HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1998 Communication DRAFT
CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND
GUIDELINES
The PCRB was established to essuure that invade'gee'OhS
into c/aims of police misconduct are conducted in a manne~
which is fair, thorough end accurate and to assist the Police
Chief, the City Manager and the City Council in evaluating the
oversil performance of the Police Deparm~nt as a whole by
having it review the Police Department's invesfga~ion into
complaints. To achieve these pUrl~oses, the PCRB shall comply
with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code, the Board's By-laws,
and the Police Ci~'zens Review 8oerd's Standard Operating
Procedures end Guidelines.
PCRB SOP 9f4198
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Complaint Process
II. Formal Mediation Guidelines and I~ocedurss
III. Meetings
IV. Complaint Review Process
V. Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices of the Iowa City Police
Department
VI. Annual Report
VII. General
VIII. Appendix
1. Ordinance No. 97-3792
2. The City Code of iowa City, Chapter 8, Police Citizens Review
Board
3.Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board By-Laws
4.Police Citizens Review Board Complaint Form
5.Standard Operating Procedures:
a. Procedure for complaints filed after 60 days (i.D)
b. Mediation (11)
(1) PCRB Guidelines for Formal Mediation
(2) PCRB Formal Mediation Policies/Procedures
c. Review Process (V)
PCRB SOP 9/4198
I. Complaint Process
In an effort to assure the citizens of Iowa City that the Iowa City
Police Department's performance is in keeping with community
standards, the PCRB shall review investigations into complaints of
police misconduct to insure that such investigations are conducted in
a manner which is fair, thorough and accurate. The PCRB shall achieve
this by receiving, reviewing and reporting on citizen complaints in
accordance with the procedural rules in Chapter 8 of the City Code,
following the Police Citizens Review Board By-Laws, Article VIII, and
the Board's Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines.
A. Complaints shall be filed in accordance with 8-8-3 C and
8-8-7 A of the City Code.
1. All documents and related materials filed with the Board
shall not be returned.
2. Complaints filed in the City Clerk's Office shall be
assigned a complaint number consisting of the last two
digits of the present year with consecutive numbers,
starting with one (1) {e.g. 98-1). The complaint copy
sent to Board members shall have all references to police
officer names deleted.
B. Procedure for complaints which are filed after sixty days
1. A complaint that appears to be untimely filed or
otherwise deficient shall be assigned a number in the
ordinary manner as provided in the City Code.
2. A copy of the complaint shall be furnished to the Police
Chief or City Manager, with a cover letter indicating that
it appears to be an untimely complaint and will be
reviewed by the Board at its next regular or special
meeting.
3. A copy of the apparent untimely complaint shall be
provided to Board members in the next meeting packet;
4. Notice shall be given to the complainant that the
complaint will be on the next meeting agenda, giving the
complainant an opportunity to be heard on the issue of
whether the complaint was timely filed;
PCRB SOP 9/4/98 - I
5. At the meeting at which the complaint is considered, the
Board shall, by motion in open session, vote to determine
whether the complaint will be dismissed under Section 8-
8-3 D of the statute;
6. If the Board dismisses the complaint as untimely, the
staff shall forward a copy of the decision to the Police
Chief or the City Manager and also to the complainant.
a. The copy going to the Chief or City Manager shall
state that the complaint has been dismissed as
untimely and that a report to the Board by the
Chief or City Manager is not required by Chapter 8
of the Code. The Board may request that an
investigation be done.
b. The copy of the decision sent to the complainant
shall include a cover letter advising that although
the complaint has been determined to be untimely
and will not be reviewed by the PCRB, there is a
method for the complainant to file a complaint
directly with the Iowa City Police Department that
is still available should the complainant wish to
pursue the matter.
7. If the Board determines the complaint is timely and shall
not be dismissed, it shall so advise the Police Chief or
City Manager so they may continue their investigation
and make their required report to the PCRB.
B. Amendments to a complaint must be in written form.
C. The complainant may withdraw the complaint at any time up to
ten days after the Board receives the Police Chief's or City
Manager's report. After that time, the complaint may be
withdrawn with the consent of the Board.
II. Formal Mediation Guidelines and Procedures
Formal mediation is the responsibility of the PCRB and is offered as a
method to facilitate a successful resolution of the issues involved in a
complaint. The PCRB shall accomplish this responsibility by complying
with 8-8-2 H, 8-8-4 and 8-8-7 of the City Code and the PCRB
Guidelines and Procedures for Formal Mediation, approved by the City
Council on 3/10/98 and made a part hereof.
PCRB SOP 9/4/98 - 2
III. Meetings
Regular meetings shall be held monthly. Special meetings may be
called by the Chair as needed. The Board shall comply with Article V
of the PCRB By-Laws and the PCRB Standard Operating Procedures
and Guidelines.
A. Meeting packets shall be distributed to Board members at least
two (2) days prior to a meeting when possible.
B. Place of Posting Notices and Agendas.
1. Follow requirements of Section 21.4, The Code of Iowa.
2. The City of Iowa City provides the Notice Bulletin Board in
the lobby of the Civic Center; notice of a meeting will also
be distributed in media boxes located in the Civic Center.
C. Consent Calendar shall include:
1. Minutes of the last meeting(s);
2. Correspondence and/or memoranda directed to the PCRB
(not complaint-related). Staff shall be given directions
based on Board discussion as to whether staff shall
respond or whether Board members shall respond, with
copies furnished to the Board.
D. Time for open public discussion shall be made available at all
open meetings as provided by the PCRB By-Laws, Article V,
Section 6.
E. Time for "Board Information" and "Staff Information" shall be
made available at all meetings.
F. Decisions made in executive session shall be ratified in open
session.
G. Taped minutes of open meetings shall be kept thirty (30) days
from acceptance and approval of minutes.
H. Taped minutes of executive meetings shall be kept for one year
from the date of the meeting,
I. Legal Counsel for the PCRB shall attend meetings as directed by
the Board.
PCRB SOP 9/4/98 - 3
J. Electronic Participation
1. Follow the requirements of Section 21.8, The Code of
Iowa. "Electronic meeting" as defined in this section
presumes that a majority of the members of the Board are
participating electronically.
2. .Electronic participation in meetings. A member may
participate by electronic means when the majority of the
Board convenes in person. The person or persons
participating electronically are part of the quorum for the
meeting and may make or second motions and may vote.
Refer to Section 21.8, The Code of Iowa.
K. Quorum and Voting Requirements
1. Quorum. See By-Laws V.2.
2. Voting. See By-Laws V. 10.
3. Voting to close a session. See Section 21.5, The Code
of Iowa.
L. Iowa Open Records Law
1. The Board must follow all the requirements of Chapter
22, The Code of Iowa, Examination of Public Records
(Open Records). This means every person has the right
to examine and copy the public records of the PCRB
pursuant to that Chapter.
2. The lawful custodian of the PCRB public records is the
City Clerk of Iowa City.
3. All records of the Board shall be public except as
specifically provided for in Chapter 22, The Code or in
the By-Laws. Only certain records shall be kept
confidential and only under circumstances in which they
are specifically authorized to be kept confidential by
Chapter 22, The Code of Iowa.
4. Confidentiality of complaints, reports of investigations,
statements and other documents or records obtained in
investigation of any complaint. See By-Laws VIt.l(a).
5. Confidentiality of the minutes and tape recordings or
closed sessions. See By-Laws Vll.l(b).
6. Confidentiality of mediation matters. See By-Laws
VII.1 (d).
PCRB SOP 914/98 - 4
7. Confidentiality of information protected by the Iowa Open
Records Law or the Iowa Open Meetings Law. See By-
Laws VIl.l(c).
M. Iowa Open Meetings Law.
The Board must follow all the requirements of Chapter 21, The
Code, Official Meetings Open to Public (Open Meetings).
N. Conflicts of Interest and Ex Parte Contacts
1. Conflicts of Interest. See By-Laws V.9.
2. Ex Parte Contacts. See By-Laws, V.8.
IV Complaint Review Process
The Board shall review all Police Chief's reports and City Manager's
reports concerning complaints utilizing Sections 8-8-6, 8-8-7 and
8-8-8 of t.he City Code and the PCRB Standard Operating Procedures
and Guidelines.
A. Review of Police Chief's Report or City Manager's Report.
Follow 8-8-7 B of the City Code.
B. Select a level of review as outlined in 8-8-7 B.1 (a)-(f) of the City
Code.
C. Request for an extension of time to file PCRB public report.
Refer to 8-8-7 B.6 of the City Code.
D. The PCRB shall not issue a public report critical of a police
officer until after a name-clearing hearing has been held. Refer
to Section 8-8-7 B.4 of the City Code.
E. Name-clearing hearing procedure
1. The Board shall select a proposed date for the name-
clearing hearing;
2. Written notice is given to the officer and the complainant
of the date, time and place of the hearing and its
purpose. The notice to the officer, if he or she is not
identified in the Chief's or City Manager's report, should
be transmitted via the Chief of Police. The notice to the
PCRB SOP 9/4/98 - 5
officer should provide a written response form for the
officer to demand or waive the name-clearing hearing.
3. The officer may respond by demanding a hearing, by
waiving the hearing in writing, or by not responding to
the notice. The complainant has no independent right to a
hearing, and the complainant's wishes as to holding the
name-clearing hearing are not binding on the Board.
(a) If the officer has demanded a hearing, the chair
of the Board should conduct a hearing as per 8-
8-7 B.4 of the City Code. At a minimum, this
would require that the officer and the
complainant have a right to make a statement
and to present evidence and the testimony of
other witnesses. It would also require some
right to confrontation and cross-examination or
opportunity to rebut opposing evidence. The
Board may set reasonable rules about the time
allowed to each side with the types of evidence
it may receive as long as the rules are neutral.
The hearing goal is to give everyone a fair say
in a controlled manner.
(b) If the officer has waived the right to a name-
clearing hearing, the Board need not provide
one in his or her absence. Nonetheless, 8-8-7
B.5 of the statute states that the Board may
hold a hearing about a complaint if the officer
has waived the name-clearing hearing, but the
complainant or the department wishes to
present evidence. However, the Board need not
provide a hearing in such a case.
(c) In the event the officer does not reply
concerning his or her right to a name-clearing
hearing, the Board may proceed to schedule a
hearing and determine at the time of the hearing
whether it will receive evidence or cancel the
hearing.
4. The name-clearing hearing is a closed hearing under Iowa
Code Section 22.7(5) or 21.5(i). The officer involved, the
complainant, and any witnesses may attend. The subject
matter is still the Chief's report and the Board's pending
investigation of it. An officer's request for a name-
clearing hearing would engage Section 21.5(i).
PCRR SOP 9/4/98 - 6
5. At any time after the name-clearing hearing, the Board
may approve its Public Report, including any changes
made as a result of the name-clearing hearing.
F. Report Writing - Follow 8-8-7 of the City Code
1. The Chair shall appoint a committee to prepare draft
reports. The committee may request assistance from
staff as needed.
2. When possible, a draft report shall be included in the
agenda packet prior to the meeting at which it is
discussed.
3. Draft reports shall be discussed in executive session and
finalized by the full Board.
4.Draft reports shall be confidential.
5. Final Public Reports shall be reviewed by legal counsel
before being submitted to the City Council.
G. Final PCRB Public Reports shall be distributed according to
8-8-7 B.3 of the City Code. The copy sent to the City Council
shall be accompanied by the minutes of the meeting which
approved it and be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion in the
next Council agenda packet.
H. Once the Public Report is sent to designated parties, the
complaint file is closed and is taken to the City Clerk's Office
for retention.
V. Review of Policies, Procedures and P~actices of the Iowa City Police
Department
As stated in the City Code, 8-8-7 C(3), and Article II of the PCRB By-
Laws, and using the PCRB Standard Operating Procedures and
Guidelines, the Board shall, from time to time, report to the City
Council on policies, procedures and practices of the Iowa City Police
Department, including recommended changes, if appropriate.
A. Policy-review discussions shall be held at regular meetings,
when possible.
B. When citizens have a concern about police procedures or
practices, but there is no allegation of individual officer
PCRB SOP 9/4/98 - 7
misconduct, there may be an issue of policy. Any citizen or
Board member may raise an issue at a PCRB meeting.
C. The Board encourages signed written correspondence from
citizens and will accept anonymous correspondence concerning
policies, procedures, and practices of the Iowa City Police
Department.
VI Annual Report
The PCRB shall maintain a central registry of all formal complaints
against sworn police officers and shall provide an annual report to the
City Council which will give the City Council sufficient information to
assess the overall performance of the Iowa City Police Department. 8-
8-2 M and 8-8-7 C.2 of the City Code, Article VIII.§ of the PCRB By-
Laws, and the PCRB Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines
A. The annual report shall include information required by Chapter
8 of the City Code.
B. The PCRB's annual report may also include recommendations to
amend the Ordinance.
VII. General
A. The lawful custodian of the PCRB records and the central
depository for all information is the City Clerk's Office of the
City of Iowa City.
B. The Chair is the official spokesperson for the PCRB.
C. VVhen legal counsel and/or staff are contacted on PCRB
business, they shall report that information to the Chair and to
each other.
D. Contacts between a Board member and the Police Chief and/or
City Manager shall be in the form of written communication
when possible.
E. Requests for information from the Board to the Police Chief or
City Manager shall be in writing.
PCRB SOP 914/98 - 8
F. The PCRB administrative assistant shall provide to the Board a
monthly 'PCRB Office Contacts Report," stating number of
telephone calls and in-office contacts which come directly to
the PCRB office, the general substance of such contacts, and
their disposition.
G. Voice Mail telephone messages to the PCRB office from citizens
shall not be retained nor will messages be transcribed unless
there are extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis
determined by legal counsel.
H. The Board shall utilize its own letterhead stationery.
PCRB SOP 9[4/98 ~ 9
Iowa City
Police Citizens Review Board
Municipal Building
September 8, 1998
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
local level .................................................................... 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
PCP~9.8
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Crlmtuology 544)
Jolh-~nal of Crlmlr~Al Law ~nd Criminology
Winter 1997
Essay
*544 *DRIVING WHILE BLACI~ AND ALL OTHER TRAFFIC OI~'m~ISES: THE
SUPREME COURT
AND PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOPS
David ~ Harris [FNal]
Co~ght o 1997 Northwestern Unive~ity School of Law; David ~. Harris
The Supr~m~ Court's decim'on in Wlwen v. United States [FN1] could not have surprised many
observers of the Court's Fourth AmenSm-ut jurisprudence. In Whre~ police office~ used tr~e
violations as a pretext to stop a car ~n~ investigate pos~ble drug ~ffemes; the office~ hA~ neither
probable cause nor reaso,~Ahle suspicion to stop the driver for m~cotlce crimes. [FN2] In the Supreme
Court, the government advocated the "could havo" s~,~&~h any time the police could have stopped
the defen~-~ for a tr~ffio~ i~mction, it does not matter that police astnAlly stoppod ~im to
invosfi_gate a crime for which ~e police had little er no evidence. [FN3] The dofenee ~ed the Court
to adopt a "would have" rule: a seizure based on a tr~ffic stop would only st~ ff a reasonable officer
would have ~e this particular st~. [FN4] The Court skied with the gover~ent. If police witness
a traffic violation, the *545 Court said, they have the simplest ~ clearest type of probable cause
imaginable for a stop. [FNS] Requiring more would force lower courts to m~ post hoc Fourth
~m~n~ment ~omentz based on el~.h~ the r-~.~t of a reasonable officer or the actual (perhaps
nlter~or) motives of the arrez~i~ officer, neither one of which the Court saw as neces~xy, useful, or
relevant to the task of j~lging the constitutio,~llty of a seizure. [FN6] After Whren, courts will not
ask whether police conducted a traffic stop because ot~cere felt the occupants of the car were involved
in some other crime about which they had only a h~n~; rather, o~c_e a driver commits a tr~ffi~
infraction, ~ officer's ~real" purpose will make no d~ffereme at all [FNT]
For the sake of of ar~m~nt, I win concede that the decision in Whren mA~es some sense, at least
from the point of view of jndiclal ~mi~tion~ But e~-i-~l more cerefully, Whren does mere
thA~ opt for a more workable rule: it approves two alarming law e~for~m~nt ~acticos. Neither are
secret; on the contrary, the law of search ~ seizure hA~ reflseted both for a long time. [FN8] But
both represent profo~ndly dangerous developments for a free society, espocially one dad~atad to the
equal treatment of all citizens.
Firm, the comprehensive scope of state tr~c codes r-~s them extremely powerfal tools u.&~r
In the most literal sense, no driver can avoid viol~in~ some tret~ic law during a short drive, even
with the most careful attentio~ Fairly read, Whr~n says that any traffic violation can support a
stop, no mA~.x what the real reason for it is; this m~ any citizen fair game for a stop, Almost any
~ime, anywhere, virt~mlly at the wh~m of police. Given how im~ertant an activity driving has
become in American society, Whren changes the Fourth Ame~mont's rule ~h~ police must have a
reason *546 to forcibly interfere in our b~n~--seme basis to suspect wrongdoing that is more ~s~
a hu~ch~ [FN9] Simply put, ~-~. nde no longer applies when a t~rsen 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 drlver~ to ~raffic stops in the way Whren allows. Rather, if past
Copt. ~ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page
(Cite as: 87 J. Crb~ L. & Crlmi~olo~y ~44, *554 )
Robinson de~i=io~. [FN60] Nevert~less, the Court in Robinson fo~md that the arrest alone justified
the search. In other words, a full search can always follow a leg/tlm~te arrest; that is, an arrest
which police m~k~ for the purpose of apl~-~hm~di-E an offe~d~-~ v~t for the purpose of m~,~ the
~ Thus, while the irrelevancy of the actual beliefs of the o/~car is co~-/~ut with the rest of
Robinson, it hardly se~m~ substantial enough to Be the b~, of the decision in Whre~ Indeed, from
Whren that precedent did not s~lpply st re~y 8~swer to the question of how to h~Sle pretextual
stops. The opinion could have said (D our cases do not dictate which way to dec/de thl, issue, so (2)
we thl.k the "could have" rule clearly preferable for reasons of judlo;.1 .~,m½~i~ration, police
unzlerstanding of the rule, .,~a crime control.
But these arg~m~nts are not the l~m-.y reasons that Whren should disturb us. The real &m~r of
Whren is not its use of l~ecedent, its facile logic, or its rejection of one proposed test for another.
Rather, Whren's most treubli~_~ aspects lie in its hnplications-the i.~-edible -m~mt of disoretiona~y
power it hnn&~ law e~forc~m~nt without a~y check-and what thl. means for our everyday lives
our fi. eedom as citizens.
I~ The Fourth Amendmeut --~ Tn~ic Offenses
Commentators lmve crit~cised the ~upr~- Court's Fourth Am..~.-.ut jurislnau~.~, with
considerable justificatio= As the Court lurches Between prote~-s what it con~lors ~ Fourth
distasteful result of su~p~/m/ng probative evidence of guilt, it h.~ ge-m-areal a hodgepodge of
conflicting rules so teeh-leal that law professors--let alone law e~for~ers-- 6,u~ them ~it~cult to
-,~erstan& [FN62] Even so, some bssic search ancl seizure rules *~5 seem firmly ensconced in the
law. Perhaps thi~ is because they are so f~,~=moutal that disturbing them would create an even
larger doctr~--I mess th~. the one that already exists; perhaps it is because ~h_~e is present.lay
consensus accompanied by kistor/cal evidence on these point~ Whatsvor the reason, we e~ discuss
two key rules, secure in the knowledge that they are accepted by the Court.
First, the police must usefully have a reason to for~bly stop a persom [FN63] When I say 'forcibly
sWp,~ I do ~t mean the application of force to a suspect, though that may be part of a seizure. A~d I
am not referring to casual encounters with police, in which a citizen is ..kocl whethar he or she
would ml.8 t~ll~,~[ to police. Even though it se~ms more th~ just plausible to argue that such
encounters always carry with th~,u some e]m-~ut of coercion, [FN64] I am willlv~ to accept, for the
purposes of ar~m~nt, the idea that such eneouuters rom~i,~ co-seminal. In cenh-ast, a fo~ible stop
is by its nature coercive. When a police c/f~or orders a c/tizen to h.~t, question~g, a search of some
ki~ or even arrest may follow, l~olice ca. not flu, ce a c/t/zen to stop ~ su]~fit in tl~i~ way without
l~rohable cause or at least reaso,~-hle suspicion to believe that a c~m~ has been or is about to be
committed by the suspect. [FN65] The Supren~ Court re~W-~--me~ ~i~ strudel.vd just a few yesre ago
in Minnesota v. Dickorson, [FN66] in which Just/ce White stated clearly th,,t ~hl. rule h~ not
eh~L The police must still have a reason to force a citizen to stop s~ s~,hmi~ to their authority,
somethln_~ more than just a hunch. [FN67]
The other Basic rule important to our cliscusslon is t.~is: if police *~6 do not have the probable
cause or reasonable suspic/on necessary for a forcible stop, a citizen may ignsre police requests to
sWp, respond to questions, produce ident/~cation, or submit to a~y further i,~sto,~ The Sulm~me
Court has reiterated this rule in a v-m~er of cases strete-hi~[ OVer ma~y years. For t~mple, in
[FN69] because 'the situation 'looked suspicious and we h~ never seen [the] subject in that area
before.~' [FN70] The off~.xs arrested the m=~ -,~a~r a Te-~ statute that cr~mi-~li-~si any refusal to
give police a name and .~a~ess upon a legi~m~te stop. [FNTI] The Supreme Court invalidated the
Copr. e West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Psge 6
(Cite as: 87 J. Cr~m- L. & Criminology 544, *556)
statute, ~rl declared that not~i~ in the facts of the case allowed the o~cars to m~l~ a legitimate
stop, even the defen&nn~'s presence in an area known for nnvcotics trafl~l~i~_~. The defe,~v~ had
every right to WAll~ away -~ to refuse to produce idont/fication in such a s/tuation, n~l any law to
the con/rary did not meet constitutional st~&Avds. [FN72] The Court carried ~hi= doctrine forward
in Florida v. Royer, [FN73] in which it stated that "Ia citizen] may not be de~ even momentarily
without reasonable, objective groom&= for doing so; An~ his refusal to listen or ~war does not,
without more, furvi=h those gro,,u~=.' [FN74] ~,~ in Florida v. Bostick, [FN75] the Court
re,~,med this pr~,~ple, deelA,~g that while the police may quest/on a pe~on abo~ whom they
h~ve no ~pidon, #an i~]ividllal ~ deeli~ a~l of~lce~s ~ withoilt feari~E l~rosecll~Olk#
[FN76]
To be sure, I have not made the mi~ke of as~,mi,~ that these legal rules necessarily reflect
reality. I l~w that even though the cases discussed h~ve may guarantee c/t/~ns the r~ht to walk
away from curious pel/ce without interference, the right may exist more in theory th~ in practice.
[FN77] It may be that the mo~e appearance of s,thm-ity--*5~? llOt. hln~ lllOre /~hAn the
-ni~rm, badge A~ squad car, to sey noth~E of her wesson--will cause most people to do what
says or answer her questious. But the point is that even if the law y~mAiv~e ~ an i~al ~
ally~hi~E e~, ~ Collrt's pronollllce~llenis on the s~lbject ali point in ono d/rectio~' the pol/co Eleet] at
least reasonable suspicion to forcibly interfere with one's mov~rnaut, A~ if they do not have it the
citizen may walk away.
Whren alters all of tiffs for anyone driving a car. Simply put, it is ~i~cult to/maglue a more
American activity thA~ drlvi~g a car. We use our cars for everything, work (both as tr~,~ .~pe~tlen
to get to ~ from work ~,~a as mabfle ot~s ~,~ seles platfv~u,s), play, ~,~ myriad other activities
that m~l~ up everydsy Life. Of course, ms~y ,~wmvlcans do not own cars, A~d some have even found
it unnecessary to learn to drive. But thiA is not the norm. Most American ~&~ date their em~gence
from adolescence not from high school ~rad~,=ti~ or a religious or cultural ceremony, but frum
some~hi~_~ far mere central to what they really value: the day they receive their driver's licenses.
Americ~,~= vis/tln~ Europe for the first time often return with the observation that one can get to
~n~l from nlmnst any livtle teW~l ev~-/r~ly /~1 ~hli~ tr~m2ortafion. Etlropea~s vis/t/~ .~m~rica are
often surrulsod at the lack of lmblic trm~l~etation f~e/li~ies A~ optious outs/do of msjor urban
centers, n'~at the sizeable cities that ~ e~/rely on automobile tmnsportatiom Desp/te energy
crises, traffic congest/on, A,,~ the expense of owning a car, most America,,, prefer to drive wherever
they ~o. [~N?8] In short, there are few ast/vities more important to Atom'/can life than driving.
[FN79]
With ~h~t in mind, consider traff/c cod~ There is no detail of driving too m~n~l, no piece of
equ/pment too i,~gnificant, no item of automobile regulation too arcane to be mA~l~ the su~ect of a
traf~c *558 offense. Police o/Sc~s in some jurisdicfious have a rule of thumb: the average driver
cannot go three blocks without violA~,~e some traffic regulatiom Re*~i.~e the codes, it is hard to
disagree; the question is how ar~youe cottld get as far as three blocks without violv~ the law.
When we ~i~k of traffic offenses, we ~h~k of "moving violatione'-exceedi~[ the speed
cros~ng dividing l~,~s, *_.fl the ~1~. But in fact tra~c codes regulate mn.y other aspects of drlving-
related activity, inch,~-~ some that seem ~lmost ~ hypertechnical. And some of these offenses
have nothing to do with chairing at all. Rather, they are 'equi1~-~ut violations'-- offenses in which
catch-all lurovisious: rules thnt allow police to stop drivers for conduct that complies with all rules on
the books, but that of Scers consider ~imprudent' or ~unresso,~Ahle~ u~-&~v the circ~srn~mces, or
describe the offense in 1A~m~sge se broad as to ...1~ a violation vlr~mlly coextensive with the
officer's -~reviewable personal
Copt. e West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gov~. Works
4
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Pa~e
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *558)
For example, in any w~mber ofjurisdi~ous, police can stop drivers not only for driving too fast, but ,
for drivln~ too slow. [Fl~80] In Utah, drivers must siLm~l for at lesst three seconds before
lanes; a two second si~n~l would violate the law. [FN81] In ,~,~y states, a driver must s/Em~l for at
least one hundred feet before tur~i~ right; ~i,~y-five feet would m~l~ the driver a effemler. [1~T82]
And the driver ,~,~ that right turn may not slow down "s~/donly~ (,,,~6ned) without
[FN83] Mau~.states have m,~ it a cr~m~ to drive with a mRl~,~ioning ~i~i_~ht, [FN841 a rear-tag
il]~rmi,~Ation bulb that does not work, [FN85] or *559 tires without ~/ent trea~l. [FN86] They also
require drivers to display not only license t~s, but yearly v~li&Rt/on gd~l~s, pollution control
st~e~, ~na safety iuspection stickers; drivi~ without these items displ~ed on the vehicle in the
proper place violates the law. ~'1~87]
If few drivers are aware of the true scope of traffic codes and the BmliJess opportunities they ~ive
police to ,,~l~ pretex~ual stops, police officers have always ~,,~stood this. pein. For e~-mple, the
stah~m~-r~te by police or'cars that follow come fl~m a book written in 1967:
You can always get a guy le~em~ly on a treflic violation/fyou tail him for a while, -,~/then a
You don't have to fo]low a driver very long before he will move to the oth~ side of the yellow
~& then you can arrest and search him for dri~ on the wrong s/de of the kighway.
In the event that we see a suspicious automobile or occupant and wish to search the person or the
car, or both, we will us~,~lly follow the ve~i~-le ,,,~ the driver m~l~s a technical violation of a tr~Bc
law. Then we have a n~n, of ~ld~ a le~ seerd~ [FN88]
These o/~cers may not fiflly nnder~,~ search and seizure law; for example, even in 1967, it was
far from clear thst a search could fo]low a~ tr~/B¢ stop that police ~agi~m-tely' m~se, But they
are absolutely correct on the lerner point: with the tr~Bc code in ha~ a~ ofllcer can stop any
driver any time. The most the o/~cer will have to do is 'tail Ia driver] for a while,' ~n~ probable
despite the fact ~.h,~, police concede that they use this technique to c/r~umvent constitutional
requirement.
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
~hi~ discretion.
*~0 IV. Who Will Be Stopped?
Once we ~,~ers~ that Whren will perm/t police to stop a~ono drivi~ a car whe~ver they
observe the ever-present violations of the tr~B~, code, the question becomes who the police will stop.
At first Mu~ the quest/on ,~ight seem u,~,~ce_~-~,y. A/ter all, if Whren allows the police to stop a~
driver at vir~slly any elm~, everyone faces the risk of a pretext~ml stop. But while Whren certainly
ms~s it poss/ble for the police to stop anyone, the fact is that police will llot stop jllst a~yone.
fact, police will use the immense discretionary power Whren ~ives them mostly to stop Afrisau-
Americans sru/. His'panics. I say thi~ not to imply that h~dividual o/~c~rs will act out of
motivations. Though some will, I Believe most will not. R~h~ my poi~ is that whatever their
motivation, viewed as a whole, pretextual stops will I~e used ngainst African-Am~ric~,~= ~
wi _~2~ce in ps,centares wildly out of pr~portlon to their ~,mhers in the drivin~ populat/o,~
It may seem bold ~hat I ,~si~ ~hi~ assertion as a fact. In fsct, I lack the l~,~ of syst~,~cally
v/_~,~lly no one--ne i~&ividual, ne police dep~l~ent, ~,~ no other gover~,~nt agency--has ever kept
Color. ~ West 1998 No Cl~i~ to Ori~. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCP, LC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 8
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim~ L. & Criminology 544, *560)
compr~heneive statistics on who police stop: b-=/. for the stop, race of suspect, type of police activity
sl~er stop (e.g., quest/o',",'i-5, seareh of suspect, search of car, use of drug-~i~.,_~ dog, whether conseut
was given), .nd the like. Of course, one type of record does follow some pere~.~d;~.e of stops: traffic
tickets and wa~i,~, and an. est, eh.~.~_~ A,~ prosecution records of those suspects police 6.~1 with
contraband. But loold~ only at the records of those charged ~.~& prosecuted can mi.i~ad, and says
nothi.~[ about the many other stops that result in no t~el~e$ ~ yield no contrab~.~l.
Even so, information ~m~overed in the last few years has begun to shed light on the use of
these invest/gations, wh/ch am often quite intrus/ve, co.,~n drugs, not tr~_~¢; ~.a African-
Am~r/ca~s and wi~!), anics are the targets of choice for law enforcement. ~o even if we l_.~_k systemic
data, we now have somethi,~_~ that gives us a strong i.~i~ation of current law enfor~nnent resdities
case to just~ ~ exp~& drug inf~rdiction efforts ag-i~-~ people of color. '
Here are four different stories of pretextual stops. They originate from ~i~eut areas of the
country: Florida inthe South, Maryl~,~ in '661 the Northeast, ~li~is inthe Midwest, =.~2 Coleredo
in the West. All involve i.~2ependent police sgenc/es. O~_.h~ stories of ~.hl. type of police activity
exist, [Flq89] but those presented here are among the best do~.m~ntecL Each of ~hem teaches the
s-,-~ le~som A-~ with Whren on the books, we should expect more of what these stories tell, not
~L volusia cmm~, florida
Located in central Florida, Volus/a Coun~ surm-~&= a hos~ stretch of Interstate 95. In the late
1980's, ~hi~ portion of highway became the focus of ._qh~r/ff Bob Vogel -~& his deputies. U./~ a group
of oEScers called the Selective Enforc~m~ut Team, Vogel operated a msjor drug interd/ct/on effort
og.~.t drivers moving ~ot/~ by car through his ~'ctlom [FN90] The deputies -i~l not onl~
to m~l~. arrests, but to ..~1~ seizures of cash -.~ vehicles, which their agency would keep. [Flq91]
As with n~st police agencies, the Volusla County .~h~.ifl's Depar~neut did ~t keep records of stops
~_a searches in which no arrests or seizures occurred in the three years ~.h~t the Selective
Enforcement Team operateck [FN92] Thus no one might ever have learned about the Solect/ve
Enforcement Team's practices, except for one thi,~ Vo]--/~ Count7 ~._~es' ~ with
video camps: [Fl~T98] D~.i~ .t?.s taped .nm. of the I-9~5 sto~; ,.-~-~ Flo 'r~-"/~'~'~-a- i-w, The
~rl-~,:l~oo So,~/5.~el~[~a~;-.~ .-.~ ..~..,~, uf ~he ~L~.~T94] D=p~12es ..~ no tapes for ~.eh of
the duration of the interdiction effort, --~ they seme~m.s taped over previously recorded stops.
[FBT95] But the tapes the newspaper ob~i.~i doannented -],-.st 1,100 stops, _--& they showed a
number of ~md~niable patterns.
First, even though Afi"ican-Americans and Hi~ntcs rn.lr, up only about five perceut of the drivers
on the county's .t,'etch of 1-95, [Fl~96] '56:1 more *h.. seventy percent of all drivers stopped were
either African- Am-ricen or Hispanic. [Fl~97] The tapes put thi. in stark terms. One Afi-ican-
American .-.- said ho was stopped seven ~.--s by police; --~her said that ho Was stopped twice
wi*hl, ml-utes. LOOk'i.~ at fi~.tn'es for all of Flor/cia, seventy percent is vastly out of proportion to
the per~entage of Blacks among Flo 'nclians of driving age (11.7 percent), the pe~entage of
among all Florida drivers convictod of trafllc effenses in 1991 (15.1 percent), or to the per~ntsge of
Blacks in the nation's populat/on as a whole (12 percent). [FI~98] (Hispanics m.l~e up about
percent of the population). [FN99] Second. the deputies net onl~ stopped Mack ..a Hi~mic drivers
more often than wh/tes; they also stopped them for longer periods of ~m., Accor~ to the
videotapes, deputies de~i-~i Blacks -.~a Hi~anics for twice as loug as they def~i,~d whites.
Copt. e West 1998 No C]-i.- to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 9
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *562)
[FN100] Third, the tapes showed that police followed a stop with a search roughly hsl¢ the time;
eighty percent of the cars searched belonged to B]~e~ or His~ic drivers, [FN101]
It ahould not surprise anyone to lmnw that deputies said they m~A these 1,100 stops based on
'legitimate trnffic violations.~ [FN102] Violations r~n~ed from 'swerving" (243), to exceeding the
speed l~n~t by up to ten miles per hour (128), burned~)ut license t~ ligh~ (71), impn~er license ta~s
(46), failure to st~mnl before a 1~,~ eho~Je (45), to a motte~,~_~ of others. {l~N103] Even so, only
of t~ drive, rs sto~ooed-~aside~a_ hly less th~. one~ .percen~-rece~v~i~--ff~e*z,
[FN104] ~-~ deputies even released several driver~ who admitted to ~.s, indudi~ d.~ drip;lng,
without any charges. [FN105] The tapes also showed that the seizure of c~h r~m~i,~/an importaut
goal of the stops, with deputies seizing money almost three times as. often as they arrested auyone for
drugs. [FN106] With regard to the seizures *563 of c~.h~ race also played a role: Ninety percent of
the drivers fram whom c~sh was taken, but who were not arrested, were B!s¢lr or Hi~nta [1~q107]
Notwithst~ndi~ these nmnbers,/~aeriff Vogal said there was ~) racial bles in his deparl~ent's
werl~ Prior to the release of the tapes, he stated that the stops were net based on ~ki,~ color ~,~ that
deputies stopped "a broad spectrum of people." [FN108] The tapes evenO,~!ly led to two lawsuits in
f~lel-al collrt hi wh/ch pl~int/ff~s ~llege~ violations of theAr civil 15ghts bec/~se ~ were t~geted for
stops on the basis of their race. [FN109] In both cases, a judge refused to certify a class of all
mln~rlty c/t/zens illegally stopped; thi~ resulted in the di~mi~tl of the cases when they went to trial.
[FN110] On appeel, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ~-med the
The experience of ch'/vers in Volusta County ~hows what we can expect ~md~' Whren. Po]ice will
use traffic regulations as an excuse to stop drivers they suspect of narcotics trafficking, ~ most of
those stopped will be people of color. Of course, this is exactly the type of police activity that Aft/can-
Americans ~nd Hi~)anics have comp)~in~d of for years, but few have listened.
b. robert w/lld,~ ~8 the maryl~-8 state police [FNl12]
In the early mor~i-~ hours of May 8, 1992, a Maryl~n~ State Police officer stopped a new rental car
carrying four African-Americans on Interstate 68. The four, all relatives, were returning to the
W~=hln~ton. D.C. area from a f~m!ly member's funeral in Chlcsgo. [FNl13] After *564
the driver's license, the oEScer asked the dr/ver to step out of the car ~d stgn a form giving consent
to a searcl~ [FNl14] At th/tt peillt, Ro~-~-~c Wil]rlne~ One of t~ ~ng~l'~ i~ ~ ~1', idonti6ed
hkmee]f as an attorney with a 9:30 ~.m. court appear~n~ in the District of Columbia ~erier Court.
Willd.= told the officer that he had no right to search the car without arre~E the driver;, the officer
replied that such searches were "revti~.' After all, the officer said, if Will~i~= ~nd his relativas
"nothing to hide, then what [was] the problem?" [FNllS] Another officer joined the fzrst, a~i they
detained the group for an addit/onnl h~l¢ hour while oth~ officers bro~Eht a drug-sni/Ca~ dog to the
scene. [FNl16] The dxiver a~lr~d whether he would receive a ticket; the officer said he would only
give the driver a warning. The driver asked that the w~ be written se ~h~t the Stoup could
leave, and Willrln~ asssl't~d that ~Olli~111~ d~to~on [11 o1~ to ~ ~ dog viola~ tho
Constitution; the officer ignored both of th~m [Flq117] When the dog arrived, the officers ordered
Willdn~ ~nd his relatives out of the car, dasp/te their expressed fears of the clog ~nd the fact that it
was r~i-l-e. [FNllS] They were forced to s~d in the rain as the dog ~,~i~red in ~na erou~ the car.
[FN119] When the dog failed to react in a~, way, Will, n= and the oth~s were then allowed back in
the cer--while the officer who ha~ stopped ~h~m wrote the driver a $105 speeSi,~.~ ticket. [FN120]
Civil rights lawyers sometimes say that despite the rob,me of complaints they receive about
racially biased traffic stops, victlm~ of this treatment feel reluO~-~ to become pl~i,~im~ in legal
actions for redress. [FN121] Perhaps they fear retaliation; o~hevs may want to avoid the h~le of
Copt. c West 1998 No Clulm to Orig. U.S. C~ovt. Wor~
87 JCP, LC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 10
(Cite as: 87 J. Crizn. L. & Cr/nd-ology ~4, *564)
becoming illvolved i~ a very public way in complex .,~l often pollticaliy rh~v~ed [it/gat/on. Still
ot. ho~s n~v fear that oppo~ lawyers may discover dirt in their pasts ~,~8 use it ag~in=t the~ Not
so with Robert Willing. A Hazard Law School graduate, Willrins worked as a ptx])liC defend~ for
the highly-regarded Public I)efen&Ar ~rvice in W~hi~_oton, D.C. [FN122] As an attornoy with an
active l~ac'tlce ill criminal law, he was no doubt thoroughly ffmili~r with the law that goverm~l *565
the situation ill which he aIld his family ~nAmbel~ fo,md thelnselve6. [FN123] The prosper of public
litigation 8~in~l~ a police agency obviously did not scare him Indlvid~ally sna on l~hal¢ of a class
of all othe~ treated =imilA~y, he add ]3is fs~lily ~ 8ned the Mllr~ln~w] State Police,
· Uli~a~isory nnd colnmalld personnel at the agell~y, a~d the in&ividllal o~ involv~l. They
alleged civil rights violations and other wroags, stating that the officers h~a illegally stopped and
dotAinAd them on the basis of a 'profile' that targeted people based on their race. [FN124] State
Police ot~cials doilled Willrln~' ~lle~ati0no; a spokesman said the practice of stopping .a
disproportionate number of blacks ~i~91y represented 'an uvfortnnfte 1,~i~lnot of mp~-~ police
polleies." [FN125] The implication was clea~. Af~isan-Amp-vi~Lns Commlt; the most /:xlm~; to idol)
crlmA~ we ]llUst stop African- Am~ri~.~ns. OfficiAl= malntAin~d thli ~tlppoiledly l~e-l~l~ti-a~
explanation even in the face of an official doo,mA~lt that surfaced during litigatio~ Dated just days
before the ~te Police o6elo_~A'6 Stopped Willrln~ 8lid his )%rally m_~mhers, it will, ileal ofl~cor6 olle~in~
in Alleghen~ County--the very cou~y in which police stopped the Willdn, groul~-to watch for
"dealers and couriers (tr~e~s) [who] are predemi,~ntly black males a~d bl~¢~ females ....
tltili=ing Inte~ 68...' [Flq1261
The case eventually produced a settlement, ill which the Maryla~a State Police agreed not to use
~ race-baasd drug courier profiles and to cease ~in_~ 'race as a factor for the development of
policies for stopping, dot~inlnE, nnd searehln~ motorists.' [FN1271 The State Police also agreed to
colldtlgt ti~inin~ that wollld l'p.~le~'t the 1cKohibition on the l~e of ~ as both dopa~ Cu~Ii~l policy and
state law, [FN1281 f~a to Pay monetary anm%oas =n& attorney's fees. [FN1291 Perhaps more
significantly, the State Police agreed that for a period of three years, they w~,l&;
~ 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 a~y Marylaud
roadway by Maryland State Police in which a search by a dmg~tetec~n~ dog is mAdA~ #mlnlmAl]y
s566 inCl,~rlln~ ill SUch records: date, tlm~, al]d location of consent or search, ~amA of officor(s)
requee~n~ eoment to search or direea-~ search by drug dog;, race of persons(s) stopped, det-_i-~l, or
searched; year m~k~ find model of vehicle; n~nd grounds for requeeti~ that consent to search he given
or search by drug dog ra~rle, if a~.' [FN130]
The State Police have, in fact, mnlniAinAd these 1~X)I~6, 8nd sv.bmltted thAm to the court. The
latest figures av~ilnhle track stops followed by consent searches snd dog sx~ffs from January 1995
throl]gh June 1996, 8nd they hear a 6t;rilrln~ =imilllrlty to the ini'ollnstion l~ve81ed by the Vo]~sls
County videotapes. Of the 732 citizens detsln~l ~na searched by the Maryl~-8 State Police, 75%
were African-Americans, And 5% were Hispanics. [FNi.ql] The MarylA~ ~mhers 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 sWpped only Afrlcan-Americam. [YN1321 Based on this
inform~tien, provided to the court by the State Police, the pl~intiffq n~d their attorneys are
preparing to reopen the litigation, as the Settlement Agreement allows. [FN133] Sad to say, the
Ill~lberl/show that very little hl~ ~ deb~.3ite the Willrlns 6111t fnd ~ ~tt3~r~Atlt A~rel~[lent.
[FN134]
C. peSO ch~vez 8nd the illlnAiS I~kte police
DQri~g recent years, Af:rican-Am~Picans ~ Hi .m~L~ce have m~d~ h~mdreds of com.~laln~ to the
Illiqois a~iliAie of the American Civil Liberties Union, al~ging th fi; the 1ill.Als ~/~te Police
targeted them for pretextual truffle stops. [1~11351 The A.C.L.U. eventufllly filed suit; a *567 m~n
Copt. ~ West 1998 No ClAim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 11
(Cite as: $? J. Crim. L. & Crb-b, ology 544,
~med Peso Chavez became the lead p]~. However, Mr. Chavez's 1994 ence,,,,+m' with the
~li~nis 8tato Police d/d net happen I)y
Chavez was a l~ivato investigator with twenty years of experience -~ a former elected o/B~.l in
S~ta Fe, New Me.ce. In 1994, a lawyer for an ~i=lmnic man who alleged ~h.t ]]li~n~ ~tSto l~oli~e
had stopped him illegally hired Chavez to drive a late model sedan across areas of Illi.nis that baa
been the source of compl.i.t~ of illegal stops Anrl searches of ml-nrity ~. [FN136] The plan
called for Chavez, a mA. with an Hia~u]/c appesl-i/UlCe, to drive cautiously,/-~ki~ car~ ~ot to
the tr=~¢ laws; a paralelial in ano~h,.r car would follow at a dist~nr~, to observe his drillS: The
idea was a "reverse sting" [Flq137]-an attempt to catch pol/ce in the act of m.lrl._~ illegal stops
6eSl~hes,
On Februm7 18, 1993, in Bureau Co--fy, ~]i.~is, Of~cer Thomas of the nli-~is State Police hogan
to follow Chavez. He followed Chavez for twenty miles, through Bureau ~ LaSalle Cc~ies.
[FN138] Event~,.lly, Thomas act/rated his emer~ncy lights ;,-a pulled Chavez over. [FN139]
Thomas was soon joined at the sce~ by another officer. O/Scer ThomA. told Chavez ih~t he
stopped him for a tra~c violation, and asked Chavez for his license ~na rental a/~ement. Chavez
suppl/ed bofl~ [FN140] Afar questio-i-~ Chavez, Th__om.. gave Chavez a war~i,~_~ for fsilln_~ to
s/gaal when .h.._~ng lanes. This supposed infract/on was an obvious .n& ~¢o..rl~d pretext for the
stop; the paralegal followin~ Chavez saw nne such viola~om [FN141] The other o~cer then ..l~ed
Chavez if he wuld search Iris car. Chavez -.k~d whether ho h.a to allow the seerch; the officer said
that he wanted a drug-~i~-_~ dog to walk arm~ Chavez' car. Chavez --~l~livocally refused a~d
8Sk/~ to ]3~ 811owed to leave, but tile o/~t:er8 detal~l~l him [F~142] .~31oih~ officer then led a dog
are~,.a Chavez' car;, the officers told Chavez thA~ the dog h~.; "alerted" to the presence of ~cetics,
n~r] ordel~ him hlto the l~ek seat ora l~atrol car. [FN143] For the next hour, Chavez watched as
the interior, trtmk. --fl en~i~ compa. U,,e~t of his car were thoroughly seardu~ The police opened
h/s *568 luggsge .n& searched th~uRh his personal possces/ons. {FN144] Meanwhile, an of Scer in
the patrel car with Chavez questioned him about his perse~tat llfe. [FN14§] The police fo~
ru)thiv~, and evenh~.lly aliowed Chavez to leave. [F1~146]
Despite his baslq~m,.~ as an invest;_gator, his gov~.,,..~t experience, ~.~ the lmowled~e that
was part of a reverse sting, Chavez fo~m& the experience more t~n~ -~--~.h];. Wainhin~ police
search his car A~a bein~ told *h.t the dog h.a detected dru~s, Chavez said, "I he.me very frittered
at what was happs.i-_=. I never bsa my mouth as dry as it was-it was like cettom" [FN147]
Chavez is now the --m~i pl~inti~'in a lawsuit in federal ~ourt that seeks i~,-~dve relief
the State Police to stop racially based searches An~ seizures, as well as other relief and
The suit seeks cer~6~ation of a el.;s of pe~ons subjected to the =~m. treatment. Ma~y other
Aft/can- Americans and Hi~l~anics who were subjected to illegal stops ..a searches have become
named plaintiffs. [FN148] At thl. wri~-_~, discover~ is o~]~oi~. [FN1491
d. eagle county, color~lo
In the late 1980's, the Ea;le County, Colorado Sheriff's Department es~shlleh~ a hiEhway drug
interdiction unit. The ~ Co-~y Drug T-.~ Force" used a dn~ courier ~ ~.a. up of
twenty-two "il~:licator6" to 8told ~at's alo]Ag ~te 70; ~mi~t~nt m~o~ t~~_ Was "l'Bce or
eth~icity, based on 'intelligence i~form-~ion' fi. om other law agencies .... "~N1601 Altho-_~ the
Task Ferce used tr-~Bc ~-Fracfio~s as a l~ext to stop m..y poople, not one 9e~on receipted a
[FN151]
The story of one of the psople Stol~ed speaks rob,re-; about wast hateful in Esgle County. On
May 3, 1989, Eagle County deputies stol~ed J-henita Whitfield as she dreve fi"om San Diego to
Corr. = West 1998 No C]-;m to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCl/LC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 12
(Cite as: 8~ J. Crim. L. & Crlm{-ology 544, '569)
Denver *569 to vis/t relatlves. With her were her s/star and their four ,hildre~ [FN152] A disabled ,
vehicle in the roadway forced ~h.m to rh.._oe ].n~; soon a/ter, an officer pulled them over for
to signal before eh~n_o~ng ]~n~s. [FN153] The deputies tom her explicitly that she "fit the proffie' of
a possible drug ~,nn~-,* and .=l~d if they emfld search her ~ar. [FN154] Whitfield wanted to re/use,
but felt concerned that ff abe di~l, she might be *set up.' [1~N155] She also fdt she h.d no choice
becatme the children were b~m~'y =nd one lleeded to ~ a bathroom, so she consented. [Flq156] The
experience left Whitfield, an Afrie. an-Amerie4m, =h.lr~n, ~nd it h.~ eh~n_~ed her life in a
W~y. Del~l~ito ~ fBffg ~h~t Oh~ h~= f~mily Ollt of town, she do~$ ~ vi~t ~ ~! do not travel
anymore,* she said. [FN157]
Seven poople who, lik~ Jhenita Whitfield, had been sWppod by Eagle County deputies filed a
action suit in 1990, ~=lrln_~ the court to halt the Task Force's practice of race-basad profile stops.
[FN158] The court eventually certiiSed a clams conei~ing of 400 imlivid~,*l~ who h~d been stopped.
[FN159] Among them were African-,~,-~icane ~n& a large nnmhar of Hispanics, who allaged
deputies stopped them because of their e~hnldty. [FN160] In November of 1993, a federal court ruled
that the T~I~ Force h~d violatad constitut/o~al protections against u~easo,~hle searches
sefizu~s. With appeals po~dln_o, the parties rearflxad a settlement r~lulring Eagle Co~n*Iz to pay
damages to each person seareh~i, amo,,nfi,~_o to a total of $800,000. The Co~,n~d also agreed to
ab-ndon the Teak Force program, *nd agr~d not to stop, search, sei~e evidenee or detain a person
%nleas there is some object/ye reasonable suspicion that the person ha done someihln~ wrong."
fFN161]
These cases from Florida, Maryl.-~. 1111n~is and Colorado show in ne uncertain terms the impact
Whren will have: The drivars police will stop for pretextual tr~ffi¢ violations will come from ~ni~rity
'570 groups in disproportionate .l~mhers. Police have done it in the recent l~st; in the Maryl.n8
case, police cont/nue to do so despite a settlement reflected in a court order specifically prohibi~n~
these pract/ce.. Whren insulates ~hi~ act/vity by prone, n~n~ any stop for a traffic violation proper
and reasonable, whatever its mai purpose.
But seeing the big picture should not prevent us from ..~n~ what effect pretextual stops have on
the ~n~l;vlduals who exper/enee ~h~m The .n~er h~hl~_~hts the hi&a~u cost of fac/ally skewed law
enforcement techniques in a profound way.
For those stopped, the s/ttla/~on ~ay prodxlce fear, anger, ht~milla~/on, ~.d even rage. Jhentta
Whitfield, the African-Amorican woma~ stopped in Eagle Cou~y, h=~ given up traveni~ because
she once had to b~ln~ee her dos/re not to s~hmlt to a search agsln=t her fear that not
would lead the police to pla~ evidence on her. [FN162] Peso Chavez, the experiemad investigator
sW~cl wbJle driving throu_~h T11i.nwi~, ]~lew he h.d ~ ~a~otice with him; k~ew he had & witl:~S8 to
prove that he had broken no laws, ~1 knew and i-~ed upon his rights. Still, his mouth went dry
with fear as officers reported that a dog had been alerted to drugs in his car an& the officers
proceeded to search through the car and his private effects. [FN163] Robert Wt11~n~ an& bib Fawily
members, forced to stand in the rain while a dog ~i~ad thro~h their car, felt degraded. "You can't
imagine the anger ~nd h-milla~on I felt during the e~ve episode," said Acp~il~ Abdullah, a
p/Igs~ngor in th~ err with Wilirlng t~ftt nigh~. [F~164] Wil~ing himself e~l,~/~88ed. ~. se~lse of
helplessness. "Part of me feels 1lifo there is nothiz~ that I could have done to prevent what
happenecL You know, I was e~lm and respectful to the police. I triad to explain to the officer what
my rights are." [FN165] Beyond the price paid by the person stopped, o~he~ Afrir4m-Amerle~n= and
Hispanice feel the effects, too. Because these pretextual police stops of blacks are so commnn--
frequent enough to earn the name "driving while black"--re.ny African- Americans regnd~ly modify
the most casual aspects of their driving behavior, travel j*i-~raries, and even their personal
Colsr. ~ West 1998 No C].im to O15g. U.S. C~o~. Worlr~
l0
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 13
(Cite as: 87 J. Crlm L. & Cr~ml-ology 544, '570)
appearance, to avoid police contact, S~llm Muw.klril. an academic .nd journ.li~, m.lr~s trips ill the
Midwest in a nondescript rental car, strictly obeys the speed llmlt, 831d ll~ver weat~ ~ beret b~hlnrl
the wheel. [1~T166] Before he adopted thle strategy, police stopped MuwAkldl so olden t_.hAt '571 he
would compute the time these stops took into Lis travel time, [FN167] When lawyer and lobbyist
Wade Henderson drives from Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Virginia, to teach~ he eschews
rental cars for conservative ones, even tho~h he is graying An~ wears a suit. [FN168] Others
restrict their mowm~uts; they avoid driving in areas where a bl~l~ person attracts 'stares.' [FN1691
And when police stop Christe~l~r Darden, one of the prosecutars in the O.J. Simpson case, he doesn't
l~love, keeps Lis hAnd~ on the wheel, and mnlre8 no s~dd~n gestures; he ¢~]]8 these "African
American survival teehnlques." [FN170]
But perhaps we should e'l'Amlno the issue ~ ~lnr~t. her per--ye: that of law ellforcemen~.
[FN171] And thAt-outlook would no doubt seem quite different from what. I have said se far. In a
nutshell, it is thi~: Stopping a disproportionate number of African-Americans is not to_ ~i~t; it is just
plain good police work After all, African-Amo~icans m~l~ up a large ~hAre of those arrested,
prosecuted ~,el jailed in this co~nta-y. Police know jails are full of crlmln~ls~ a substantial portion of
whom are Mack, ~nr~ that a high percentage of black m~les are ~,,dar the control of the crlmi,~l
justice system in one way or anoth~-. [FN172] The police have no interest in harassing blsek or
Htm~lliC people; rather, their motivation r,~-i-- the appr~h~usion of crlminsls. ~ may play a
part in law enforcement, but only as a pm~ for a higher probability of crlmln~l activity. In o~h~
words, racial disparities in stops s,~ sesl~.hes are nethi.~ more than "an unfortunate b~prednst of
so~m~ police policies.' [FN173] Lt. Col. Ernest Leatherbm-y, comm,,,~r of field operations for the
Mary]And ~c~tte Police, puts it this way: ~ facts speak for t~homselves... ~n you got a high
number of these consent marches restflti,,_~ in drug arrests do we in law enforc,~ment or the public
want to say the state police should discontinne these searches?" [FN174] In other words, police
target blacks ~,at Hispanics because they are the right ones, A,~ thi~ technique gets results. And
*572 if it works, we should not let the niceties of search and seizure law get in the way of
the bad guys.
But this argument contains a flaw, and it is not a emil] one. B~hlnd the race-neutral re~sono police
give lies a stark tmt~ When officers stop disproportionate ~,-mbers of Afxican-Amerio~n; because
this is 'just good police work," they are using race as a proxy for the crlmlrmlity or 'general
propensity" of an entire racial group. [FN175] Simply put, police are targetinE all African-
Americans because some are criminals. Ill essence, this tblnlri~ predicts that all blacks, as a group,
share a general propensity to commit crimea Therofore, having blAelr skin becomes enough-perhaps
alollg with il mlnlm~l nulllber of other fs~Ts, perhaps alone--for law enfomement to stop and detain
someone. Under this view, all blselr citi~n= beeome probable (~'iminAls--~ ~ mlmlte they
venture out of their homes.
The ~o~headecinas~ and u~fairness of treating all --~-~]~rs of a group as crlmimfls just because
some are se~ms obvious. But even if nat everyone feels this way, ire~tln~ race as a proxy for
criminality stiflers from other serious problems. First, implicit in this view is the aseumption that
blAelcn are disproportionately more likely thn~ whites and othm~ tO be involved with ~l.,~et crlm~s.
[FN176] Even if this is true, afl-lcsn-Alllericz*n, beizlg more lilr~Jy than whites to be involved in
street crime is a far cry from any evidence that would strongly support the assertion that any
patrick,In* black loersen is commlttln~ a crlm~. Yet that is the way police use this
Second, even ff we accept the aseumption of the disproportionate involvement of blacks in street
crlm~, police still greatly overestimate the value of race as a predictor of (13'imlni] behavior. [FN1771
U~ing race as a proxy for CrlmlnAllty ms~y resttlt in "double co~mtln_o," [FN178] If, for e~Am_~le,
(IrlminA] invo]velnent is strongly correlated with poverty, With presence in so~alled "high
areas," or with both, snd if African- Americans are disproportionately poor ~na living in such
neighborhoods, [FN179] race would add little to a police officer's ability to predict
Copt. e West 1998 No C~]~irn to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCP, LC 544 FOE EDUCATIOI~AL USE ONLY Page 14
ICite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & C~,,,i,olo~y r~14, '5~ )
involvement *§?$ beyond what poverty and geogral~ already revesl. [FN180] As P~ofessor Sheri
Lynn Jolmson has ssid, "(a)ltho~,~h prolmbilistie constraints may not preclude ~eneral fac/al
pr~penslties to commit crlm~, they dearly ml)i/~ate a~A~t accor~E then1 ~ weight."
[FN181]
V. What Happens After the Stop?
Once police stop a person for a traffic offense, what happens? By PO~-~ this question, I do not mean
to imply that the stop itself is i-=/gnifican~. On the contrary, the stop is itself not only ,~-,,~w/n~ but
pote~ ally dangerous, especislly/f it is ordered By an officer in plain clothes or in ~n ~vked car.
[Flq182] Altho~,gh pretextual tr-~e stops may Be problematic in themselves, they are also
disturbb~g because they m~y lead to searches. What rules govern what happens after a pretex~al
stop?
First, if po]ice have probable cause to stop a vehicle, ~.hla alone does not entitle them to search it.
There must be someehi,~ more than the tra/~ offense to justify a search, some combination of facts
~hat ~ives po[ice probable c~ ~0 believe that an ~ffense has been or is beln~ committed or ehnt the
vehi~c!e_~co ~n~ims contral~n~ While we can argue whether any particular set of facts ac~,~lly ~ives
rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the bottom line is that sollle~hi~ is ~ to ju~'y
a search. ~183]
There are severel variations on ti, i, ~e. If2~]ice awest the driver, they msF search not only the
driver hilt ~ in~.~or of the c~tr, closed ~ of ~ ill~l'ior ]ilr~ the glove Box, and a~ closed
cont-$n~rs in,~de the/merlor. [FN184] And if the pol/ce see evidence of c~me in *574 plsin view, of
course, they may seize it ~n~ then arrest a~ search as apgtol:a'iate. This, in fact, is what h~lppened
in Whrel~ Po]ice stopped the vehicle, and upon loolr/~ !~/de--without any furthme searm_h}nE..saw
two ba~s of coc~in~ [FN185]
But in the great Im,ll, of cases, there is no offense other ~ha~,. the tr~¢ violation, no awest occurs
for the tr~c offense, and police find nothi-,'~ incr/mi,~ in plsln view. Instead, police accomplish
~leir goal Of sevin[ ~O~ they ~cop in two o~ _m-
~ first~s~nple: o_f~cers ask the people the~ ~p ~ consent to ~ ~earch. While those asked need
not consent, manF~do. The reaSOns for t.h~, seem as varied as human bein~ are, but-several causes
predominate. People ~mply may not k~w that they can refuse, ~ the Collstitution does not
require the po]ice to tell c~t~zens that they can withhold their consent. [FN186] Consequently, some
~,,~oubtedly feel they have no choice. Others surely feel intimidated, as Jhenita Wl~tfield said she
did in Eagle County. ~,,~idation was no doubt what the Marylm~t State Po[ice of~cer
when he told Hobert W~]i~-~ that searches were *rout~ne~ ~,~1 that if he h~8 not.~i,~g to hide, he
should permit the search-leavi,~g in the air the obvious iml, l~_t~on that a refvsal would show
W~I~,~,' guilt.
But the predomb~t reason drivers consent lies with police of~cers. Their goal, plain and simple,
is to get people to agree to a search. They are accomp]~h~cl at the verbal ~,do necessary to subjugate
their %pponents,* they have the authority of their office l~h~,~2 th_~,~. ~,~ they ,~k~ it their
l~,~,~ss to ~et what they want. The of~F~cer starts with i~,~mous so~&~g questions: Where are you
com~-g f~om? Where are you headed? Who's the person you're visi~,~ff? What's her address? Who's
with you in the 1~¢~ seat? Then the questions often get more personal. They are des~ned to find
contra~ctions that show the drive~ might have something to hide, ~& to put the driver in the
of m~nd of respo,,~n~ to the offlce~s authority. Po]ice ~]] it %weet t~]l~.* and it ~lmost always
leads to a consensual search. None of th~, is accidental; r~t~, it is a well-honed, calculated
psychological technique tha~ police depa, t~,~uts teach their officers. [FN188] And it works. In the
Copt. c West 1998 No CI~ to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
12
87 JCRLC 544 FOE EDUCATIOI~tAL USE ONLY Pa~e 15
(Cite as: 87 J. Crln~ L. & Crln,i,~ology 54~,
course of 150 stops over two '575 years, one I,~i~,~ state trooper said, "I've never l~d anyone tell
me I couldn't searcK' [FN189]
But what if the occupants of the car refuse? Must the police allow them to leave, ~,~i,~ the
encoun~r? Not necessarliy, as the Willr/~ c~se ~ o~h~s show. If polico elb~alnter a pe~on llk~
Willci,~ne who knows he does net have to answer quest/one or consent to a search, one who will
gives the ~ that it hA, s~n~llad drugs, this provides the police w/tl~ probable cause for a full
blewn search of the vehicle -,~ its contents. Accer~in~ to United States v. Place, [FN190] the use of
~n~eh a dol~ does net comfl/t-uto a sesreh for purposes of the Fourth Amendment; th~,~fore, use of the
do~ requires neither probable cause nor reasonable suspiciom Place gives the police just what they
~ if a driver refuses consent: a search for which consent is net necessary, which may yield the
jusl/ficat/on they need to do the very search the clriver refused to allow.
not hold her any longer uuless there is probable cause or rees~,~hle suspic/on to do so. Can the
police hold someone lez~ e,~n,~h t~ have ~. dru~ detec~ dog brought to the-scene? The Supreme
Court has net yet supplied a a~fi,~itive answer, but analogous cases in~]icate that if ~ police have
reaso~ahie suspicion to suspect someone of involvement in a crime, they can detain the person for a
"reasonable~ period of _t:ime to allow the doi; to be brot~ht. In Place, a passen//er's lu~g~e was helcl
for ,~i,~ty mi, utes to allow for a do~ to suiff it; the Court found thi~ unreasonable, because the law
enforcement ofSclais h~ advance warnh~ ~ could have ~otten the de~ th~e in much less
[FN191] And in United States v..~hn,pe, [FN192] the Court fmmd a twenty mbmte dotenfion
reasonable, because the delay was caused by the suspect's fliF, ht. [F1~193] *576 How the Court w/ll
ultimately resolve ~.hi~ question is anyone's ~uess; the most likely possibility is case by case
discuss/on of what lengLh of detent/on is reaso,~hle uncler the ch~m~+~,~es. But given the Court's
unbo~,~d~cl =~-~ys/s of the Fourth Amendment implications of the use of do~s, the argument over the
reasonableness of the lez~ch of detention will be the only ar~,m~nt any driver has leit.
V~ Recommittal s~ons
Whren represents the Supreme Court's oflidal approval for the use of pretexL~ml stops by pollee.
Defe.a,,~ m~y ne lez~er argue successfully ~h~t~ particular traffic stops were purely excuses to
allow investigation of other crimes about which ehe-e was neith~ probable cause nor reasonable
suspicioz~ [Flq194] If I am riEh+., all moWrists are new fair game for police, and Afzican~Americans
~n& o~h~= people of color will su/fer the El, eat bulk of ehi~ treeh~nt. Where does all ofthi~ leave ne?
Can an~i~[ be done to address these la~actices and the disparate impact they seem almost certain
to have?
If Whren does nethi~[ else, it t~i~s courts out of the lab,,mss of supervi~ this type of police
conduct. Now, pollce need net come up with any rationale for stopp~ znoteris~ save the easy
obvious one: violation of the traffic code. [FN195] Given that the door of jud/~l redress has closed,
n~d that the Supreme Court's su~estecl equal protection remedy seems ~,nlilcely to bear any fruit,
what other avenues are open to help grapple with the police ~'~ices lfighllghted here? Two modest
suggestions follow.
a. 9dmi~i~l~tive re~l,llatione
In a tlme when we co~le to focus on courts to control police discretion, ~a~her tool is often
overloekech Police depa~anent policy and re~ulatioa. If ~e~ecksd discretion -~ racially biased
trafllc enforcement tactics infect a police ~gency's operations, written policies and red,isa/on could
fill the vacuum created by the Supreme Court's abdication of supervisory responsibility. Any t/me
Copt. e West 1998 No Cl,i~ to Ori2. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 16
(Cite as: 87 J. Crlm L. & Criminology 544, *576)
official discretion exists, we must ask not only how W ellmi~At~ ,mn~e~vy discretion, but also how
to regulate ~na co~tr~i~ the discretion that must exist as *ST/ part of the sy~.~-: [FN1961
Departmental regulations have the potential to do both.
In the recent past, courts, especially the Supre~ne Court, played the do~in~,~ ru]~m~i~i,_o role for
law enforcement at the level of constitutional enforcement. This h~s Been especially true i~ the
Fourth Am~,~dmer~ area. This resulted from the fact that oth~- agencies-the legislative
executive agencies, a~ police departments themselves-failed to take a~ significant role in
regulation of police. [FN197] Courts Ln the post-Mapp era ~,,h~d to fill this void; in the Fourth
Amendment field, thl, has been done thro,,~h adjudication of march ~na seizure cases.
But, as Professor LaFave has said, this h~, ~egun to eh~n~e. [1~1198] Mauy police departmeniz
now put their practices down in written form as official policies or guidelines. [FN1991 Axed the fact
that police agencies Sh~m~elves construct these self-regulatory sys~m~ h~s some impor~,~?
advantages. Fi~t police rulem,~n_~ ,n~s~f_or~better pghce ._ .de~i_' 'gns, jf.m~hecause it focuses the
department on policy m,lrln~ ~n~n'th~e impllcatiox~s to the community of the police practices bein~
regulate~ [FN200] Second, rules reduce the influence of bias because they ,~-~,- training more
uniform, ,n8 because they guide ~,~a control discretion. [FN201] Third, police-,~-a~ rules are most
likely to be followed ~nd enforced by police. [FN202] l~t-but certai~y ~ot least-is the fact ~hot, in
cases such as Whren, the Supreme Court h,~ ~imply taken the judiciary out of the equatio,~ If
is no re~ml~ion at the agency level, th~e m~y simply be no regulation at all.
One line of the Supreme Court's own cases suggests that the practices hlghli~h~ in this essay
might be successfully -~aressed thr~h police reg~,l~o~ Begi~'nln5 with South Dakota v.
Opperm,n; [FN203] the Court passed upon the reasonableness of searches clone pur~mnt to
departmental inventory procedures. In Opperm~-; the police discovered ,,~,~,m~ in the glove
coml~'la~ent of a vehicle they h~d towed to axx impo~md lot before they inventoried the contents of
*578 the car. The Suprmn~ Court fonnd the inventory search reasonable, perhaps because police
performed the inventory "pursuant to standard police procedurez." [FN204] In the most recent
inventory case, Colorado v. Ber~in~_, [FN205] police discovered contraS.w1 in a back~el~ found in the
defe.&~nt's vehicle dllri,~g an inveniory search. In Ber~in~-, the Court was much clearer hi
delineating the place of police rules and rul~..Wln_o in search ..~t seizure law: "r~asonable police
regulations relating to inventory procedures ~amlni~tered in good faith satisfy the Fourth
Amendment, even though courtm might as a mntter of l~ina~ight be able to devise eql~,~lly reasonable
rules requiring a different procedure.~ [FN206] As Pr~essor LaFave polnia out, to the extent that
Opperm~- ~nd Berti~ encourage or require depa. ~..,eniz to m~l~. rules for inventm~es, ~i, is all to
the good. Since, accor~inE to Bertine, an inveniory search may be reasonable without either
probable cause or a warrant, [FN2071 st~.,a~.ai.~l police procedures for inventories will limit
oh.nnel police discretion .nd prevent arbitrary police action. [FN208]
We should consider u~inE the same app, uach to confine ~v] regulate police discretion vi~a-vis the
conduct of traffic stops. ~n allov~i_tl~_poUce to stop motorists any *i,~, an offi~r could
hav_~e_dave so. thiameed not be the rule within a~ given police depa~!,~t. '5~9 In fact, it was not
the rule in the District of Columbia, where Whren arose; depa,:..,,enial regulations prohibited the
m.lrln~ of ~"~[~.C stops except w~thln ceftin well- dt~l=im~l iNlralllet~/~. [FN209] Departments could
make rules that set out criteria for situations in which officers can stop cars when ~ is no
intention of giving a ~cc citati°~-~r~oor~in_o other enforcom~nt activities related to operation of
the v~--~-~_ ~i the very least, depadauental regulations could prohibit the targe~i,~ of racial or
e~il~ups for traffic stops ~nd searches. To encourage nfl~m~lri,~g (or review of existing rules)
along these lines, federal ~na state gove~uents might offer incentives in the form of increased
i~,~&inE to those depa~i~tent~ that rn~ke eh~n~es iix their exlstln~ regulations or ilnpl~m~nt new
ones. Alternatively, of course, there might be ~ns~eial penalties for depa~U~,~ts that do not comply,
Copr. ~ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOE EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 17
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, '5~9 )
or some combination of eazret n~a ~
b. collection of data on tr~¢ stops ~& searches and the rules put in place to ~overn
A second step we might take to address the problem of ta~e_J~xtual stops involves the collection of
data Police departments could be required (or ~,,.,,~i~y encour~ed) to collect data on all
stops. ~ data sl~:mlcl i'n~ludo ~ reason for the stop, the race, et.'hnldty, s,~a other ido,,~r~ing
information concer~ug the person stopped~ whether the drivee recoived a dtation or wm'~i~g and for
what, whether a soareh followed the stop, the b~ for the soareh (consent, obsoevation of
in~mi,,~E it,~n,, or the li~), whe~hA~ a dog was ~ as pa~ of th~ procedure, wli~her
eontrab~a was fou~a ~a if so what ~a~ a~l whether a~ propsa~ was soi~i una~ fodeiture
The collection of t. hi~ data would ~llow for large-scale smd,v of tr~¢ stops a~l the issues they raise,
~a would allow for a more r/soreus ~lysis thnu I have pre~_~l here. While the numbers of
persons stopped ill ~ly ex~mplas are large-in Volu~ Co~m~y alone, for example, th~ number of stops
on the vidoo tapos is almost eleven b~a~ed-any so~=l sde~t would no doubt prefor a more
s~st~nati¢ collection ofda~ A~a even in the Mar~l~a ease, in which sWps must be rsoorded, the
court did not order Maryl~na Stato Police to collsot all the information that might prove useful to
someone smd~,~ these pra~ieas. On the contrary, onl~ stops followed by eonson~ soarehas or
som, ehes with dogs are i,,auded, whe~as a mo~ somplet~ pietu~ would, at tbo vor~ least, re~luire
that all sW~ be *~med, wli~daer or net fonowed b~ a soarel~ A widosl~a~ st~a,~a~l *~0
of a ~mher of po]lee depa~G,,~u~;s in a wide variety of geol~'aphi¢ areas would glve us the
opportmaity to arrive at a better under~ai~E If the data show tha~, in fac~, Afriean-A~ _~ieans or
other r~-~ or ethnic groups are being target~l b~ pol/ee, [FN210] there would be no ai=mi~ their
experiences as isolated i~ddont~ or the work ofju~ one or ~agher 1)m~/e~l~ police dopa~t~ent. We
might at last have the inform~on neeessa~ to ~,~a~_r~a ~ what haI~ns in these s/~a~ations,
~ perhaps to fi~lly per~latle legi~l~tol-s ~a other leader~ that we ml~l~ t~ke con~r~to steps tow~-'d
solutions. [FN211]
S,,~h data collection would also allow us to stud~ the effeetivenoss of the police regulations prol~ed
above. Dep~l.,,~uts with ~na without m~eh regulators could collect data, ~a the s/do by side
comparison this would allow would give us a bet~r ~maer~i~_~ of the effectiveness of thi~
approaeh~
One can im%~no at least two posdble problems that might be suS~s~i conee~i~ the collect/on of
data on polleehnotorist encounters. First, i,,&iviflual polico oflicors mlgh~ be reinet~,~t to report
use the data to attempt to prove polico ~,~. eit. h~ on the part of the i~&ividual or the inst/tuedon?
And would this eoneem net result in either ineo~nplete and perhaps stilt~l repoa~, or even
reluetanee to report at all, espoe/ally if the o/~cor could be seen to be a~'~E in contravention of
depa~hhental regulations? Wlfile these concerns are u~mdable, they would net he hard to
address. Data eolletedon could be ~uymons, certainly as to the astivities of imlivklual o/~acore.
AHa if ~ of whet we wish to stud~ is whether del~t~en~l regulations might help llmi~, or
objectionable alemen~s of police discretion in thi~ area, the idonfit~ of the police dopa~!-,,~u~ the data
have come from m/ght be biddo~ too. With ~a~mi~ safeguarai,,E th,~ from hnplis~n_~
themselves i~ auy way, th~ is no reason to believe that police ami their superlors would net fairly
and full~ a~ort their traffic stop as~ivities. As au e~mple, recall that the Mar~la~i Sta~e Polise
have been reporting all '581 stops resulting in e~in~ ~ consent soarehel for m~y months now.
While they do thi~ pur~*, to a court order, thee is ~ evor~ reason to believe th~*. the Mar~l~
S~ate Pollee o/~ieors might feel relnetaut to report fully =ha_ aeeurataly for just the reasons I have
describe& In fac~, their feelings might even be somewhat more intense, e/~ee the data eallec~d in
Copt. e West 1998 No Cl~im to Ol'i.g.U.S. C~o~r[. Worlr~
87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 18
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, '58D
Marylnnd is broken down officer by o/ricer, with nnm~s att~oh~[ Thus ff o~e couk]. ~ a
scenario in which police might fail to fully ~na fairly report their actions, the Mz.ryl.nd case would
be it. But that, does net seem to be happenln[, While no one but the individual o~Sce~ involved
knows for sure whether some stops are net beh~ reported, it would seem ~h~t ll~d~-~,~g would
skew the data away fi~m any racial bias in stops, =/~ce ali of the ofilcers imnw that thi= was the
problem from which the repor~n~ ob[i~ation arose in the first place. Yet after eighteen mo,~h% the
data show that roughly eighty percent of the stops couz~-~d st/ll involve people of color. In other
words, if the officers were tr~,~ to affect the numbers (-nd one could argue that if au~one had
incentive to do so, they do), they are doin~ a poor job of it. The other expl-,,~ion, of course, is that
they are not doiz~ ~hl, at all.
The ~h~- I~blem that might be raised concerns the practical side of reportfl~. What officer will
want to fill out a fu~m, even a ~m.ole one, for every ~ stop? Police are already busy trying to do
the job we send t~ern out to do. Why should they do extra paperwork to help study ~h~ job? The
first answer to thl, objection is that m~y po[ice dep~t.~nts already request a short report on every
stop, whether or net the officer issues a citation or a wer~i,,~ The second answer lies with
to~h~lo~,. Already, m~y police vehicles carry net jllst l'~dios, ~ colnpllte~ te/rmi~]~ that can
used to check a car's license plato ~mher er a moterist's drivers license, or to see if a person is
wanted on outst~ndi~[ warrants. It would take little more to enter the basic izfform~ion on traffic
stops discussed above into ~,~h a computer. The process would involve little more th~ l~]~hln
a~reed-upon code v,,mbere into the avsil~hle ,~hi,~e. In fact, =m~]] hsn~.haid units new exist that
can h~ndle quite a hit of ~mple dat~ Waiters and waitresses in restaurant~ sometimes carry these
~m~l] devices, on which an ord~ can be taken, tr~,~,~itted to the kitchen, tallied for
purposes, ~ then saved for m~rke~E =~d other b~,~e~s purposes. Such a m~h~ would be more
th~n capable of receivin~ and storin~ the relievely ,~]~ mount of data that would be ~enerated by
traffic stops, and transfer of the data into analyzable form would involve ne extra work. Another
poss/bflity is to do what Volusia County did: have the police cars in departments ~,~e~ study fitted
with video cameras which would be turned on ~n& off each ~m~ '~82 a stop was m~d~. This
could simply turn the tapes i~ without hav/~E to do extra paperwork. Researchers would then
gather the statistics. While parti~lm~s would have to be worked out, usin~ video cemeras might be
the easiest way to do
VIL Comlusion
Whren leaves us in an un~_~astory situat/o~. Any t/m~ we use our cars, we can be stopped by the
police virt~=lly at their whim because full compli~,~ee with ~ laws is impossible. A~d we can
feel relatively certain that past will be prele~us: Afi'ican-Amertcans ~d Hispanice will suffer the
Bulk of thi~ treatment. Whites will net have to endure it very often; if they did, it probably would
not happe,~ A,~. once po[ice stop drivers, the off~rs will be able to search =],,,~t everyone they
want, some with consent and ethos with dogs. I, for one, feel considerably less th~ comfortable
with this outcome.
We may net always a~ree on the faU contours of the Fourth Amundsen, but if nothln~ else it
st~,~&= for-indeed, imposes-restraint on the ~overnment's power over the individual in the pursuit of
crime. At the very least, the police must have a reason-probahie cause, or at least rease,~hle
cri,~i,mis strike, but rather that po[ice cannot treat everyone llke a cr/,~i,~=] in order that some
secretive wror~doers be cs~,ght. From every practical v-,r~Ee point, Whren upe~&= thi~ venerahie
and sensible lm'inciple in the ,~m~ of the war on chugs. Its implications are clean, everyone is fair
Copr. e West 1998 No C]~i,~ to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
87 JCRLC 544 FOE EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 19
(Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, *582)
used Whren as an occasion to rexmcliat~ the worst of what this tragic and ul~mAtoly unwi~mhle war
bm, brought ua. Instead, it i-~a~d ]~ollee power ~nH discretion. We are all the losers for it, but
unfortunately some of us--those of us with dark Rifle-will lose a lot mere ~hA~ the reg. Perhaps
police d~pa~h~umtal reg~lA_~on, A~a further study, can lead us tn new direetione.
FNal. Bugene N. Balk Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law. J.D. 19R3, Yale Law
School; LL.M. 1988, Goorge~own University Law Cemer. My fi~n~ lo Jeffrey C~amso, Deborah Joon, Mark
Kappelhoff, Tom Perez, Daniel Steinbock and Lisa l~urget Wright for helpful commem~ on an earlier draft of this
piece. Th~nl~ also to F, fic Crylzer and Mary L. Sawyers for reseazch and editorial assi*~r~e.
l?
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1
Citation Search Result Rank(R) 2 of 2 Database
"'98 CONG US HR 118 CONG-BILLTXT
J5th CONGRESS, 2d Session
United States Library of Congress
HR 118
Reported in House
January 7, 1997
[Report No. 105-435]
TO provide for the collection of data on traffic stops.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 1997
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 s~ops.
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 1997'
Sec. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COLLECT.
The Attorney General shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about all
s ~s for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers. Included in
tA,~s data shall be information pertaining to--
(l) 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 1998'.
Sec. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COLLECT.
The Attorney General shall conduct a study of stops for routine traffic
v~ ~ations by law enforcement officers. Such study shall include collection and
Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2
1998 CONG US ~IR 118
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 ul~der this section shall not be used in any legal or administrative
proceeding to establish an inference of discrimination on the basis of
p~ticular identifying characteristics.
S 4. RESULT8 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 ul/der 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
SEP-81-1998 1S:1~ P. 14~19
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF
BLACK LAW ENFORC£1vfENT EXECUTIVES
29 .l'u,~.e 1995
The Ho=omble John Vasconcellos, Chair
S~te Public Safety Commi~
4061 S~U~ Capitol
Sacramelgo, CA 95814
R.~: Al{ 1264 - California "Driving l~thfle Black" Bill
. Dear Senator Vasconcellos:
The National Oriap;,',qon of Black Law Euforcgmrnt Executives (NOBLE)
~ formed 2~ years ~ to marshal the experience ~ expertise or minori~
c...,,.., law enforcement offic,_'s!._, at ~xeculive and command levels. Since u~at lime the
.~o~.-~.,,, m ctnbciakip ofNOBI..l/has gr own to include over '~, 000 federal, state and local
,,-.--. ~.. e,,,,~ ~,~"'-'~' =~'"'"'~' ~ ,,~...~ law eaforcgm~-nt pro~$~_ionals of all levels. While the memb~ship may have
changed over the years, the mission of the organizalion has not. The primary.
focus of NOBLI~ then and now/s bmldm~ bride, es bev,veen ~oli~e~.~d the
"'~'"~:""'~'"~"' '~ communizes they serve. Because~- that focus, NOBLE has conslsumtl~
provided leadership and support ~o the promulgation of communi .w policing.
~.,~.~,..,,,,.~,..,.,. By the same token, bemuse of the priority it ~maches to the formation of
parmctships between law e~iorcement and conuuunities, NOBLE deems
i~itiafiv~ d¢~i~aed ~ d[il~oma~ race ~ t11~ p,hmary r~ason for stopping
~ motorists of color ofmtic~ importauce.
~,..,.~, The buildin~ of bridges is impossible i. ~c abreact of trust. In a recent
uatiollal surv~ co~dugred by thc Police Fotmdation. rank-~ud-fil~ officers
overwhehuinsl¥ agreed that worl~lg wi~ cilizens was art impor~l!
~.-.~.c--,~.=^,~o,,.~ eff'~cgve rocam of solvilug neighborhood problems. P. oufincly sWppi.ug
Americans f~r no other re.on than the color of their sldn fosters d/slruat of th*
~ s. ~..,~ ~.-.. ~,.,,. ~"'""°~'~c'=' ~.~ Criminal justice system ... and thureby seriously compromi-~cs thc potcul/al for
for r. he kind ofparmersh/ps tha~ can impact public safe~y, Henc-*. NOBLE is on
record as a slmmch support~ of le{~Slsti0u similar W AI~ 1254 that is being
~,..,.~ ¢or~idemd by the U.S. ~n~s. l~-~u..~ NOBLI~ has among i~ merab~hip
a largu contiugem of local law enforcement officials as well as 40 local
~.,-,,~, c~ ~,~,.., ~,,~ chalur~, ~ _'~"~h CClUal importance to local legialation with the sa.me intent.
,~,~,,,~..,~,.,,,~ It is the hope of NOBLE tha~ the Cal/fomia Scuat~ will vote for enhanced
police-community r~la~on.ship$ by pa~sing AB 1264.
Sin ,
c,...,.,,..,.,.~,.. ~e Executive Director
4609 PI,~',~CR~T 0Fg.-IC-' PA~'~, ~R. SUITE ~..4.Z~<.%,4DR:.~, %A ...i-- .... ,:0}~6.-',~-;?'-~ F.~,-'< '~.'-
10
21
August 3. 1998
Hon. Kevin Murray
Forty-Seventh Dis~'ict
Post Ollic~ Box 9&2549
Sacramc=to. California 94249-0001
D~.r Assembl~ Murr'~y:
l~.e: Assembly Bill 1264
Iarn pleased lo suppor~ A.ssc~bly Bin 1264, the ' Calil a Traffic Stop ics Act."
The bla~k motozist is oi:K~ slopped by l~OliCe for no maso~ other than the color of bls or
her sldn. Ilmow this to be tree from myowa expadsaoe.
The .~-st time I was stopped by ~, poli~ officer was when I was 16 ~ears old. Tile officer
raz~ a check on my vehicle and me ascl after de-m,,~,,~_~ ! h,d no ~'z'~tS, r~mmed to
my vehicle, IArew my license ancl rc~istzalio~ iii my ~as~, and tamed ~ walked away
without utterins aao~her word. In I Itl, I w~ dri¥iz~ I ~ new sporm ~ in WhiUi~,
California. Los Az~gelcs Coumy Sheriff's Deputies descended upon me a~t pull~d me
over. A ~iepu~y holdia$ a handsun who ordes~ me ~can the vetgcle ~,eted me. I
verbally £d~rili~d myscl~but did =ol tall the dap~ I was a county prosecmor. The
cteput'y demaadect to know why ! was in the area. I asked ~ d~puty why I was stopped
and he refused to prov!de me ~n explanation. ! was lt~ told to lo to his parmer, who
beo~an inzerrosatin8 mc in aa accusalo~ to~. I turned to see the fl~: Deputy enter my
v~hicle, ostensibly to conduct a search. I objectecl to tl~ seaz~ a~l was tom to shut up.
lust then: the perso~ ! c.a~e to visit is Whiulcr c,~__~t_ his home. lie showed d~e deputies
'his bad,c, that ora r~tircd Ca~tain oftlz Los Aasel~ Cotu~ Sheriff's Dapanment. The
Captain demanded to Imow why l:~e "Depz~7 Oistzi~ Attorney" had been star, pool. It was
rhea that the d~uties stated that I fit th~.dsa~il~ioa of-, ~ suspect. Imagine this;
it's a.~er 6:00 PM on a weekday, daylight ~.viass lime. I am wcad~ a bra~ ney, blue
double-breasted pi=-$h-~ed suit aad drivhzg [bzmzd n~w l~Tissan Z. Arid yet, ~he
dcputics ciaimcd that I fit thc clcmcfiplion ora butw..~ar!
Over the .vear~, the Califoruia Irliglmway Pa~l, Los Aa{eles Police Department. BerkeleF
Police Department, Albany Police Departm~t, Torrauce Police Deparirnenk $~n lose
22
SEP-01-19~8 16:19 P.16/19
Polic,' Dcparmlc, n~. a~d many o~em '.-..~va stopp~ me. I ~vc nev~ ~v~ a fiskc~, I
Mve. howler, be~ s~ppcd ~d co~omed by ~ ~odng offic~ ~ ~ 1
pi~e my h~ on ~e ste~ wheel or e~t my ve?~cle ~ lie on ~ ~ ~ mosl
of~:~ s~h~ my vehicle ,,vi~oul: w~t. cons~t or pmb~le c~e.
li~: .~c~ oft~ Slo~s I would ~k myse!~ why? ~y ~ I s~? ~ ~h of
W~ ~ ~pe~2 No. W~ I ~]Iow~s
civil i~c ~ ~n ~he To--c= Polic~ Dep~nt O~c~ o~ ~ ac~ wor~
To~:,~c~." Acco~ ~o the office, b~ck
lc;~ ~fiScafion ~d solely !or~e p~os~
~Eo~ of minority ~v~ bc~e ~ey ~e ~farly :~ by ~is~ ~gce o~
~ad ~op~ solcly on ~e b~is of~cir color. M~y of my
~ino~! ~ t~ck ~o poin~ to
~e !~leg Io a di~ro~onat~ n~b~ oive~:i~ stops ~d s~h~.- It ~ ~c~t to
~ad ~: v~ue ~ such stops. Most oft~ ~ =~?s ~d s~h~ ~ to ~ ~ ~y
cvi~:c: O~WT~gdoing, ~cy ~, h0wev~. Mve: way 0~.~ public
ce~fidence in ponce ~d ~e criminal j~d:~ !}~::=. I hope the l~s~ h~ bye
ac ~:ur= ~ r~o~ for ~c sto~s
su;h info--ion ~a~. On
pmv~ m be ~e b~is for a ~roponion::z aum~.~r of smp~ ~pt of~ ~agon
~cmenm ~t~ wh=~er '~' =~ cc-mm;;:'~ ~oo much or ~ ~e ~ ~0
23
u-effi¢ en/o~'cemcn~. It may shed some I/gbr on ri~ effe~vaness ofrotg/~c
z crime-fighting ~ool. It w/U aUow police deparmimm fltc chance to ~stablish poUcies
that will help ~em protect chemsclves fzom lawsu/ts ~-,, to c/vii ~ v/olaf/ohs.
sum tberc are addifiom:l bend/ts to gath~/ng this/nfommfio~
.There is no e~cuse for no~ passes AB 1264. ~ is a la~ ~fresm~
m the Deparanent ofEinance BiU AnalTs/s, datcd July 6, ! 998, the co~ of~puhe~/ng tiffs
inform~ion should no~ be p~oh'bi~/vc. All pol/~ ~ mgv/m ~ oflic~r~ to
mc Jude much or'the in~ownafion demauded by AB 12~4 in Ihc~t daffy a~vity loss
whe~-ver r,h~y sto~ a whiclc or cont~t a ci "th~n. Each and e~er~ ~_,,,~ ,' police officer
writes a w~fftc ficke~ she/he records d~e driver's ~ ~e, ~ m~d etbnic~ty ami the
lcp~ bais for the stop aad issuance ora fir.2~ Whm th~ polic~ discover conuabamYor
make an ~ Lhcy routinely wri~ a report 1:hat iaclud~ ell oftl~ abovc hl~orm~/on and
~he probable cau~ or le~l jusdfica/on ~h~ l~d ~o any scs~h o~ ~tcov~y of ~Hdmcr.
The D~parm~ ofJusdc~ ~ onJ,y ~ s s/mpl~ ropon/aS form ~ w/Il help
ofl/ccrs qo/cldy ~_~.-fcr thc~qucsm/in6mn~on titan tho/r ions and r~x~s. Oivm
above, and ~he s~a~'s lar~ bud~ surplus, cost alone provides no r~son for vofin$ down
· .h/s bill. ! support AB 12~4.
VeD, truly you~
.~soci~e Pm fesso~
24 3
IN ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. FOR ~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NAACP, Philadelphia Branch and :
POLICE-BARRIO RELATIONS : ~
PROJECT, on behalf of :
themselves and their members, :
:
Plaintiffs, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-CV-6045
:
V. :
:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, :
:
Defendant. :
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Report
Auditing Pedestrian
and Car Stops
December 15, 1997
I. IntroduL-tion
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 b. ave 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 Reporu, "7548s') 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 7548s), 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 7548s (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 7548s 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 aed/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 7548s 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 fn-m
conclusions on either of these issues.
II. Background and Methodology of the Review
The 39th Police District scandal presented grapkic 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. Ci~.' 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 mLnority
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 deparunent
policies and practices such as discretionary pedestrian and vehicle
stops that have the potential for racially biased law enforcement.
All pedestrian and vekicle stops should be recorded on 7548s 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 ~es 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 irdtial review of these 5,000 75-48s disclosed that overwhelmingly the documents
concerned police activities (e.g., responses to alarms, reports of stolen properS.', abandoned cars)
which do not present any of the issues covered by the Settlement Agreement. We separated these
documents and focussed on the 75-48s recording interactions between police and civilians that
3
28
involved police of~cers 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
!!
i
30
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
7548s 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 7548 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," "Peal 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 7548 which contained no explanation as to why the stop was
6
31
made, we took the further step of examining the Depa~uiaent'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 ipSormation, 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
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 tl~is
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 greeted 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 w 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).1
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. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996).
: We have also reviewed an additional 41 reports detailing enforcement of Philadelphia's curfew
ordinance. These stops axe analyzed separately at the end of the Section IV.
8
33
biographical information about the person(s) stoppedfi In our view, these documents present
· prima facie cases of constitutional violations. It is eonoeivable 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 Departmem. Given the applicable Pennsylvania case law, the fact t~at 75-48s are not generally
used to document non-investigative interactions between police and civilians, and the fact that in
~69 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 Iow or non-existent.
The Police Deparmaent does not appear to disagree with the proposition that lack of
documentation in the 7548s is highly questionable. At the time the Departmem provided counsel
for plaintiffs with the 7548s, 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 make arrests.
3 Given the fact that many of the 7548s 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.
9
PEDESTP~A~ I~ESTIGATIO~
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.
i. 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. ENVESTIGATIVE 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 PROB..-~BLE CASUE.
· Actor is denied freedom of movement.
We are hopeful that the foregoing Assist Officer will be adhered to by ali officers and that
any pre-existing practice of random stops will be terminated across the City.
Viewing the 7548s, one may question plaintiffs' concern with strict adherence to
constitutional limitations on stop and search powers. After all, at least with respect to the 7548s
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
to combat crime.4 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 enfomement,
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 IAI) 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 poIice, without caUSe, stopped
and frisked the complainant and his girlfriend, accused-them of selling drugs and, when they
protested, arrested them for disorderly conduct. IAI) determined that the officer acted improperly
and the City settled the damage claim for false arrest and illegal detention.
Indeed, the problem may mn 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"); 9%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
4It 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 7548s 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 Asian Afr. Am. Latino White Unknown
Explanations
IRatka 2213 6 1 4 0 0 1
vVilson 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
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
_ong 1113 3 0 I 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 I 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 I 0 0 2
Spence I 9967 3 0 3 0 0 0
TOTAL 82s t I II 4o I o I 14 I 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-t4-23477, 97-14-23487. ~7-14-23488,
97-t8-18305, 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 7548s 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 tree 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 repor~ 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
In reviewhng the data there are two ways in which racial/ethnic bias may be revealed. The
first limits the analysis to the uhiverse 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 tums 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.~
Of the 754 of 75-48s which involved either a ear 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: 14~ District car stops with explanation
Exhibit F: 14a' District car stops without explanation
Exhibit G: 14® District pedestrian stops with explanation
Exhibit H: 144 District pedestrian stops without explanation
Exhibit I: 18~ District car stops with explanation
Exhibit J: 18~ District car stops without explanation
Exhibit K: 184 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
I ASIAN15 AFR. AM.361 LATINO I WHITE 7 67 TOTALI 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 Depaxtu,ent attentiom
This is especially tree concerning car stops. Of the 516 7548s which were generated
pursuant to a police car stop, 262 contain racial and/or ethnic data about the individual(s):
Ail 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:
Ail 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:
Ail Unexplained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect
ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE 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 e~plained 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 many 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 Pkiladelphia, including the
University of Permsylvania, 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 t 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 SWps 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 I AFR. AM. I LATINO WHITE TOTAL
0 [ 26 I 0 0 26
0.0% 100.0% f 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
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
ASIAN1 AFR' AM'155 LATINO0 I WHITE4 TOTAL60
1.7% 91.7% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0%
Where explanations are provided the data reveals:
17
42
Eighteenth District Explained Pedestrian Stops with Known Race of Suspect
HASIAN1 AFR'AM' [ LATINO I WHITE20 0 3 TOTAL124
4.2% 83.3% 0.0% 12.5% 100,0%
Where no explanation is provided the racial/ethnic composition reveals:
Eighteenth District Unexplained Pedestrian Stops with Known Race of Suspect
I ASIAN0 AFR'AM' I LATINO 35 0 WHITE 1 TOTAL t 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 lOO percent of these inxtances 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 Iow of 14.3 pement
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.
18
43
V. Recommendations
1. Depm tment Audit and Review. We believe that the information that can be gleaned from
the 75-48s requires Departmental action on several levels.
a. The Depmtment should conduct its own audit and review of 75-48s and any other
data that may be relevant to the two major issues discussed ia this Report. The Settlemem
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 requir'mg statements of reasons for stops, not only to ensure that such
irfformation 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 VIII
<c).
d. The Depa~anent 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 7548s. The Department should be entering all
7548s 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 Departanent and others to audit and
review a multitude of police functions and personnel.
3. Curfew Enforcement. The data here is particularly compelling and the Deparutaent should
ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of the curfew ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Stefan presser
Alan L. Yatvin ~/
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.
20
45
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CO~ITTEE ON OPINIONS
SUPERIOR COURT OF NE' .JERSEY
~OBERT ~. PIL~NCIS ~_ P.O. I~OX
~'UDGE (~ COURT HOUSE
~OODBURY, N.J. ~o96
Haroh 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. Buokman, Esq.
Justin T. Loughry, Esq.
Re: State v. Pedro Soto. et al
Dear Counsel:
These are consolidated motions to suppress under the equal
protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.1
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~ After a lengthy hearing, I find defend-
ants have established a ~ 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 I and 7A out of the Moorestown Station for
thirty-five randomly selected days batweenApril 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%).
1The motions also include claims under the Fourth Amendment, but
they were severed beforethe hearing to await future proceedings if
not rendered moot by this decision.
2Originally, twenty-five defendants joined in the motions. On the
first day of the hearing, Novemb?r 28, 1994, I dismissed the
motions of Darrell Stanley, Roderlck Fitzgerald, Fred Robinson,
Charles W. Grayer, Keith Perry and Alton Williams due to their
unexplained nonappearances.
46
To: Ail 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 Department--at 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 I 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-I~1993 by Mr. Last traveling between exits i and 3 in
his vehicle at sixty miles per hour on cruise control after the~
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% ofthe
race identified stops between exits I and 3 were of blacks consti-
tuting an absolute disparity of 32.7%, a comparative disparity of
242% (3~.7% divided by 13.5%) and 16.35 standard deviations.
convention, something is considered statistically significant ifit
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 i and 3, Dr.
Lamberth found that 408 or 35.6% of the race identified stops be-
tween exits I and 7A were of blacks constituting an absolute dis-
par%ty.of 22.1%, a ~om.pa~a~ive.disparit¥ of 164% and 22.1 standard
deviations.3 He opined it is hlghlyu~llkely 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. Lamberthshould 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 i and 3 or i and 7A eligible to be arrested for drug of-
fenses or otherwise. See Wards Cove Packina Co. V, Atonio. 490
U.S. 642, 109 S. Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989).
Ap~-30-98 10:~1A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA WILSON, LAWRENCE BOWDEN, : CIVIL. ACTION ._,
KIMWAN TOPPIN, SHIRLEAN LOPER, :
on behalf of themselves and all :
others shnilarly sRuated :
.
:
TINICUM TOWNSHIP, TINICUM :
TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPART_ME}IT : NO. 92-CV-6§17
T~ICUM POLICE CHIEF :
ROBERT T. LYTttGOE, JR., :
OFFICERS THOMAS CANZANESE and :
WALTER FIFE OF THE TI~ICUM :
TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, in :
their individual and official
capacities, and UNKNOWN POLICE :
OFFICERS NUMBERS ONE AND :
TWO OF THE'T1NICUM TOWNSHIP
POLICE DEPARTMENT. in their
individual and official capacities JURY TI~I,M~ DEMANDED
CONSENT DECREE
I. INTRODI If'T!O?
This Consem Decree is intended to settle all claims ill this action. The Consen:
Decree is based upon f~deral and state comtitutionul principles and redeem in part
recent inte~rctatioas by th: appellate coups of Pe~sytvania or Article I, Section 8
the Pemuyivav2?. Corzs;ir~tion. r;garding the power,~ of t~e police te s:op.
d::at;~.scarch. ,: c~::~s~ 9¢rs~p2 in thc Com:aonweaiC~ of Pei~is>'b'aff, a Not~g
EXI!IBi7 .:.
49
Apr-30-g8 10:32A P.O3
con~inefl in the Consent Decree and settlement of this case shall be deemed an
admission of liability or wrongdoing 0f any of the Defendants.
H. PROVISIONS REGARDING ENFORCEM~ENT OF TRAFFIC, MOTOR
VEHICLE AND CRIMINAL LAWS IN TINICUM TOWNSHIP ON 1-95
The Defendants, in the enforcement of the criminal and motor vehicle laws .of
Pennsylvania on 1-95, shall adhere to the following standards:
1. Consistent with this Consem Decree, the defendants shall not stop, demi.u,
search or arrest any person because (in whole or in part) of the race or ethn/c 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
bc 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
enforcemen.: agencies.
The de[endants ~hall nut stop or detain any automobile ,.~: its occupants
unless they~.a.~. .... reasor~ble suspicion to believe that the operator or passenger(,) has
committed ¢,r is cow_mktin~, a traffic or motor vehicle ','iolation. o: ha,. c reasonable
suspicion or probable cause to believe that the operator or a passenger(s) have
50
Ap~-30-98 10:32A P.05
6. During the stop of a vehicle, defendants shall not subject the persons in
the vehicle to a do§ search, absent consent obtained consistent with the provisions of
this Consent Decree or probable cause to believe that the persons stopped possess a
controlled substa~l 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 flm.n a traffic or ~ummary motor vehicle
offense has been committed or is currently beth§ committed, or is ba~ed on emergency
health or safety reasons, defendants may detain, frisk, search or arrest the occupant(s)
and/or the vehicle only in accord with then existing laws, rules and applicable judicial ..
opinions construing thc Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 8 cf the Constitution o[ the Corm-aonwealth of Pennsylvania.
8. Any actions of the defendants that arc r.o.: covered by this Consent Decree
shall not be pumshabl: by contempt even if they are. determined to be illega! or
ur.'consfimtional. .-
III. COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS
.-~. The deienr~ants shall pro;'~,~c to p,,:t,,, t,, c~unsci o:~ a man,nb' basis
'. ~ ·" fc[~ox,4~z the ~nr y ol tb~s Consent Decree ~" "
: ~oerlo~ o: ~.vo .,,.'cars .... r ,.~:.? tegto~= copies
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
warnin§, but may not search thc vehicle or its ,occupants or de.,in the operator or
pass~nger($) for any period longer than that which is reasonably necessary to issue
said process, ~ to end the car stop because no process is necessary, unless )he officer.
comistent with this Consent Decree, possesses reasonable suspicion or probable cause
to believe that the-operator or_passenger(s) has committed or is committing a criminal
act, or Poses-an immediate danger to the safety of the officer.
5. Once the summons or warning has been issucd,~ ,
?q_uest co.eat to,.scarch th_e occupa, nts, their possessions or the vehicle, a~nd shall not
detain the occupants or vehicle to try to obtain consent unless the officer, consistent
with this Consent Decree, possesses r~asonable suspicion or probable cause to believe
that the operator or passenger(s) has ~m~mitte~ or is comm__.mi~tting a cr~iminal act. A
request for consent to search m-',.,,' be made during the time between the stop of the
vehicle and the issuance o~' a summons o.- warrting, or the determination that no
~rocess will issue, only upon the foltt)wing conditions: (a) wh.~re sxid request does
not delay thc investigation or issuance o! process. (b) where the sec? was based upon
reasonable suspicion or probabt~ cause thal a trallic o; motor Ye,:':ici.~ · ',:latioll had
occurred or reasonable suspicion vr probable cause to bclicvc ~ "~-'
~om~"nitted or h~ b~cr, ~ommiued. and (~ ,,,'here th~- po!i~:e ~o r.u: ::'z:~tcn. intU'nidatc
,vt oc~,erx,,'ise coerce t?,e occupant(s] into c'i:'i~ com~et.:
52
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
USE OF FORCE REPORT ~*/°f~;o
March, 1998
OFFICER DA~ CASE ~ ~E~ FOR~ USED
~2 3~ 1 9~ 1~74 ~on U~r ~ ~le ~g ~ a ~b~ ~ut a
A~. PU~A c~e, he~pt~
.~ ~' - ..:...~ =- ~d ~1~ ~m ~ ~to ~ ~l~y.
31 3~ 1 98~ 1~ 1 '~c ~to~on Subj~t ~ ~ for ~iic
into~on. He ~ ~
~d he ~ ~.
13, 40 3~1 ~801~ Di~rly ~nd~ ~rs p~i~ ~~o~er he
~ fi~ng. ~ 1~ app~
t ~d he ~ ~o~v ~m
50 3~ 1 98~01~9~ ~j~ ~r ~r shot ~ inj~ d~r ~ ~s
sid~
si~.
41, g5 3~ 98~1975 W~ c~ A~ng on a ~or's ~u~ to ~ a
fete to U~vem~ of I~ Ho~i~.
offi~ ~ to ~t ~e a~ent
I~.
17, 39 3~5 98802~ El~g a Poh~ ~p~ Poh~ ~u~ I~D
~1~ to ~op ~d ~vel~ at a
~e of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r
~d~. ~r~t~s /
~ when he app~ch~
/
No one el~ ~ fo~d in ~e
13 3~5 98802~8 Drag ~ ~r ~ing p~ ~er ~
mbj~ m~. ~e offi~r
f ~ ~S ~ ~d ~d ~m on
h~ of ~e ~.
26 3~7 9~02115 C~ ~ S~j~ ~e out ~ ~e a~ent ~d
p~ ~e officer a~y ~m ~e d~r.
61
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
36 3-16 98802330 Fight Alier being involvcd in a fight the
person ran from thc ofc~r. He was
caught and put over the trunk ora car.
He was then handcuffed.
13, 20, 23, 25~ 3-16 98802331 High risk warcant A_II t~he listed officers displayed a
~. 32, 35, 36, ~ervice firearm while executing a warrant.
,42,45,48,
49, 50, 85, 98
2, 28, 43 3-16 98802351 Committal While serving committal papers, thc
person ran towards the kitchen, where
there were knives on the counter top.... ...
~ Officer grabbed her and took her to t~,
I ground._ A wrist flex was applied
~ handcuffed..At the huspital
" she refused to get out of the car.
Another wrist flex was applied and she
was escorted inside.
22, 38, 53 3-17 98802372 Man with a knife Subject was in the hospital with a
knife. DPS, Campus Police, requested
assistance fi.om 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 mlten to the ground.
13, 40. 42 3-19 98802422 Vehicle theft Officer stopped a stolen vehicle while
it was driving down Hwy. 6. Thc two
occupants were ordered out of the
vehicle. Officers had their side.
40, 95 3-20 98802449 Vehicle theft Officer drew ~ sf~deann during a
traffic stop of a stolen vehicle.
39 3-21 98802476 Public Intoxication Subject was ~ and one cuff
Obstruction of offcers 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 x,~ist. He
· resisted officer while being escorted to
the squad, getting into the squad and
going into the jail.
62
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
35 3-29 98802'/39 Public Intoxication During a PAULA investigation the
subject was placed under arrest.
/, ~ O~ficer attempted to esc~r..ed him out
~-- ~ '-, _ from lime officer. A'goose-neck"
48 3-30 98802781 Criminn! Trea'lum~s Ol~cerm re~;ponded to a buzglapy in
Public Intoxication progx~ss. '-A suspect was found on the ~,/~ ~-~
roof ~ the sorority. The o~icer drew
his sidearm until he was sure the --
suspect was not armed.
CC:
Libtm'y
City Clerk
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
USE OF FORCE REPORT
April, 1998
OFFICER DATE CASE # [NCH~ENT FORCE USED
97 04-03 98802924 Weffare ch~ck Officer responded to a distusbance call
and foand windows broken. He could
not get anyone to answer the door.
Manage_m~nt unlocked, tlm.do~ and
th'~c'-hain was cut. '
38 04-05 98802944 Traffic stop. Officar stopped a van that matched the
' description of a vehicle that reportedly
, .. ,~. H . had a handgun inside. Occupations
· : were removed at gun~p~_int. No
weapon was fountL
41 04-04 98802954 Public Intoxication When told he was under arrest, the
Possession Controlled subject stan~ to nm. The officer
Substance ' ca~gh-f~n-d"~'rdered his hands
behind his back, The subject refused.
The officer put him up against a wall
and pulled his arms back, so he could
17, 35 04-04 98802956 Public Intoxication Subject was told not to be in a
brininess. He refused to leave. Officers
then applied a pressure point co.n_trol
technique and a."~vris_t flex. He was
~'~--~'out of the bar.
43 04-04 98802996 Assist other agent- 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 arr~ and hands behind his back
and handcuffed him,
35.39 04-05 98802999 Possession of Alcohol Officer placed subject under an'est. He
Under Legal Age, then tried to ran away. One officer
grabbed his coat and the other grabbed
his arm. A stroggle ensued and the.~
went to the ground. The subject then
hit the officer tn the face. He xvus
rolled onto his stomach and his arms
and wrists were pulled behind his
back. He was then handcuffed.
64
OFFICER DA l'l~ CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
50 04-05 98803029 Welfare c__heO~_ Officer was attempting to find the
patent of an unattended 4 year old.
The person refi~nd to Cool, rate with
~ the inveSUgation and was placed u~dcr
arrest. She attempted to nm awn.v,..
'When caught she was placed up
against a ~ and handcuffed.
46 0405 98803035 Injured nnimal ~ thjufed rabbit was shot with the.22
cai rifle.
36 0407 ,98803080 Traffic stop While writing a ticket, the driver of the
car stopped, stannd wniking at the
officer. The driver held his right arm
bands to the omcer. Officer exited his
then showed his hands.
34 04-07 98803090 Invohintaty committal O~cer assisted medicaJ personnel
restraining a suicidaJ subject. She was
strapped to the stretcher and taken to
the hospital.
95 04-10. 98803171 Distu~ance call Subject was identified as being
involved in a fight. The officer
requested him to stop. The person
took off' numing. He fell and as he
was getting up. the officer directed him
to the ground. Thc person continued
to resist officer. After verbal threats to
use OC spray the subject quit resisting.
ti 04-10 98803195 Fight Subject ran from the officer. She ~as
caught and resisted officer. She
became verbally abusive. She was
take.~to ~e.~ttnd and .h.h.hgn~dcuffe~t~.
l L 44. 53 04-10 98803201 OWI Alter being placed under an'eSL 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. i I 04-17 98803380 Public Intoxication While being walked from the squad to
the jail. the subject twisted out of
officcr's grasp and attempted to run
away. He W-ha tnl~n to ~e emund and
held until ICSD Deputies arrived.
65
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
40. 43 04-18 98803436 Public lntoxicaUon Thc man was identified as being
mvolved tn an altercation at a bar
When the officer attempted to stop
him. he turned and nUsed his fist. He
then came at the offcer. The officer
attempted to keep him at arm's length.
but the man.hit his outstretched ann.
The offcer then sprayed him with OC
43 04-19 98803442 Public Intoxication The subject interfered with another
investigation. When the officer uted
to question him. 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 98803455 Sick animal A sick raccoon was shot with the
officer's sidearm.
50 04-20 98803519 Subject with a gun Officer responded to an assault call
lavolving 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.
13. 16 04-28 98803521 Public Intoxication Subject pushed officer and took off
nUUUng. When he x~as caught he was
taken to the ground. He continued to
resist officers while being handcuffed.
39 04-24 98803647 Distmbance at a bar Subject was causing problems at a bar.
When officer amved a UI DPS Officer
was already at the scene. The subject
refused to obey orders and was verbally
abusive. He was handcuffed and
placed in a squad cm'. The subject
aRempted 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 xva$
physicall.~ placed th¢£e.,
17. 54 04-24 98803650 Fight Officers observed a fight in progress.
.As they approached one the subjects
ran axvay. Thc officers chased him and
caught him. Hc refused'to put his
hands behind his back Each officer
grab~-d an arm and pulled it behind
his back.
66
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
l 1. 17 · 04-24 9~803681 .~u-lt with a Firearm Officers stopped a cm' idenlifiedas
being involved in an ne~.l~ with a
firearm. The officers d~-w their
sidearm and ordered the two occupant~
out or'the ca~. A s~ter pistol was
found in the pants of one oft.he
' 12, 16 r04-25 ~98803710 Int~ference with After being placed under ~ the
gnmnd and handcut~-e~
85 04-25 9~803521 Burgla~ A~nn g,~y holder to a business ~ _~_ _~
~ his sidearm and entered the
business. No one wa~ found in~de.
6, g, 44 04-25 99g03715 Unknown Problem Officer~ were dispatched to an
Wan'ant Se~ice unknown p~lem call. During the
inve~iga~on,.t~¢ subject attempt~t to
walk away f~om o~icer~. When he
f~led to stop the officer grabbed his
ann. fie pulled away and resisted
officers attempt to s~top him. A wrist
flex xs~ used to pull his hnnds beh~d
his back and he ~s hnn~l~ed.
2 04-26 9g$03739 Possession Alcohol Sub.~ect attempted to get away wh~le
Under Legal Age. officer was conduc'~ing a PAULA
investigation. O~cer g~obed her ann
and e~corted her out oft. he bar.
CC: Chief
City Manager
Captains
Lieutenants
Librmy
City Clerk
67
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
USE OF FORCE REPORT
May, 1998 ..
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED ~- ':
54 5-01 98803916 Possession of Alcohol While doing a ~ ~_hecl~e °ffi~r
Under Legal Age saw the subject ?i.'~h a ~ When she
saw the officer
Officer caught up with her and
grabbed her arm. She quit nmuing
and was handcuffed.
32 5-02 98803974 OWl, Interference with While conducting an mvesligation the
Official Acts subject attempted to walk away. The
~ officer grabbed his arm and he resisted
by pulling away. His arm was pulled
9, 40, 42 5-03 91~,1~4020 Fight ui progress Subject was placed under arrest but
refused to be handcuffed. He resisted
officers and was taken to the ground.
Thc subject continued to resist and a
pr~sum point control technique was
used to get him to comply. He was
then taken to the squad car. He
refused to get in and resisted officers.
He was then sprayed with OC and
placed in the back seat of the car.
49 5-05 988041 i2 Domest/c Assault Dining the investigation the subject .!
walked away from the officer. He
rdu.sed to stop. The officer.grabbed
his ann. The subject attempted to pull
away and resisted the officers attempts
to stop and calm him. He was ~aken w
the ground and handcuffed.
28, 50 5-05 98804117 Public Intoxication Subject started to mn away from the
officer after he was told he was under
arrest. The officer grabbed his arm
and took him to thc ground. The
SUbject was then handcuffed.
26 5-06 98804123 Sick an/mai Officer shot a sick raccoon with a .22
cal. rifle.
92 5-12 91~,04381 Injured nnimal An injured deer was shot by an officer
with his sidearm.
68
OFFICER DATE CASE # I~CIDENT FORCE USED
16 5-14 9~S04418 Public lntoxicadon While helping emergency medical
personnel, the subject was harassing
, other people. He was Wld to hiavc thc
'* " a~a several t/mec. He ~Pt, e*~_ and was
placed under arrest. He res/sted
an arm ba~ was used to con~l him
wh/le the .h~do~fl's were viand on
him.
46 5-15 9~R)4501 Armed person Officer was investigating an incident
where people were threat~ed by a
. :, ~ . :, person wispa shotgun. The su.q~ct
was hicatcd and thc officer drew his
sidearm until was sure
have a weapon.
35, 40, 47 $-16 9'8~M505 Stolen vehicle Officers stopped a ~ and
s~red until
evct3,ooe was out of the car.
43 5-15 9~804506 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
41 5-17 98804:~52 OWl Subject _ran ~ hi~ ~-~r after the ';
officer stopped him, The officer '
caught_him and directed him to the
ground. He was handcuffed.
14 5-1g 98804579 Distmbance Officers were investigating a
disturbance, The subject was seen
leaving the area with a 4_t~o?.t_long
metal piPe. The officer approached
him and asked him rwice to put it
t down. He refused. Officer drew his
·. c?; .... ' sidearm and ordered him to put it
down. Fie did and was arrested for
public intoxicadon.
34 5-19 98504~31 Suspicio~ person Officer responded to a call of two
subjects with a long gun. Officer
ch-~-~'~'~area on foot with his
21 5-22 ...... 98804644. Flurg/at~ Thc subject resisted a Cotalviilc
Investigator's attempt to stop him,
{ t :9 ~i'~ '~1- ,~,lf ~ hiwa City Officer g~ the subjec. /'s
arm and held it behind his back.
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
36 $-23 98804771 OW~ Officer ~ ~o~n ~
97 5-29 9~933 D~ ~ S~j~ fl~ on f~t wh~ k ~ mid .
fe~ held ~ do~. He ~-'
Lib~