Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2001 ArticlesOm ` •q m ny N� m_ �C NQ g b 6 V O �v H� V HD �Y O CL u a,3 �'$ w3 ucE�c"t,`-.``s �55� � �8 �'�' •0 6 .��` V q t"� g ro 9 � rrT' o a E ! r F S S� r' •�.' : b', r+ o o c E � �y F 5 '� �'C. O.qO O.L. F •a Z y P. � � � a'O 3- w s s s• /i 7-s I.C. police expecting accreditation this year By Nathan Hill Gazette staff writer IOWA CITY — By the end of the year, the Iowa City Police Department will be accredited for the fast time. The department has been go - mg through the accreditation program for the past year and a half, overseen by the Com- mission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). "It's an elite status;" said Capt. Tom Widmer. "A small minority of departments can meet the standards." Five city police departments in Iowa are CALEA-certified — Dubuque, Muscatine, Newton, Sioux City and West Des Moines. The Marshall and Polk county sheriffs departments are also certified, as well as Iowa State University's Public Safety Department. Police Chief R.J. Winkelhake said the department should fin- ish its assessment in less than a month. After that, the com- mission on accreditation will schedule a hearing to review all the requirements. "By the end of 2001, it should happen;' Winkelhake said. CALEA was established as an independent accrediting au- thority in 1979. It measures nine major law enforcement subjects: relationships with oth- er agencies; organization and administration; personnel structure; personnel process; operations; operational support; traffic operations; prisoner and court -related activities; and technical services. "They are recognized stan- dards that police departments should adhere to, and we're making sure Iowa City is meet- ing all those standards," Wid- mer said. "We're not finding anything we're not doing, but MONDAY JAN. 15, 2001 IOWA CITY, IOWA VOL. 118 NO. 6 50 CENTS AN EDITION OF GAZETTE COMMUNICATIONS Capt. Tom Chief R.J. Widmer Winkelhake Iowa City Police Department now we're documenting what, we are doing." Often, accredited depart- ments find it easier to pur- chase policy liability insurance, and have lower insurance pre- miums, according to CALEA. But most of all, said Widmer, being an accredited department gives police a certain level of bragging rights. "It makes a statement in the law enforcement community," Widmer said. Ir contact writer Nathan Hill at (319) 3343170 or nathanh"iowa.cOm IOWA CITY x SATURDA,Y JAN. 13, 2001 IOWA CITY, IOWA VOL. 118 NO. 4 75 CENTS AN EDITION OF GAZETTE COMMUNICATIONS Drunk driving busts up sharply Hike laid to I.C. police work, rise in visits by out-of-towners Erin Walter Gazette staff writer IOWA CITY More drunken drivers were busted here in 2000 than ever before due to increased police efforts and more drinkers from out of town, police " say. Iowa City police arrested 1,037 people for drunken driving this past year, making a huge jump from 766 in 1999. "Information I've received from officers is that there is a lot more contact with people from outside the community," said Sgt. Mike Brother - ton. "Iowa City has a lot of opportunities for recreational nightlife." The Iowa City Police Department has also received outside funding for increased traffic patrols, Brotherton said, including a grant from the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau. "We can devote more resources to the problem," he said of'drunken driving. The local increase in arrests is contrary to national statistics, which show a decline in recent years, Brotherton -reported. Nearly 1.5 million drivers are arrested each year in the United States on suspicion of drunken driving. Men made up 75 percent of those arrested in 2000 in Iowa City for drunken driving. That's just under the state's average of four men convicted for every woman. The average blood alcohol content of those Drunk driving arrests - 1200- By Iowa City police 1,037 5000- 800- 766 606 616 6i9 600- 2Ga 0- I,� '95 '96 , 197 '98 '99 'W Source: Iowa City Police Department charged in Iowa City was .153. Of the overall number of drunken driving arrests, 275 involved underage drinkers, with the average age of those being 18. Brotherton said the large number of underage arrests — 26 percent of the total — reflects the fact that Iowa City has a number of bars that admit minors. "Underage people are going into the bars, and some are drinking," he said. However, the number of people charged in 2000 with possession of alcohol under the legal age dipped from the previous year, from 2,107 in 1999 to 1,430 in 2000. Public intoxication charges increased from 1,247 in 1999 to 1,356 last year. Disorderly conduct and disorderly house charges increased slightly in 2000, to 263 and 293, respectively. ■ The Gazette, Fri., Jan. 12, 2001 ue BM'�'+.a+zetteonline. om • 2 officers join police force ■ The Iowa City Police Department has added two new police officers to its force. Officer Abe Schabilion, 25, is a 1993 graduate from City High School who received his bachelor of arts degree in psychology with a minor in sociology from the University of Iowa. Officer Michael Smithey, 26, is a 1992 graduate from City High School. He attended the UI and the University of Northern Iowa. He has earned his bachelor's degree in music education. Both officers will be attending the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy 12-week training school in Johnston. Upon successful completion, both officers will undergo a 16week field -training program with the Iowa City Police Department. The addition of Schabilion and Smithey brings the number of sworn officers in the department to 73. They replace officers who left or retired. St. Paul ol%cil likely to fund study of racial profiling a,ysiwyg://I29dlp:/h9Rw.starlribune.com/...i/gview.egfhempble -metro a&.slug -i Metro / Region Nation / World Politics Business Sports Variety Opinion Fun & Games Talk METRO/REGION Tools a E-mail this story Print this page P Find related Items Related item(s) D What's next i 1, Are you silting down? ) I Go Wild Giveaway St. Paul council likely to fund study of racial profiling Heron Marquez Estrada Star Tribune Thursday, January 25, 2001 Less than a month after St. Paul police released data showing they had searched black and Hispanic drivers at a much higher rate than whites, City Council members indicated Wednesday that they are likely to spend at least $100,000 to fund Minnesota's most comprehensive study of racial profiling. "1 think we should do this study. I would hate to see us waste any time," said Council Member Kathy Lantry. "We need to show leadership," added Council Member Jerry Blakey. After a Wednesday morning session in which council members questioned Police Chief William Finney about the data collected last year, he was directed to prepare an estimate of how much it would cost to change or replace the department's computer software for a more systematic study. "1'm sure it will beat least $100,000," said Council President Dan Bostrom. State Sen. Jane Ranum, DFL-Minneapolis, who plans to introduce a bill calling for statewide studies of racial profiling, said St. Paul officials "are to be commended" for taking the lead on the issue. Finney will work with the council's Research Department and other parties to identify what data officers should record when making a traffic stop. The recommendations and the cost estimates are due next month. From April to December last year, the department asked officers to note the race and gender of people stopped, as well as whether that person was searched or ticketed. About 42,000 stops were recorded in about eight months. The data from those stops indicate that 19.6 percent of black drivers and 16.7 percent of Hispanic drivers were frisked or had their vehicles searched, compared with 8.5 percent of white drivers and 9.2 percent of Asian drivers. Finney and other city officials said the data collected last year were limited and didn't answer several important questions. "This was a snapshot," Finney said of last year's data. "This wasn't intended to be a study." So far, St. Paul and Minneapolis have been the only police departments that have collected any data on racial profiling. St. Paul instructed its officers to continue collecting data this year, while Minneapolis, which also did a data collection project last year, stopped when it ended. Minneapolis police, who were found to have stopped more drivers who are 1 "1 9 St. I'nul collftil likely to fund study or racial profiling wysiwyg:// 12/litlp://%Vww,siar[ribunc.coin/...i/gvicw.egi?Iempiale=mclro_ a&slug --rau i Return to top members of minority groups than white drivers, will begin collecting data again Feb. 1. St. Paul council members also directed Finney to testify on pending racial profiling legislation at the State Capitol. The two most prominent bills make participation in data collection voluntary. One of the bills would not require recording the identity of the officer. Finney and council members said they favor mandatory participation and including the names of officers involved. Finney said the St. Paul data allowed him to identify six officers who were stopping only black motorists. Three were transferred from patrol duties, while the others agreed to make changes in how they determined which drivers to stop. St. Paul Police Federation president Brad Jacobsen said the union is willing to participate in the study and wants to help determine what data will be collected. "We aren't afraid of the results, because we don't believe we're racial profiling," Jacobsen said. Heron Marquez Estrada can be reacher/ at hnhe(a),startribune. conk ® Copyright 2001 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. 'I'nGce board bpi ms.. AI crcd' - t 1ln eAm1011. con, 11111vm rsa 11 nicsunion com AshSloncn skon :IV's14 u r Kcs Ph, 2 A&La l cgoi I ��p�ll. C�'S a UNION By LYDIA POLGREEN, Staff writer First published. Friday, January 12, 2001 Police board bylaws offered Albany -- They emphasize board independence in review of citizens' complaints Members of the board that will hear and investigate complaints of police misconduct got a first peek at the bylaws that will govern the body Thursday evening, when the 34-page document was presented. Board member Paul Weafer, counsel to the state Legislative Bill Drafting Committee, drafted the bylaws, which he said emphasize the board's independence and commitment to reaching out to community members who might not be aware of the Citizens' Police Review Board, or are afraid to approach it. lie cited the need to seek counsel from young people, a response in part to repeated complaints that al I board members are over age 30. The uneasy dance between the Police Department and the board was evident at the meeting during a discussion of where the forms citizens will use to file complaints will be available Board member Morris Eson said a police sergeant did not want complaint forms to be available at the YMCA because he goes there with his children and does not want them to see the forms. Board member Judith Mazza also described a lively discussion she had with a police officer who voiced concerns about the board while she was t diii- along with him in his cimsei on a recent 4 p fit to I2 a ni shift "Fie expressed his misgivings about the board,he was conccrncd about Mondav morning quarterbacking what they do," Mazza said Over the course of the Shift, however, they found common ground, she said "[if order to iniprove the quality of lilt in the city it's all of Its together or nothing " Home News Todav s Stories iRIA CQE {,liurte•r (trteI :t�rtr.. f r�inlr I I'f�ISP 'I'oliec (ward bylaws ollered' - timesunion.ann htlp://www.linlcsunion.cum/AspSlories/story.asp?strnyKcy=J9G22Kcategor After preliminary approval of the bylaws in late January, the board plans to hold a hearing for public comment before sending them to the Common Council and the mayor for approval. EA Send this story to a friend Ca,1 Return to Top Co ri tl 2001, Capilal Newspapers Division of the Ilearsl C'ogwralion. Albany. N.Y. lLe inlilmlatinn you rcecim online Rein limes I Inion is pm(eeled by the cupwighl laws ofthe I Inited Slatm Mlle copwigbt la,cs porbibil am copying. rdistribuling. retrancmilling, or repurpre ing ol'im coprrighl-prole led malerial. 2 .,I' 2 I'12i01 9.iS, l^� A�t M�ES UNK)N By MARV CERMAK, staff writer First published. Tuesday, December 12, 2000 Police -review backers hold vigil at City Hall Schenectady -- More than 100 people turned out Monday at a candlelight vigil on the steps of City Hall urging the City Council to form an independent civilian police review board. "The issues are impartiality and seeking credible information regarding complaints against officers,' said I loward Shelley, a retired 25-year New York City police sergeant and a member of the existing Police Objective Review Committee. About a dozen people, mainly members of the rally -sponsoring Capital Region Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, county Human Rights Commission and the Committee for Social Justice, spoke during the peaceful, one -hour event. Members of the groups have long complained that the existing review committee is not equipped to provide effective oversight. Last June, the groups submitted a proposal to the City (buncil for a new Citizens Police Review Board with subpoena powers. Louise Roback, director of the Civil Liberties chapter, said that under the current system the police investigate the police. "It's time for the City Council to call a public hearing on the issue. People need an impartial board," Roback said. The rally comes as a federal grand jury investigates corruption in the Police Department. In August, two police officers were indicted on drug distribution and extortion charges. However, Roback said there is no sign that the grand jury is looking into brutality charges. Home NewsToday's Stones I,I, i, t,wnoa gyp.! 'Ndiee-rm ien backers hold vigil at CiIN- I lall' - limeu11111on will hitp:: Wnn.IIIoC UnnolLconl /Axpalunc.c. sun}-Jsp.o+ Police Chief Gregory Kaczmarek, who was present at the rally, said the existing review committee has the option of turning over cases to the City Council if there is dissatisfaction with the police internal investigation. He said the council has subpoena powers, but he noted that the committee has never referred a case to the council. "We are willing to make some changes with the existing program to facilitate some of their ideas," Kaczmarek said. Brian Wright, Human Rights Commission executive director, said he was concerned because police internal investigations over the years found problems with only three of 180 complaints. The Rev. Van Stuart said some people with complaints are reluctant to be interviewed by the police, but they would speak to a civilian board. "Justice has to work for the police and for those touched by the police it must be a two-way street," Stuart said. { Send this story to a friend Return to Top Co ri n 201U7. Capital Newspapers Division of"I'be I lenist G+gx+ration. ,\Ih:up. N.l'. 'I'ho inli"mxtion you receive online t}ou Times I Inion is protected by the cop)rigllt laws of the I Illilai slates. -I'lie copyright hies prohibit anv copying, ralistributing, retrmismilting. or repwposing ol*anv copyright-pntlectLd nlata'ial. m CL - i 5 Sin 15 ._T $�°c5a�. 6 4 o O �09 to e g�n8 8 CL . 9 F. — Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board Municipal Building March 13, 2001 HANDOUT Legal and Methodological Issues Concerning Police Stops of Automobiles and Pedestrians and Police Use of Force David Baldus University of Iowa College of Law Pages I. Police Stops of Automobiles and Pedestrians A. The scope of police discretion under the United States Constitution ...... 2-4 1. Evidence of the abuse of police discretion in selected communities......................................................... 5-13 B. Proposals for data collection to monitor police behavior ...................15-19 1. Opinions about the seriousness of the problem and the need for oversight.............................................................20-24 C. Examples of the collection and analysis of stop data -- Philadelphia and New Jersey 1. Issues of research design, data collection, and analysis.............24-48 D. Policy limitations on the exercise of police discretion at the state and locallevel....................................................................13-14, 49-52 II. Police use of Force A. An overview.....................................................................53-60 B. Possible approaches to the collection and analysis of data ...............61-70 PCRB9.8 1 87 JCRLC 5" FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 5" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Winter 1997 Essay '544 "DRIVING WHILE BLACK" AND ALL OTHER TRAFFIC OFFENSES: THE SUPREME COURT AND PRETE%TUAL TRAFFIC STOPS David A. Harris [FNall Copyright ° 1997 Northwestern University School of Law; David A. Harris The Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States [FN11 could not have surprised many observers of the Court's Fourth Amondmant jurisprudence. In Whren, police officers used traffic violations as a pretext to stop a car and investigate possible drug offenses; the officers had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to stop the driver for narcotics crimes. [FN2l In the Supreme Court, the government advocated the "could have" standard' any time the police could have stopped the defendant for a traffic infiwhon, it does not matter that police actually stopped him to investigate a crime for which the police had little or no evidence. [FN31 The defense asked the Court to adopt a "would have" rule: a seizure based on a traffic stop would only stand if a reasonable officer would have made this particular stop. [FN4] The Court sided with the government. If police witness a traffic violation, the •545 Court said, they have the simplest and clearest type of probable cause imaginable for a stop. [FN51 Requiring more would force lower courts to make post hoc Fourth Amendment judgments based on either the mindset of a reasonable officer or the actual (perhaps ulterior) motives of the arresting officer, neither one of which the Court saw as necessary, useful, or relevant to the task of judging the constitutionality of a seizure. [FN61 Mies Whren, courts will not ask whether police conducted a traffic stop because officers felt the occupants of the car were involved in some other crime about which they had only a hunch; rather, once a driver commits a traffic infraction, #be officer's "real" purpose will make no difference at all. [FN71 For the sake of of argument, I will concede that the decision in Whren makes some sense, at least from the point of view of judicial administration. But examined more carefully, Whren does more than opt for a more workable rule: it approves two alarming law enforcement practices. Neither are secret; on the contrary, the law of search and seizure has reflected both for a long time. [FN81 But both represent profoundly dangerous developments for a free society, especially one dedicated to the equal treatment of all citizens. First, the comprehensive scope of state traffic codes makes them extremely powerful tools under Whren. These codes regulate the details of driving in ways both big and small, obvious and arcane. In the most literal sense, no driver can avoid violating some traffic law during a short drive, even with the most careful attention. Fairly read, Whren says that any traffic violation can support a stop, no matter what the real reason for it is; this ma any citizen fair game fora stop, almost eny time, anywhere, virtually at the whim of police. Given how important an activity driving has become in American society, Whren changes the Fourth Amendment's rule that police must have a reason *546 to forcibly interfere in our business -some be= to suspect wrongdoing that is more than a hunch. [FN91 Simply put, that rule no longer applies when a person drives a car. This alone should worry us, but the second police practice Whren approves is in fact far worse. It is this: Police will not subject all drivers to traffic stops in the way Whren allows. Rather, if past Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works WVESTLA7XV 87 JCRLC 5" FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 5 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *564 ) Robinson decision. EFN601 Nevertheless, the Court in Robinson found that the arrest alone justified the search. In other words, a full search can always follow a legitimate arrest; that is, an arrest which police make for the purpose of apprehending an offender, not for the purpose of making the search. Thus, while the irrelevancy of the actual beliefs of the officer is consistent with the rest of Robinson, it hardly seems substantial enough to be the basis of the decision in Whren. Indeed, from the point of view of the proper use of cases and doctrine, the Court should simply have conceded in Whren that precedent did not supply a ready answer to the question of how to band] pretextual stops. The opinion could have said (1) our cases do not dictate which way to decide this issue, so (2) we think the "could have" rule clearly preferable for reasons of ,judicial administration, police understanding of the rule, and crime control. But these arguments are not the primary reasons that Whren should disturb us. The real danger of Whren is not its use of precedent, its facile logic, or its rejection of one proposed test for another. Rather, Whren's most troubling aspects he in its implication -the incredible amount of discretionary power it hands law enforcement without any check -and what this mean for our everyday lives and our freedom as citizens. III. The Fourth Amendment and Traffic Offenses Commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, with considerable justification. As the Court lurches between protecting what it considers bedrock Fourth Amendment values the sanctity of the home, for example [FN611--and the undesirable and distasteful result of suppressing probative evidence of guilt, it has generated a hodgepodge of conflicting rules so technical that law professors --let alone law enforcers- find them difficult to understand. [FN62] Even so, some basic search and seizure rules 0555 seem firmly ensconced in the law. Perhaps this is because they are so fundamental that disturbing them would create an even larger doctrinal mess than the one that already exists; perhaps it is because there is present-day consensus accompanied by historical evidence on these points. Whatever the reason, we can discuss two key rules, secure in the knowledge that they are accepted by the Court. First, the police must usually have a reason to forcibly stop a person. [FN631 When I say "forcibly stop," I do fot mean the application of force to a suspect, though that may be part of a seizure. And I am not referring to casual encounters with police, in which a citizen is asked whether he or she would mind talking to police. Even though it seems more than just plausible to argue that such encounters always carry with them some element of coercion, [FN641 I am willing to accept, for the purposes of argument, the idea that such encounters remain consensual. In contrast, a forcible stop is by its nature coercive. When a police officer orders a citizen to halt, questioning, a search of some kind, or even arrest may follow. Police cannot force a citizen to stop and submit in this way without probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed by the suspect. (FN65] The Supreme Court reaffirmed this standard just a few years ago in Minnesota v. Dickerson, [FN661 in which Justice White stated clearly that this rule had not changed. The police must still have a reason to force a citizen to stop and submit to their authority, something more than just a hunch. [FN671 The other basic rule important to our discussion is this: if police •556 do not have the probable cause or reasonable suspicion necessary for a forcible stop, a citizen may ignore police requests to stop, respond to questions, produce identification, or submit to any further intrusion. The Supreme Court has reiterated this rule in a number of cases stretching over many years. For example, in Brown v. Texas, [FN681 police stopped a man in an area with a "high incidence of drug traffic" [FN691 because "the situation 'looked suspicious and we had never seen [the] subject in that area before."' [FN70] The officers arrested the man under a Texas statute that Criminalised any refusal to give police a name and address upon a legitimate stop. [FN711 The Supreme Court invalidated the Copr. C West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works �1'LSTL;1\1' 87 JCRLC 5" FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 6 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 644, •556) statute, and declared that nothing in the facts of the case allowed the officers to make a legitimate stop, even the defendant's presence in an area known for narcotics trafficking. The defendant had every right to walk away and to refuse to produce identification in such a situation, and any law to the contrary did not meet constitutional standards. [FN721 The Court carried this doctrine forward in Florida v. Royer, [FN731 in which it stated that "[a citizen] may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds." [FN741 And in Florida v. Bostick, [FN751 the Court reaffirmed this principle, declaring that while the police may question a person about whom they have no suspicion, "an individual may decline an officers request without fearing prosecution." [FN761 To be sure, I have not made the mistake of assuming that these legal rules necessarily reflect reality. I know that even though the cases discussed here may guarantee citizens the right to walk away from curious police without interference, the right may east more in theory than in practice. [FN771 It may be that the mere appearance of authority '557 nothing more than the officer's uniform, badge and squad car, to say nothing of her weapon -will cause most people to do what she says or answer her questions. But the point is that even if the law remains more an ideal than anything else, the Court's pronouncements on the subject all point in one direction: the police need at least reasonable suspicion to forcibly interfere with one's movement, and if they do not have it the citizen may walk away. Whren alters all of this for anyone driving a car. Simply put, it is difficult to imagine a more American activity than driving a car. We use our cars for everything: work (both as transportation to get to and from work and as mobile offices and sales platforms), play, and myriad other activities that make up everyday life. Of course, many Americans do not own cars, and some have even found it unnecessary to learn to drive. But this is not the norm. Most American kids date their emergence from adolescence not from high school graduation or a religious or cultural ceremony, but from something far more central to what they really value: the day they receive their driver's licenses. Americans visiting Europe for the first time often return with the observation that one can get to and from almost any little town entirely on public transportation. Europeans visiting America are often surprised at the lack of public transportation facilities and options outside of major urban centers, and<at the sizeable cities that rely entirely on automobile transportation. Despite energy crises, traffic congestion, and the expense of owning a car, most Americans prefer to drive wherever they go. [FN781 In short, there are few activities more important to American life than driving. [FN791 With that in mind, consider traffic codes. There is no detail of driving too small, no piece of equipment too insignificant, no item of automobile regulation too arcane to be made the subject of a traffic 'fibs offense. Police officers in some jurisdictions have a rule of thumb: the average driver cannot go three blocks without violating some traffic regulation. Reading the codes, it is hard to disagree; the question is how anyone could get as far as three blocks without violating the law. When we think of traffic offenses, we think of "moving violations" -exceeding the speed limit, crossing dividing lines, and the like. But in fact traffic codes regulate many other aspects of driving - related activity, including some that seem almost wildly hypertechnical. And some of these offenses have nothing to do with driving at all. Rather, they are "equipment violations"- offenses in which driving with incorrect, outdated, or broken equipment constitutes the violation. And then there are catch-all provisions: rules that allow police to stop drivers for conduct that complies with all rules on the books, but that officers consider "imprudent" or "unreasonable" under the circumstances, or that describe the offense in language so broad as to make a violation virtually coextensive with the officer's unreviewable personal judgment. Copr. ° West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Mou LA�1' 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 7 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *558) For example, in any number of jurisdictions, police can stop drivers not only for driving too fast, but for driving too slow. [FN801 In Utah, drivers must signal for at least three seconds before changing lanes; a two second signal would violate the law. [FN811 In many states, a driver must signal for at least one hundred feet before turning right; ninety-five feet would make the driver a offender. IFN821 And the driver making that right turn may not slow down "suddenly" (undefined) without signalling. [FN83] Many, states have made it a crime to drive with a malfunctioning taillight, IFN841 a rear -tag illumination bulb that does not work, [FN85] or •559 tires without sufficient tread. IFN861 They also require drivers to display not only license tags, but yearly validation stickers, pollution control stickers, and safety inspection stickers; driving without these items displayed on the vehicle in the proper place violates the law. [FN871 If few drivers are aware of the true scope of traffic codes and the limitless opportunities they give police to make preteatual stops, police officers have always understood this. point. For example, the statements by police officers that follow come from a book written in 1967: You can always get a guy legitimately on a traffic violation if you tail him for a while, and then a search can be made. You don't have to follow a driver very long before he will move to the other aide of the yellow line and then you can arrest and search him for driving on the wrong side of the highway. In the event that we see a suspicious automobile or occupant and wish to search the person or the car, or both, we will usually follow the vehicle until the driver makes a technical violation of a traffic law. Then we have a means of making a legitimate search. [FN881 These officers may not fully understand search and seizure law; for example, even in 1967, it was far from clear that a search could follow any traffic stop that police "legitimately" made. But they are absolutely correct on the larger point: with the traffic code in hand, any officer can stop any driver any time. The most the officer will have to do is "tail [a driver] for a while," and probable cause will materialize like magic. Whren is the Supreme Court's official blessing of this practice, despite the fact that police concede that they use this technique to circumvent constitutional requirements. But the existence of powerful and unreviewable police discretion to stop drivers is not the most disturbing aspect of Whren. That dubious honor is reserved for the ways in which the police will use this discretion. *560 IV. Who Will Be Stopped? Once we understand that Whren will permit police to stop anyone driving a car whenever they observe the ever-present violations of the traffic code, the question becomes who the police will stop. At first blush, the question might seem unnecessary. After all, if Whren allows the police to stop any driver at virtually any time, everyone feces the risk of a pretextual stop. But while Whren certainly makes it possible for the police to stop anyone, the fact is that police will not stop just anyone. In fact, police will use the immense discretionary power Whren gives them mostly to stop African - Americans and Hispanics. I say this not to imply that individual officers will act out of racist motivations. Though some will, I believe most will not. Rather, my point is that whatever their motivation, viewed as a whole, pretextuual stops will be used against African -Americans and Hispanics in percentages wildly out of proportion to their numbers in the driving population. It may seem bold that I make this assertion as a fact. In fact, I lack the kind of systematically gathered and analyzed data anyone making such a statement would prefer to have. This is because virtually no one --no individual, no police department, and no other government agency --has ever kept Copr. c West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works XVFSTL4V 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 8 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, 0560) comprehensive statistics on who police stop: basis for the stop, race of suspect, type of police activity after stop (e.g., questioning, search of suspect, search of car, use of drug -sniffing dog, whether consent was given), and the like. Of coarse, one type of record does follow some percentage of stops: traffic tickets and warnings, and arrest, charging and prosecution records of those suspects police find with contraband. But looking only at the records of those charged and prosecuted can mislead, and says nothing about the many other stops that result in no ticket and yield no contraband. Even so, information uncovered in the last few years has begun to shed light on the use of pretextual traffic stops. This data reveals several patterns, which African- Americans and Hispanics understand quite well already: police use traffic regulations to investigate many innocent citizens; these investigations, which are often quite intrusive, concern drugs, not traffic; and African - Americans and Hispanics are the targets of choice for law enforcement. So even if we lack systemic data, we now have something that gives us a strong indication of current law enforcement realities and the direction of future trends. We can comfortably predict the effect of Whren: police will use the case to justify and expand drug interdiction efforts agamst.people of color. ' Here are four different stories of pretextual stops. They originate from different areas of the country: Florida in the South, Maryland in *561 the Northeast, Illinois in the Midwest, and Colorado in the West. All involve independent police agencies. Other stories of this type of police activity exist, [FN891 but those presented here are among the best documented. Each of them teaches the same lesson. And with Whren on the books, we should expect more of what these stories tell, not less. a. volusia county, florida Located in central Florida, Volusia County surrounds a busy stretch of Interstate 95. In the late 1980's, this portion of highway became the focus of Sheriff Bob Vogel and his deputies. Using a group of officers called the Selective Enforcement Team, Vogel operated a major drug interdiction effort against drivers moving narcotics by car through his jurisdiction. [FN901 The deputies aimed not only to make arrests, but to make seizures of cash and vehicles, which their agency would keep. [FN911 As with nod police agencies, the Volusia County Sheriffs Department did not keep records of stops and searches in which no arrests or seizures occurred in the three years that the Selective Enforcement Team operated. [FN921 Thus no one might ever have learned about the Selective Enforcement Team's practices, except for one thing. Volusia County deputies' were cars fi with video cameras [FN931 Deputies taped some of the I-95 stomas using Flo . a ( slaw, The �r — Sentine o yr pes.TFN94) Deputies made no tapes for much of the duration of the interdiction effort, and they sometimes taped over previously recorded stops. [FN951 But the tapes the newspaper obtained documented almost 1,100 stops, and they showed a number of undeniable patterns. First, even though African -Americans and Hispanics make up only about five percent of the drivers on the county's stretch of I-95, [PN961 *W2 more than seventy percent of all drivers stopped were either African- American or Hispanic. [FN971 The tapes put this in stark terms. One African - American man said he was stopped seven times by police; another said that he was stopped twice within minutes. Looking at figures for all of Florida, seventy percent is vastly out of proportion to the percentage of Blacks among Floridians of driving age (11.7 percent), the percentage of Blacks among all Florida drivers convicted of traffic offenses in 1991(15.1 percent), or to the percentage of Blacks in the nation's population as a whole (12 percent). [FN981 (Hispanics make up about nine percent of the population). [FN991 Second, the deputies not only stopped black and Hispanic drivers more often than whites; they also stopped them for longer periods of time. According to the videotapes, deputies detained Blacks and Hispanics for twice as long as they detained whites. Colin ° West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works k%TST"Y 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 9 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *562) [FN1001 Third, the tapes showed that police followed a stop with a search roughly half the time; eighty percent of the cars searched belonged to Black or Hispanic drivers.1FN1011 It should not surprise anyone to know that deputies said they made these 1,100 stops based on "legitimate traffic violations." [FN1021 Violations ranged from "swerving" (243), to exceeding the speed limit by up to ten miles per lour (128), burned -out license tag lights (71), improper license tags (46), failure to signal before a lane change (45), to a smattering of others. [FN1031 Even so, only nine Of v - considerab less than one xecei" v—`meets, I �� [FN1041 and deputies even released several drivers who admitted to crimes, inch driving, without any charges. I7d1051 The tapes also showed that the seizure of cash remained an important goal of the stops, with deputies seizing money almost three times as. often as they arrested anyone for drugs. [FN1061 With regard to the seizures •563 of cash, race also played a role: Ninety percent of the drivers from whom cash was taken, but who were not arrested, were Black or Hispanic. [FN107] Notwithstanding these numbers, Sheriff Vogel said there was no racial bias in his department's work. Prior to the release of the tapes, he stated that the stops were not based on skin color and that deputies stopped "a broad spectrum of people." [FN108] The tapes eventually led to two lawsuits in federal court in which plaintiffs alleged violations of their civil rights because they were targeted for stops on the basis of their race. DN1091 In both cases, a judge refused to certify a class of all minority citizens illegally stopped, this resulted in the dismissal of the cases when they went to trial. [FN1101 On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals. [FN1111 The experience of drivers in Volusia County shows what we can expect under Whren. Police will use traffic regulations as an excuse to stop drivers they suspect of narcotics trafficking, and most of those stopped will be people of color. Of course, this is exactly the type of police activity that African - Americans and Hispanics have complained of for years, but few have listened. b. rbert wiAdns and the maryland state police [FN1121 In the early morning hours of May 8, 1992, a Maryland State Police officer stopped a new rental car carrying four African -Americans on Interstate 68. The four, all relatives, were returning to the Washington, D.C. area from a family member's funeral in Chicago. [FN113] After *564 obtaining the driver's license, the officer asked the driver to step out of the car and sign a form giving consent to a search [FN1141 At that point, Robert Wilkins, one of the passengers in the car, identified himself as an attorney with a 9:30 am. court appearance in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Wilkins told the officer that he had no right to search the car without arresting the driver, the officer replied that such searches were "routine." After all, the officer said, if Wilkins and his relatives had "nothing to hide, then what [was] the problem?" [FN1151 Another officer joined the first, and they detained the group for an additional half hour while other officers brought a drug-aniffing dog to the scene. [FN1161 The driver asked whether he would receive a ticket; the officer said he would only give the driver a warning. The driver asked that the warning be written so that the group could leave, and Wilkins asserted that continued detention in order to bring the dog violated the Constitution; the officer ignored both of them. [FN117] When the dog arrived, the officers ordered Wilkins and his relatives out of the car, despite their expressed fears of the dog and the fact that it was raining. [FN1181 They were forced to stand in the rain as the dog sniffed in and around the car. [FN119] When the dog failed to react in any way, Wilkins and the others were then allowed back in the car --while the officer who had stopped them wrote the driver a $105 speeding ticket. [FN1201 Civil rights lawyers sometimes say that despite the volume of complaints they receive about racially biased traffic stops, victims of this treatment feel reluctant to become plaintiffs in legal actions for redress. [FN1211 Perhaps they fear retaliation; others may want to avoid the hassle of Copr. a West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 10 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 644, *564) becoming involved in a very public way in complex and often politically charged litigation. Still others may fear that opposing lawyers may discover dirt in their pasts and use it against them Not so with Robert Willans. A Harvard Law School graduate, Wilkins worked as a public defender for the highly -regarded Public Defender Service in Washington, D.C. C'N1221 As an attorney with an active practice in criminal law, he was no doubt thoroughly familiar with the law that governed *565 the situation in which he and his family members found themselves. [FN1231 The prospect of public litigation against a police agency obviously did not scare him. Individually and on behalf of a class of all others treated similarly, he and his family members sued the Maryland State Police, supervisory and command personnel at the agency, and the individual officers involved They alleged civil rights violations and other wrongs, stating that the officers had illegally stopped and detained them on the basis of a "profile" that targeted people based on their race. [FN1241 State Police officials denied Wilkins' allegations; a spokesman said the practice of stopping . a disproportionate number of blacks simply represented "an unfortunate byproduct of sound police policies." [FN1251 The implication was clear. African -Americans commit the most crime; to stop crime, we must stop Afican- Americans. Officials maintained this supposedly race neutral explanation even in the face of an official document that surfaced during litigation. Dated just days before the State Police officers stopped Wilkins and his family members, it warned officers operating in Allegheny County -the very county in which police stopped the Wilkins group -to watch for "dealers and couriers (traffickers) [who] are predominantly black males and black females .... utilizing Interstate 68 ..." [F'N126] The case eventually produced a settlement, in which the Maryland State Police agreed not to use any race based drug courier profiles and to cease using "race as a factor for the development of policies for stopping, detaining, and searching motorists." [FN1271 The State Police also agreed to conduct training that would reflect the prohibition on the use of race as both departmental policy and state law, [FN128] and to pay monetary damages and attorney's fees. WN1291 Perhaps more significantly, the State Police agreed that for a period of three years, they would: maintain computer records of all stops in which a consent to search was given by a motorist stopped on any Maryland roadway by the Maryland State Police and all stops on any Maryland roadway by Maryland State Police in which a search by li drug -detecting dog is made, "minimally *566 including in such records: date, time, and location of consent or search, name of officer(s) requesting consent to search or directing search by drug dog-, race of persons(s) stopped, detained, or searched; year make and model of vehicle; and grounds for requesting that consent to search be given or search by drug dog made, if any." [FN130] The State Police have, in fact, maintained these records, and submitted them to the court. The latest figures available track stops followed by consent searches and dog sniffs from January 1995 through June 1996, and they bear a striking similarity to the information revealed by the Volusis County videotapes. Of the 732 citizens detained and searched by the Maryland State Police, 76% were African -Americans, and 5% were Hispanics. [FN1311 The Maryland numbers are also broken down by officer; of the twelve officers involved, six stopped over 80% African -Americans, one stopped over 95% African- Americans, and two stopped only African -Americans. [FN1321 Based on this information, provided to the court by the State Police, the plaintiffs and their attorneys are preparing to reopen the litigation, as the Settlement Agreement allows. [FN1331 Sad to say, the numbers show that very little has changed, despite the Wilkins suit and the Settlement Agreement. [FN1341 c. peso chavez and the illinois state police During recent years, African -Americans and Hispanics have made hundreds of complaints to the IIIinois affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging that the Illinois State Police targeted them for pretzxtual traffic stops. [FN1351 The A.C.L.U. eventually filed suit; a 0567 man Copr. ° West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works MA 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 11 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, 0567) named Peso Chavez became the lead plaintiff. However, Mr. Chavez's 1994 encounter with the Illinois State Police did not happen by chance. Chavez was a private investigator with twenty years of experience and a former elected official in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In 1994, a lawyer for an Hispanic man who alleged that Illinois State Police had stopped him illegally hired Chavez to drive a late model sedan across areas. of Illinois that had been the source of complaints of illegal stops and searches of minority motorists. [FN1361 The plan called for Chavez, a man with an Hispanic appearance, to drive cautiously, taking care not to break the traffic laws; a paralegal in another car would follow at a distance to observe his driving. The idea was a "reverse sting" [FN1371-an attempt to catch police in the act of making illegal stops and searches. On February 18, 1993, in Bureau County, Illinois, Officer Thomas of the Illinois State Police began to follow Chavez. He followed Chavez for twenty miles, through Bureau and LaSalle Counties. [FN1381 Eventually, Thomas activated his emergency lights and pulled Chavez over. [FN1391 Thomas was soon joined at the scene by another officer. Officer Thomas told Chavez that he had stopped him for a traffic violation, and asked Chavez for his license and rental agreement. Chavez supplied both. [FN1401 After questioning Chavez, Thomas gave Chavez a warning for failing to signal when changing lanes. This supposed infraction was an obvious and unfounded pretext for the stop; the paralegal following Chavez saw no such violation. [FN1411 The other officer then asked Chavez if he could search his car. Chavez asked whether he had to allow the search; the officer said that he wanted a drug -sniffing dog to walk around Chavez' car. Chavez unequivocally refused and asked to be allowed to leave, but the officers detained him. [FN1421 Another officer then led a dog around Chavez' car; the officers told Chavez that the dog had "alerted" to the presence of narcotics, and ordered him into the back seat of a patrol car. [FN1431 For the next hour, Chavez watched as the interior, trunk, and engine compartment of his car were thoroughly searched. The police opened his *568 luggage and searched through his personal possessions. RW1441 Meanwhile, an officer in the patrol car with Chavez questioned him about his personal life. [FN1451 The police found nothing, and eventually allowed Chavez to leave. EFN1461 Despite his background as an investigator, his government experience, and the knowledge that he was part of a reverse sting, Chavez found the experience more than unnerving. Watching police search his car and being told that the dog had detected drugs, Chavez said, "I became very frightened at what was happening. I never had my mouth as dry as it was -it was like cotton." [FN1471 Chavez is now the named plaintiff in a lawsuit in federal court that seeks injunctive relief against the State Police to stop racially based searches and seizures, as well as other relief and damages. The suit seeks certification of a class of persons subjected to the same treatment. Many other African- Americans and Hispanics who were subjected to illegal stops and searches have become named plaintiffs. [FN1481 At this writing, discovery is ongoing. [FN1491 d. eagle county, celorado In the late 1980's, the Eagle County, Colorado Sheriffs Department established a highway drug interdiction unit. The "High Country Drug Task Force" used a drug courier profile made up of twenty-two "indicators" to stop cars along Interstate 70; prominent among them was "race or ethnicity, based on 'intelligence information' f1rom other law agencies ...." [FN1501 Although the Task Force used traffic infractions as a pretext to stop many people, not one person received a ticket. [FN1511 The story of one of the people stopped speaks volumes about what happened in Eagle County. On May 3, 1989, Eagle County deputies stopped Jhenita Whitfield as she drove from San Diego to Copr. ° West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works WESTL& 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 12 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, •569) Denver *60 to visit relatives. With her were her sister and their four children. [FN1521 A disabled vehicle in the roadway forced them to change lanes; soon after, an officer pulled them over for failing to signal before changing lanes. [FN1631 The deputies told her explicitly that she "'fit the profile' of a possible drug runner," and asked if they could search her car. [FN1641 Whitfield wanted to refuse, but felt concerned that if she did, she might be "set up." [FN1551 She also felt she had no choice because the children were hungry and one needed to use a bathroom, so she consented. EF'N1561 The experience left Whitfield, an African -American, shaken and it has changed her life in a significant way. Despite the fact that she has family out of town, she does not visit them "I do not travel anymore," she said. [FN1571 Seven people who, like Jhenita Whitfield, had been stopped by Eagle County deputies filed a class action suit in 1990, slaking the court to halt the Task Force's practice of race -based profile stops. RW1581 The court eventually certified a class consisting of 400 individuals who had been stopped. IFN1591 Among them were African -Americans and a large number of Hispanics, who alleged that deputies stopped them because of their ethnicity. [FN1601 In November of 1993, a federal court ruled that the Task Force had violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. With appeals pending, the parties reached a settlement requiring Eagle County to pay damages to each person searched, aniounUng to a total of $800,000. The County also agreed to abandon the Task Force program and agreed not to stop, search, seize evidence or detain a person "unless there is some objective reasonable suspicion that the person has done something wrong." TN1611 e. living with pretextual stops These cases from Florida, Maryland, Illinois and Colorado show in no uncertain terms the impact Whren will have: The drivers police will stop for pretextual traffic violations will come from minority *570 groups in disproportionate numbers. Police have done it in the recent past; in the Maryland case, police continue to do so despite a settlement reflected in a court order specifically prohibiting these practices. Wbren insulates this activity by pronouncing any stop for a traffic violation proper and reasonable, whatever its real purpose. But seeing the big picture should not prevent us from asking what effect pretextual stops have on the individuals who experience them. The answer highlights the hidden cost of racially skewed law enforcement techniques in a profound way. For those stopped, the situation may produce fear, anger, humiliation, and even rage. Jhenita Whitfield, the African -American woman stopped in Eagle County, has given up travelling because she once had to balance her desire not to submit to a search against her fear that not consenting would lead the police to plant evidence on her. [FN1621 Peso Chavez, the experienced investigator stopped while driving through Illinois, knew he had no narcotics with him, knew he had a witness to prove that he had broken no laws, and knew and insisted upon his rights. Still, his mouth went dry with fear as officers reported that a dog had been alerted to drugs in his car and the officers proceeded to search through the car and his private effects. [FN1631 Robert Wilkins and his family members, forced to stand in the rain while a dog sniffed through their car, felt degraded. "You can't imagine the anger and humiliation I felt during the entire episode," said Aquila Abdullah, a passenger in the car with Wilkins that night. [FN1641 Wilkins himself expressed a sense of helplessness. "Part of me feels like there is nothing that I could have done to prevent what happened. You know, I was calm and respectful to the police. I tried to explain to the officer what my rights are." [FN1651 Beyond the price paid by the person stopped, other African -Americans and Hispanics feel the effects, too. Because these pretextual police stops of blacks are so common -- frequent enough to earn the name "driving while black" -many African- Americans regularly modify the most casual aspects of their driving behavior, travel itineraries, and even their personal Copr. ° West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works aa�aaa� NVESTLA\�, 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 13 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *570) appearance, to avoid police contact. Salim Muwakkil, an academic and journalist, makes trips in the Midwest in a nondescript rental car, strictly obeys the speed limit, and never wears his beret behind the wheel. IFN1661 Before he adopted this strategy, police stopped Muwakkil so often that •571 he would compute the time these stops took into his travel time. [FN1671 When lawyer and lobbyist Wade Henderson drives from Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Virginia, to teach, he eschews flashy rental cars for conservative ones, even though he is graying and wears a suit. [FN1681 Others restrict their movements; they avoid driving in areas where a black person attracts "stares." [FN1691 And when police stop Christopher Darden, one of the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case, he doesn't move, keeps his hands on the wheel, and makes no sadden gestures; he calls these "African American survival techniques." [FN1701 But perhaps we should examine the mom from Myer perspective: that of law enforcement. [FN1711 And that -outlook would no doubt seem quite different from what.I have said so far. In a nutshell, it is this: Stopping a disproportionate number of African -Americans is not racist; it is just plain good police work. After all, African -Americans make up a large share of those arrested, prosecuted and jailed in this country. Police know jails are full of criminals, a substantial portion of whom are black, and that a high percentage of black males are under the control of the criminal justice system in one way or another. [FN1721 The police have no interest in harassing black or Hispanic people; rather, their motivation remains the apprehension of criminals. Race may play a part in law enforcement, but only as a proxy for a higher probability of criminal activity. In other words, racial disparities in stops and searches are nothing more than "an unfortunate byproduct of sound police policies." IFN1731 Lt. Col. Ernest Leatherbury, commander of field operations for the Maryland State Police, puts it this way: 'The facts speak for themselves ... IWlhen you got a high number of these consent searches resulting in drug arrests do we in law enforcement or the public want to say the state police should discoatim, these searches?" [FN1741 In other words, police target blacks and Hispanics because they are the right ones, and this technique gets results. And •572 if it works, we should not let the niceties of search and seizure law get in the way of catching the bad guys. But this argument contains a flaw, and it is not a alall one. Behind the raoe-neutral reasons police give lies a stark truth. When officers stop disproportionate members of African- Americans because this is "just good police work," they are using race as a proxy for the criminality or "general criminal propensity" of an entire racial group. IFN1751 Simply put, police are targeting all African - Americans because some are criminals. In essence, this thinking predicts that all blacks, as a group, share a general propensity to commit crimes. Therefore, having black skin becomes enough -perhaps along with a minimal member of other factors, perhaps alone -for law enforcement to stop and detain someone. Under this view, all black citizens become probable criminals —suspects the minute they venture out of their homes. The wrongheadedness and unfairness of treating all members of a group as criminals just because some are seems obvious. But even if not everyone feels this way, treating race as a proxy for criminality sugars from other serious problems. First, implicit in this view is the assumption that blacks are disproportionately more likely than whites and others to be involved with street crimes. [FN1761 Even if this is true, African -Americans being more likely than whites to be involved in street crime is a far cry from any evidence that would strongly support the assertion that any particular black person is committing a crime. Yet that is the way police use this information. Second, even if we accept the assumption of the disproportionate involvement of blacks in street crime, police still greatly overestimate the value of race as a predictor of criminal behavior. [FN1771 Using race as a proxy for criminality may result in "double counting." IFN1781 If, for example, criminal involvement is strongly correlated with poverty, with presence in so-called "high crime areas," or with both, and if African- Americans are disproportionately poor and living in such neighborhoods, [FN1791 race would add little to a police officer's ability to predict criminal Colin c West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works ME&I'ESTL 111� 1 87 JCRLC 644 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 14 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim.1.. & Criminology 544, 0573 ) involvement *573 beyond what poverty and geography already reveal. [FN1801 As Professor Sheri Lynn Johnson has said, "(a)lthough probabilistic constraints may not preclude general racial propensities to commit crime, they clearly militate against according them substantial weight." [FN1811 V. What Happens After the Stop? Once police stop a person for a traffic offense, what happens? By posing this question, I do not mean to imply that the stop itself is in iq.„a^ant• On the contrary, the stop is itself not only unnerving but potentially dangerous, especially if it is ordered by an officer in plain clothes or in an unmarked car. [FN1821 Although preteatual traffic stops may be problematic in "themselves, they are also disturbing because they may lead to searches. What rules govern what happens after a preteatual stop? First, if police have probable cause to stop a vehicle, this alone does not entitle them to search it. There must be something more than the traffic offense to justify a search, some combination of facts that gives police probable cause -to believe that an offense has been or is being committed or that the vehicle contains contraband. While we can argue whether any particular set of facts actually gives rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the bottom line is that something is required to justify a search. E N1831 There are several variations on this theme. lfpolice arrest the driver, they may search not only the driver but the interior of the car, closed parts of the interior like the glove box, and any closed containers inside the interior. [FN1841 And if the police see evidence of crime in 0574 plain view, of course, they may seize it and then arrest and search as appropriate. This, in fact, is what happened in Whren: Police stopped the vehicle, and upon looking inside -without any further searching -saw two bags of cocaine. [FN1851 But in the great bulk of cases, there is no offense other than the traffic violation, no arrest occurs for the traffic offense, and police find nothing incrim;ns � in plain view. Instead, police accomplish their goal of searching those they stop in two other ways. The first is simple: officers ask the people the While those asked need not consent, many do. The reasons for this seem as varied as human beings are, but several causes predominate. People simply may not know that they can refuse, and the Constitution does not require the police to tell citizens that they can withhold their consent. [FN1861 Consequently, some undoubtedly feel they have no choice. Others surely feel intimidated, as Jhemta Whitfield said she did in Eagle County. Intimidation was no doubt what the Maryland State Police officer intended when he told Robert Wilkins that searches were "routine" and that if he had nothing to hide, he should permit the search -leaving in the air the obvious implication that a refusal would show Wilkins' guilt. [FN1871 But the predominant reason drivers consent lies with police officers. Their goal, plain and simple, is to get people to agree to a search. They are accomplished at the verbal judo necessary to subjugate their "opponents," they have the authority of their office behind them, and they make It their business to get what they want. The officer starts with innocuous sounding questions: Where are you coming from? Where are you headed? Who's the person you're visiting? What's her address? Who's with you in the back seat? Then the questions often get more personal. They are designed to find contradictions that show the driver might have something to hide, and to put the driver in the frame of mind of responding to the officer's authority. Police call it "sweet talk," and it almost always leads to a consensual search. None of this is accidental; rather, it is a well -honed, calculated psychological technique that police departments teach their officers. [FN1881 And it works. In the Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 15 (Cite as: 87 J. Cr iim. L. & Criminology 544, •575) course of 150 stops over two 0575 years, one Indiana state trooper said, "I've never had anyone tell - me I couldn't searcb." [FN1891 But what if the occupants of the car refuse? Must the police allow them to leave, ending the encounter? Not necessarliy, as the 'Wilkins case and others show. If police encounter a person like Wilkins --one who knows he does not have to answer questions or consent to a search, one who will insist on his rights --they use another technique: theyuse a dog trained to detect drags. If the dog gives the signal that it has smelled drugs, this provides the police with probable cause for a full- blown search of the vehicle and its contents. According to United States v. Place, [FN1901 the use of such a dog does not constitute a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment; therefore, use of the dog requires neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. Place gives the police just what they need if a driver refuses consent: a search for which consent is not necessary, which may yield the Justification they need to do the very search the driver refused to allow. There is one important wrinkle in this argument. Once the driver refuses consent, the police must not hold her any longer unless there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so. Can the police hold someone long enoiXhlg-J1&ve. s. drug detecting dog brought to the scene? The Supreme Court has not yet supplied a definitive answer, but analogous cases indicate that if the police have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone of involvement in a crime, they can detain the person for a "reasonable" period of time to allow the dog to be brought. In Place, a passenger's luggage was held for ninety minutes to allow for a dog to sniff it; the Court found this unreasonable, because the law enforcement officials had advance warning and could have gotten the dog there in much less time. [FN1911 And in United States v. Sharpe, [FN1921 the Court found a twenty minute detention reasonable, because the delay was caused by the suspect's flight. [FN1931 •576 How the Court will ultimately resolve this question is anyone's guess; the most likely possibility is case by case discussion of what length of detention is reasonable under the circumstances. But given the Court's unbounded analysis of the Fourth Amendment implications of the use of dogs, the argument over the reasonableness of the length of detention will be the only argument any driver has left. ;_._. „_ , M11 Whren represents the Supreme Court's official approval for the use of preteatual stops by police. Defendants may no longer argue successfully that particular traffic stops were purely excuses to allow investigation of other crimes about which there was neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. [FN1941 If I am right, all motorists are now fair game for police, and African Americans and other people of color will suffer the great bulk of this treatment. Where does all of this leave us? Can anything be done to address these practices and the disparate impact they seem almost certain to have? If Whren does nothing else, it takes courts out of the business of supervising this type of police conduct. Now, police need not come up with any rationale for stopping motorists save the easy and obvious one: violation of the traffic code. [FN1951 Given that the door of judicial redress has closed, and that the Supreme Court's suggested equal protection remedy seems unlikely to bear any fruit, what other avenues are open to help grapple with the police practices highlighted here? Two modest suggestions follow. a. administrative regulations In a time when we continue to focus on courts to control police discretion, another tool is often overlooked: Police department policy and regulation. If unchecked discretion and racially biased traffic enforcement tactics infect a police agency's operations, written policies and regulation could fill the vacuum created by the Supreme Court's abdication of supervisory responsibility. Any time Copr. C West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works ME\1'ESTL:�14' 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 16 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 644, *576) official discretion exists, we must ask not only how to eliminate unnecessary discretion, but also how . to regulate and constrain the discretion that must exist as •577 part of the system. [FN1961 Departmental regulations have the potential to do both. In the recent past, courts, especially the Supreme Court, played the dominant rulemaking role for law enforcement at the level of constitutional enforcement. This has been especially true in the Fourth Amendment area. This resulted from the fact that other agencies -the legislative branch, executive agencies, and police departments themselves -failed to take any significant role in regulation of police. CFN1971 Comte in the post-Mapp era rushed to fill this void, in the Fourth Amendment field, this has been done through adjudication of search and seizme cases. But, as Professor LaFave has said, this has begun to change. [FN1981 Many police departments now put their practices down in written form as official policies or guidelines. [FN1991 And the fact that police agencies themselves construct these self -regulatory systems has some ;important advantages. First police rulemaking makes for better police decisions, jf-only. because it focuses the department on policy malting ardi on the implications to the community of the police practices being regulated. [FN2001 Second, rules reduce the influence of bias because they make training more uniform, and because they guide and control discretion. CFN2011 Third, police -made rules are most likely to be followed and enforced by police. CF'N2021 Last -but certainly not least -is the fact that, in cases such as Whren, the Supreme Court has simply taken the judiciary out of the equation. If there is no regulation at the agency level, there may simply be no regulation at all. One line of the Supreme Court's own cases suggests that the practices highlighted in this essay might be successfully addressed through police regulation. Beginning with South Dakota v. Opperman, [FN2031 the Court passed upon the reasonableness of searches done pursuant to departmental inventory procedures. In Opperman, the police discovered marijuana in the glove compartment of a vehicle they had towed to an impound lot before they inventoried the contents of *578 the car. The Supreme Court found the inventory search reasonable, perhaps because police performed the inventory "pursuant to standard police procedures." [FN2041 In the most recent inventory case, Colorado v. Bertine, [FN205] police discovered contraband in a backpack found in the defendant's vehicle during an inventory search. In Bertine, the Court was much clearer in delineating the place of police rules and rulemaking in search and seizure law: "reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though courts might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure." [FN2061 As Professor LaFave points out, to the extent that Opperman and Bertine encourage or require departments to make rules for inventories, this is all to the good. Since, according to Bertine, an inventory search may be reasonable without either probable cause or a warrant, [FN2071 standardized police procedures for inventories will limit and channel police discretion and prevent arbitrary police action. CFN2081 We should consider using the same approach to confine and regulate police discretion vis-a-vis the conduct of traffic stops. While Whren allows. tb -police to stop motorists any time an officer could have d u so thi& reed not be the rule within any given police department. $579 In fact, it was not the rule in the District of Columbia, where Whren arose; departmental regulations prohibited the making of traffic stops except within certain well- defined parameters. [FN2091 Departments could make rules that set out criteria for si- 'ors in mh.eu officers can stop cars when there is no intention of giving a traffic citation or performing other enforcement activities related to operation of the vim. At the very least, departmental regulations could prohibit the targeting of racial or e groups for traffic stops and searches. To encourage rulemaking (or review of existing rules) along these lines, federal and state governments might offer incentives in the form of increased funding to those departments that make changes in their existing regulations or implement new ones. Alternatively, of course, there might be financial penalties for departments that do not comply, Colin 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 17 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. 8c Criminology 544, •579 ) or some combination of carrot and stick- b. collection of data on traffic stops and searches and the rules put in place to govern them A second step we might take to address the problem of pmtextual stops involves the collection of data Police departments could be required (or financially encouraged) to collect data on all traffic stops. This data should include the reason for the stop, the race, ethnicity, and other identifying information concerning the person stopped, whether the driver received a citation or warning and for what, whether a search followed the stop, the basis for the search (consent, observation of incriminating items, or the like), whether a dog was used as part of the procedure, whether contraband was found and if so what kind, and whether any property was seised under forfeiture laws. The collection of this data would allow for large-scale study of traffic stops and the issues they raise, and would allow for a more rigorous analysis than I have presented here. While the numbers of persons stopped in my examples are large -in Volusia County alone, for example, the number of stops on the video tapes is almost eleven hundred -any social scientist would no doubt prefer a more systematic collection of data And even in the Maryland case, in which stops must be recorded, the court did not order Maryland State Police to collect all the information that might prove useful to someone studying these practices. On the contrary, only stops followed by consent searches or searches with dogs are included, whereas a more complete picture would, at the very least, require that all stops be tallied, whether or not followed by a search. A widespread, standardized •580 study of a number of police departments in a wide variety of geographic areas would give us the opportunity to arrive at a better understanding. If the data show that, in fast, African -Americans or other racial or ethnic groups are being targeted by police, [FN2101 there would be no diem ssing their experiences as isolated incidents or the work of just one or another particular police department. We aught at last have the information necessary to understand fully what happens in these situations, and perhaps to finally persuade legislators and other leaders that we must take concrete steps toward solutions. [ N2111 Such data collection would also allow us to study the effectiveness of the police regulations proposed above. Departments with and without such regulations could collect data, and the side by side comparison this would allow would give us a better understanding of the effectiveness of this approach. One can imagine at least two possible problems that might be suggested concerning the collection of data on police/motorist encounters. First, individual police officers might be reluctant to report information concerning their traffic stops. After all, would academics, policy makers, and others not use the data to attempt to prove police racism, either on time part of the individual or the institution? And would this concern not result in either incomplete and perhaps stilted reporting, or even reluctance to report at all, especially if the officer could be seen to be acting in contravention of departmental regulations? While these concerns are understandable, they would not be hard to address. Data collection could be anonymous, certainly as to the activities of individual officers. And if part of what we wish to study is whether departmental regulations might help limit or curb objectionable elements of police discretion in this area, the identity of the police department the data have come from might be hidden, too. With anonymity safeguarding them from implicating themselves in any way, there is no reason to believe that police and their superiors would not fairly and fully report their traffic stop activities. As an example, recall that the Maryland State Police have been reporting all *581 stops resulting in canine and consent searches for many months now. While they do this pursuant to a court order, there is still every reason to believe that the Maryland State Police officers might feel reluctant to report fully and accurately for just the reasons I have described. In fact, their feelings might even be somewhat more intense, since the data collected in Copr. ° West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 15 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 18 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *581) Maryland is broken down officer by officer, with names attached. Thus if one could imagine a scenario in which police might fail to fully and fairly report their actions, the Maryland case would be it. But that does not seem to be happening. While no one but the individual officers involved knows for sure whether some stops are not being reported, it would seem that underreporting would skew the data away from any racial bias in stops, since all of the officers know that this was the problem from which the reporting obligation arose in the first place. Yet after eighteen months, the data show that roughly eighty percent of the stops counted still involve people of color. In other words, if the officers were trying to affect the numbers (and one could argue that if anyone had incentive to do so, they do), they are doing a poor job of it. The other explanation, of course, is that they are not doing this at all. The other problem that might be raised concerns the practical side of reporting. What officer will want to fill out a form, even a simple one, for every traffic stop? Police are already busy trying to do the job we send them out to do. Why should they do extra paperwork to help study that job? The first answer to this objection is that many police departments already request a short report on every stop, whether or not the officer issues a citation or a warning. The second answer lies with technology. Already, many police vehicles carry not just radios, but computer terminals that can be used to check a car's license plate number or a motorist's drivers license, or to see if a person is wanted on outstanding warrants. It would take little more to enter the basic information on traffic stops discussed above into such a computer. The process would involve little more than punching agreed -upon code numbers into the available machine. In fact, small band -held units now exist that can handle quite a bit of simple data Waiters and waitresses in restaurants sometimes carry these ®all devices, on which an order can be taken, transmitted to the kitchen, tallied for billing purposes, and then saved for marketing and other business purposes. Such a machine would be more than capable of receiving and storing the relatively small amount of data that would be generated by traffic stops, and transfer of the data into analyzable form would involve no extra work. Another possibility is to do what Volusia County did: have the police cars in departments under study fitted with video cameras which would be turned on and off each time *582 a stop was made. This arrangement would also benefit the police by providing evidence in stops resulting in arrests. Police could simply turn the tapes in, without having to do extra paperwork. Researchers would then gather the statistics. While particulars would have to be worked out, using video cameras might be the easiest way to do this. VIL Conclusion Whren leaves us in an unsatisfactory situation. Any time we use our cars, we can be stopped by the police virtually at their whim because full compliance with traffic laws is impossible. And we can feel relatively certain that past will be prologue: African -Americans and Hispanics will suffer the bulk of this treatment. Whites will not have to endure it very often; if they did, it probably would not happen. And, once police stop drivers, the officers will be able to search almost everyone they want, some with consent and others with dogs I, for one, feel considerably less than comfortable with this outcome. We may not always agree on the full contours of the Fourth Amendment, but if nothing else it stands for --indeed, imposes -restraint on the government's power over the individual in the pursuit of crime. At the very least, the police must have a reason -probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion -to pursue, stop and search citizens. The point is not that the police are powerless until criminals strike, but rather that police cannot treat everyone like a criminal in order that some secretive wrongdoers be caught. From every practical vantage point, Wbren upends this venerable and sensible principle in the name of the war on drugs. Its implications are clear. everyone is fair game; members of minority groups will pay the largest price, but there are casualties in war, so African -Americans and Hispanics will just have to bear the cost. The Supreme Court could have Copr. c West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 16 ®® 87 JCRLC 5" FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 19 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, •582) used Whren as an occasion to repudiate the worst of what this tragic and ultimately unwinnable war has brought us. Instead, it increased police power and discretion. We are all the losers for it, but unfortunately some of us --those of us with dark elan -will lose a lot more than the rest. Perhaps police departmental regulation, and further study, can lead us in new directions. FNal. Eugene N. Balk Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law. J.D. 1983, Yale Law School; LL.M. 1988, Georgetown University Law Center. My than to Jeffrey Ganuo, Deborah Jeon, Mark Kappelhoff, Tom Perez, Darnel Steinbock and Lisa Burger Wright for helpful cooments on an earlier draft of this piece. Thanks also to Fair Crytzer and Mary L. Sawyers for research and editorial assistance. 17 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Citation Search Result Rank(R) 2 of 2 1998 CONG US HR 118 105th CONGRESS, 2d Session United States Library of Congress HR 118 Reported in House January 7, 1997 [Report No. 105-4351 To provide for the collection of data on traffic stops. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 1997 Page 1 Database CONG-BIL' IT Mr. CONYERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary March 11, 1998 Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed [STRIKE OUT ALL AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE AND INSERT THE PART PRINTED IN ITALIC] A BILL To provide for the collection of data on traffic stops. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 19971. Sec. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COLLECT. The Attorney General shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about E-il stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers. Included i. this data shall be information pertaining to-- (1) the number of individuals stopped for routine traffic violations; (2) identifying characteristics of the individual stopped, including the race and or ethnicity as well as the approximate age of that individual; (3) the traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop; (4) whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop; (5) how the search was instituted; (6) the rationale for the search; (7) whether any contraband was discovered in the course of the search; (8) the nature of such contraband; (9) whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop; and (10) whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search. Sec. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA. Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement officer. Sec. 4. ANNUAL SUMMARY. The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary of the data acquired under this Act. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 19981. Sec. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COLLECT. The Attorney General shall conduct a study of stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers. Such study shall include collection -Zd Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works IN" FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 19' CONG US HR 118 Page analysis of appropriate available data. The study shall include consideration of the following factors, among others: (1) The number of individuals stopped for routine traffic violations. (2) Identifying characteristics of the individual stopped, including the race and or ethnicity as well as the approximate age of that individual. (3) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop. (4) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop. (5) How the search was instituted. (6) The rationale for the search. (7) Whether any contraband was discovered in the course of the search. (8) The nature of such contraband. (9) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop. (10) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop or the search. (11) The benefit of traffic stops with regard to the interdiction of drugs and the proceeds of drug trafficking, including the approximate quantity of drugs and value of drug proceeds seized on an annual basis as a result of routine traffic stops. Sec. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA. Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement officer. Data acquired under this section shall not be used in any legal or administrative proceeding to establish an inference of discrimination on the basis of pa icular identifying characteristics. Sec. 4. RESULTS OF STUDY. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the study conducted under this Act to Congress. 1998 CONG US HR 118 END OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 19 Received: g/ 1/98 18:11; -> U OF I COLLEGE LAW; Page 14 SEP-01-1998 16:19 P.14i19 s ' NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF V....- ` BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES w" 29 June 1998 re.1. f..p,, riA SM:,Ft ONE 10"V. L. VM-M * Me The Honorable John Vasconcellos. Chair "•""D"•"' Qatw� ca"". °"'"" °^" �^ Senate Public Safety Committee Cw"u 4061 State Capitol P ,.ws a corow. n Sacramento, CA 95814 se+....e raw otww"a VIKS"Y 's RE: AB 1264— California "Driving While Black" Bill U.S.IWA how Duet *(Tftaa . wuk w... VC Dear Senator Vasconcellos: IOstrl A. "C.ILLnN . =Re/.API aW. erM,re Y..fil irrMYL "A.ae.. V, ,,*0--), The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) `, UA was formed 25 years ago to marshal the experience and expertise of minority O" law enforcement officials at executive and command levels. Since that time the � membership of NOBLE has grown to include over 3,000 federal, state and local o oMCJ%M1R1 " ' M"""' law enforcement pro&ssionals of all levels. While the membership may have - Ot... OOf h.le s.i1 SL ►e,L trN i" changed over the years, the mission of the organization has not. The primary Y_ tkom"Y. CLavvt focus of NOBLE then and now -is buildine bridees be ool'ce and the 1M.Y .aa Fucai""""'°"'"�""• ""'" "' communities they serve. Because of that foCILS, NO LE has conststrn y „9L°";'• provided leaders htp aid Support to the promulgation of community policing. By the same token, because of the priority it attacbes to the formation of Na- rn C•ry. Nr ro,Y, Ogr.Yr. partnerships between law enforcement and communities, NOBLE deems YaDCeTC.. TIq".: initiatives designed to discourage race as the primary reason for stopping L wenn, motorists of color of critical importance. ....:-....., RWgtiS t. i NMON The building of bridges is impossible in the absence of trust. In a recent national survey conducted by the Police Foundation, rank -and -file officers iOS"« ; U "'a" overwhelmingly agreed that working with citizens was an important and effective means of solving neighborhood problems. Routinely stopping L: G,;;T30" Americans for no other reason than the color of their skin fosters distrust of the "s 'U—a.. 0 u °""'" criminal justice system ... and thereby seriously compromises the potential for for the kind of partnerships that can impact public safety. Hence. NOBLE is on record as a staunch supporter of legislation similar to AS 1264 that is being c+.re n.e considered by the U.S. Congress. Because NOBLE has among its membership a large g contingent of local law enforcement officials as well as 40 local ,Y{iLtY C. MRLX%r a wwese.Y w :t chapters, we attach equal importance to local legislation with the same intent It is the hope of NOBLE that the California Senate will vote for enhanced ."�°S0M poke -community relationships by passing AB 1264. us ,YL•:at Rert,.rry Co.v . W=.*M. De .w,M ....-Y-.:..,..: .as�.croi Sin ir= net Gwrpa L. a, i^C.Oorr. Dae.r. Gw w �e.rn.+t .�•Y,.v Robert L. Stewart Executive Director r60) PLc-sCRE57 OFICi PARK �R.- Sl1TE E �-EY.t�DR:.+L �'.a _"t2 ::L• ':i•re?c.;:7- P.a:: 'C3 e•ei-S i4dz,: nCD4 nell..xl are V: rtt�:e: DnG '��'w.neN:ua.ap 20 -> U OF I COLLEGE LAW; Page 13 P.13/19 Rocelved: D/ 1/se 18:11; SEP-01-1998 16:16 JM2s&B 'awnr Moak ponce aarodneel +rc-t.0 arSICIMS WZNDELLAL RRA"09 e RMVW WATI&4 vb&Ck * . 1 VYLUR JoNNsoN. JR. UMMRD V^UPMfS. SR. Tftamw AUAEDA E.OUNN F4vedet 4cariy NENRrL MATNaRSrooN REGIONAL FRES109MS Nor"Nut owwo:ores WkwA Wwkw. Jr, South" Olrr J. RrrtfCr-erw.n hMreee DaW"Mcl,in vvesan, Ralw Watbic ROAM OFORIECtoRs an t 4r" krona C. chooft n On=a M. CacOCr Jac T, coy �dw t+a,eco= Waft & M" *arks Law CWWKe A. Lewis E,.wrs o. Natwn Dw'Md Pt UNUM O. stow ehww Y. Tayw DebWM Wa rd0d Bobby Weyhfaa[ Pool" VVdIw" K uerae:e WAwn, Jr 104=1 vEOMtECM Reeerd E- 04w PWn LEGAL COUWSEL Ted J. Viagns M-� Wil 1 1 � ��' - Honorable John Vasconcellos June 30. 1998 SeeawPublic Safety Committee Stan Capital, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA. 95814 ,Dar Senator Vascmealtos: a` �e National Black Police Association is an advocacy orgamizatwn that represents tea 40,000 A$ican-America nun and women in Law Erkscetnem today. We have been mouitonng the Criminal Justice System policies and practices impact on %ba community for over 25 years. R is very important that you know, the membets of the National Black Polio Association has worked long and hard gathering information and suppon locally and nationally for this legislation. Members of the National Black Police Association see first hand and in person the miscarriage ofJusdce that take place each day in our commuuties simply be= -se of the color of our On. In closing let an cleadiy say without any rawntion, the National Black Police Association supports AB 1264, Driving While Black leVsl=on and awomps you and your coamrittee to pass it now. Thank you in advance for your support and if you bave any questions, please give me a call. 21 e_ :_r .x1 peer e� •� m� nv.n x� >'+ra -.r� 3rt+� ..x.. � nv� Received: g/ 1/98 16:12; SEP-01-1998 16:19 -> U OF i COLLEGE LAW; Page 15 P.15/19 August 3. 1998 Alm +4 7;1 Hon. Kevin Murray Assemblyman - Party -seventh District Post Office Box 942849 Sacramento, California 94249-0001 Dear Assemblyman Mumy: Re: Assembly Bill 1264 I am pleased to support Assembly Bill 1264, the " California Traffic Stop Statistics Act." The black motorist is often stopped by police for no reason other than the color of his or her skin. I know this to be true from my own erpedence. The first time 1 was stopped by a police ot3tccr was when I was 16 years old. The officer ran a check on my vehicle and me and aAa det mtiaiag I had no warrants, returned to my vehicle; threw my license aad registration in my face, and tamed and walked away without uttering another word, In 1981,1 was driving a brand new sports car in Whittier, California. Los Angeles County Sheriff s Deputies descended upon me and pulled me over. A deputy holding a handgun who ordered me from the vehicle greeted me. I verbally identified myself but did not tell the deputy I was a county prosecutor. The deputy demanded to know why I was in the area. I asked the deputy why I was stopped and he refused to provide me an explanation. I was then told to go to his partner, who began inter.ogatingg me in as accusatory tone. I turned to see the Srn Deputy enter my vehicle, ostensibly to conduct a search. I objected to the search and was told to shut up. Just then, the person I came to visit in Whfuicr wdted his homm He showed the deputies 'his badge, that of a retired Captain of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The Captain demanded to know why the "Deputy District Attorney" bad been stopped. It was then that the deputies stated that I fit the.descriptiom of a burglary suspect. Imagine this; it's after 6:00 PM on s weekday, daylight savings tutu- I am wearing a brand new blue double-breasted pin -stripped suit and driving abrandnew Wm=Z. And yet, the deputies claimed that I fit the description of a burgaarl Over the years, the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Police Department, Berkeley Police Department, Albany Police DepaMnent, Torrance Police Deparmunr. San Jose 22 673 50tiF7 %V LETMOACS .\NO VVENUE - LOS ANGULM CALrrOaNVA "*05d162 • ,21Lf TSa-6700 Received: p/ 1/08 18.12; -> U OF I COLLEGE LAW; Pape 16 5EP-01-1990 16:19 P•16/19 Police Department, and many others have slopped me. I have never received a ticket, I have. however, been stopped and con opted by g= toting officers demanding that I place my hands on the steering wheel or exit my vehicle and lie on the ground. In most of t_l ese cases, no lee timatc reason wm gives: for the initial stop. In many of these cases, o:,:crs searched my vehicle aithoul = warrant. consent or probable cause. After saeh of these stops I would ask myse1F ^..•iy' '%by was I stopped? After each of each :)f these stops I refected on the speed and mmasuer in which I drove my vehicle. W as s speeding? No. Was I following too closely the vehicle in front of me? No. An wnsafe isrte change, perhaps? No. Couldn't be. Had that bees the case, the officer would surely have written me a ticket? Most often, there was no "good" reason for stopnins me. Only the wrong reason. I was the wron-g color. Years ago, wbile working in The District Attorney's Special Investigation's Division, I reviewed a case involving a Torm--ics police officer accused of a cover-up in a shooting That officer later testified in a cic ii suit that within the Torrance Police Department Officers often used a code word, indicating the reasoning behind the detention of black motorists. "MT'--or,'Nigeaer in Tormrce." According to the officer, black motorists wen routinely stopped without any lcx i ; Ltiication and solely for the purposes of harassing blacks and discouraging them frc- •::siring or raiding in the City of Tcrrrnca. There arc variations on the "NIT" code. One :uci variation is "DW8" or "Driving while 3;ac':." ?Vi be s of minority drivers believe they are unfairly: =pted by racist police officers and Mopped solely on the basis of their color. vIs^� of my friends who are racial miscrties are quick to point to a hardfui or more of vehicle stops by police officers for co :- tsaatc reason. Recent statistical studies conducted by the federal government and the State of Maryland suggest that minority meterk:s are unfairly targeted by police and AM _-Jected to a disproportionate number of stops and searches: It is difficult to line aloe in such stops. •Most often these steps and searches fail to turn up an e:-i3:^c_ of -wrongdoing, They do, however. have a u-ay of uadermini .g public cenna.-nce in police and the crimiral jus-Ece s:_:... I hope the legislature hears live testis.tory from many of the victi= of :here Unix -fJ1 stops. Several years after the incaezt. it is not uncommon to hear i—om ci::ze-s who are still seething from the demeaning experience ora'*et=t stop AB iZ64 requires Iocal police departments to :,epor.:o the DOI information pertaining to the zxur: and reasons. for traffic stops of : iio--ic motorists. In so doing, the Act will idern.tify just who is stopped and why. I he L 'hL :e islature rrcognizes the clear value in such information garherng. On the one ^.and. _ = ct may prove that what is happening in that of the country isn't happening :--erc::: iomia's cops do not use race as a criteria for conducting random traffic stops. If this is trier "lienthe Act will save t0 reestablish con Bence in the police and the cnrt nal instiz -VI-M. On the other hand, if race proves to be the basis for a disproportionx _ »a=-:=" of stops, receipt of this information will only help law enforcement. rt will allow a impose the changes necessary to protect the constitutional rights of al: : i2:^s.:: i;ce ;administrators will get a detailed look at their officers' bohavior in the =ei3. •n.'Ormation gathered will help de-. ;zrments der...nnne whether het• are : ~ ~::_ ng too much orwo little resources to 23 Received: 9/ 1/98 18-12; -> U OF I COLLEGE LAW; Pepe 17 SEP-01-1996 16:20 P.17i19 traffic enforcement: It may shed some light on the effectiveness of routine =Me stops as a crime-fi&inla tool. It will allow police depar =Is the chance to establish policies that will help them protect themselves fronr lawsuits due to civil tights violations. I am sure theta: ate additional benefits to gathering this In1h=afion There is no excuse for not passing AB 1264. There is a lack of search in Califomia on the issue of how race plays a role in a police officer's decision to stop a vehicle. Contrary to the Deparertent of finance Bill Analysis, datod July 6,1998. the cost of gathering this information should not be prohibitive. All police departments require their *Mcers to include much of the information demanded by AB 1264 in their daily activity logs whenever they atop a vehicle or contact a citizen. Each and every time a police officer writes a traffic ticket sheltie records the driver's race. age, gender and etbaicity and the legal basis for the stop and issuance of a ticket. When the police discover comtrabandlor make an arrest, they routinely write a report that includes all of the above information and the probable cause or legal justification that led to any search or recovery of evidence. The Department of Justice need only devise a simple reporting forra that will help officers quickly ttansfcr the requested infvaaation from their logs and reports Given the above, and the state's large budget surplus, cost alone provides no reason for voting down this bill. 1 support AB 1264. Very truly yJoUM 4— CHRIS70P A DARDEN Associate Professor of Law 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NAACP, Philadelphia Branch and POLICE -BARRIO RELATIONS PROJECT, on behalf of themselves and their members, Plaintiffs, V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO.96-CV-6045 Plaintiffs' Preliminary Report A uditing Pedestrian and Car Stops December 15,1997 25 I. Introduction In this Monitoring Report plaintiffs examine two issues: first, whether pedestrian and automobile stops are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; second, whether impermissible considerations of race or ethnicity have entered into the decision to stop or detain individuals. It is important to note at the outset that we are unable at this time to draw any hard and fast conclusions from the documents that we have reviewed. As we detail below, we have reviewed and analyzed all stops (as recorded in PPD Incident Report;, "75-48s") that were made by Philadelphia police in the 9th, 14th and 18th Districts for the week of March 7, 1997. Despite the voluminous documentation (5,000 75-48s), on review only about 15 percent record stops of individuals under circumstances implicating constitutional judgments on the part of officers. This is too small a sample from which accurate conclusions can be drawn. Accordingly, we will follow up with a more extensive and focussed review of additional 75-48s (a process that should be more efficient now that a computer database has been established). But even without a statistically conclusive base, the document review did reveal important information. First, the 75-48s show in many cases the kind of good policing that one would expect from the PPD. On a daily basis, officers act in a professional fashion to quell disturbances, intervene in domestic disputes, apprehend suspects, answer countless car and/or property alarms, and transport the sick and injured to hospitals. These patrol functions are critical to effective law enforcement and nothing that we discuss in this Report is intended to undermine these important functions. On the other hand, there are some disturbing patterns that emerge from even this limited data. First, many of the 75-48s that involve stops and detentions of pedestrians or automobiles, 26 do not state any cause for the police activity. Second, in aggregate, there are unexplained patterns of disproportionate numbers of stops of racial minorities. We address these issues below, but stress again that without further audits we are unable on the data presented to arrive at firm conclusions on either of these issues. H. Background and Methodology of the Review The 39th Police District scandal presented graphic evidence of widespread abuse of police stop, search and seizure powers. Hundreds of individuals were stopped and/or arrested without cause and virtually every person arrested by the rogue unit was either African -American or Latino. Moreover, in the recent past there have been other stark examples of similar police misconduct. On three separate occasions in the 1980's federal courts intervened to enjoin police practices that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, Cliett v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 85-1846 (E.D.Pa. 1985) (consent decree arising out of the unconstitutionality of "Operation Cold Turkey;" during which 1.500 individuals were unlawfully subjected to search and arrest); Spring Garden United Neighbors v. City of Philadelphia, 614 F.Supp. 1350 (E.D.Pa. 1985) (enjoining police sweep of Latinos in Spring Garden area in aftermath of a shooting of a police officer); Arrington v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 88-2264 (E.D.Pa. 1988) (enjoining the stop and searches of young African -American males during investigation of "Center City Stalker"). In light of this history, the Settlement Agreement made specific reference to the problems posed by racially biased or otherwise unconstitutional policing practices by patrol officers. The parties agreed to the following provisions: A. There should be specific and detailed training with respect to equal treatment of citizens, promulgation of disciplinary regulation 2 27 for racially biased police work, and serious and sustained diversity and cultural awareness training in the Academy and on a regular periodic basis for all officers, supervisors and administrative officers. B. A Deputy Commissioner should (1) monitor police records and complaints as they involve minorities and allegations of racial discrimination, (2) act as a liaison to representatives of minority communities and to officials in the Department dealing with race related issues, and (3) monitor programs with respect to hiring and promotion of minorities. C. There should be a comprehensive review of police department policies and practices such as discretionary pedestrian and vehicle stops that have the potential for racially biased law enforcement. All pedestrian and vehicle stops should be recorded on 75-48s or other reporting forms even if the stop does not yield information, detention, evidence or an arrest. Each document must state the reason for the stop, for any police action taken (e.g., frisk, search, questioning), and the race of the person(s) stopped. The Department should review and audit, on a regular basis, the patterns of these stops to determine whether impermissible racial factors are involved. Individuals identified on the police reports, but against whom no charges have been made, should be contacted on a random basis to determine if the police conduct was justified and to examine any possible racial patterns. D. Individual officers' and supervisors' files (as computerized) should contain any allegations or findings of racial bias. In addition, the records of stops, searches, arrest and civilian complaints in the files should be periodically reviewed to determine whether racial bias or patterns are evident. In this audit process the Department should randomly interview individuals who were stopped, but were not charged with any criminal conduct. Our initial review of these 5,000 75-48s disclosed that overwhelmingly the documents concerned police activities (e.g., responses to alarms, reports of stolen property. abandoned cars) which do not present any of the issues covered by the Settlement Agreement. NVe separated these documents and focussed on the 75-48s recording interactions between police and civilians that 3 i W involved police officers in the stopping and investigation of pedestrians or automobiles. To facilitate this review we created a database of the information contained in the 75-48 by replicating that document in computer form. The template appears as follows: 4 All legible information on each form was transcribed. In addition, as can be seen above, any information about the individual who was stopped was further entered into the following fields entitled Suspect Information: first name, last name, middle name, address, city, state, zip code, race, sex and date of birth. Finally, one additional field was created in order to distinguish those 75-48s in which the officer provided a specific reason for her actions from those which merely labeled her activity. As can be seen from the template, the 75-48 contains a field entitled "Crime or Incident Classification." In all instances the officers entered a description. Thus, an officer might write when stopping a pedestrian any of the following in that field: "Pedestrian Stop," "Pedestrian Investigation," "Ped Stop," "Ped Inv.," "P/S" or "P/I." Similarly when stopping a car any of the following might appear: "Car Stop," "Vehicle Investigation," "Veh. Inv.," "C/S" or "V/I." In many instances, however, the information that appears in the "Description of Incident" field does not refer to the incident. Rather, it merely describes the individual who was stopped. Depending on completeness, the description may include any of the following: name, address. date of birth, race, ethnicity, social security number, driver's license number, insurance policy number, Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN"), tag number, telephone number, and whether there are any outstanding warrants for the individual's arrest. Confronted with a form that contains only information about the person who was stopped, notwithstanding the completeness of the description, we coded these interactions as being without explanation. If, however, the officer gave any reason, regardless of its legal sufficiency (an issue addressed below) as to why she decided to stop the individual, it was coded as an explained interaction. Finally, with regard to any 75-48 which contained no explanation as to why the stop was 1 31 made, we took the further step of examining the Department's Computerized Assisted Dispatch (CAD). The CAD is the computer system used by 911 Operators and Police Radio dispatchers. Police Radio is the unit which assigns the unique District Control ("DC") number appearing on each 75-48, as well as all other police paperwork associated with the particular incident. There are essentially two ways in which a "DC" number is generated: A call to 911 may result in an officer being dispatched to investigate or otherwise respond; or an officer having initiated an investigation or taken other action, will call Police Radio to get a "DC" number for the incident. The 911 Operator/Police Dispatcher enters information into the Computer Assisted Dispatch system relating to the incident, including: descriptions of suspects, nature of incidents, locations, responding officers and other events. Upon entry of this information, the system automatically notes the time of each such event as can be seen below from a sample CAD print- out: In the case of incidents where there was no explanation for the stop in the 75-48, but some .................................... i..:.:....... .:. . .......... ............. NEW RECORD -- NEW RECORD -- NEW RECORD ...-- NEY .RECORD ........................................y...�.................,•'................................ �CA(.I, 40729282 ��'DIST "C1SE:97 eq{ i CROSS',aREEER£Ni:Pa C{1EL+£ �X 'i'l,•i ci - elf y O9D183]3 k £N7 ERED' p3f'29%97 W 23L3'87 s: tpp',�; gi12OH0+�'. J�5 T'/pEt'II9-',,{S" f''>�:t ° s OI sVATCWVi _'O3/2$/91 10 23. A3iHt €903'S /22083f3+f 1001t..ifh.: .., e. ., .. ONSCENE: 03/29/97 10:23:43 CLOSE FILED 03/29/97 11:07:56 HT 921 / Oj5FO IVI RTF i C Y R s} -• � �'i �: r sr�.-.=."' o i� F E� %reef e5-{i t�Aw3tod ...: •:.n:::^�.. 'y, s LOCfe_ N'M16TN..ST Y�IONN F; K£NNEOr I-LY,1. ••.:� 1'IAI• �et,t� E x .. a. .;.fie'.. DIVISION: C DISTRICT: 09 • ':1 N r : ADORa VHONE . wr�Ca��G-�.Y�iiY.i�G�i.... wi32'.wr"'i �iy.YiY+lSri:ws�a�.a.+airrwiir.sk�ewi.•v..�....r�.��ra.�M:.:i: explanation in the CAD print-out, we coded these as explained interactions, even if the 7 32 information/explanation may not have been legally sufficient to stop an individual. Using all dais information, we generated the tables which appear below. IV. Document Analysis A. Issues Concerning the Requisite Cause for Stops of Pedestrians and Automobiles. The police practices reflected in the relevant 75-48s present serious issues concerning the legality of many police initiated stops and detentions. It is well settled under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution that whenever an individual is stopped by a police officer and his freedom of movement restrained in any manner, a "seizure" has occurred. This police power can be invoked only upon "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity or, in cases of an arrest or search, full probable cause. See, e.g., Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996); Commonwealth v: Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Zogby, 689 A.2d 280, 282 (Pa. Super. 1997) (most police "requests" are viewed as commands by the civilian).' Of the 754 car and pedestrian stops' that we reviewed, 269 provide no explanation for the stop. They merely state that a "pedestrian" or "automobile" stop has been made (while recording ' The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has repeatedly invoked Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to provide greater protection to individuals from police stops, searches and arrests. Certain police conduct in the stopping and searching of individuals or automobiles that would pass muster under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in Pennsylvania. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 145 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Martin, 626 A.2d 556 (Pa. 1993); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 636 A.2d 619 (Pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. Maros, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996). ' We have also reviewed an additional 41 reports detailing enforcement of Philadelphia's curfew ordinance. These stops are analyzed separately at the end of the Section IV. F 33 biographical information about the person(s) stopped.; In our view, these documents present prima facie cases of constitutional violations. It is conceivable that in some cases cause actually existed, but went undocumented, or that some of these stops were simply "consensual encounters" that require no cause or suspicion. On both of these questions, however, the burden is clearly on the Department. Given the applicable Pennsylvania case law, the fact that 75-48s are not generally used to document non -investigative interactions between police and civilians, and the fact that in U9 cases there was not even CAD support for the stop, the number of encounters in the "unexplained" category in which cause actually existed, or which were purely consensual is likely to be very low or non-existent. The Police Department does not appear to disagree with the proposition that lack of documentation in the 75-48s is highly questionable. At the time the Department provided counsel for plaintiffs with the 75-48s, it issued a Memorandum instructing all police officers that there is .no such thing as a `Routine Stop.'" This Memorandum (Assist Officer, No. 32, issued May 1, 1997) states in full: VEHICLE INVESTIGATION Directive 92, Section I.A. provides: • an officer will stop any vehicle where the driver or occupant(s) are observed violating the law, ore where the officer reasonably believes the vehicle, driver, or occupant(s) were violating the law. When appropriate, issue TVRs, investigate occupant(s), and/or snake arrests. 3 Given the fact that many of the 75-48s record biographic information for multiple individuals (See e.g. D.C. Nos. 16737, 19357, 19925, 23181) it is clear that more than 754 persons were subject to the police activity under review. No effort was made to ascertain the exact number. n 3 1- PEDESTRIAN INVESTIGATION There are three types of situations in which a police officer and a citizen meet face-to-face: (1) a Mere Encounter; (2) an Investigative Detention; and (3) a Custodial Detention. 1. MERE ENCOUNTER: • Request for information. • Officer does not use any words or actions which would lead the person to reasonably believe that he is not free to leave. • The person is consenting to speak with the officer. If the person does not consent, they must be permitted to leave without restraint. 2. INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION: • Not an arrest • Must be supported by REASONABLE SUSPICION. • Is a temporary detention (approximately 20-30 minutes). • Suspicion must be supported by specific and articulable facts that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity. • Does not involve intrusive, coercive conditions, i.e., no handcuffing. 3. CUSTODIAL DETENTION: • Is an arrest. • Must be supported by PROBABLE CASUE. • Actor is denied freedom of movement. We are hopeful that the foregoing Assist Officer will be adhered to by all officers and that any pre-existing practice of random stops will be terminated across the City. Viewing the 75-48s, one may question plaintiffs' concern with strict adherence to constitutional limitations on stop and search powers. After all, at least with respect to the 75-48s at issue, one could assert that the citizens subject to the stop were inconvenienced only slightly and the need for broad police intervention on this limited scale is important in the overall police effort 10 35 to combat crime." But even putting aside the fact that the Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania do not permit reconsideration of the balance between privacy and law enforcement, the repercussions of such conduct are in some instances highly injurious to innocent individuals. As a recent LAD investigation makes clear, when police officers believe that they have the power to stop and frisk individuals without reasonable suspicion, and then to effect arrests as cover charges when the citizen complains of this conduct, the.constitutional violations become serious indeed and the cost to the system and to the City is substantial. In IAD No. 96-555, it was determined that acting on a radio call concerning a man, for whom no physical description was given, selling narcotics near the Bellevue Hotel at 2:00 p.m., the police, without cause, stopped and frisked the complainant and his girlfriend, accused -them of selling drugs and, when they protested, arrested them for disorderly conduct. LAD determined that the officer acted improperly and the City settled the damage claim for false arrest and illegal detention. Indeed, the problem may run deeper than the "unexplained" 75-48s. As we noted above, we have not questioned in this Report whether the requisite cause is established by the explanation for the stop that is set forth in the 75-48s. However, there are examples even in the "explained" documents that present substantial questions as to the legality of the stop. Consider the stated reasons for the stops in following 75-48s: (1) 97-09-15699 (person stopped was a "cross dresser"); 97-09-16577 ("female not cooperating with police sgt... on location"). In other documents the stated reason is, on its face, quite ambiguous (e.g., 97-09-15699, person was "It should be noted, however, that in some cases, unexplained stops resulted in lengthy detentions, including transfer to a police district. See D.C. Nos. 97-09-15653 and 97-09- 16737 in Exhibit D for Ninth District. 11 36 "windowshopping"), and we cannot determine the legitimacy of the stop. Auditing the 75-48s on this issue will be difficult, but is necessary to properly enforce the rules on searches and seizures. In light of the foregoing constitutional principles we have generated the following table identifying officers who have made multiple "unexplained" stops in the districts under review: All Officers Responsible for Three or More Unexplained Stops Officer Number Stops without Explanations Asian Afr. Am. Latino White Unknown Ratka 2213 6 1 4 0 0 1 Wilson 2790 6 0 3 0 1 2 Vassallo 1169 5 0 0 0 5 0 Baker 5379 5 0 0 0 5 0 Stover 3813 4 0 3 0 0 1 Liciardello 4383 4 0 3 0 0 1 London 6760 4 0 4 0 0 0 Spencer 7152 4 0 0 0 0 4 Gaultrey 7234 4 0 3 0 1 0 Coleman 7510 4 0 0 0 0 4 Long 1113 3 0 1 0 0 2 Hammond 1811 3 0 1 0 0 2 Lee 1961 3 0 3 0 0 0 Riley 1997 3 0 2 0 1 0 McBride 3019 3 0 0 0 0 3 Williams 3088 3 0 1 0 0 2 Greene 3106 3 0 2 0 1 0 Graidirio 4140 3 0 3 0 0 0 Reid 4815 3 0 3 0 0 0 Luca 6903 3 0 0 0 0 3 Balzer 9902 3 0 1 0 0 2 Spence 9967 3 0 3 0 0 0 TOTAL 82' 1 40 0 14 27 ' A complete list of officers who have any "unexplained" car stops is appended at Exhibit N. In 17 instances, however, we were unable to decipher handwriting or officers did not record their names, see: D.C. Nos. 97-09-16396, 97-14-22626, 97-14-22960, 97-14-23159, 97-14-23171, 97- 14-23191, 97-14-23207, 97-14-23237, 97-14-23314, 97-14-23477, 97-14-23487. 97-14-23488, 97-18-18305, 97-18-18634, 97-18-18727, 97-18-18904 and 97-18-19234. 12 37 B. Evidence of Possible Racial Bias. The data derived from the 75-48s raises a serious question as to whether impermissible racial considerations have influenced decisions to stop, detain or investigate pedestrians and occupants of automobiles. As noted below, 80.2 percent of all stops for the period studied in which race of the person stopped was recorded were of African -Americans. For whites, the percentage was 14.9 percent. For stops of cars, the data shows that African -Americans were 79 percent of those stopped and whites, 14.1 percent. We know of no studies or reports that suggest that African -Americans disobey motor vehicle laws in disproportionate numbers. Further, to the extent that there is data to suggest that for some crime categories the rate of criminal activity among African -Americans is higher than that of whites, the subject matter of this study -- stops and detention for allegedly suspicious activity -- does not in our view involve the kind of police work which if undertaken without any racial stereotyping or bias would result in significantly disproportionate stops of African -Americans. This is particularly true given the very high percentages of African -Americans who were stopped in situations where no explanation for the stop was provided by the police officer. We acknowledge that explanations other than racial bias may explain some of the disparities that were revealed by the data and, given the relatively small number of encounters that make up the database, we are hesitant to draw conclusions on this very sensitive issue. It is important, nevertheless, to report our findings. The evidence in aggregate calls out for further review by all parties to this litigation. The following discussion, therefore, is submitted with these considerations in mind. 13 am In reviewing the data there are two ways in which racial/ethnic bias may be revealed. The first limits the analysis to the universe of the data itself. comparison between the instances in which the police provide an explanation for why the stop was made and those in which no explanation is provided. If a higher number of African -Americans, Latinos, Asians or other minorities are stopped without explanation, there is cause for concern. The second analysis compares the data generated by the documents with census material covering comparable geography. It turns out that Philadelphia Police Districts encompass specific census tracts. Combining these tracts enables one to determine an estimate for that district's racial and ethnic composition. The numbers are estimates only because tract data is now seven years old. As shown below, both forms of analysis uncover racial/ethnic trends which need further examination.6 Of the 754 of 75-48s which involved either a car or pedestrian stop race data was recorded in 450 of instances. Of these the breakdown is as follows: 6 To assist the Department we append a complete printout of the database organized in the following fashion: Exhibit A: 9" District car stops with explanation Exhibit B: 9" District car stops without explanation Exhibit C: 9" District pedestrian stops with explanation Exhibit D: 9" District pedestrian stops without explanation Exhibit E: 1411 District car stops with explanation Exhibit F: le District car stops without explanation Exhibit G: 14" District pedestrian stops with explanation Exhibit H: 14" District pedestrian stops without explanation Exhibit I: 18" District car stops with explanation Exhibit 7: 18" District car stops without explanation Exhibit K: 18" District pedestrian stops with explanation Exhibit L: 18" District pedestrian stops without explanation Exhibit M: Curfews from all districts 14 39 All Car and Pedestrian Stops ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 15 361 7 67 450 3.3% 80.2% 1.6% 14.9% 100.0% In 1995, Philadelphia's census revealed a population which is 54.1 percent Caucasian and 42.2 percent African -American. Measured against this breakdown the racial proportions of these stops warrants further Department attention: This is especially true concerning car stops. Of the 516 75-48s which were generated pursuant to a police car stop, 262 contain racial and/or ethnic data about the individual(s): All Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 11 207 7 37 262 4.2% 79.0% 2.7% 14.1% 100.0% In 202 of these 75-48s, the police provide an explanation as to why the stop was made. The race and/or ethnicity of the parties stopped in these instances is as follows: All Explained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 10 155 6 31 202 5.0% 76.7% 3.0% 15.3% 100.0% In 60 instances the police provide no explanation for the stop. The racial/ethnicity of the parties stopped in these instances is: All Unexplained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WffiTE TOTAL 1 52 1 6 60 1.7% 86.7% 1.7% 10.0% 100.0% 15 40 Were race and/or ethnicity not a factor one ought to see little or no difference between the racial/ethnic percentages of individuals stopped with and without explanation. However, such is not the case. While African -Americans make up only 79 percent of the explained stops they account for 86.7 percent of the non -explained stops. Conversely, while Caucasians make up 15.3 percent of the explained stops, they drop to 10 percent of the non -explained stops. Again, these statistics give pause not just in light of Philadelphia's census data, but further given the demographics of the adjacent counties. Philadelphia is surrounded by counties all of which are home to significantly fewer minorities. Philadelphia's central business district is, however, a daily destination for marry of these other counties' drivers. In other words the proportion of Caucasian drivers within at least Center City should be even higher than the Philadelphia census data indicates, yet such is not the case as seen below making the above racial disparity even more problematic: All Ninth District Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN BLACK LATINO WHITE TOTAL 8 80 5 31 124 6.5% 64.5% 4.0% 25.0% 100.0% This pattern repeats even more starkly in the Eighteenth Police District. In the Eighteenth District which covers much of West Philadelphia, including the University of Pennsylvania, during the week in question, a total of 114 cars were stopped. In 62 instances racial/ethnic information was provided as follows: 16 41 All Eighteenth District Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 3 58 1 0 62 4.8% 93.5% 1.6% 0.0% 100.0% Not only do the records fail to provide any information indicating a single Caucasian was stopped during this time period, but again the percentages of African -Americans who were stopped without explanation rises sharply in comparison to the number stopped with explanation. Thus, while the percent of African -Americans driving cars stopped with explanation is as follows: Eighteenth District Explained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 3 32 1 0 36 8.3% 88.9% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0% It changes when no explanation is provided to: Eighteenth District Unexplained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 0 26 1 0 0 26 0.0% 100.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.001 A similar pattern occurs with regard to this District's pedestrian stops. A total of 73 stops were recorded for the week in question. Of these 60 contain racial/ethnic information. They break down as follows: All Eighteenth District Pedestrian Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 1 55 0 4 60 1.7% 91.7% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0°/1 Where explanations are provided the data reveals: 17 42 Eighteenth District Explained Pedestrian Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 1 20 0 3 24 4.2% 83.3% 0.0% 12.5% 100.00o Where no explanation is provided the racial/ethnic composition reveals: Eighteenth District Unexplained Pedestrian Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 0 35 0 1 36 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 100.0% Here it should be observed, first, that the actual numbers of African -Americans stopped without explanation is nearly twice as great as the number stopped with explanations. Next, the population of African -Americans to Caucasians shifts notably from explained to non -explained stops. Both observations are troubling. Finally, the data is most dramatic concerning police interaction with our City's youth. During the week in question for the three districts reviewed the police generated 41 75-48s concerning violation of the City's curfew ordinance. In 38 instances the police record the race of these individuals. In 100 percent of these instances the individuals were African -American. Even assuming the remaining three instances all concerned Caucasians (for which assumption there is no basis) this would still mean that 92.7 percent of all stops in these districts were African -American. Again, however, the actual districts encompass populations which range from a low of 14.3 percent African -American in the 9th to a high of 72.1 percent in the 14th. The curfew stop of African - Americans was therefore 20 to 78 percentage points higher than the relevant population. In 43 V. Recommendations 1. Department Audit and Review. We believe that the information that can be gleaned from the 75-48s requires Departmental action on several levels. a. The Department should conduct its own audit and review of 75-48s and any other data that may be relevant to the two major issues discussed in this Report. The Settlement Agreement requires such a "review and audit" and our study underscores the need. b. The Department should carefully monitor compliance with the Assist Officer Memorandum requiring statements of reasons for stops, not only to ensure that such information is recorded, but also to ensure that they are not of a boilerplate or routinized nature. C. The Department should ensure the recording of the race, on all 75-48s, of any person stopped by its officers as is required by the Settlement Agreement at Proposal VIE d. The Department should ensure that there is regular training of officers on the foregoing matters, with close attention paid to those officers who have made multiple unexplained stops. e. On the question of accountability: officers who violate the standards should be disciplined and, perhaps more important, supervisors should be held accountable for actions in their districts. If the data shows stops without cause or unexplained racially disproportionate stops and detentions, district commanders and other supervisors should be held accountable. 2. Computerization. There is no good reason why in 1997, plaintiffs had to spend substantial 19 44 time in creating a program and database for the 75-48s. The Department should be entering all 75-48s into computers to allow for the kind of analysis that we have undertaken. Of course, even more is required by way of computerization to enable the Department and others to audit and review a multitude of police functions and personnel. 3. Curfew Enforcement. The data here is particularly compelling and the Department should ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of the curfew ordinance. Respectfully submitted, S& � Stefan Presser' 4_-,�, C Hugh . Clark ' We wish to acknowledge the outstanding work of Jon Feinberg and Joshua Marcus for creating and overseeing the database which made this analysis possible. OU 45 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ROBERT E. FRANCIS P. O. BOX 429 JUDGE HOUSE S oo W 1�Y. N. 08096 ao March 4, 1996 John M. Fahy, SDAG Brent Hopkins, Assistant Prosecutor P. Jeffrey Wintner, Deputy Public Defender Carrie D. Dingle, Assistant Deputy Public Defender Wayne E. Natale, Deputy Public Defender II William H. Buckman, Esq. Justin T. Loughry, Esq. jF-�Y�L�7� • �•7�J�� Dear Counsel: These are consolidated motions to suppress under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.l Nineteen defendants of African ancestry claim that their arrests on the New Jersey Turnpike south of exit 3 between 1988 and 1991 result from discriminatory enforcement of the traffic laws by the New Jersey State Police .2 After a lengthy hearing, I find defend- ants have established a Drima facie case of selective enforcement which the State has failed to rebut requiring suppression of all contraband and evidence seized. Defendants base their claim of institutional racism primarily on statistics. During discovery, each side created a database of all stops and arrests by State Police members patroling the Turn- pike between exits 1 and 7A out of the Moorestown Station for thirty-five randomly selected days between April 1988 and May 1991 from arrest reports, patrol charts, radio logs and traffic tickets. The databases are essentially the same. Both sides counted 3060 stops which the State found to include 1212 race identified stops (39.6%), the defense 1146 (37.4%). iThe motions also include claims under the Fourth Amendment, but they were severed before the hearing to await future proceedings if not rendered moot by this decision. 20riginally, twenty-five defendants joined in the motions. on the first day of the hearing, November 28, 1994, I dismissed the motions of Darrell Stanley, Roderick Fitzgerald, Fred Robinson, Charles W. Grayer, Keith Perry and Alton Williams due to their unexplained nonappearances. j 46 To: All Counsel Page 2 March 4, 1996 To establish a standard against which to compare the stop data, the defense conducted a traffic survey and a violator survey. Dr. John Lamberth, Chairman of the Psychology Departme t t Temple University who I found is qualified as an expert in statistics and social psychology, designed both surveys. The traffic survey was conducted over twenty-one randomly se- lected two and one-half hour sessions between June 11 and June 24, 1993 and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at four sites, two north- bound and two southbound, between exits 1 and 3 of the Turnpike. Teams supervised by Fred Last, Esq., of the Office of the Public Defender observed and recorded the number of vehicles that passed them except for large trucks, tractortrailers, buses and government vehicles, how many contained a "black" occupant and the state of origin of each vehicle. Of the 42,706 vehicles counted, 13.5% had a black occupant. Dr. Lamberth testified that this percentage is consistent with the 1990 Census figures for the eleven states from where almost 90% of the observed vehicles were registered. He said it is also consistent with a study done by the Triangle Group for the U.S. Department of Transportation with which he was familiar. The violator survey was conducted over ten sessions in four days in Ju y 1993 by Mr. Last traveling between exits 1 and 3 in his vehicle at sixty miles per hour on cruise control after they speedometer had been calibrated and observing and recording the number of vehicles that passed him , the number of vehicles he passed and how many had a black occupant. Mr. Last counted a total of 2096 vehicles other than large trucks, tractortrailers, buses and government vehicles of which 2062 or 98.1% passed him going in excess of sixty miles per hour including 306 with a black occupant equaling about 15% of those vehicles clearly speeding. Multiple violators, that is those violating the speed limit and committing some other moving violation like tailgating, also equaled about 15% black. Dr. Lamberth testified that the difference between the percentage of black violators and the percentage of black travelers from the surveys is statisically insignificant and that there is no evidence traffic patterns changed between the period April 1988 to May 1991 in the databases and June - July 1993 when the surveys were done. 47 To: All Counsel Page 3 March 4, 1996 Using 13.5% as the standard or benchmark against which to compare the stop data, Dr. Lamberth found that 127 or 46.2% of the race identified stops between exits 1 and 3 were of blacks consti- tuting an absolute disparity of 32.7%, a comparative disparity of 242% (32.7% divided by 13.5%) and 16.35 standard deviations. By convention, something is considered statistically significant if it would occur by chance fewer than five times in a hundred (over two standard deviations). In case I were to determine that the appro- priate stop data for comparison with the standard is the stop data for the entire portion of the Turnpike patrolled by the Moorestown Station in recognition of the fact that the same troopers patrol between exits 3 and 7A as patrol between exits 1 and 3, Dr. Lamberth found that 408 or 35.6% of the race identified stops be- tween exits 1 and 7A were of blacks constituting an absolute dis- parity of 22.1%, a comparative disparity of 164% and 22.1 standard deviations.3 He opined it is highly uplikely such statistics could have occurred randomly or by chance. 3Dr. Lamberth erred in using 13.5% as the standard for com- parison with the stop data. The violator survey indicates that 14.8%, rounded to 15%, of those observed speeding were black. This percentage is the percentage Dr. Lamberth should have used in mak- ing statistical comparisons with the stop data in the databases. Nonetheless, it would appear that whatever the correctly calcula- ted disparities and standard deviations are, they would be nearly equal to those calculated by Dr. Lamberth. 4In this opinion I am ignoring the arrest data in the data- bases and Dr. Lamberth's analysis thereof since neither side pro- duced any evidence identifying the Turnpike population between exits 1 and 3 or 1 and 7A eligible to be arrested for drug of- fenses or otherwise. See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio. 490 U.S. 642, 109 S. Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989). EH Apt^-30-9B 10:31A P.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA WILSON. LAWRENCE BOWDEN, KIMWAN TOPPIN, SHIRLEAN LOPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated VS. TINICUM TOWNSHIP, TINICUM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPART--MEN'T NNICUM POLICE CHIEF ROBERT T. LYTHGOE, JR., OFFICERS THOMAS CANZANESE and WALTER FIFE OF THE TINICUM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, in their individual and official capacities, and UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS NUMBERS ONE AND TWO OF THE TINICUM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, in their individual and official capacities I. EN IRODi.1r rtn CIVIL. ACTION NO. 92-CV-6617 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CONSENT DECREE This Cottser_t Decree is intended to settle all claims in this action. The Consent Decree is based, upon federal and state constitutional principles aril reflects in part i euent intemrctatio,is by th-.. appellate courts of PennsylvaIlia of Article 1. Section 8 of Me Penllsvlvaiw-.. l..oii.i:i7utioil. %garding tre power.i Ot the police to sw . �7[3li!.]:::.'i::li. .... __i DeiSU�� 1❑ tnC Comer:�nlvcaldt Oi hBniiJ 1";': eC:;c. \Qthln 49 contained in the Consent Decree and settlement of this case shall be deemed an admission of liability or wrongdoing of any of the Defendants. H. PROVISIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC, MOTOR VEHICLE AND CRIIVDNAL LAWS IN TINICUM TOWNSHIP ON I-95 The Defendants, in the enforcement of the criminal and motor vehicle laws of Pennsylvania on I-95, shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Consistent with this Consent Decree, the defendants shall not stop, detain, search or arrest any person because (in whole or in part) of the race or ethnic identity of that person. 2. Where the defendants receive information concerning specific criminal activity and this information includes race or ethnic background, the information may be considered in the determination of whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists to stop, detain, search or arrest. Further, nothing in this Consent Decree shall prohibit defendants from responding to a request for backup from other law enforcement agencies. The defendants shall not stop or detain any automobile or its occupants unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the operator or passenger(s) has committed or is conuintting a traffic or motor vehicle violation, ur have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the operator or a passenger(s) have CO:11.i13itP.t. 6r -re conum;zzu:'i i.. criminal a �:. 50 Apr-30-98 10:32A P.05 6. During the stop of a vehicle, defendants shall not subject the persons in the vehicle to a dog search, absent consent obtained consistent with the provisions of this Consent Decree or probable cause to believe that the persons stopped possess a controlled substance under state or federal law. Provided, however, that nothing in this Consent Decree shall preclude the defendants from using a canine to search for bombs, chemical weapons, or hostages under circumstances that legally warrant such searches. 7. If the stop of the vehicle is based on either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime other than a traffic or summary motor vehicle offense has been committed or is currently being committed, or is based on emergency health or safety reasons, defendants may detain, frisk, search or arrest the occupants) and/or the vehicle only in accord with then existing laws, rules and applicable judicial opinions construing the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and f) article I. Section 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. Any actions of the defendants that are not covered by this Consent Decree shall not be punishable by contempt cvcn if they are determined to be illegal or unconstitutional. �i III. COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS n. :h- 4e1viaaru$ shall Provide IO j7ialr+.ItiScOIInSeI onISlOiihly basis tDr Derl'J% Oi ^'/C YCari 'UifDwin r [}1: entr`: o: lius Cons=m Decree . !;t legible copies i+ !I $1 Apr-30-98 10s3ZA P.04 4. If the stop of the vehicle is for a traffic or motor vehicle violation for which no arrest is authorized by law, the defendants may issue a summons or warning, but may not search the vehicle or its occupants or detain the operator or passengers) for any period longer than that which is reasonably necessary to issue. said process, or to end the car stop because no process is necessary, unless the officer, consistent with this Consent Decree, possesses reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the operator or:passenger(s) has corttmitted or is committing a criminal act, or poses -an immediate danger to the safety of the officer. S. Once the summons or warning has been issued,-tte defendants -shall not request consent to search the occupants, their possessions or the vehicle, and shall not detain the occupants or vehicle to try to obtain consent unless the officer, consistent ------------ with this Consent Decree, possesses reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the operator or passengers) has committed or is committing a criminal act. A request for consent to search may be made during the time between the stop of the vehicle and the issuance of a summons or warming, or the deter- inaton that no process will issue, only upon the following conditions: (a) where said request does not delay the investigation or issuance of process. (b) where the smp was based upon reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a traffic o. motor velnic;: :elation had occurred or reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a cr is being committed or has been committed. and ict where the nc�lice do ro'.=eaten, intimidate o e;cenvise coerce t e oc:;unan:isl into copser.: N-4 -1h 4000F 52 Q � vl 0l �L cr) r O O � == ,_ '�C s� L G O V O g V 'D L j C'9�j u V L .0 LV] y N > u G .% �e O T U vx� Ar°uE a�.3a°°uuop .O > O m Y 3 L 4i L •d u m 0.%. U E O V > 6J '._. a c 3 MUu aUE cZ m c a m.� Do T.o r U L °°� ro s 3 o p U y V U T > D o`o u '° ° V > Z i u c oo o p U U O G.= y Q R A> > °> w T` ui 3 c O k s r V o.? c � u c u n.M a c0>= u U o o p m E 0 a° o L O m� m 0= m> E O L N tCp T aV. Ou m a �? O '•• p V p O L L �_ ° L C CO u° a 72 g G. •y C .E a N E O T O y>j c G L i. O > •q ° •` E h A O C nn > o O T ass w o u's3 C 3 au 53 O •^ L O O R L u i u m R •� 'fl G" tGtl O "O T% S O O '= Y R U C V U V u V 'C L O U L L E a °° r u 'u m> z_ o m > R 3 c z v R y u a d E3 o, R E m too bc r c e E o 7 T E u a E v a m u q °c o z„ u M u L L U 3 u L` R r ° z V m u > ° "u m E h °> u `a u u Gs C u u c h c 3 u C L c N L J •� u" o u "CJ R C C ti U c> O> h E R G u 3 aR. v O v �6 a o. o ,� V 3 L u sCL° eo u Y 3 9 ua ':uGO - L.- >OO °p> amEce-- oALC°°°E% c .-=$�ER a c o o E E3 c i a o c R u o W L a o �? O R U N^ T N T U C U U U U o u OL o u ac•- °° � o D o e "" V o o u o° 3 U R Y L .E •- x L o 3 •3 a m E x= Y u u R z �; = z °� •= 'u• Leo " o u 3 0 `u 'D c z R z z -' %> u a u a R pX to ° N R r o L V •E o V u R E u N uz'U ��wie L uLRO`a—U E u V •C L >. au u�.a.��`=c Ebc 'D c t- y ec ` c L L p L V o R .c Y' R a c T c° N L x E R y 3 0 0 o E E m E a Oto c E ❑ v N g L c > c•u .e L. a .- .. c L v u c u •� u u r c .E v '� > v E u• 0 3 c° s E • 3 u L o o c c c z R a xL R `L° o E v=EE= `N` x m u r .0 O U u L > >L U� R U> cE:m U GO c` ❑m 0 0° a'�'D V L> Q o a u v- > u 3 u ` m c ` Y •o L `c c c u ° o• 3 3° °: o v o a z E: c R - o •a Y y o o% s> u% >, ` R Y 9 E E c u u w t a u '> •a r o > c •v z Y .. n T o ._ .= v .E .%' °a' m R c L o u t > E u E v 3 E L; '-L'o �'> q z> L ° v L u Y •L o c OC c u L P L hi Y y u L4 a L` u E u e -u o u p L o L o o N ° +Y• .= Y. •u - .> F" �_ A u V u •= .- ° ° O t •"' H L. T R U T U L O u O c u E u i 2LA ° �t E cL �° u'E c ` Y E °o° "Er c °00 0.= o ° % ° ° G� c V S N'E E a m E u Y Y y a= c n co V V v t —% E C. u E> a 6Yc' •o .�, c- xis N u 5 o> `u .o ._ x R L" . T C' 7 R N E R u u e E> m c R h aL .. o L Leo 3 0 `o c; v, LY •3 ? 47 L m o 3 3 o a u' e°c i ,Le_o FL• u E `o zi L ,cy c y u A> x R v o a s° v u% c° L u ��L u % E> _> J' V C n V R R L �L.. •� Y q H V R u %L O• .- % w R m x u 3 _ T N u e`c L n o x%° u v -Y 'E Eto E ' L R s '. u o .> m `c �,E .q ' '> L -x 3 o L L x W R R c o a c y c o L u R u V rz c u— E 3 F u `u h u ro v B z s u c u 'o > .= c A I .v-, m y 0�' a' 3 T N u O� O C a L E U% u '.• _p — L O Y _ Y - .- .O - C k .L v .L V >% u u g A T C v `°' a R '� o E u c E v m° c >- L= z E o u° .E m m .n a U g O d R T `o >. E a` :° c u o o c •L O u V m x 0 L x "O L% C O y C y •- �„ V U '.. .= L o x A E c a v .°. "<°'> m E ti •= > L o R L 3 o u am o f 3 S o .0 b •v° E m c•uuc ?$ c -o •Yo o �c cv.E _ U O E O y E R L= L` -J u0 o Yaoo` m o o'b>w 3 Nm L°. • u= zu R °u a > °c O °n 0C..- U UM U.0 y p sFN -� ` O ._ L O R L •° > u E u vm N ` ::D •a 3 > > ua x -� u 3 0 °o •> -id a o .u. `o •o r > °L' o — `• v A E m ° o 3 �- a eN •= .°i s3u °R° uEc'o,,R �y °os, y uco-.- cu oc oao u s> c a ° c`0 3R NE ° u o o R Nszs oc aco.° 0 3 R.: u e Ez u °L u u u= °o � t`u E a bc d 3L. "p v° c .v u U E i v_ -° .0 :: H» °U' G s cC `U t :D u 3 p y G N L N O u E: L E s= m N m U- M S S ua,.: ec u •9 s> a c A= e L U° U •p O °` L U° '� t, T O O i 0 0 0 R 0 N p ,C 'II W L E ,U, L u T R 'C V O .° y C. p 6 �U, = U L .-. R L' .T. U. V •° -° C O p C> R L v L O O C p T� run 61 •O C'Qa>.L a�U p.c >•• R U p'9 > i c -c v R u -E -U, z t T d R U -� 3 v c`� h a_ E -. O um E aN. c' '►� L .`. Y m 0 Y L L y -C A= •= R j q °'•a ar s s G O V U L m .r V = o Q U R L R R N r c s a c �.- u c U` L = u L° ` u •E > 3 E CL 3"•- o �." u cr u 8-z oz D.. G m ,Os uV Lc •E.E C3 O= cR N wNOC cRc LGcOUf U TR -0 C O a c o r° m Ou R iK "0> E L9 bc:u m v D •E u =" d a c u c u cu L o o c °L c R NcL o L z R c u° E q L E E E c> L u= °u T h °U L N c u g E z as u c u z •., a = E U ti � r 'v o v m� a •c m � � = r r � W. ° u$ m°° o o c E d s c r '„ wo => L° u a y T •° C 3 'a E R u t •' R E,,, >• R y R R R - ._.. U L p U •O o u E-o E E c •q = s R �, a Q' u .°'o ua N u E g 3 o z 3; u E E :: _> �u• z ° u 7 u t E c u y° o o s o u c •� ,E u -Up L LC u O' C �- O U s.� uL t u •U N s p O O' O N s R o A v R p C E m s e u 3 q° u>° K = N 3 e`o 9 .q o ec u °L u U °L 'u N 'u s Ua eo v o a •a s o 3 c d 3° o o v a t '; •E u o T u z .E CL L E c Y "u u c = L a y` _ u c c cz >° u n° e m o O _°- y E a i Q °u E s -' 'aL', e r o• o o U o .E a U u C o u T= t E i n a R •E E u v L F o s$ L q u> -R y moc> G 3 a°i q0.'E_c CC 0. R N s L U `�'•>d$`oua•°e Q uu'�R" x u`o �°uu$'C .= •Du ;?::uacuu VE U{ii d Eu u _ N •pi7; E•: 0 61 u Lo❑ ° o`•Lo z pu u p- o ' yU o .E x° > Q z o- o° z u a.E r `u' 3 c c°° ¢ '> _T •O cUi L t E .E G T N ttl t+7 : R; u U Ems-' •c� L U •= N` N U u •° R u a -• o u o u N ° R 3 •. s x N :: ` c o. •� u ,� R c R o o c o u o v U R a R N. 3 F R ,>, o s =° 61 a >> i° "c s 3 z o c i •� D o E c> u o T T c .5 3 az ° o z c .E .a y h s .0 ° R m M. N U .° R p y m> u d'V v t .� -O L A° c`� tUi C i c C R a Rm e E"= n c u o -p r u v y z a .N. '3 N v c v "ec o c •- R c � R L a p u o �.� o�-O °� u bc u a R N c A x T> e E :3 c :° h o E >> L°L R' c n= M ° ec E` s° p E ° o EE u=s E er U r °c E aE s v u= o `c .: T u $ `u s E c c ec •� E w .E ° w '° -o`-.E a•'S 3 :: ° ° ` ° `o o o = E: 3 •z ='• 3 ' r .5 z u a a s ¢ u o° u 5715 y "-.uC p VO O C UO" C y 0GC C- cm Eo E C V O u 0 0 ms Um o_ o E 0 E .c 3 E E o E e> c °c E c o o y 3 EL- v •= u r y u 0 >. o K s u E s ° i0 3 c s u .'..o s °p =° u° u n u°° a a o ,o a u s u o a u ;: o R v >• �- u ,c, N N E v L o M u v u L O f0 .S O a _ u O p .0 L 3 r u 'o tV. u L L L L " ° u 3> '• O a. a V E .CT' G .G a G t •o O V > E c e> y .o a z t u R 3_ q .°- u = A •__ 'o -o a �, v u .. ° s u r 0 o p u u s E o u o r t s R •°u `R' c °'� u a •o c °e r° a c c f` .0 m E� .tl T A= 3 ,� •= � c .E a aL ' o L o A u v � E `u � •u � s s s � o c A° 3 � u'O a ° % a �' oogc'�= .u`.'u%au'�,•c.`u> °aidLm'vic° �ro c n-goe0o C.'E ° c ° 5. �hu, >u .0 _ua% •u•or o u°EuL •o :: yV o°=ua Lo L c T e E rv„V .LN c �y u o'omo Qc ou o .a > oc 'o boo >y os °D u E o E u .= mo cui ' u R .. s. e r �>, v p g y o C •7 V u C � % ° yV � m V % 00 Y �0. ` u �' > EO .O u r °o c m ° .E o °° o E F ° CL E 'o G v 3 r u¢ o v u u L F F u a - E s o 0 °� -`R3 0 `�° c Lo A u .. A '`? p o cmi u � t> E A R p, 3 m p o •E A o � o 'v L _ c oE•0E.^q r �� has%u.,>-,.flo° aNcAu� u.�oue;LET eo2u�%000- c s '`' a y a �, `o •° '-; — o T M 3 n. o u o c o WRM V 7 c 3 :: u u 3 G.'o s e' u p°o p .o O C •. C% .". O G %'V `n C m u'^ 'y u •c C 3 u 7 vi C R a v v�ccRA SosE'ees_b o g u c E •`-' U G _t T... % V � R u ti � N p N -G o u� E E_ o c E .= c .. 3 °�' �u c �' 'o •o `o •o`.E `o 'fl o o w -o a �_ T =- ❑ .D o ,m `.>_ y Q c ` ,, 3 u` 'o u m u al o n❑ u o q c s% m °• v0 eOO O ' uu t°" E°3C`cV �_o 9 •o L � L ` � E fi `c° h � n c - .i � � t •'v .� 'V' A L E '' 7 � u > .� i — E ° '� " `v ` � i y o `u ` s .% -� 3? � y m `' = 'a °X" u `° -o a •n z v o� E � � v °' o °r v.c n c y ° Er•" � � N `� c cis,.' o uE✓.= as p`ao `i 'v"�o %� u o u L o m o u u s ° E E c v uci ,- ., s: C rp A L .� u y u CL p m a L V L C u V O. L y o C N E > a>i '°o u a c n• ,'� A v is 'fl `p. �' v E c° a° o 12. v,� a"o 0ce.': „oga�.E mo ossy s o c N u �, E .% u c o o c. i .. R c �. bJ u u$ O y C y ° 0.` •`' N- C C u u -O u u u 7 'O y U A •o tR. tC u E V T •E u "i c E �' .tl� �' O- s ._ =» u A = g "E s ° .3 o v>. u u m-� s $ o o L. m o p u m L_ p u p o ., `u O C G •M C.V. 00'c N s C m V u u T V' v m y L u s T_ 4: O. t ,� m_ m .� R C y 3 E T'� �. 00 L O'.i. u N ` y •' u A uO.'u >. c v u .. a= �-' o R v ._ E: c o E u n. •o A ._ m A a o u :E v'� o u u C7Ero3000030 aL3s°9a4�a 56 V Y � 'O •O C Y Y L y UC C Y m� F-gv .0 -- Y ba U •E b°0 C> U O O F ISC u L L O '.�. y L O •O L G E c n y° •t, .o '° y O L C` °• to - z=° A a v c L v u o o° T °u O v v z v o E c 3 o z E a Y y 3 E � 'P � u� c T o c R o�� y o �+ ` u •o y � c = � .� =�° 'O „ .E ,. •E a _ = � � p i u E a— o .E > E ° E E:, E C o - a o '- �a v • " •- � > ;a E „ acu ctocs �cE>�Nu�LDLyT m '" '- •3 E .id. 0 3 u o u v s a :. E t '� o .- u c C 'O ro c Let c m F c a>= ° L °> °Y' C v o L YrA C O a E L 0= L O. '> O L u C U` •O Y L O E L B .� C V y Y c u `a° '� U L z :. v c v .y •y 3 v° •v ° o •o C ,� ` v A L .E o. E u •`- L '� . OU 'C °° �+ E g •° - s w u o .E r ., u .E tcm c as=> oayEaa= c=.E°.vAva' °_ v E_ = v y v t° E` z E- C s - E c A v c- ° ,c y L E m 3 p O. p ` C > .� F, lr '= Y A '• s. ❑ u.� O= C Q•L s j? G.L O r 'D K » A° C y .E C y ^c t L _ a .A •- u va v u v o '� b cYi .o v •a C- 's.v h c o> n °e °EL' ro Ea y c RC ° 'C $ .`T• A u c Y a •O O G bc U C O L ,` m Y L ,� C C a v•="^. u t T T L Y L, O c v c E c E ie j s cp d ai ` z c x Y y c V oES ` m a q L `o E 3 `o .° •y E c v " G 3 y b 3 �= o•o�N '�`o y E �.� o•�-, m � u -' °•T.c•=; ° ua AL E c a ;o.a �•o.o�•c g n � o = a L u' .� L a ° ."v. to -A u •� T o m o a % ?a ° �•= vaE.EF.E `� = Ta.`� u` o.° c us o= y m= o c = �•o.� •-,-' u A 3> L � ro a o m c id C T .fl t6 G O O a L S .Z• » a u v e a ° `-' E v x% v " .a 3 c= E Y o o c "u 'C c°> •Y m c -x A E> v� L C e o u o Y A v v C� 3 .� c R L •p =° L .u. m OU T y t a •$ `u E '^ a s •a'u = o u y a L :° `o `o c u u°a. e A E L f06 aL �a e�i u U C U `O m C U C J v 0 O. ° n. E =° .` m Y Y O'u u u o .E •� ' o ` u a ° u E ° _u h 3 y .-`> >' C L y L C v u •o "v A u p E L o u A- v °: ,Y, E u o :: ,e u c c R .° ` L E r .� R c'A K a' a `• R o 'o v e E `u s oc mE 3 ac .m '>- E •c c E .c A 9 E e n. eo `u E °� v =%- o s .. u s ec u r ° v E c_ o y o v E L o r v :? L.c .° .. v E v •y ° ' = `o > ° x ` ` u m o u Q :a -E _o 'E c A, .bc ao °y `uu Eu u q c o -o A°u c - c v o Yc•c o° E ° o`v o o u e°o i. e°o 3 s r %•c E'� r E 3 u Y'� o e r u e v a-o c c° >• .. 3 i= c ° a c o -0 0 - g - ° ° E •', " >. a .c v u u u n •c = -o u o 3 E m v g y° T 0, .= .4 ° c� 3 o E S a-`, 9 g °.wc° �° c o E v y` E ro c .a E v u c x ;" _ „ — ., a � 'a o v y s °- � •- v - c .=' z � E "> > T - :: o d m '" 0 3 �' ° .E : z v = ° °' c z¢ a - � E � t c ec t 3 L y L� o •° o °. S v c .c rn .v, rL, " r � E x v � �.. h� ro E L F c E v °' °' ¢ v .. p c � v H s• z m` .. •c _ v c v s u i° v u E' u= c '° y v o s c o l `o v V o a❑ O U A '^ G G •�-' w 'O 'D T^ M p c� u C M..E ° .E E A i s y m y a o C� c C o a a_> u c -u A s a- E s 57 y t Y L c ." C ._ 'i. vA''�•=v y v p a p a 3 c > r N A ro y c� L rq co ro O ro v- c. L N •C V N Q. a L > s c = u C — V L Y L L V V r u. Z L ro N A C L L y t C v CL s 3 u u A 'O r u ro N j TL O G L C T .V T v Z ro v ro` a n•o v�e•o or _ u U C Z ay.. q O. O r C E v.` ` u E L U •u L Y u C U O u 3 .y C ro L. U �% U L •L-y U O C .% q� p� u tC y ro T C E o `u E cc ° o a F" o 0 0 u :u a E 3 •o m u _� s m .: = p o .y U iz L G a E s u u` u s E u u> u D u = o= v.? E'0 m y a f ro •u c a L. .. ro o.x _ u o � E r °• 3 °a v s ro � v A .� v OC 'O A Y Y ro u C ro r N .V S a c ro ',y EE c .o o ,E q Y 'O L O C T O C ro° U L L: N O .� L Y O E u s ro "u q C a c .'� C n c E u M Y Y u a 3 R Y O c 7 .`. ro Y C 3 C L w 'c v u E s o ou m -0`a `o q° c v E L .ro c eo Lv ro ro q "> o T U y u r'u L L u u'p E 3'y G O 'obo oyq ocEtl -Lso E cuCuaYOCD.ro3pZ ° G C> 'fl q C •y r '9 L y A L '0 a s tv. LL. O C r O L O y t ra m '`v� A^ '� p•t C .� 'O L oroi v t O u o u u C emu_ z uos?ou �'°Ta3gv._°=oroE�.o •= N q c v M.4 a u L u c v v° '�'u x° b c T c h `u u a o °° 'E •c r h LN y •p X E a. Y y Y N N t .K U C 7 qT E L. y r u urcuo'= Qoa�sce u%u?L ucr rE uo E C ro �'• C i N •C .V O NLn .O .0 toV U t_ 'N u _C = u v ro u U C v L v u r M ,u. ro 'O O 'v y` > .'� u •p L N L .!2 E caL u croi E °u u E n. u q E 'O •p C a o s O L L O c- U a u y o C E- O abD q = v a v L `u FL• ? e E CL •= Y c E o° .3 E` co c c __ s c• c E E e`c u> R a. _° o E. E °u `o `o E� E= 3 3 a 'ro o o s c v q .E N a ra• v E o 0 0 'E i� `c -> o a u y q u �c ro 'y � .a c u ...� u c E� c E •= obc o u c y o •q .E s_ a c o c_CL a u o E t .� v u L_ s R i o .4 z •o-.c .� H .= U E v ro O u L Y c •J' m ro U C E y$ o R E�_ e c H .y '� c C� `m "�=°' r �� e=c u u w CC L ;y c c O ^4 Ef, r q OG'fl !.L = v 3 O O r N N o— °' c H E R g a °: U ro _ ro Y •p C^ �p '•p = C '.' O ro a." L 9C .u ro 'O c cui .E N u•= >: e y e .q. c'u %» a E o ro o v o^ M y y 75 b b G O O y .E y Z= y u •V Z v C E a ro T m u T N n u e u u a g ro ro i E sfl JCtO T 0 Ltu' .0 -0 uMO - '— CO S = rO y L ._ •o w c '_ � w = 7. C-— L M= Cr R d T r0 C .L t 'O m �d aR. .y C .0 4 L L OC L u 'D E �,'� E U t ` O_.0 bc T a.E GC > O a p•.v 0 6 v R •G rO a 7 k p L � V .0 id 3 3 1 w R� = C. _ .V a y •L y L 'O y 9 0 L L L cC. . -0 p 9 .° C L y N R L .o A p 04 zg s'oRO° L•O�.; `cO RaLym. L—>L 3LRu 0UCg°L DEpu z.EV=N oy_ =Rq • p °a° =c o yo > N> _ RL'a ECa. G- O L O '>' > O y=L Oa_ = = u rbe > >3 a 'o bc 0. oa_a o .b R v C E vat '- t, = N m. =•-u E N -?: Ess Tv_as s L � �. aL� p_u`'7 0 'O c c e`o y y y s c m " 'D R o• 3 .� ` °J c ro eon 9° o d o u s E L E v a- o •= L s E hc L. N O V` ._ u y a`J c- p v C w 'y0 Q p Cp > ma A` Y i=j > 'o u ?°. m O L 3 a > L- G O p O 3 L -0id t R R L> N o= o U T E: t� m s y L 'L id ._+ t - a " °e 3 •o a'� T ; °' = 'c �y �OU L°o a ''Nu LF R= r L •� L L=, u G L .L._y c m °'a T L •'n� " �u' 3^ 3 °Oo-0 L L= Eu OC mNL o aN. s 3 •D = .= L R y >° > c° uD s .L ` E° �° u 4= u o_ c z m e L° E A° a'> 0 4 h R. o- R R .a.E R> ° c> o r R V L �` 3 r0 O T� = p L p "m p L O N> L_ L •. •o U ._ a° T` C R R OC L m c L O y> R �? k ,L O N Lr "O E p G O G c c > ° 7 C L c y p c u •fl L y .� U '' •N '� E z= =F O E u.r ytL E o 0 R •� '> ec u N n.L. a o '$ •aci `o L ec `d u .= u o E„ u L= N v L L =R c •�U3 cLL <c: •y=a .`Do L.:3 sOt= •N=FL.y. :`'- s-.. NNa aN e 1A7 Co > > o u 'oc •o`w `u °L' a'- ._ r 0 Xep r oc` `oc iLLd •a uEL = O O v d u R E v E E'O tLd y N >'O y e L U G3C U a�Li •L O.FO,L O.� C ° 'CL v R v9 Y 3 n._ V O >`.� F` L U G O a iR. G t`tl T i .� .y u>= R C •U cuRi c 0 o N y 1 L =' Lr Ls L=RT.-a^o33a'O �'O _-L -L• =NL LT o o n >_ >- `'> o R -' u= o C o = .E a. e y eR R c`c_ u R L L " E itl �' R u o c s s > T 3 E R cL. U 6..E L` •� run c L ->` •° [r L L R O L N L= 'r O R O L E L= L O 3 L• C O== N N ° °° T o L a '- a°? =s o= .E = u y° u L E •o >sy' •_O r .DL a " a 3 Oy 'R L s ea? 7 ._FyE °+E 3 C 0. `d bc c v —_ O. ro a L` •o L n+ �O O0 _ VC � .� p •aN Q av o` u pm 0 R0 EH°eo oac— us 3a .� c w Hs E�°sgH>c>� aR as`LTO=-O o A a u .D o •fl . y o E T u s w= °�' v 3 -o " 3 'L' m •N, aui 3 » -c R' �` o o s 3» e=o L❑ = N r E a L F .,. 'O L y = y O p 'n = L> •0 L U _ r ttl E> e o 3s o TeoE II "E o= E L g c p a L L y' y ° v'v R.c R yR a.obZ 0 •9 " `° _ y O u L_ a=i T A L 3 L p nc "� p •y "` o s 'v C R v i N u O .. 3 _7 y m m L'o o D o y a A Q E u c .° 4 L E c L== "° o u L E n y a b a s p L L id v L c L' o 59 !• C A T T v C 'p '-' wO u •p U T y` U r v v t •D U y .�? A C 0CL A L u t t! u N u� o o g c A p �'� `u $ ro s c z•o f 0 w L O N `A'o Euo 3?•e.N u us ec N 0 R A •- Y •O w A C 'U U p O A L C> s' y •E > o E a° `' a'� o E s y -o u 'fl 3. c E° y u U o 3 u A •O N O u•j g» r 3 L=- A a o y-° u o= c r n > o° °° o u u u E c se u p d=A ca E° >u o O yAO U Cq%uaN -S Uu c 3 10 t c •> o A n a= `o c .T. •p ° 3 ti -p u L L U uL> N E O C y N y C N A p U C :C L y3j Q A 0 0L°$< u N 'O C> G u T vi u N C .0 Oto v u A u •y N N> u •,� 3 j u o •T GGm O'u 6. 6.•JL Ouni 'duUyN Osu ass' qu o 0� u� o u s u t o'u 0 u A C> L O v -� 'O .0 C° 0 U A V 7 arA. N u 'O n .. L t^ A a u N 0 •^ u U u ac c? 3` u .!: „• u o c7 R c E e u e to o °a -o u y cm o° a °u s u U L w u_ _� m u D O •= _� c`u� , V y LT •� O �u V E N C O C T C y o e= o e a F w= N❑ a u' u °a u E �° ° °' u u o o y o eo A s ;g u A ,o E u o ae G y J T L L U- C �... X C Y 'D O A u. T wO y A y s V c. U.- pa t V o` T U O ` A y t`tl 61 A itl L O 'v A 3J O U A .y. U y 0 U C L p G o- Y •� uO. ❑ av EuOz" U u 7 N -o v a N a N A_A mO ' NitO caa 0 V - C> n-0o c o .� o N„ E ° � uoo E o o ? cu oou A> a V O u u u C-s No-O U O v°x o E ce s v o E m= u_ N y o= A •c $ N a 's Y= .? o> u° x E u N p •4 A u T A 3 L T O _ O N u 09 V u .u. 6. .�' c E c- u ;? u� u » N> N C O= T 3 t A L E O ❑ c c E c o v o u o = a .. a > a u .°' •u a = u u u'• u m A C u_ u u' ° O N= ••_ s u t u c E N A ttl c c E' .. c U s T c '• c m y •E >> o c c o- ` c u -E euc c- a 'c bc *u ,c ? u $ u Ow L t O y U "� •"u o u° -� - O 'E y Z O ': u '- ec o -- .c 3 A a 3 A m u A ro E E •� A _ E E= o u s o O> •T T L O 'O 3 O OC T y '� N .� C j > 3 �' s `� Ou c` A; r> �» C C P y > 4 v C Y A` O U O. wO 3 y L Q4 v uv y A •p u y _A^, T �. N° u A q u V y y 'C u �. Co, T C-% O >` u u N v_ p o s y o a u .. ' w' a o :: E: u A. °- o u A >• u r ;, °a > U y> a°> `m a be° u u, ` o c u u° u o ° E Eo'u u `'- E q o'.4 s a-Vu.y�v o -,0; roorcueo . Eu c u L' 0E O °° °m AL`Ao rao0'D o v A v u .O R 7 U N .`A. �' v °•'.C. ° 'm O OCo L r E L s r .' F o 0 o x°a br o c.E u o r¢ .0 -�°o 'c •E 'v u y A a3 60 ,J OFFICER 32 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT March, 1998 �a see lj 9 fOf��Cf DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 3-01 98MIS74 Possession Under Legal While speaking with a subject about a Age. PUALA charge, he attempted to walk away. The officer grabbed his jacket and pulled him back into the Hallway. 31 3-01 99801891 Public Intoxication Subject was arrested for public intoxication. He refused to put his hams behind his back.. His bands j were grabbed and placed behind him and he was handcuffed. 13.40 3-01 98801894 Disorderly Conduct Officers pulled th ther he was fighting. A42rin loc was applied and he was escorOWSWky from the ( ^-:. ;. �� _c crowd. 50 3-01 99801898 Injured deer Officer shot an injured deer with his sidearm. 42 3-01 99901903 Sick animal Officer shot a sick raccoon with his sidearm. 41.95 3.04 98901975 Welfare check Acting on a doctor's request to take a female to University of Iowa Hospital. officers had to cut the apartment chain lock. 17,39 3-05 98802006 Eluding a Police Campus Police requested ICPD Officer assistance in stopping a car. The car failed to stop and traveled at a high rate of speed. When stopped the driver failed to obey the officer's commands. He was then taken to the ground'and handcuffed. The otfier o�'iar-drew his sidearm when he approached the car. No one else was found in the car. 13 3-05 99802008 Drug Arrest After being placed under arrest, the subject t4gaia4aaM. The officer grabbed his arm and laid him on ltte hood of the car. 26 3-07 98802115 Criminal Mischief Subject came out of the apartment and pulled the officer away from the door. The other officer grabbed him and placed him against the wall. He was then handcuffed. 61 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 36 3-16 99802330 Fight After being involved in a fight the person ran from the officer. He was caught and put over the trunk of a car. He was then handcuffed. 13. 20, 23. 25, 3-16 9SM2331 High risk warrant All the listed officers displayed a 0, 32.35.36. service firearm while executing a warrant. 42. 45, 48, 49, 50. 85, 98 2, 28. 43 346 99802351 Committal While serving committal papers, the person ran towards the kitchen. where there were knives on the counter top, __ 1 Officer grabbed her and took her to t6eN ground. -.A wrist flex was applied ind —slairwas handcuffed. At the hospital she refused to get out of the car. Another wrist flex was applied and she was escorted inside. 22. 38, 53 3-17 99802372 Man with a knife Subject was in the hospital with a knife. DPS, Campus Police, requested assistance from ICPD. The subject refused to relinquish the knife and was asked to leave. While leaving he threatened officers. Campus then initiated the arrest. He fought with officers and was taken to the ground. 13, 40.42 3-19 98802422 Vehicle theft Officer stopped a stolen vehicle while it was driving down Hwy. 6. The two occupants were ordered out of the vehicle. Officers had their sidearm drawn during the stop. 40,95 3-20 98802449 Vehicle theft Officer drew his sidearm during a traffic stop of a stolen vehicle. 39 3-21 98902476 Public Intoxication Subject was arrested and one cuff Obstruction of Officers placed on his wrist. He then twisted and pulled away from the officer. The officer directed him towards a cot and placed the other cuff on his wrist He resisted officer while being escorted to the squad, getting into the squad and going into the jail. 62 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT 35 3-29 98802739 Public Intoxication FORCE USED During a PAULA investigation the subject was placed under arrm. Officer attempted to escorted him out of the bar. The subject pulled away from the officer. A — goose -neck -come -along was applied and the subject was taken outside. He was then handcuffed. 48 3-30 99802791 Criminal Trespass Officers responded to a burglary in Public Intoxication progress. A suspect was found on the it roof of the sorority. The officer drew Ins sidearm until he was sure the suspect was not armed. CC: Chief City Manager Captains Lieutenants Library City Clerk G3 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT April, 1998 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCHkENT FORCE USED 97 04-03 98902924 Welfare check Officer responded to a disturbance call and found windows broken. He could not get anyone to answer the door. Management unlocked.the door and die chain was cut. - 38 04-05 99802944 Traffic stop Officer stopped a van that matched the ci description of a vehicle that reportedly had a handgun inside. Occupations were removed at gun point No weapon was found. 41 04-04 98802954 Public Intoxication When told he was under arrest, the Possession Controlled subject started to ,run. The officer Substance cau`gh-F m and ordered his hands behind his back. The subject refused. The officer put him up against a wall and pulled his arms back, so he could be handcuffed. 17.35 04-04 98802956 Public Intoxication Subject was told not to be in a business. He refused to leave. Officers then applied a pressure point control technique and awrist flex. He was iiori;a out of the bar. 43 04-04 98802996 Assist other agency DPS. Campus Police, requested assistance in a foot chase. The officer caught the subject and ordered him to the ground. The officer then pulled his arms and hands behind his back and handcuffed him. 35.39 04-05 98802999 Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age. Officer placed subject under arrest. He then tried to run awh_y. One officer grabbed his coat and the other grabbed his ami. A struggle ensued and they went to the ground. The subject then hit the officer in the face. He was rolled onto his stomach and his arms and wrists were pulled behind his back. He was then handcuffed. M. OFFICER DATE CASE M INCIDENT FORCE USED 50 04-05 98903029 Welfare check Officer was attempting to find the parent of an unattended 4 year old. The person refused to cooperate with the investigation and was placed under arrest. She attempted to run away. When caught she was placed up against a car and handcuffed. 46 04-05 98903035 Injured animal An injured rabbit was shot with the.22 cal rifle. 36 04-07 9SM3080 Traffic stop While writing a ticket, the driver of the car stopped, started walking at the officer. The driver held his right arm behind his back and refused to display hands to the officer. Officer exited his tar and drew his sidearm. The driver then showed his hands. 34 04-07 99803090 Involuntary committal Officer assisted medical personnel restraining a suicidal subject. She was strapped to the stretcher and taken to the hospital. 95 04-10. 98803171 Disturbance call Subject was identified as being involved in a fight. The officer requested him to stop. The person took off running. He fell and as he was getting up. the officer directed him to the ground. The person continued to resist officer. After verbal threats to use OC spray the subject quit resisting. -.W- 11 04-10 98903195 Fight Subject ran from the officer. She was caught and resisted officer. She became verbally abusive. She was taken to the ¢round and handcuffed. 11.14. 53 04-10 98903201 OW[ After being placed under arrest. subject refused to get into the car. A pressure point control technique and physical force were used to put her in the car. 97 04-14 98803275 Injured animal An injured opossum shot with a.22 cal. rifle. 2. 11 04-17 98803390 Public Intoxication While being walked from the squad to the jail. the subject twisted out of officer's grasp and attempted to run away. He was taken to the_eround and held until JCSD Deputies arrived. 65 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 40.43 04-18 98803436 Public Intoxication The man was identified as being involved in an altercation at a bar When the officer attempted to stop him. he turned and raised his fist. He then came at the officer. The officer attempted to keep him at arm's length. but the man. hit his outstretched arm. The officer then sprayed him with OC. 43 04-19 98803442 Public Intoxication The subject interfered with another investigation. When the officer tried to question hint. he began to walk away. He resisted officers attempts to stop him. The officer handcuffed him and placed him in the squad car. 22 04-19 99803455 Sick animal A sick raccoon was shot with the officer's sidearm. 50 13. 16 39 17. 54 04-20 98903519 Subject with a gun Officer responded to an assault call involving a gun. Subject was seen walking away from the scene carrying a gun case. The officer drew his sidearm and ordered him to the ground. He was handcuffed. 04-28 98803521 Public Intoxication Subject pushed officer and took off running. When he was caught he was taken to the ground. He continued to resist officers while being handcuffed. 04-24 04-24 98803647 Disturbance at a bar Subject was causing problems at a bar. When officer arrived a Uf DPS Officer was already at the scene. The subject refused to obev orders and was verbally abusive. He was handcuffed and placed in a squad car. The subject attempted to move his cuffed hands from the back to the front. Officer's removed hint from the car and put his hands behind his back again. He refused to get back in the car and was physically placed there. 99803650 Fight Officers obsencd a fight in progress. As they approached one the subjects inn away. The officers chased him and caught him. He refused to put his hands behind his back. Each officer grabbed an arni and pulled it behind his back. 66 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 11.17 04-24 99803681 Assault with a Firearm Officers stopped a car identified as being involved in an assault with a firearm. The officers drew their sidearm and ordered the two occupants out of the car. A starter pistol was found in the pants of one of the occupants. 12, 16 '04-25=98803710 Interference with After being placed under arrest, the Official Ads. OWI subject pushed both officers and attempted to run away. He was grabbed by the wrist. The subject resisted with officers and was then sprayed with OC. He was taken to the ground and handcrffed. 85 04-29 98803821 Burglary Alarm Key holder to a business requested officer to search the inside. Officer drew his sidearm and entered the business, No one was farad inside. 6, 8, 44 04-25 M03715 Unlmown Problem Officers were dispatched to an Warrant Service unknown problem call. During the itwestig*on,.the subject attempted to walk away from officers. When he failed to stop the officer grabbed his arm. He pulled away and resisted officers attempt to stop him. A wrist flex was used to pull his hands behind his back and he was handcuffed. 2 04-26 98803739 Possession Alcohol Subject attempted to get away while Under Legal Age. officer was conducting a PAULA investigation. Officer grabbed her arm and escorted her out of the bar. CC: Chief City Manager Captains Lieutenants Library City Clerk 67 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT - - May, 1998 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 54 5-0I 98903916 Possession of Alcohol While doing a bgr;check, offi-Ir Under Legal Age saw the subject aiih a beer. When she saw the officer site took off running. Officer caught up with her and grabbed her arm. She quit muting and was handcuffed. 32 5-02 99903974 OWL Interference with While conducting an investigation the Official Ads subject attempted to walk away. The officer grabbed his arm and he resisted by puffing away. His arm was pulled behind his back and handcuffed 9, 40. 42 5-03 98904020 Fight in progress Subject was placed under arrest but refused to be handcuffed. He resisted officers and was taken to the ground The subject continued to resist and a pressure point control technique was used to get him to comply. He was then taken to the squad car. He refined to get in and resisted officers. He was then sprayed with OC and placed in the back seat of the car. 49 5-05 98804112 Domestic Assault During the investigation the subject +. walked away from the offices. He refused to stop. The officer grabbed his arm. The subject attempted to pull away and resisted the officers attempts to stop and calm him. He was taken to the ground and handcuffed. 28,50 5-05 98804117 Public Intoxication Subject started to run away from the officer after he was told he was under arrest. The officer grabbed his arm and took him to the ground. The subject was then handcuffed. 26 5-06 99904123 Sick animal Officer shot a sick raccoon with a .22 cal. rifle. 92 5-12 99804381 Injured animal An injured deer was shot by an officer with his sidearm. OFFICER 16 46 35, 40, 47 43 41 14 DATE CASE # 5-14 98804418 5-15 98804501 5-16 98804505 5-15 98804506 5-17 98804552 5-18 98804579 34 5-19 98804631 INCIDENT Public Intoxication FORCE USED While helping emergency medical Personnel, the subject was harassing other people. He was told to leave he area several times. He refused and was Placed under arrest He resisted and an arm bar was used to control him while the handcuffs were d him on Armed person Officer was investigating an incident where people were dueatened by a Person with a shThe suspectwas located and the officer drew sidearm until he his was sure hea did not have —aweapon. Stolen vehicle Officers stopped a 11 and removed the occupants. The officers' sidearm were unholy red everyone was Out ft oo the until Public Intoxication Subject was drunk and causing a disturbance. When he was placed under arrest he resisted being handcuffed. Officer pulled the subject's hands behind him and he was handcuffed. OW1 Subject tan from hit car after the officer stopped him. The officer caught him and directed him to the ground. He was handcuffed. Disturbance Suspicious Person 21 5-22 �] 98804644 Burglary 117 �i-:�, it Qp �.J ::% j d ..r Officers were investigating a disturbance. The subject was seen leaving the area with a 4 foot long metal pipe. The Officer approached hum and asked him twice to put it down. He refused. Officer drew his sidearm and ordered him to put it down. He did and was arrested for Public intoxication. Officer responded to a call of two subjects with a long gun. Officer c ec� the area on foot with his sidearm drawn. The subject resisted a Coralville Investigator's attempt to stop him. Iowa City Officer grabbed the subiect's arm and held it behind his back. 69 OFFICER 36 14 36 93 93 DATE CASE# 5-23 98804771 5-24 98804797 5-25 98804810 5-26 99804836 5 26 99804945 13, 35, 40, 48 5-29 98804928 97 49 5-29 98804933 5-31 98803027 CC: Chief City Manager Captains Lieutenants Library City Clerk INCIDENT FORCE USED awl Officer assisted Johnson County Deputies, who were uywg to place a subject in a padded cell. Officer bold the subject's arts behind his bade Driving Under urin�the investiuon _the subject t Suspension attempted to leave. Officer grabbed his argt and spun him around, so he could be handcuffed Injured animal An injured animal was shot once with the officer's sidearm. Injured deer An injured deer was shot with the officer's sidearm. Assist Youth Homes Employees of Youth Homes were wrestling with two violent juveniles. Officer grabbed the leg of one of the girls and she quit fighting. Disorderly House Subject interfered with officers while they were investigation a loud party. He was placed under arrest and refus d to be handcuffed. Officers pulled his, arms behind his back and handcuffed him A female was told she was under arrest for the party. She attempted to run into the house. An officer grabbed her and she kneed him in the groin. Officers grabbed her and pulled her arts behind her back. She was handcuffed Disorderly conduct Subject fled on foot when he was told -, Public Intoxication he was under arrest- He tripped and fen and! Ute office held him down. He was handcuffed Assault Subject was a suspect in an assaulL He refused to leave the area near the victim. Officer requested him to move away. When he M— ° r his band on his chest and pushed him away from the area. 70