelled by law to compile this data, we probably wouldn't have know about this problem.
6. It does not demonstrate intentional bias on the part of law enforcement officers.
7. The study was made possible by the sponsorship of legislation by a particular state senator.
Question on (or maybe clarification of) your fourth point: it's probably because it's a real early morning (for me), but I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it wastes resources...". Do you mean that consent searches shouldn't be conducted, because of the vanishingly small number of searches that result in contraband being found? (18% of 1% of 2.4 million searches found contraband: about 4,000, or .16% of consent searches found contraband). Or do you mean something else? It's a real early morning for me, and my reading comprehension is isn't all that high right now...
Thanks
HG
No, I'm saying that if police are choosing when and where to request consent searches on the basis of race and oversearching groups that have much lower rates of having contraband, it's nurturing one's own subconscious racial stereotypes at the cost of taxpayer resources.
Any sort of racial profiling is running roughshod over civil liberties, but in this case, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it is supposed to do--lowers the likelihood of the police catching criminals.
I am amazed the cops find anything in a consent search. If you have a trunk full of dope, "just say No".
Maybe the study points to blacks being smarter than whites, and not consenting to searches when they know might get busted :-)
I know you are joking, but that was actually the theory that some folks used to justify the numbers.
This round of data shows that whites and non-whites agree to searches just as often.
Could it be that the state police are basing their stops on some other critieria just happens to correlate more highly with blacks and Hispanics ?
A possible example is age or condition of car. Could blacks and Hispanics, being less economically well off on average, be more likely to have a defective headlight or tail light?
Could it be that the state police are basing their stops on some other critieria just happens to correlate more highly with blacks and Hispanics ?
More importantly: could it be that the state police are basing searches on the behavior of the individual during the stop? People that seem "shifty" or act like they have something to hide might be searched more often.
And xian, don't you frequently bring up the bad blood and distrust some minorities have for the police? Could the distrust for law enforcement manifest itself as shifty or concealing behavior?
What criteria, other than the behavior of the suspect, should officers use for conducting searches?
Out of nearly 2.5 million stops, less than 27000 were asked about a consent search. Seems like a low number to me. Locally, out of more than 20,000 stops less than 150 were asked about a consent search. Again it does not seem to be a significant issue.
Anonymous me--condition of car and age--I remember well the time the Champaign police stopped me on Green St. at 2A in front of Edison Junior High based on the driver side head light low beam being burned out. The condition of my car was very bad--rusted, filled holes with expanda foam, etc. The look on the policeman's face when he got to the car, shining the flash light in my face so I could not see him was that of shock when he realized he had stopped a white, female senior citizen with graying hair. All he could mumble was "what are you doing out at this hour of the morning"? Response working on my dissertation at the university. So much for using the criteria of condition of car and age. What a waste of time, energy, and writing of a warning to replace the head light.
With further thought--I realized how stupid it was to pull over on the dark street away from any other people. So the next day, I called the police department to inquire what protections a citizen has when pulled over by the police, especially a female. For all of you female readers, you have the right to drive to a lighted place, such as a shopping mall, or in this case to the police station in Champaign, driving at the speed limit or less. Of course, it did cross my mind if one did proceed accordingly just what the Champaign police would do.
Pattsi Petrie
A possible example is age or condition of car. Could blacks and Hispanics, being less economically well off on average, be more likely to have a defective headlight or tail light?
Seems to me that there are actually more poor white people in the state than there are poor minorities. Since this is the state police data, this theory doesn't seem to work. Over the entire state, using poverty statistics, the police would be more likely to encounter more poor white people driving around in beater cars than poor minorities.
"For all of you female readers, you have the right to drive to a lighted place, such as a shopping mall, or in this case to the police station in Champaign, driving at the speed limit or less."
Pattsie;
This is just irresponsible information to put out of context. The police suggest if an unmarked car attempts to pull you over and you have concerns that the person might not be an officer that this is a suggested action. However, not to pull over for a mark police car will certain yield a different response, and justifiably so. Of course, in today's world you can use your cell phone and call 911 to verify if an officer in an unmarked car is attempting to stop you, as all officers must call in their stops. Please learn what a "right" is?
"A possible example is age or condition of car. "
A consent search and the reason for the stop is different. The issue is after the stop, for whatever reason, the request for search is made. The report reflects the number of people who were asked to consent to a search after a traffic stop. To see the statistics for the reason for the stop you have to read further into the report. The condition of the car is not a reason for a search but might be a reason for a stop.
@Xian: thanks for the clarification
HG
Pattsi, If you are ever pulled over again by an unmarked car turn on Your inside light to let the Officer know You are cooperating and then dive to a lighted area and call 911 on Your cell phone, Most traffic stops at 2am. are backed up by other Police Officers in marked car, As for having a flashlight in Your face the Officer is protecting You as well as them, They have no idea if You have just robbed or shot someone or if You are armed or not.
Pattsie never said she was pulled over by an "unmarked car". However, Gregg that is great advice.
On July 25th, 2008 at 06:05 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Pattsie never said she was pulled over by an "unmarked car". However, Gregg that is great advice.
No She didn't, Most people would pull over for a car with a light bar, She said it was a dark area and those light bars light things up. Cops will tell you at 2am their are plenty of drunks on the road and a burned out headlamps is a good reason to pull someone over and find out.
That is correct. It was not an unmarked car. Between the car lights and the flashlight, the situation is one of basically being blinded so one can not see who is doing the stop. Actually, there is not an abundance of drunks driving through this area of Champaign, but it could happen. :-) And this was before the general use of cell phones so I appreciate the additional suggestions on how to handle this type of situation.
Pattsi Petrie
The behavior of those being pulled over and then later asked to be searched is only tangentially related. The study not only showed that based on whatever indicators the police were using, they searched the minorities' vehicles at a disproportiate rate. The idea that the person with the wrong skin color was or was not "shifty" is irrelevant, as the second statistic showed that they were particularly inefficient with their searches of minorities' cars.
There's nothing to suggest one way or another that this is evidence of intentional bias. I would imagine that it's not. But it is certainly evidence of unequal treatment, and non-high performance law enforcement.
When people are more likely to be hassled due to their racial background--no matter the reason--that ruins the capitalist playing field. It destroys equal opportunity, and whether the percentages seem to be tiny to some of those reading, the simple fact is that we are talking about what are clearly statistically significant results.
The police should be commended on, instead of whining about accountability, reporting these results. The diagnosis based on that data is clear. The next step is to work to address the problems that the data point to.
Before we conclude a "racial bias" it would be good to know things like what time of day the stops occurred. Also, are police more likely to ask to search if they stop somebody who has prior arrests?
Unless we find out the real reason for the searches, we can't fix the "problem". It would not be a good idea to tell officers to not search every other black person that they would normally search. By the way, Asians are searched at about the rate of blacks and *things* are found in their cars at the same rate as blacks.
If we wanted to understand what is actually happening, it might also be a good idea to know what is being "found" in these searches and what was being looked for. These variables were not included in the state-mandated report probably because the whole purpose of the mandate was to make police look racist.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because 78% of blacks are stopped does not mean anything. 78% of those charged with murder in this State are black. So what. You search (or ask to search cars) based upon factors such as probable cause or "incidential to an arrest". But there is a negative inference that you may have missed. If, pursuant to these stops and seaches, a disproportionate number produced no arrests, you would surely have heard a terrible whine from the liberal press. By virtue of this negative inference, I think we can make the presumption that our cops are following the spirit and the letter of the law and are not discriminating based on race.
I'm sorry, I'm really confused. Are you saying that the point of the searches is not to actually find stuff?
The survey doesn't talk about motive or time of day or any of this other stuff. If you want to do a study on that kind of stuff, be my guest. The study simply checks the percentage searched, and then checks their success rate.
The police have a lower success rate with minority searches. That's a fact. I'm not saying they need to be attacked as racist. I'm saying they need to figure out what they are doing wrong.
I said this above. The responses I received:
1) Go off on a tangent to drag my ethnicity into the discussion which is not relevant as I am neither a law enforcement officer nor have I been subject to a search of my vehicle.
2) Imply that even doing data gathering is bad because reality implies racism, so we should all ignore reality. Great.
3) Suggest that since the "liberal media" isn't whining therefore the searches are successful--a really bizarre inference that directly contradicts the police's own reporting.
I'd submit that the poster who makes the first two "points" is trolling, and Maloney, who is worthy of plenty respect, could re-read what it is that the study is talking about. I don't believe "probable cause" is relevant. We are talking about the police asking to search, and wasting time and resources disproprotionately asking and then searching minority drives while being widely unsuccessful in their searches. Sure, there are a billion possible explanations--maybe minority people are smarter and better at hiding drugs, maybe fewer are transporting drugs, maybe the melanin in their skin disrupts searches--I don't care. The point is this: If you succeed at hitting the curve ball better than the split-fingered fastball, it's a good idea to ask, "Why am I particularly unsuccessful in this situation?"
I too have been told, if someone you think are the cops try to pull you over in a deserted area, you can make it clear that you've seen them, and then drive slowly or with four-way flashers on, etc, to the next actually populated highway exit.
Before cellphones were popular, there was a problem near where I lived in college (in San Diego, CA) of some people pretending to be cops pulling over cars at a recently completed suburban off-ramp, deserted, and then raping people.
After that came to light, it was publicized widely in that area, that you should not trust anyone who claims to be police, but rather make it clear you've seen them and then drive letting them follow you, to another off-ramp with clear witnesses around.
Xian- My partner, Don Parkinson, former State's Attorney, former Judge for 16 years taught this stuff at the Police Academy, so I must admit I am a little rusty on the subject. My son, a Champaign cop, could also fill me in a little on this, but I think, on the whole, I get the point about police asking to search. Here is how I understand it, but there are plenty others that can correct my understanding.
As I understand it, searches can be done incident to a valid arrest for an offense. We don't want our cops shot when they are writing a ticket, so it is reasonable that cops check for weapons when they give a ticket. Now it may be that the officer does not intend to give a ticket, but mostly wants information but sees circumstances that would suggest that the person has information that would be useful in his investigation. These circumstances may lead the officer to the conclusion (probable cause) that there are illegal substances in the car, house, or property. Since we don't want our officers making this determination on their own, the officer has two choices: (1) He can get a search warrant, or (2) The owner or person who stands in the place of the owner can consent.
Since the initial post suggested that an equal percentage of blacks and whites consented to a voluntary search, the only issue was whether cops were racially biased by stopping a higher percentage of blacks rather than whites. The implication was that since there are more whites than blacks, more whites should have been stopped and fewer blacks.
If this was not the point, I am sorry, I don't get the point. If that was the point, I just suggest that it does not follow that there is racial bias on the part of the police based on the percentage stopped. I would concede that if the voluntary seach did not uncover wrongdoing proportionally to the voluntary searches that there could be a problem. Since the"result" data was not offered, I do not know how you can make any conclusions.
This is why I pointed out the error in reasoning known as-post hoc ergo propter hoc which in Latin means, after this, therefore because of this. It does not follow from the percentage of voluntary searches, but it might if there was valid data on the results of the seach. This is all I was saying. I hope that clears up what I thought you were talking about.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. There was a miscommunication, and that's why we were talking past each other. We probably would have continued to do so if you had not spent the energy to clarify your understanding of the situation.
I could be misreading the data as well, but I've re-read the key several times, so I think I see where the issue is:
1. The study was not talking about total searches (which you correctly point out could be wildly off due to any number of factors), it was talking about the percentage of those of that ethnicity stopped who were asked to be searched.
2. The equal portion was the next step: while the percentage asked to be searched was wildly disproportionate, the percentage of those asked who agreed to be searched was equal regardless of ethnicity.
3. The final step was the result of the searches: the whites were far more likely to be found carrying drugs.
You are right, without step 3, it would be a potentially fallacious argument. However, since step 3 was covered in the study (see the section which describes whether or not the officers found contraband), it is not fallacious.
After having a look at the data, I think people should be aware of a few more facts.
The Chicago police department requests to search blacks at a rate almost 6 times that of whites (1% of white stops, 6% of black stops). However, the rate of finding things is not that different (12.7% for whites and 10.7% for blacks).
The statewide data shows things are found in almost 25% of white searches.
My conclusion - this data shows a geographical effect. The majority of minorities stopped are in urban areas, such as Chicago, where for some reason, searches don't find things as often. The majority of white searches happen in less urban areas.
Another aspect of the geography is type of vehicle, namely pickups.