Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2001 Articles CITY M 0 N DAY JAN. 15, 2001 ~ IOWA CITY, IOWA VOL. 118 NO. 6 50 CENTS AN EDITION OF GAZElTE COMMUNICATIONS I.C. police expecting accreditation this year IOWA CITY -- By the end of a month. AfLer that, the corn- the year, the Iowa City Police mission on accreditation wLll Department will be accredited schedule a hearing to review Capt. Tom Chief R.J. for the first time. all the requirements. Wldmer Wlnkelhake The department has been go- "By the end of 2001, it should Iowa City Police Depa~ment tug through the accreditation happen," Whnkelhake said. program for the past year and CALEA was established as a haft, overseen by the Corn- an independent accrediting au- now we're documenting whaL mission on Accreditation for thority in 1979. It measures we are doing." Law Enforcement Agencies nine major law enforcement Often, accredited depart- (CALEA). subjects: relationships with oth- ments fred it easier to put- "It's an elite status," said er agencies; organization and chase policy liability insuranpe, Capt. Tom Widmer. "A small administration; personnel and have lower insurance pre- minority of departments can slructure; personnel process; miums, according to CALEA. meet the standards." operations; operational support; But most of all, said Widmer, Five city police departments traffic operations; prisoner and being an accredited department in Iowa are CALEA-certified- court-retated activities; and gives police a certain level of Dubuque, Muscatine, Newton, technical services. bragging rights. Sioux City and West Des "They are recognized stan- "It makes a statement in the Mothes. The Marshall and Polk dards that police departments law eIfforcement conununity," county sheriffs deparl~ents should adhere to, and we're Widmer said. are also certified, as well as making sure Iowa City is meet- Iowa State University's Public tug all those standards," Wid- I~' Coff(act writer Nathan Hill at (319) Safety Department. mer said. "We're not finding 339-3170 or nathanhC~iowa.com Police Chief R.J. Wtukelhake anything we're not doing, but SATURDAY JAN. 13, 2001 IOWA CITY, IOWA VOL. 118 NO. 4 75 CENTS AN EDITION OF GAZETTE COMMUNfCATIONS Drunk driving busts up sharply Hike laid to I.C. police work,Drunk driving arrests rise in visits by out-of-~owners ~2oc~ ey ~owa city ponce Efin Walter 1000-~ 1,037 ~ Gazette staff writer 766 IOWA CITY More drunken driven were 800- 606 606 619 busted hem in 2000 than ever before due to 600- 523 increased police efforts and more drinkers ~'om out of town, police say. 400- Iowa City police arrested 1,037 people for 200- drunken driving this past year, making a huge jump from 766 in 10S'3. 0- "Information Eve received from officers is '95 '96 "97 '98 '99 ',00 that there is a lot more contact with people from source: Iowa city Police Department outside the community," said Sgt. Mike Brother- ton. "Iowa City has a lot of opportunities for charged in Iowa City was .153. recreational nightlife." The Iowa City POlice Department has also Of the overall number of drunken driving received outside funding for increased ~ic an*ests, 275 involved underage drinkers, wiffi patrols, Brotherton said, including a grant from the average age of those being 18. the Oovernor's Traffic So.feW Bureau. "We can Brotherton said the .large number of unclerage devote mote resources to the problem," he said arrests ~ 26 percent of the total -- reflects the of'drunken driving. fact that Iowa City has a number of bars that The local increase in arrests is contrary to admit minors. "Underage people are going into national statistics, which show a decline in the bars, and some are drinking," he said. recent years, Brotherton reported. Nearly 1.5 However, the number of people charged in million ck'ivers are arrested each year in the 2000 with possession of alcohol under the legal United States on suspicion of drunken driving. age dipped from the previous year, from 2,107 in Men made up 7S percent of those arrested in 1999 to 1,430 in 21300. Public intoxication charges 2000 in Iowa City for drunken driving. That's increased from 1,247 in 1999 to 1,356 last year. just under the state's average of four men Disorderly conduct and disorderly home convicted for every woman. charges increased slightly in 2000, to 2_,68 and The average blood alcohol content of those 293, respectively. · The Gazette, Fri., Jan. 3.2, 2001 '~, 2 officers join police force · The Iowa, City Bo]~ce Depa~ment has added two new police officers to its Officer Abe Schabjlion, ~, is a 1993 graduate from City High School who received his bachelor of arts de~e in psychology with a minor in sociology from the University of Iowa. Olflcer Michael Smithey, 26, is a 1992 graduate from city High School. He attended the UI and the University of Northern Iowa. He has earned his bachelor's degree in music education. Both off'lcers will be attending the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy 12-week trairdng school in Johnston. Upon successfill completion, both officers will undergo a 16-week field-training program with the Iowa City Police Department. The addition of Schabjllon and Smithey brings the number of sworn 'officers in the department to 7'3. They replace e~icers who left or retired. SI. Paul cowbell likely to fund study of racial profiling vQ/slwyg://I 2/http://w-,~-,v.starlribune.com/...i/qview,~gi?lcnq~late rolefro a&slng ~ Metro/Region Nation/World politics Business Sports Variety Opinion Fun & Games Talk ·-%~'].~' ~ Are you sitting down/J t4ETRO/REGION · Too,a St. Paul council likely to fund study of ~:} E-rnail t.is racial profiling story ~ Print Heron Marquez Estrada this page Star Tribune .o rind Thursday, January 25, 2001 related items Less than a month after St. Paul police released data showing they had searched negated black and Hispanic drivers at a much higher rate than whites, City Council members item(s) indicated Wednesday that they are likely to spend at least $100,000 to Fund D What's Minncsota's most comprehensive study of racial profiling next ', "I think we should do this study. l would hate to see us waste any time," said ', Council Member Kathy Lantry. "We need to show leadership," added Council Member Jerry Binkey. After a Wednesday morning session in which council members questioned Police Chief William Finney about the data collected last year, he was directed to prepare an estimate of how much it would cost to change or replace the department's computer software for a more systematic study. 'Tin sure it will be at least $100,000," said Council President Dan Bostrom. State Sen. Jane Ranurn, DFL-Minneapolis, who plans to introduce a bill calling for statewide studies of racial profiling, said St. Paul officials "are to be commended" for taking the lead on the issue. Finney will work with the council's Research Department and other parties to ' identify what data officers should record when making a traffic stop. The recommendations and the cost estimates are due next month. From April to December last year, the department asked officers to note the race and gender of people stopped, as well as whether that person was searched or ticketed. About 42,000 stops were recorded in about eight months. The data from those stops indicate that 19.6 percent of black drivers and 16.7 percent of Hispanic drivers were frisked or had their vehicles searched, compared with 85 percent of white drivers and 92 percent of Asian drivers. Finhey and other city officials said the data collected last year were limited and didn't answer several important questions. "This was a snapshot," Finncy said of last year's data. "This wasn't intended to be a study." So far, St. Paul and Minneapolis have been the only police departnmnts that have collected any data oa racial profiling. St. Paul instructed its officers to continue collecting data this year, while Minneapolis, which also did a data collection project last year, stopped when it ended Minneapolis police, who were found to have stopped more drivers who are I St. Ihxul co*l~cil likely to fund sludy o[ rm;ial I~roliling wysiwyg://121htll~://w~,w,starlribunc.com/..i/qvicw.cgi~lelnplalc:tnclro a~shlg :rac~ members of minority groups than white drivers, will begin collecting data again Feb. 1. St. Paul council members also directed Finney to testify on pending racial profiling legislation at the State Capitol. The two most prominent bills make participation in data collection voluntary. One of the bills would not require recording the identity of tile officer. Finney and council members said they favor mandatory participation and including the names of officers involved. Finney said the St. Paul data allowed him to identify six officers who were stopping only black motorists. Three were transferred from patrol duties, while the others agreed to make changes in how they determined which drivers to stop. St. Paul Police Federation president Brad Jacobsen said the union is willing to participate in the study and wants to help determine what data will be collected. "We aren't afraid of the results, because we don't believe we're racial profiling," Jacobsen said. i Heron Marquez Estrada can be reached at hme~staaribune. cont I' Return to top ~ © CopVdqht 2001 Star Tdbune. All rights reserved. .......................................... l' ....... l ....... l .... ~ ..... UNION By LYDIA POEGREEN, Staff writer ............ '~'=~ F,rsI pubhshed Friday. January 12. 2001 Police board bylaws offered Albany -- They emphasize board independeace in review of citizens' complaints Members of rite board that will hear and mvesftgale complaints of police miscondud gel a ~rsl peek ibe bylaws dml will govern lhe body Thursday evening, when Ihe 34-page documenl was p~esenled bylaws, which he sa~d emphasize the board's independence and commim~ent 1o reaching out to commundy members who m~ght not be aware of the Citizens' Police Review Board, or are aft'aid to approach it Itc cHcd lhc need to seek c~unsel From young people, a response m parl lo repealed complamls Ihal all board n~embers are ove~ age 30 The un~sy dance belween the Police Depamnenl and the board was evidenl al ll~e meelmg during a discussion of where lhe forms citizens will use to file complahns will be avadable Board member Mores ECson said a pohce sergcanl did Ilot want complainl forms to be avadable al the YM('A because he goes there wHh hm ch,ldren and does nol wahl lhem Io see lhe fi~rms Boa~d membc~ JudHb Mazza also described a h~,ely d~scussson she had wdh a pohce offtcer who voiced concerns aboul Ihe boa~d whde she was ~Khng along "l le expressed Ins mmg~mL~s aboul Ihc buasd, hc was concerned aboul Monday mornm~ quarlcrbackm~ what lhey do," Mazza saKI Ove~ Ihe course ol'/he slu~, however, Ihey Rmnd common ground, she sa~d "h~ o~dcr 1o mH~o~c lhe quahty of ht~ m the cHy all of us Iogclhe, o~ nolhm5" After prel imi nary approval of the bylaws in late January, the board plans to hold a hearing for public comment before sending them to the Common Council and the mayor for approval. ~ Send this story to a friend Return to Top 2 -1'2 1:12/(11 R 35 ::\~!!~;::::::~::~i;::~:;:;~ir,~ Home: News: T~xlay's Stodes 11MES -~,~=-~,~',=~ By MARV CERMAK, Staff writer Police-review backers hold vigil at City Hall Sche,,ectady -- More than lOO people turned outiFirst Monday at a candlelight vigil on the steps of City Hall urging the City Council to tbrm an independent civilian police revie~v board t .......................... "The issues are impartiality and seeking credible infi~rmation regarding complaints against officers," said 1 toward Sheffey, a retired 25-year New York City police sergeant and a member of the existing Police Objective Review Committee. About a dozed people, mainly members of the rally-sponsoring Capital Region Chapter of the New York Civil Liberlies Union, NAACP, county Ituman Rights ('oremission and the Committee for Social Justice, spoke during the peaceful, one-hour event Members of the groups have long complained that the existing review committee is not equipped to provide etTective oversight. Last June, the groups subn~ined a proposal to the City ('ouncil tbr a new Citizens Police Review Board with subpoena powers. Louise Roback, director of the Civil Liberties chapter, said lhat under the current system the police investigate the police. "lt's time tbr the City Council to call a public hearing on the issue. People aeed an impartial hoard," Roback said. The rally comes as a federal grand jury investigates corruption in the Police Department. In August, two police officers were indicted on drug distribution and extortion charges. However, Roback said there is no sign that the grand jury is looking into brutality charges Police Chief Gregory Kaczmarek, who was present at the rally, said the existing review committee has the option of turning over cases to the City Council if there is dissatisfaction with the police internal investigation. He said the council has subpoena powers, but he noted that the committee has never referred a case to the council. "We are willing to make stone changes with the existing program to facilitate some of their ideas," Kaczmarek said. Brian Wright, Human Rights Commission executive director, said he was concerned because police internal investigations over the years found problems with only three of 180 complaints. The Rev. Van Stuart said some people with complaints are reluctant to be interviewed by the police, but they would speak to a civilian board. "Justice has to work for the police and for those touched by the police it must be a two-way street," Stuart said. Ej!j Send this storV to a friend Return to Top Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board Municipal Building March 13,2001 ANDOUT 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 .............2448 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 PCR~9.8 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 (Cite 8,8: 8~ J. Crhl/. L & Crim*i.ology 544) ,,Tol.lrnn] Of Ctrlmi'r',n] L41w find Cl'qmi'nnlogy Winf, er 1997 Essay *544 ~DRIVING WX'fiLE BLAC~~ AND ~tJ. OTI~-R TRAFFIC O~r~SES: THE SUPREME COURT AND P~AL TRAFFIC STOPS David ,a. wn~is [FNal] C~py~i~ht ~ 1997 Northwestern U~iverstty School of Iaw; David .a. ~rs.vls ]L x~+~xiuction The Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States [FN1] could not have stuyx'ised O~[:~FYe~S Of f,~Le (~O1J:rt'B Fotlrth ~,mpx~rlm~]]~ jT3~.a~d.del~ee, I.G. Wh_v~.~ po]~ O~ ~ violations as a pretext to stop a car ,ha investigate lx~ible drug offenses; the offSeers h,~r] neith~ probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to stop the driver for narcotics Grimes. [FN2] In the Supr~n~- Cou~ the gover..~nnt advocated the 'could have' s~,~n:k any time the police could have sWpped the defpn~nnt for a train im~wtion, it does not matter {h-t police acb,-lly stopped him to investigate a crime for which the police ~sd little or no evidence. [FN3] The defense --~1 the Court to adopt a 'would have" rule: a seizure based on a tr-~c stop would only st~na if a reasonable officer would have mn~e thlm parti~,l~r stop. [FN4] The Court sided with the gove~m~-nt. If police witness a tr~c violation, the *545 Court said, they have the ~,~plest ,-~ clearest type of probable cause Imn~nAhle for a st~p. [FNS] Requirin~ more would foEe lewer com'ts to mnkp post hoc Fourth ~m~ndment jucl~nents based on eifl,~ the mb, j~t of a reasonable officer or the actual (perhaps ulterior) motives of the arrestln~ officer, neith~- one of which the Court caw as necessary, useful, or relevant to the task of jucl~tng the coDstitutionnlity of a seizure. [F~61 After Whren, courts will net ,nl~ whether police conducted a traffic stop because officers felt the occupants of the car were involved in some other cr~me about which they h,~ only a h,,~h; rather, once a driver commits a !nf?action, ibe officer's "real' purlx~ will ~ no difference at all. [1~17] For the sake of of argument, I will concede that the decision in Whren mnkes some sense, at least from the poini of view of jucBelnl ~amlni~tration But ~ynmlnt~ ~ caldlllly, When does more thsn opt for a more wor~nhle rule: it apl~oves two 818rmI.5 law enf0rceznex~ practices. Neither are secret; on the contrary, the law of search ~n~ seimxre hn~ x~lected both for a le~ ~m~. [FN8] But both represent profoundly ~nnSerous devel.opm~nts for a free society, especially one dedicated to the equal treatment of all citizens. First, the compre~en~ve scope of state tra~c codes m~k~s them extremely powerful Wols Whrem These codes reg-,I.+e the def~;l~ of driving in ways both big .ha =.~.1L obvious ..a In the most literal sense, no dfive~ can avoid vle1-u-_~ some traffic law during a short drive, even with the most careful attentiom Fairly read, Whren says th.t an~ tra~c violation can suppor~ a stop, no mattar what the real reason for it is; +/~i. m.k~S an~ c~tizen fair game for a stop, ~lr-ost any ~ir.~ a~v,vhere, vir~,Any at the whim of police. Given how important an activity driving has beconle in ArnP,rlcarA society, V~lren ~},-n8es the Fourt/1 A~ev,am,'ut's rule ~h,,, police znust have a mason *546 to forcibly iuierfere in our Im~4,,,=ss--solne !~- to suspect ~n'ongdoing ~l~,t is mc~e a h-,~h [FN9] Simply put, that rule no longer applies when a pe~on drives a car. This alone ahould worry us, but the second police practice W'm~n ax,~,oves is in fact far worse. It is thi~.~ Police will not ~ all drlvers to tretc stope in the ws~ Whren allows. Rathat, if past COpr. ~ West 1998 NO 0],im to 0~. U.S. Ciovt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page (Cite as: 87 J. Crb,t L. & Criminology 644, *554 ) Robinson decision [FN60] Nevertheless, the Court in Robinson fro,ha that the arrest alone justified the search. In other words, a full search can alw2ys follow a legi~m~te ~; that is, an arrest which police make for the purpose of apl~l~n~in~ an offe,k4~, not for the purpose of m,,,Irl,,~ the searc~ Thus, while the irfelevnney of the a'tual beliefs of the ot~cer is co,~=i~ent with the rest of Robinson, it hn--lly Se~,n~_ su!~tantial eno-5h to be the b~ of the de~on in Whren. Indeed, fi~n Whren ~hn+, precedent did net supply a ready answe~ to the question of how to handle pretextual stops. The opinion could have said (D our canes do not dictate which way to decide the. issue, so (2) we titink the 'could have" rule clearly prefenble for ressons of j,,~nl nflm~ration, police unden~n~b~5 of the rule, nnd crlme control. Whren is not its use of precedent, its facile logic, or its rejection of one proposed test for anothar. Reth~r, Whren's most troubling nspects Be in its implications-the In~edlble axnount of discrefio~n~y power it hnndg law enforcement without an~ check-n,~ what thi~ means for our everyday lives nnd our freedemn as citiseus. IT[ The Fotll~ ~m~nr]m~l~ s~n~ Trs:~ Comm~utators have criti~-_~l the Supr~ Court's Fourth .~m~am~nt jur~l~denco, with co,.~s~rable justification. As the Court luruhes between protecting what it considers bedrock Fourth Amen~rn~ut value~-the sanctity of the home, for e~m.nle [FN61]-nnd the ,,nd~wirable distasteful result of supprem~n_~ probatlve evidence of guilt, it hnm generated a hodgepodge of confiic~n.v rules so technical that law professors--let alone law enforuers- ~qnd them ditfxmlt to ,,nderstancL [FN62] Even se, some basic search ~ seizure rules .r~5 seem firmly eneconeed in the law. Perhaps thix iS because they are so fh~l~men+~ml that dlstm~ing thein woxlld ex'eate an eveIx larger doctrinal mess than the one th~ already ~a~s; perhn.ns it is because there is Ir~seni~lly two key rules, secure in the knowledge that they are accepted by the Court. First, the police must n~,~]ly have a reason to forcibly stop a person. [FN63] ~nen I say 'forcibly stop,' I de at mean the application of force to a sty, though ~h~t m~y be part of a seiztEre. ~ I mn not referring to casual encounters with police, in which a citizen is asked whether he or she wotl~d m~n~ t~]l~n~ to police. EVelI tho~,_~h it seems more ~h~n just plausible to argue that encounters always carry with them some element of coercion, [FN64] I am willing to accept, for the purposes of argument, the idea that such encounters r~n~n consensual. In contrast, a forcible stop is by its nature coercive. When a police ot~cer orders a ci~i~_n to halt, questi0n~ng, a search of some kind, or even arrest m~y follow. Police c~nnot force a citizen to stop ~nrl snl~m~ in ~h~n Way withOtlt probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed by the suspect. [FN65] The Supreme Cotxrt reafr~med this s~n~d just a few years ago in Minnesota v. Dickerson, [FN66] in which Justice V~rhito stated clearly that th~ rule h~H not changed. The police must still have a reason to force a citizen to stop ~n~ submit to their authoxity, something more than just a hunck [FN671 The other besic rule importani to our discussion is ~h~: if police *[~6 de not have the probable cause or reasonable suspicion necessary for a forcible stop, a citizen may i2n~re police requests to stop, respond to questions, produce iden~cation, or submit to ar~ further ~nt~tsion. The Supr~m~ Court has reiterated this rule in a number of cases stre~-h~ng over many years. For exam.hie, in Brown v. Texas, FFN68] police stopped a m~ in an area with a ~gh incidence of drug [FN69] because 'the situation 'locked suspicious and we h~ never seen [the] subject in that area before." [FN70] The officers arrested the nt~n .n~r a Texas statute ~h~t cr~m~n~l~ed any refusal to give police a nsrae and address upon a legit~m~te stop. [F~71] The S]lprelne CoIlrt invsBdated the Copr. e West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCPJ~C 5~ FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY P~e (Cite as: 87 J. Crlm~ L & Criminology 544, stRttltes 9~na dec/ared that no4:hin~ ixx the fact8 of the case ailowecl the ~ to rnnlrn a leg'jtim~te stop, even thp dofenSan~'S presence in all area known for narcotics tra~plHng, The defenaant hat1 every/ight to walic away Anrl to refuse to produce id~ntdfiea~ion in such a situation, A~t any law to the contrary dkl not meet constitutional signtiaras. [1~[72] The Court carried this doctrine forward in Florida v. Royor, [FN73] in whleh it stated that "[a citizen] may not be dot~in~cl even momentaffiy without reasonable, objective grmmd. for doing so; and his refusal to listen or Answer does not, without more, furni=h those grounds." 11~N74] A~q in Florida v. Bos~-i~ [FN751 the Court re~ffi~lled thi~ l~rin~i~e, declaring ~hA~ whi1~ the polke may question a person abo~t whom they have no IRl$1OiCiOn, "all ~ntllriChlal ~nay deel~n~ all o~s teq1328t withogt fe~ pr138ecntion" [FN76] To be 811ze, I have not ma~l~ file miK-t~qlc~ of 8~qxmlng that thege legal zq31e8 neceltaazily 3reflect reallty. I ~-nnw that even tl~m,gh the cases disc~umed here may gua~n~e citizens the tight to wa11~ away fi, om curious police without interference, the rigtxt may exist more in theory ~han in l=actice. [1i~T77] It m~y be that, the ~ appearance of authority-e557 ~hln~ ~ thnn the Officer's nnlfOrgl, badge iqnrl 8q13acl car, to gay l]o~hlng Of her weapon-will cause most people to do what abe says or answer her questions. But the point is that even if the law rprnaln~ lnoze all icleal th831 a~thlng else, the CoRrt'E pronouncements on the subject all poin~ in one dlxecfion' the police need at least reasonable suspicion to forcibly interfere with ons's movom-ut, And if they do not have it the c~tizen nmy walk away. Whren alteA-s all of thls for anyone drlving a car. Simply lint, it is dlmcult to ima~oine a more Am~-rican activity than drlv~ng a car. We use our cars for ever~h~n~w work (both aS tr~n,m30~tiOn to get to And from work an~ as mobile om,~ and sales platforms), play, and m3rrla~ o~her activities ~h.,, m.l~A up everyday life. Of ce13rse, m~n7 ,~mm-le~qn~ do ]lOt OW~ Call, And SOmo have even fO.nd it unnecessary to learn to drive. But ~hl. is not the norm. Most .~mm~can kids date their Am.rgence fi, om adolescence not fixnn high school grad,,at~nu or a rellgious or cultural ce~mony, but from somef. hlng far more central to what they really value: the day they receive ~h~ir drlvor's licenses. Amm'icans visiting Europe for the fwst time often return with the observation that one can get to and f~om almOb~t ~ little town entirely ~ p~hli~ tr~nmpOrt~tiOn ERropea~8 Vi~tln~ AzDerlca are often surprisea at the )~ of public trampo~Son facilities ana options out~ido of major urball centers, an&at the sizeable cities that nd~ ,ei,~Ay on automobile transportation Despite energy crises, tr~c congestion, and the expense of ownlng a car, most Americans prefer to drive wherever they go. [FN78] In abort, ~h~e are few aetivitiss more important to ,&,ha,irOn life than driving. [FN79] With that in mlncl~ consider traffic code~ The~e is no detail of dtivlng too ~ll~ no piece of equipment too In~gnificant, no item of automobile regulation too arcane to be made the subject of a tragic. *558 offense. Police officers in some jmisdictions have a rule of tb~nnh~ the average driver p~qnn~t gO th-~ee blocks without violating Borne trat~c regulation. Reading the codes, it is han:l to ~; the qlledtion i8 how al3~oDe ceLlld get a8 fRr as three block8 without vi0]-tln_~ the law. When we ~h~nl~ of traffic offenses, we ~h~nk Of "moving violations"-excee41n_~ the speed llvnlt, cro~'~ng dlvidlng lines, and the lil~n. But in fact traffic codes regulate many other aspects of driving. related activity, incb~dlng some that seem ~lmndt wildly ~hnical. Ant18olne of these offenseB have nothing to do with cttiving at all. Rather, they are "eclul,rannut violations"- offenses in wkich driving with incorrect, outdated, or broken equipmen~ constitutes the violation And then there are catch-all provisions: rules that allow polke to stop driven for conduct that complies with all rules on the books, but that officer8 col~slder "i~lprtutent" or wlnlreadOnahle" nna~r the cil~rmk'tan~e8, Or that dedcrlbe the offense in lal~n~age so broad as to malr~ a violation vil~ally coextensive with the officer's unreviewable personal ~nH_mnent. ColDr. e West 1998 No Claim to Orlg. U.S. Govt. Works 4 ® 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page (Cite ~s: 8'~ J. Crim. L. & Crlml-ology 544, *558) For e~rnple, in aa~ number of jurisdictions, police can stop drivers not only for driving too fss~, but , for driving too slow. [FNS0] In Utah, drivers must s~gna] for at least three sewna~ berate lanes; a two second si~nl would violato the law. [FNSI] In m~ny states, a driver must ~ for at least one l~,,~,~d feet b~fere 121rnln~ ri~lt; n~T~ty-~ve feet woBld mnl~ the driver a offender. [FN82] And the driver ,~i~ that right turn may mt slow don "suddenly' (uade~,~D without [FNS~] Many.states hve made it a c~m~ to drive with a mil]t~lxl~onln~ ~]]]~]~t, [FI~4] a l~ar-tll~ i]]~rm~n~on blllb that does not work, [1~N8,5] or $669 tires withollt 2~Meiellt tread. [F~T86] They also require drivers to display not only license tags, but yearly v~Bri~ion stickers, pollution control stickers, nna safety inspection stiel~s; drivil~ without these it~m~ displl~ed on the vehicle in the proper place violates the law. [FN87] If few drivers are aware of the true scope af traffic codes and the I~rn~tless o~ties they give statements by police officers that follow come f~om a book written in 1967: You can always get a guy le~fimAtely Oll a tra~c violation if you taft ]~im for a while, nna then a search c~n he m YOU don't have to follow a driver very lox~ before he will move to the o~h~ side of the yellow An~ then you can arr~st n~] search him for drivi~ o~1 the wroz~ side of the hi~way. In the even~ ~h~, we see a suspi~ous OUtomobile or oea~pa~ A~a wish to seefeb the person or the car, or both~ we will uw~A11y follow the vehicle ~11 the drivor mnl=~s a torlq~Ir~l violation of a law. Th~n we have a n~ans of ~nl~n~ a le~mate seer~h. [FN88~ These officers m~y not fully -~a~st~n~ search n~ seizure law; for e~nmple, even in 1967, it wss far from dear that a search wukl follow any trat~ sWp that police 'le~ly' ma~e. But they driver a~ ~mnl The n~st th~ officer wi~ have to do is 'tail [a driver] for a while,' and probable But the existe~e of pow~ful n~ unreviewable police discretion to sWp drivers is no~ the most disturl~n~ aspe~ of Whre~ Tha~ dubious henor is reserved for the ways in whiah the police w~ use this disoretio~. *SEOIV. WhoWfilBe SWpped? Ome we ~m~ers~na that Whren ~ permit police to sWp a~ono dr~vi~ a ear whenever observe the ever-present ~iolations of the traffic eo~ie, the q~_ssl~on beeomos who the poli~e will stop. driver at ~il~lly any ~m~, everyono faces ~ risk of a pretextllal stop. But whfie Wh~en certainly m~s i~ posstble for the police to sWp a~one, the fa~t is that police will not sWp just anyone. In fact, po]j~:e wi]] use ~ imnlense disa-e~onary power Whren ~ives ~h~m mostiy to stop African- motivations. Tlun~h some will, I believe most wfil not. Rather, my poht is that whatvet their motivation, viewed as a whole, pretextu~ sWps will be used s~nln~ Af~isan-~m~rie~n~ Anal Hispanics in percensuSes wilclly ou~ of propo~on to their rnrmhen in ti~ dri~in~ populatio~ ~t May ~ hehl~ha~ ~ mn~e this ne~iOll as a fact, In fact, ~ I~ the ir~n~] of gathered nn~ nnalyzed data anyone mnl~n~ such a stat~smen~ would prefer to have. This is because virtually no one--no in~ivldua], no police dep~l.-!~t, n~ no o~1~. ~ove~,~-~lt aZeney--has ever kel~t Color. · West 1998 No C. ln~rn to OtiS. U.S. Govt. Works 5 ® 87 JCRI,C 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 8 (Cite as: 8~ J. CrinL L & Crlmlnolo2y 544, '560) corn.n,'ehex~ve statistics on who police stop: bn~ for the stop, race of suspect, type of police activity after stop (e.g., questlon~n~, sesrch of suspect, search of car, use of drug-'m~,L~ dog, whe~_-h~? consex~ was given), ~a the ~ Of course, one type of record does follow some percentage of stops: tr~. tickets ~nd warnln~s, ~,,~1 srrest, eh~ing ~ prosecution records of those suspects police ~nel with contrab~nrl But looidn_~ only at the records of those nhn,~,ed nnrl prosecuted can m~dead, ~n8 says nO~:hln~ about the many O~h~r StopS t~at result in no ticket nnr~ yield no con:h'ab~n~] Even se, infornlatlon uncovered in the last £ew years ha, begun to .h~:l light on the use of n~r~nnS quite well already: police use traf~c regulations to investigate many inn~l!~ cltizells; these investigations, which ere often quite intrusive, concern dru2s, not tr~.; A,~ African- Americans n,~ l~i~anics are the targets of choice for law enf_or~m~ So even if we tn~ sys~nlc data, we now have somethb~E that eive~ us a at,v~ ~,~cation of current law enforcement realities ~thedirectlonoffuturetre,~; We can comf~ably predlct the effect of Wbre~ pollce wfll use the case to justhry nnr~ exp~r~ dru~ interdiction efforts a~A~nzt.people of color. ' Here are four different stories of pretextual stops. They origh~to from different areas of the conY~-~-y: Florida in the South, M~n-y]A~f~ in e561 the Northeast, ~|~n~is in the l~fidwest, ~nr] Colorado in the West. All involve i,Y]~pendent police agencies. Other stories of this type of police activity exist, [FN89] but those presented here are amon~ the best do~m~ute~ EAch of t~h~ t~h~s the same lesson. And with Whren on the books, we should ~.xl~ct mnre of what these stories tell, not less. a. vohmia county, florida Located in central Florida, Voh,~n Gouty surr~,,~- a busy stretch of Interstate 9S. In the late 1980's, thl. portion of highway became the focus of ,~n~-rtff Bob Vo~el n,~ his deputies. U~nE a Eroup of officers called the Selective Erfforc~m~nt Team, VoEel operated a m~jor dru~ interdiction effort a~t drivers movln~ narcotics by car thro~_-,~ his jurisdiction. [FNg0] The deputies ~,~d not only to make arrests, but to m~ seizures of cash ~n~ vehicles, which their agency would keep. [FN91] As with xr~st police agencies, the Vob,~ Co, m~y Sheriff's Depa, ~-,~nt did not keep records of stopS n~ searches in which no arrests or seizures occ~i in the three years that the Selective E,~orcement Team operated. [FN921 Thus no one might ever have learned about the Selective Enforcement Team's practices, except for one th~,~ VOIn~A Count_deputies' were cars ~tt~ with video cameras. [FN93] Deputies taped some of the 1-95 stopS; ,,~ng Florida's ~|~.l~-n,~- ~w, The ]~A~ Se,~el OF~n~i t48 ~ ~fT~e wdeotapos. [FN94] Deputies made no tapes for much of the duration of the interdiction effort, nn~ they seme~m~s taped over previously recorded stopS. [FN95] But the tapes the no~sp~per ob~i~i d~cumented ~],~ost 1,100 stopS, n,~ they ~h~wed a First, even thonEh African-Americans nnd ~gpanics mA~ up only about five percent of the drivers on the county's stretch I-gS, [PNg ] * 62 more seventy percent all drivers stopped were either Afi'ican- American or Hispn,~P~. [FN97] The tapes put this in stark terms. One African- American mn~ said he was stopped seven t~mRs by pelice; aunther said that he was stopped twice within minuteS. LOOldn5 at ~tres for all of Florida, seventy percent is vas&ly out of proportion to the percentage of Blacks amon~ Flori~liAn~ of clrivin~ age (11.7 perce~), the l~cen~ee of Blacks amoag all Florida drivers convicted of traffic offenses in 1991 (15.1 percent), or to the percen~e of Blacks in the mtion's population as a whole (12 percent). [FN98] 0~i.m~mics rn,~ up about nlna percent of the population). [11~T991 Second, the deputies not only stvpla~cl b]s~ ,,~t HisIwnle, drivers more oix~en than White6; they a121o stopped them for lox~er periods of t4m~. Accc~!In_~ to the videotapes, deputies det~in~cl Bl~ek~ and ]~imj~nics for twice as loz~ as they de~,ir~d whites. Collr. c West 1998 No C]~im to OtiS. U.S. Govt. Works ® 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Pege 9 (Cite ns: 8'/J. Crim. L. & Crlmlnelogy 544, [FNIO0] Third, the tapes showed that police followed a stop with a search roughly hs_lf the tilne; eighty pereeni of the cars searched belonged to Black or Hispanic drive: [FNi01] It shotrid not suxlndse anyone to l~nw float deputies said they m~a~ these 1,100 stops based on 'le2itlm~te tr~t~c violations' [FN102I Violations ran~ed frem 'swervia2' (243), to exneedin2 the speed llrnlt by up to ten miles per hour (128), burned~ut license ta~ li2hts (71), improper license ta~s (46), failure to ~ before a lsn~ nl~n~e (45), to a ~mA~xinll of otl~s. [l~l103] Even se, only of tl~. ~^o-ly cloven l~,,n~ ~,ivers stol~ed- considerably less ~1~,~ one t~cen~x~cex~m[~l~ts, [FN104] and deputies even released several drivers who ~am~ed to crimes, ixkgn~in_~ d~,~k dri~I, without an~ ~l~-,llas. [FN105] The tapes also showed that the seizure of ~ r~m.ln~l an importax~ druSs. [FN106] With rei~ord to the seizures *~s6a of cash, race also played a role: Ninety percent of the drivere from whom ~s]~ was taken, hot who were net arrested, were BI~,I~ or tti~i0anic. [FN107] work. Prior to the release of the tapes, he stated f_-l~nt the stops were net based on skin color ~n~ deputies stopped 'a bread spectrum of people.' [FN108] The tapes eventu~Ally led to two lawsuits in federal court in which plaintiffs allelled violations of their civil rights because they were targeted for stops on the b~i. of their race. [l~T109] In both cases, a jud2e refused to certi~ a ~l~a~ of all mln~rity citizens illellally stopped; this resulted in the Si~ni~l of the cases when they went to trial. [FNll0] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Afi~,med the ~i~ni~.~l~ [FNlll] The experience of drivers in Voln_~i~ COuxLty SHOWS what we can expect ~nr]~P Whren. Police will use traffic rellulations as an excuse to stop drivers they suspect of narcotics tr~t~i~kin~, ~n~ most of those stopped will be people of color. Of course, tl~i~ is exactly the type of pelice activity tl~.t African- A,n~icans and Hispanics have compl-i,~l of for years, but few have listeneeL b. robert wilkins and the m~ryl~n~ state police [FNll2] In the early mornli~ hours of May 8, 1992, a Maryland State Police officer stupl.~d a new rental car carryi~ four African-Americans on Interstate 68. The four, all relatives, were retar~-_~ to the WashiI]~ll, D.C. area ~ a family mewraber'S fnn~ll in Chical~o. [FNll3] After *~264 obtainin~ the driver's license, the officer .~l~d the driver to step out of the car nn~] ~ a form ~ivin~ consent to a sea [FNll4] At that point, Robert Wilkin% one of the passengers in the car, identified himself as an attorney with a 9:30 arn court appearance in the District of Cohunhia Superior Coaxt. Wilkin~ told the officer that he had no right to search the car without arfestln~ the driver;, the officer replied that such searches were 'reutine.~ ~ all, the officer said, if Wilkin~ ~ his relatives had 'n~thln~ t~ hide, then what [was] the x~oblem?' tFNllS] Another officer joined the first, ~n~! they det-~in~d the l~roup for an additional ~lf hour while otl~ officers brought a dru2-~ll~n~ dell to the scene. [FNll6] The driver A~ked whether he would receive a ticket; the officer said he would only ~ive the driver a war~in~. The driver ~.l~ed that the warninL· be written so that the 2roup could leave, and Wilkin~ asserted that continued detention in order to hrin~ the dog violated the Constitution; the officer ignored both of them. [FNllT] When the dell arrived, the officers ordered Willtins and his relatives Out Of the car, despite their expressed fears of the doll ~nd the fact that it was raining. [FNllS] They were forced to stand in the rain as the dell sniffed in .nrt aro~,nd the car. [FNllg] When the do~ failed to react in any way, Wilkin~ Anft the others were then allowed b~-k in the car--while the officer who had stopped thAm Wrote the ckv~var a $105 speeriln~ _flP_-kAt. Civil rights lawyers semenimps say that despite the volume of cOmplAints they receive about racially biased tryPat stops, victlm~ of till. trea_~n~nt feel reluctant to become plaintiffs in lellal actions for redress. [FN121] Perhaps they fear retaliation; of_-l~rs may want to avoid the hasale of Copr. c West 1998 No Claim to 0rill. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCP, LC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 10 (Cite as: 8~ J. Crim. L & Crlrn~nolo~y 544, *664) beeom~ involved in a very publi~ way in complex sn~ often politically ~h,rged litigation Still . so with Eober~ Wllldn~. A H~rvard Law School gradual, Willd~ worked as a public (!efe~r for the highly-reSarded Public Dde~- Service in W~-~oton, D.C. [FN122] As an attorney with an a~tlve praY;ice in arlmi~n] law, he was 1~o dollbf; thoroughly fnrn~Bn~ with the law that ~overned the situation ill Whirh he nnrl his fnm]]y m~mhel~ fo~,nel the:Mselves. [1~N123] The p~spect of public ]iti~atiolx ~n~n~'t a police a~en~y obvloll~ly did zlot st. Are ~m II)aivicl~nlly mncl On behalf of a Of 811 O~ther~ ~reat~ ~im~l~ly, he ~ hie family rn~mherS sued the l~Laryln~4 Sf~t~_ Poli~e, supervisory n~rl caromand personal at the a~ency, az~ the ~n~ividual officers involvecL They elleZecl civil rights violations ,r~ oth~ wrongs, statene that the officers hn.4 file~a]~ stopped and detnln~d them on the basis of a ~rofile' that targeted people based on their race. [FN124] State Police off]~i,l, denied Wll~.' alle~ations; a epoke~-~ said the practice of stoppi~ .a cljsproportiona~e n~mher of bln~lr. ~m.~ly represented "an unforfa.nnf~ b~pro~uet of so~,nrl police policies.' [FN125] The implication was clear:. African-Amaricsns COmmit the maSt Crime; tO crlm~, we must stop African- Ame~can~, OffieiAl~ ~ t.l~i, supposedly race-neutral explsnation even in the face of an offi~inl do~rm-nt that surfaced durin~ litillation. Dated just days before the State Police officers stopped Wilidn~ s~M his family m~ml',erS, it warned officers operatix~ "desJ. ers Anrl oolJriel-s (tr~lr~rS) [whO] are predominantly bl~ek males ,tuna bl~k f~m-)es .... The case event~,nlJy produced a sett]~nent, in which the Maryland State Police a~reed not to use any race-based dru~ courier profiles sn~ to cease .~in5 'race as a factor for the development of policies for stopping, det~inlnS, sn~] seal~l~InE lnotorists.s FFN1271 The State Police also agreed to contiller tralnlnE that woxl]d reflect the prohibition on the use of race sis both depaf~n,ental l)olicy and state law, [FN1281 And to pay monetary R~rn-~eS nna attorney's feea [FN129] Perhaps more significantly, the State Police agreed that for a period of three years, they woulch mnlnt:aill computer records of all stops in which a consent to search was given by a motorist stopped on any Ma~land roadway by the Maryland State Police snd all stops on any Marytan~] roadway by Marylsnd State Police in which a search by Ix dru~letectln5 dog is made, srnlnlm~lly eft66 including in s. eh records: date, time, anR location of consent or search, nnrn~ of officer(s) requessnS consent to search or direc~S search by drull ~ race of persons(s) stopped, de,.in,~l, or searched; year mnk~ and model of vehicle; nnS iJrc~,nS~ for requestln5 that consent to search be given or search by drull dog rn~R~, if any.' [FN130] The State Police have, in fact, mRin{~nnc]. these records, alld b'Bhmltted ~]~m tO the colirt. The latest ~Sures available trn~k stops followed by consent seas snd dog sniffs from January 1995 through June 1996, and they bear a strilrln~ similarity to the information revealed by the Vol~In Count~ videotapes. Of the 732 citizens detnln~l nnfl searched by the Maryl~,~ State Police, were African-Americans, --~ 6% were Hispanics. [FN131] The Maryl.-fl numbers are also broken don by officer, of the twelve officers involved, six stopped over 80% African-Americans, one stopped over 95% African- Amnrlcans, and two stopped only African-Americans. [FN1321 Bssed on information, provided to the court by the State Police, the plnln,lt~s ~nR their attorneys are preparin~ to reopen the litigation, as the Settlement Agreement allows. [FN1331 Sad to say, the numbers show that very little has -~-nSed, despite the Wilki,~s suit and the Settlemenf Agreement. [FN134] c. peso chavez 9n~] the illlnnis state police Durin~ recent years, African-Am~icans And Hispanics have made h~,n~trecls of complnlnts to the 1]linnls affiliate of the American Civil Libel-ties Union, a]J.e~il~ flint the rllinnis State Police taxJeted them for ixretextual traffic stops. [FN135] The .~C.L.U. even~,-lly filed suit; a *~6~ Colft. e West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 11 (Cite as: 87 J. Crlm: L. & Criminology 544, '56~) nnmad Peso Chavez becalzxe the lead pl=in~ff, However, Mr. Chavez's 1994 encounter with the 1111n~i6 State PoTLice did not happen by Chavez was a private investigator with tweat~ years of expex4.nee .rid a former elected affiehl in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In 1994, a lawyer for an Hispanic mnn who alleged that 1111nnis State Polke had stopped hi~ fiegaily hired Chavez to drive a late model sedan across areaS Of llllnniS that been the source of compln~n~ of filegsl stops n~R searches of mln~rity nmtoris~. [FN136] The called for Chavez, a mmn With 811 l~isS)SlliC appes~, to drive Ca!ltioBfly, f~ldng ~ not to break the trmme lawl; a parslegal in .nnther csr would follow at a distance to observe his driving. The idea was a "reverse stlnS* [FN137]-an attempt to catch police in the act 0fmsaJrjtlg i~leg8] 8t01~ Imvlt~ searches. On February 18, 1993, in Burram County, 1111~n~s, O~ ThomaA of the 1111~nis State Police began to follow Chavez. He follolp!red Chavez for twelx~ miles, throngh Bureau and V~,qalie Co-v~les. [Fl~T188] Event~amlly, Timram. activated his ~m~lency lights mn~ pulled Chavsz over. [FN139] Thomas was soon joined at the scene by nnother officer. ~ Thomas told Chavez ~hm+, he had stopped him for a trs~ violation, a~d asked Chavez for his license ~n~ rental agreement. Chavez supplied both. [FN140] After questionln~ Chavez, Thorna~ gave Chavez a warning for ~millng to Signal when ph~nglng lav~_~. This Impposed infnXCtiOn was an obvious and llnfm~el~d pretext for the stop; the parslegs] following Chevez saw no such w'olafion. [FN141] The ~h.~r o~cer th~n Chnvez if he c0ll]~ ses_vTJx ~is car. Chavez mlirm~ Whekhm, he had to 8]Jow the se8rch; the o~_PeP ssjd t:hsat he wsDjed 8 dl*ljg-s~niffing dog to wmllr 8roa,nf] Chsvez' csr. Chevez nnsaTdjv0CS~ refiJJed and -.~cl to be allowed to leave. but the ofi~cen de+~b~l him [FN142] Anot. h~- officer then led a dog aro=md Chavez' ~ the officen told Chavez that the dog had "alerted" to the presence of ns~otlcs, and ordered him into the back seat of a lmtrol car. [FN143] For the ne~ hour, Chavez wat~h~l as the interior, tvm~ and engine comp~t..~.~xt of hls car were thoreuEhly searched. The police opened his "568 luggage and searched through his personal possessions. [FN144] Meanwhile, an o~cer in the patrol car with Chavez questioned him about his personal life. [FN145] The police fo~md nothing, sn~ eventually allowed Chevez to have. [FN146] Despite his ba~l%o~ound as an investigator, his gover~m~ut experience, and the knowledge that he was part of a reverse stlng~ Chavez fo-,,d the experience more +.ha~ ,annoying. Wat~hln_ff police search his car and being told that the dog had detected drugs, Chavez said, "I be~am~ very f~ightenecl at what was happening I llevor hnrl lily mOUth as dry as it was-it was lilr~ cotto~' [FN147] Chevez is new the n~m~cl plnintlt~ in a lawsuit in federal court that seeks inkrun'dye relief agaln~t the State Police to stop racially based searches and seizures, as wed as other relief anti The suit seeks certification of a class of persons subjected to the ssm~ treatment. Msny other African- .a,m~rlcans nna Hisl~ni~s who were subjected to illegal stops ana searches have become named p}~inf~t~FS. [FI~148] At thls Wrlf~nS, c[iscovery is OllgoilIg. [FN1491 cL eagle county, colorado In the late 1980's, the Eagle County, Colorado Shariffs Depa,!-...~nt establi~h~d a highway drug interdiction ,,nit. The "High CW,nt=ey Drug Task Forces used a drug courlor profde mna~ up of twenty-two "i~dlcators" to stop cars along Intarstate 70; prominent ~mnng them was "race or ethnicity, based on 'intelligence information' f~mn othnr law agencies .... "[FN1501 Althongh the Task Force used traffic infi'actions as a pretext to stop mnny people, not one person received a ticket. [FN1511 The story of one of the people stopped speslr. volumes about what happened in Eagle County. On May 3, 1989, Eagle Cw,n~y deputies stopped Jhenita Whitfield as she drove from San Diego to Cotxr. c West 1998 No Claim to Ori_g. U.S. Govt. Works ® 87 JCRLG 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 12 (Cite as: 87 J. Crim. L. & Crlm;nology 544, *569) Denver *569 to visit relatives. With her were her sister ~nel their four fhil4rel~ [Flq152] A disabled , vehicle in the roadway forced them tO eh~nffe lgn~=: soon after, an officer pulled them over for fgilln~ to sig~-I before .h.~_~ng I~s. [FN153] The deputies told her explicitiy that she "'fit the profile' of a posei. ble drug x',mn,~'/' and nsked fitlilly cmald som'dx her car. [FN1M] Wlxiff{eld ws. nted ~ ~, but felt conceraed that if _eh~ did, she m{~h,, be "set up.' [1~T155] She also felt she had n~ choice because the children were hungry anti one needed to use a bathroom, so she consenteeL [FN156] The experiew. e left Whlt~eld, an Af~ican-.~m~rican, =halr~n, and it has ~hA,~ffed her life in a 81g~i~e~P~-l~ way. Despite the fact that she has fnmily out of towa, ~h~ does not visit them "I do not travel anymore," she sedd. [FN157] Seven people who, like Jhenita Whirfield, hnd been stopped by Eagle County deputies ~ed a nlmas action suit in 1990, ~.l~n~ the court to halt the Ta.l~ Force's In~ce of race-based profile stops. [FN158] The court event~,nlly certified a ela~ IX~naIK~Jn~ Of 400 i~41Vk]nal{ who ~ ]~en 5JoppetL [FN159] Among them were African-A~,~s a~3 a large ~her of ~i~nice, who alleged that deputies stopped the~ because of ~i~ e~nlcity. [FN160] In No~--.h~r of 1993, a federal court ruled Jh~t the Tssk Force h~ violated censtitutienal protections against unreasonable searches an~ ~a~affes to each person searched, amm~,~ to a total of $800,000. The Couuty also agreed to a~n~n the Ta~ Force program. an~ agreed not to stop, seal seise evidence or do~jn a poa~on "unlese thee is SOme objective reaSOnable suspicion that the po~on has done some~hi~ wrong? [FN161] *570 groups in disproportionate ,~-~l~ere. Police have done it in the recent l~st; in the Marylan~ ca~e~ police continue to do SO despite a SOttlelnent re~zJ~d in a ceurt order sl~j~ca~y l~"ohlbjtj-~ these I~'actice$. Whren insulates ~i~ activity by prenDuming any stop for a tr~me violation l~ropor ~n~ reasonable, whatove~ its real purpose. But seeing the big picture should net l~reveut us ~m ~n~ what effect l~retoxtual stops have on the i'lrlttiViChlalR Who expedence them. The answm' hiE'nliffhts the hidden cost of raelally Rlrpwed law enforcement techniques in a l~rofonnd way. For tho~ stoppe~ the fitnation tony produ~ fear, nn~er, b~rmillation, and even rage. Jhenlta Whit~eld, the Aftcan-American womn- stopped in Eagle County, l~a~ given up travelllnff because ~h~ else hacl to ]:)~lan~.~ ~ dosire not to w,hmit to a seardx agai~ her fear tha~ not coxmsem'~d={ng would lead the police to l~an~ evidence on her. [1~T162] PeSO Chave~, the experienced investigator stopped while d~vlxlg throl~li 1111'nnis, h~W he hnet no llareotice With hlm~ Irn~W he had a Wit;13ese to prove that he had broken no laws, and knew an~ insisted upon kis rights. Still, his mouth went dry with fear as officers reported thnt a dog been alerted to drugs in kis car and the officen ln'oceeded to search thxough the car and his privets effects. 11~T163] Robert WillclnR and his family m~rn~ere, fOl'P~d to Stand in the rnln whfie a dog ~nm'ed thzon~h their ear, felt dograa~ "You can't irna~ine the anger ~ne] E~wnilletion I felt duriz~ the entire epis~t_e," said Acp~l~ Abd~llah~ a peseengor in the car with Willrln~ that, niffht. [FN164] Wilkin= himnell expressed a sense of helplessness. "Part of me feeis 111~ there is ne~hln~ that I could have done to prevent what happelled. Yol~ know, 'I We8 eftaim and reSl{)~'3tf13.1 to ~ police. I triad to explain to the officer what my rights are." [FN165] Beyond the twice paid by the person stopped, other Afi'ic~n-Amm~cans and l~igpanice feel the effects, too. Because these pretextual police stops of blacks are so common-- fnqueut enough to eara the .~me 'driving while blaelc"_many Afi'ican- Amerismss regularly modify the most casual aspects of their driving b~havior, travel itlnnyaries, and even their personal Copr. e West 1998 No Claim to 0rig. U.S. Govt. Works 10 IVdl k ll, XV - 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USI~ ONLY Ps~e (Cite as: 87 J. ~ L. & Crh~i-ololly 544, *570) appearing., te avoid police contact. ~qnllm Muwslrlril~ S, zlsr~a~mlC sna jOurnali~t, lV[idwest ill a l~nd~i~:ript ~ car, strictly obeys the speed llmlt, and n~vel' weals bib b(~t b the wheel. [FN1661 Before he stloptsd this stra~, police twpped MuwnlaH1 so d~n th.t *671 he would compute the time these sWps Wok into his travel llm~_, [lrN167] When lawyer ..a lobbylet Wade Hena~son drives from Washln_~on, D.C., to Ri~hmnnd, Virglnla~ W tegeh~ he eschews rental cars for censorvative ones, even though he is graying ..d wears a suit. [FN1681 Others re.L.i~,~ their movemems; they avoid driving in areas whe~ a black person attracts "ms." [FI~169] Ana when police stop Christo~nh~r Darden, one of the l~rceeentors in the O.J. -qlmpSOn case, he move, keeps his hnnti~ on the wheel, Rnd malrpS no s.~ad~n gem; he calls these 'African American survival t~ehnlclues." [Fi~I?0] But perhaps we Ifll(n~|d ~rnmlnp the ~ ~ anoth~ pell~3ec~ve: that of law eilfolY.~nleI~. [FN1711 ~n~ that-outlook would no doubt seem quite difforemt from what. I have said so far. In a ~ell, it is this: SWppinl/a disproportionnte number of Afriean-Amerie~ns is not r~i~t; it is jus~ plain geod police work Alter all, Afriean-.~m~Pi~.. malr~ up a large ~-~e of those arrest~l, ptO~eC~lt~d nnd jail~l in thi~ C0asnb'y. Polise irnnw jails are f'uli of e~imlnsl~ 8 stlb6I'~nti~l portion of whom are blnei% and that a high perce!Itage of black mn|ce al~ ~ndn. the ceil[to] of the a4rnin~l justice w/stem in one way or anotl~. [1~11721 The police have no interest in ha~i~_a bls~_l= or ltlnpanlc people; rather, their motivation rnnaln~ the app~,~.henslon of ~l, lmlnal=. P, ac~ Blay play a part in law enforcement, but only as a proX~ for a hi_ah~ probability of c~Imlnnl aci;ivi~. In words, rnelal disparities in stops ~nd searehss are nothln5 more than san unf~rt~,nnie l,y~uduct of so~md police policies.' [FN1731 Lt. Col. Ernest Lesth~tnry, commnnd~? of field operations for the Maryland State Police, puts it this wa~. 'The facts speak for themselves... [Wlhen you got a hleh number of these consent searches resultlns in drull m'rests do we in law enfercemem or the public want to say the state police should dln~i..,o these searches?* [F1~174] In oth~-~ words, polise target blacks and Bim2anice because they are the rlghl ones, nna this te~hnlclue gets results. · 572 if it works, we shotrid not let the ~i__n~ of sosreh and seizure law get in the way of the bed guys. But this argument centnlns a flaw, and it is not a rtmnll one. ]~,hlnd the rac6-nelltra] IRasone police give lies a stark truttL When officers stop disproportionate m~mbers of Afrlean-~meri~-- beeas this is *juet good police work,' they are usin~ raee as a proXy for the C~'imlnsllty Or *~enetal C:rlmlns~l prOponsity' of an en~ire raciel group. [FN175] Simply put, police are targeti,,5 all African- Anlericalls because sollie s/e criminals. In __n~ellee, this thlnirln~ predlets that all blnnlrs, as a Rl'otlp, ghare a general propeBslty te commi~, c~imns Therefore, having bla~k skill becoInes enengh-perha~ns along with a l~inimal l~a~mhet of other f~;ol~ perhaps nlone-fol. law enfol'cenlent to stop and selneone. Under this view, sll blselr CjHs~e beoolne llrobab]e crlmlnsln--stlspeets the mlnllte they venture out of their homes. The wron~headedness snrl unfairness of treatln~ all members of a ~roup as crimlnnl~ ~ becanse some are seems obvious. But even if net everyone feeis thi~ way, treating race as a proXy for Cl'im]ns~]ity 6Ll~erB fl'om other Berio11s pl~ble]:[B. Fir~, iInplicit in this view is the 8B~lBlption that blacks ere disproportionately mere li~ely th.n whites and others to he involved with street crlm~-s. [F1%!176] Even if this is true, Af~ican-Amerie~n~ being more likely thnn whites to be involved in steer crime is a far cry from any evidence that would strongly suppor~ the assertion that any particular black person is cemmi~ine a crime. Yet that is the way police use this infonnatlo~ SeconcL even if we accept the assumption of the dislm)pm~;ionate involvement of bl.~k~ in street crime, police still greatly overes~;mat~. the value of race as a predictor of crlmlnnl ~haviOr. [FN177] Usln5 race as a prox~ for Crlmlnallt;y may reslllt in "double countln5," [F1%1178] If, for ezample, orlmln.l involvement is strongly correlated with poverty, with presence in so~alled "high crime areas," or with both, nnd if African- Americans are disproportionately Ix)or ~n~ living in neighborhoods, [Fl%T179] race would add little tea police ofl~cer's ability to predict crlnqlnn] COlOr. ~ West 199~ No Cl~Im to Orig. lff. S. Gov~. Works 87 JOE 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 14 (Cite as: ~ J. Ci~ L. & C~mhiology 544, '5~3 ) involv~ut e5?~ beyond what poverty ~n~ geography already reveal. [FN180] As Professor Lynn J~hn~n has said, "(s)lthm,Sh probahillstic constr~v~s may not preclude general propezisities to (~mrnlt; crjzne, they clearly miHtate a~.i.~t; accortiing thAm ~,d~.l weiB'nt," [FN:IBZ] V.l~hatHappensAfiartheStop? Once police stop a person for a tra~c offense, what h~ppens? By pooh8 this question, I do not mean to imply that the stop itsalfis ln~gnm~nt. Onthe controry, the stop is itsa]fnot only -nn~ving but pOt~n~iA!1y ~n_~er0uS, espe~11y if it is ordered by an of~c_~ in p1A,in clothes or in an ,,rn~Arked car. [FN182] Alth~,8~ pretextual tref~ stops may be probl~a~c in themselves, they are also djstxxrbin~ because they nl~ lead to marches. What rules ~ovelm what hn,x~_ns after a pretextt21 stop? .. First, ff polke have probable cause to stop a vehicle, ~hl. ~lone do~s not entitle ~hm. to search it. There must be seme~hlng more th~n the trnffi¢ offense to justify a search, some comMn~on of facts that gives police probab~ca~t~ believe that an offense has been or is being commi~ed or that the v~d.e~.cop+_~in~ contrab-n~ While we can argue wheih~r au~ partip,~ set of facts sW~nny gives rise to probable cause or reasonnhle suspicion, the bottom lln~ is that some~hln_v is required to justi~ a search. [FN183] There are several varlafions on thi~ theme. If.~__lice arrest the driver, they may search not only the driver but the in~rior of the car, closed parts of the interior llk~ the glove box, .n~l any closed COpf-cd.prl; Inside the ilIfPA~or. [FN184] And fithe police see evidence of crlme in '574 plgln view, of cotlrse, they may seize it Anti then arrest nn~ search as appropriate. This, in fa~t, is what happened in Whrem Police stopped the vehicle, aM upon lOo~dn_~ inhale-without any further searehlruZ-saw two bags of cocaine. [FN1851 But in the great bulk of cases, fh~e is no offense other [h.n the tr~c vlo~tlon, no arrest occurs for the trn~c offense, and po~i~e ~ l~othln~ In~mlnn~n~ i~ pl.;~ view. I~stea~ polke ascompli=h their goal of searehln8 those they stop in two of_-h~r ways. ~T~xe fir~t~ is ~mple: officers amk the people they stap to eon~ent to a sea~ck While those amk~cl need not consent, many do. The reasons for thl. seem as varied as h,~rnnn beings are, but .several causes predo~i-~te. People ~Irnply may not haw that they can n~use, an~ the Constitution does not -n~oubtedly feel they have no choice. O~h~rs surely feel i,v~m~sfpd, as Jhenita Whitfield said she did in EBgle (3o,,nf~. In~mldation was no doubt what the l~/rylnn~ State Police officer illtona~d when he told Robert Vt/lllrln~ that searches were "routines Anti that if he hnti no~hln5 to hltin~ he should permit the search-leaving in the sir the obvious implication that a refusal would ahow W~l~n.' guilt. [FN187] But the predpminav.: reason drivezs consent lles with police officers. Their goal, plain m,~ ~4mple, is to got people to a~ee to a search. They are accoln])li~h~ at the verbal .h,tin neceseary to subjulpxto their "opponents," they have the m,~.hority of their office Iphlnti 4~hm, anti they mmk~ it their kn~n~q5 to get what they waI~;. The of~cer 8tsft8 with innnctlotls w~ntiin_~ qllegfiono: ~V]lere are y011 com~-~ fi~n? Where are you headed? Who's the person you're vis~_~q What's her ~se? Who's with you in the b~ seat? Then the questions often get more personal They are dm~,ned to find contr~tiicfions that show the driver miSh~ have some~hln~ to hide, ~n~ to put the dr~ver in the f~m~ Of ~i,~ Of regpOntllnE to th~ offle~r's authority. Polico p~l| it ~sweet ~!lr," ~nti it almOgt alway8 leads to a consensual sea~h. None of ~hi~ is ac~dex~d; rath~% it is a walLhened~ calculated pSyChOlOgiCal teehnlqlle ~hAf, pOllco delD~zt,,~llt~ t~aeh their Ot~FIcel'B. [F1~188] ~ it works. In the Copr. c West 1998 No Clnlrn to Ozig. U.S. Govt. Works 12 ® 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 15 (Cite as: 87 J. Crhn. L. & Criminology 544, *575) course of 150 stops over two *575 years, one T~i,.A state trooper said, 'Tve never had anyone tell , me I couldn't sea" [FN189] But what if the occul~nts of the car refuse? Must the police allow them to leave, ~i,L~ the encounter? Not necessar]jy, as the Wilkln~ case ar.~ Oth~S shoW. If p0lice ~equnt6 a person iilr~ Wi|kin~--OD.e who kllO1F8 he doe$ Dot have to sins~e~ ~oll~ or coll6ellt to a search, one who will / _' i.~ on his rights-they use anofi~ te~h-i~ae: ~y use_ a dee tr-i-~cl to detect~drug~ If the deg gives the signal that it hAM sm.lled drugs, this provides the police ~ probable cause for a full blewn seareh of the vehicle And itS COntents. AeeODiln_~ to IJDited StatSit v. Place, [FI~lg0] the rise of suah a deg does net COnstitute a search for purposes of the Fourth Amenrim.at; ~hm~eOre, use of the dog requlns neith.r probable cause ner reasonable suspieioa Place gives the police just what they need if a driver refuses COnsent: a search for which consent is net necessary, which may yield the net held har any longer unless ~h-~e is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to de se. Can the police held solDeone long i~-nmlF~ to have ~a. dl~g detectin~ deg hroaght to ~h~ wi~e? The Silpx~m~ Court has net yet supplied a ~-6nitive ~n~ver, hit AnAlOgOIlS ea~es InrllP~4~e that if the poli~e have reae0nnhle $tlgplcion to ~ BoyleoDe Of invOlvement in a crime, they can def~in the peison for a "reasonable" period oftline to allow the deg to be hro~ht. In Place, a passenger's luggage was hekl for ninety minutes to allow for a dog to miff it; the Court formS_ thl. unreas0nnhle, because the law enf0re~m~llt 0fi~eIAl~ hnt] advance warnln~ Ant] colrid have gotteD the dog thine ill lDneh less tillle. [FN191] And in United States v. ,qhn~pe, [FN192] the Court fonn~ a tweniy mlrmte detention reasonable, because the delay was caused by the suspect's flight. [FN193] *576 How the Court will ultimately resolve ihl. question is anyone's guess; the most likely possibility is ease by ease diw~ion of what length of detention is reasons~hle nnd~r the clrtmm~+~ne~s. But given the Court's ~h0Hnc]od allalyBi8 of the Foilrib ABlenc]meni illlp]icatlolls of the ~ of de~B, the al~l!~ over the reasonableness of the length of detSniion will be the only argument any driver has left. VL t~t'Omrn~nrlntir}l~ Whren represents the Supreme Court's official approval for the use of pretextual stops by poliCO. Defen~.nis may no longer argue successfully that partkndAr trs~c stops were purely excuses to allow investigation of other crimes about which ~h~e was neither probable cause ner reasonable sustficlon. [FN194] If I am right, all motorists are now fair game for police, Ana Afrlcan-.~m-vic~n. An~ oth~ people of COlor will suffer the great bulk of thl. treatre.at. Wh.re does all of thl. leave us? Can anythi.~ be dene to A~ess these practices ~,~ the disparate impact they seem -~ost certain to have? If Whren does ne~hlng else, it fd~lr.S courts Out of the N,~in.ss of sul~xv;~ine ~hl. type of police COnduct. Now, police need net come up with any rationale for stopping motorists save the eas~ And obvious one: violation of the trnme code. [FN195] Given ih.t the door ofjudiclal redress has closed, and that the Supreme Court's suggested equal protection remedy se~m. unl~l~.ly to bear any fruit, what other avenues are open to help grapple with the police practiCes hiffhH_vhted here? Two modest suggestions follow. In a tlm~ when we ce~ti~ne to focus on COurts to control police clis~tlon~ another tool is an overlooked: PoliCO depazt~ent policy And rel,:mlatio~ If n~h~:l disc~tion s~d racially biased traffic enfor~n~nt tactics in~ a pellCO a~ency's op6rations, written policies A~ reSulation could fill the vacu,,m created by the Supr~rn~ Court's abdication of supervisory responsibility. Any time Copr. e West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 16 (Cite as: 87 J. Crlrn L. & Crlmluology 544, *576) ~ discretion exists, we mllst alsk ~ only how to ~llmlnnte nnn~T~Sary discretioll, hilt elso how , to l'eglllate and. COilStrAin the discretion that must exist as *577 part of the system. [FN196] DeparUnente/regulations have the pote.~.l to do betl~ In the recent past, courts, esl:e~-11y the Supr~-~ Court, played the demlnn.~ nth~ve.ldns role for law enforcement at the level of consti~ut~nal enforcement. This has been espec~/y true in the Fourth Amendment area. This resulted fn}m the fact that other agencies-the le~.!Ative branch, executive agencies, ..a police delNhL,,.~-uts themselves-failed to take any sig-~fieant role in regulation of police. [FN197] Courts in the post-Mapp era n,-h~d to fill ,hi~ void; in the Fourth Amendment field, thl. h.. been done thro-gh adjudication of search ..a seizure cases. But, as Professor LaFave hA. said, thi~ has begun to am._~e. [FN198) Many police new put their Wact/ces den in written furm as .m~.~ policies or e,,la-l~n~s. [FN199] And the fact that police agen~es themselves construct these salf-rogulatory systm-c has some advantages. First police rule. m-16-_~ rankle for better l~_._.lice ~o~nS.,jf~only because it focuses the department on policy rnnl[inE nn~n'~fe~implicafions to the community of the police lm'actices beln_~ regulate& [FN200) Second, rules reduce the ~-~uence of bias because they m.~ tml.i._~ more · ~.iform, ._.a because they guide .na control diseretioa [FN201] Third, police.m.aa rules are most u~ty to be followed ~na enforced by police. [FN202] Last-but cer,~inly not least-is the fact that, in cases such as Whren, the Supreme Court has simply taken the judie~.ry out of the equation If there is no rog~l-tion at the agency level, there may ~mp13 be no ret.,I-~.on at all One llne of the Supr~m- Court's own cases suggests that the Wactices hi_~hli~hted in ,hi~ essay mlght be successfully _~aa~essed thre._~h police regulation Beg~nni.g with South D-Jcota v. Opperr-~., [FN203] the Court passed upon the reasonableness of searches dene purF,.-~ to departments/inventory procedures. In Opperman, the police discovered m.rij~nn. in the glove compartment of a vehicle they had towed to an hapo. na let before they inventorled the contents of · 578 the car. The Supreme Court fo. na the inventory search reasonable, perhaps because police performed the inventory "pur~-n~ to stnna.rd police procedures.' [FN204] In the most recent inventory case, Colorado v. Ber~ina~ [FN205) police discovered contrab--a in a backp_-a~ fo-na in the defendaut's vehicle during an inventory searclh In Befa.% the Court was m-,h clearer in de]inea~inE the place of police rules nna ru]~mnlrin~ in search an{:l seizure law: "reawnnhle police regulations rela~ng to inventory procedures -amlni~ezed in good faith satisfy the Fourth An~ndment, even though courts might as a matter of hlna~ht be able to devise ecr~.lly reasonable rules requiring a different procedure." [FN206] As Professor LaFave pol.~. out, to the extent that Opperm.n ""d Bertine encourage or require depa~'~-.!~nts to .~.1~. rules for inventories, ~h~ is all to the goo& Since, accoraln_~ to Befa.% an inventory search may be reasonable without either probable cause or a warrant, [FN207] s~na-nlised polke ~ures for inventories will l~mlt and chnnn.] police d/scretlon nna ll~event arbitrary police setion. [FN208] We should consider using the same apprOnnh tO CO-G-~ ..a regulate police discretion vie-a-vie the conduct of traffic stops. ~q.wF../~?~police to stop motorists an~ time an officer could h~F.a~ne so. this_need not be the rule w~{hl. an.v given police aelobxl~nt. eST9 Tn fstt, it wee ~ot the rule in the District of Columbia, where Whren arose; departmental regulations Frohibited the n~.ld-g of traffic sWps except within certain well-a~.~x~ par--~;tere. [FN209] Depar~-~uts could make rules that set out criteria for s~tuation. i. which officers can stop cars when them is no intention of giving a ~ citafio~oo~'~performl-E other enforc~m;ut activities related to operation of the v~"~.~ the very least, depa~ta~enfal regulations could prohibit the targe,~n_~ of rac~ai or ~ups for treffic stops ~.a searches. To encourage ru~r-.~n_~ (or review of exis~-~ rules) along these lines, federal and state gove~-...~nts might offor incentives in the form of in~2ased f-nai-g to those depa~L~ents that ~..1~ ~hnnSes in their existing regulations or implement new ones. Alternatively, of ceurse, them might be fi..~.l ponslties for depa~i-,~n~s ~hnt de not comply, Copr. c West 1998 No Cl.lr- tO Orig. U.S. Govt. Works ® 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Ps~e (Cite as: 8'/J. Crim. L. & Crlnd.ology 544, '5~9 ) or some conl~nntion of carrot nnr] b. collection of data on tra~c stops ~nd searches ~nd the rules put in place to govern A second step we might;, take to addlegs the problem of ~_~ stops involves the collection of data. Police deparhuents could be required (or S~-'~'lly ez~ou.rB~ed) to collect (late, on all traffic sWps. This data should include the reason for the stop, the race, e~h,~lelty, fnel oth~ ide~dlfying idormation conce~i,,g the pgrson stopped, wheihpr the driver received a citation or warning finel for what, whethpP a march fonowed the stop, the bn~i~ for the search (consent, observation of incrlmlnftlng it,~R~ or the like), whether a dog was used as part of the psocedure, whether contrabA~el was fOnnel and if so what irlnet~ fnc] whether any propur~ was seised nRe!~ forfeiture The collection of this data would allow for lar~e-w~le study of traffic stops -,~ the issues they raise, and would allow for a more rigorous ~nflysis thfn I have presented here. While the roTtubers of persons stopped in my etnmples are large-in VolnAin County alone, for n~nmple, the ~)nrnher of SWps on the video tapes is flm~st eleven hnnelred-any social solenlist would no doubt prefer a more syst~_mnllc collection of data. And even in the Marylnnel case, in which stops must be recorded, the court did net order Marylfvt-] State Police to cellect all the information that might prove usetiff to someone studying these practico~ On the sonlrary, only stops followed by consent soar~$ or searches with dogs are In~lnelo4, whereas a more complete picture would, at the very least, require that all steps be t~111~cL wha~h~P or not followed by a march. A widespread, s~-Rel~,diced *~80 s~dy of a ~nmber of police departments in a wide variety of geop'aphic areas would ~ive us the opportunity to arrive at a better underet~nellng. If the data shnw that, in fact, Africen-.am,~ri~nn= or other racial or ethnic groups are bein~ targeted by police, [FN210] t~e would be no eli,,,~i~ng their experiences as isolated in~.idents or the work of just one or another partic~l nr police deplh L,,,~nt. We might at last have the information necessary to nncl~rst~nel fully what happens in these m'tuations, azld perhaps to ~nnlly perp~nele legi~lfters nnel Ot.h~' leaders thft~ we muse; take concrete steps toward solutions. Ilq~1211] Such data collection would also allow us to study the effectiveness of the police regulations proposed above. Depa~L,,~nts with nnel without p,eh regulations could collect ~ ~n~l the side by side comparison this would allow would ~ive us a be~er u~el,~v~,~Ring of the effectiveness of this approneh One can imagine at least two possible problems that mlgh~ be su~ested concerning the collection of data on police/moWrist encounters. First, inellvidual police officers miF~t be reluctan~ to report information cencernlng their traffic sWps. After all, would ac~el,~nlcs, policy talkers, snel others net use the ~ to attempt to Irove police r~Im~ either on the pan of the Inellvidual or the institution? And would this concern not result in eithp~ incemple~e fnel ps~hnps stilted repo~ng, or even reluctance to report at all, especially if the officer souhi be seen to be acting in coniravention of depa~l-,.,ental regulations? While these concerns are .nel~st~ndfble, they would net be bard to Aelel~eso. Data collection could be anoxlyznous, certainly as to the activities of Inellvidual And if part of what we wish to study is whather depax i...~R,~l regulations xniF~t help llmit or curb objectionable elements of polico discretion in thIA area, the identity of the police alepax I...~nt the data have come from might be hlclel~n, too. With fnnx!ymity sdepxaFli~g thorn from implicating themselves in any way, there is ne reason to believe that police nnel their superiors would net fairly fvk-] fully report their tr~Relc stop activities. As an exfmple, recall that the Maryl~nd Stato Police have been z~porting all '681 stops resulting in cnnln~ ~nel consent searches for mnny mozlths new. While they do this pursuant to a court order, there is still every reason to believe that the Maryl nnel State Police officers might feel relue~nt to report fully fnr~ accurately for just the reasons I have doscribe& In fact, their feellngs might even be somewhat more intense, ~iru,e the data collected in Copr. e West 1998 No Clflm to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 18 (Cite as: 8~ J. Crin~ L & Crlm~uology ~44, '~81) MaryJ--R is broken down offi~r by o~cer, with -~s att~h~ch Thus if one could im~ a , scenario in which police might fail to rally --~ fairly report their actions, the Maryl.nr~ case would be it. Bgt tl~t do~S l~ot Bee~l to be happenin~, WIllie BOono ~ the inf]ividllal offSeers i~volved irnnws for sure whether some stops are net being reported, it would seem that ,,~epor~n5 would skew the dnfa away fium any r~r~nl bias in stops, Anne ell of the o~cers l~w that thiA Was the problem from which the repor~,~5 obligation arose in the first place. Yet after eiShteen monthA, the data show that re~,Sh]y eighty percent of the stops counted still involve people of color. In words, if the o~5~xs were trying to affect the ~.mhors (~,~ one could argue that if an3,one had h~enfive to do so, they do), they are doing a poor job of it. The ot~ ex~l=~on, of courso, is they are not down8 thi~ a~ The 0f_-h~ problem that miSh~ be raised coneenls the practlcal side of repor~n5 What officer will want to fill out a form, even a Ample one, for every trn~e stop? Pollco are already busy trying to do the job we send thorn out to do. Why should they do extra paperwork to help study that job? The ~n~tanswertoihi~bjecti~nis~hn*~mnnyp~]~cede1~ui~.a~ts~readyrequestash~rtrep~rt~nevery stop, whether or not the officer is~,_es a citation or a warnln5 The second answer lies with te~-hnn~0~y. Already, mnny police vehlcleB carry Ixot jllst radios, hilt comptlter te~m~nnlg that ~ be used to check a car's license plato ,~nnl~er or a xnotorist's drivers license, or to see if a person is wanted on outst~n~I-5 warrants. It would take little more to enter the basic infucmation on traffic stops discussed above ~ such a computer. The process would involve little more ~h.n ]~n~ehln agreed-upon code numbers into the avnilnhle mnehir~. In fact, s~mn11 hnnc]-held tinits new ~ can ]~.ndle quite a bit of Ample date. Waiters nn8 waitresses in restaurants somesmoe carry these ~mn11 devices, On which 811 order call be tnlr~n; tr~nmmitted to the ki~h~ll, f~11i~l for pllrpOSeS, nnf] then saved for mg~'ke~r~n5 axial ~th~w b~An~ pllrpo~es. ~a~ph a machine would be more f. hnn capable of receiving nnd Storing the relatively =n~11 amount of data thnt would be generated by traffic stops, nnd trnn~er of the data into nnnlyzable form would involve ne extra work. Another possibility is to do whet Volusia County dich have the police cars in dopamn~n~s ,,~- study fitted with video C~ama~ras which would be ~ on nnf] off each ~m~ $~2 a stop was rnn~. arrnnEement would also bellefit the po]ico by proviel~n~ evidollce in stops resu]~n5 in arrests. Polico could ~mply turn the tapes in; without having to do extra paperwork Researchens would then gSthor the statistics. Whfie particulars would have to be worked out, usiglg video cameras mi511t be the easiest way to do VIZ Conclusion Whren leaves us in an unsat~factory situation. Any firno we use our cars, we can be stopped by the police vix~nlly at their w~rrx because full compBnnre with trnMr, laws is impossible. ~,~ we can feel relatively cer~in that psst will be prologue: Afrlcan-~ ~n~ Fr~gpanlcs will suffer the bulk of ih~ treatmex~. Whites will net have to endure it very often; if they did, it probably would not happen. A,~ once police stop drivers, the o~acers will be able to search nlmnst everyone they want, some with consent nn~ o~s with dog~ I, for one, feel considerably less ~!~n comfortable with this outcome. We Blay net nlways agree on the ~jJ] coBiotlrB of the Follrth ,Amonr]ment, hq,vt if nethil~ else it stnn~g for--indeed, imposes-restraint on the gove,;.,--o,~'s power over the i,~s~vidual in the pursuit of crime. At the very least, the police must have a reason-probable cause, or at least reasonable s~spicion-to pursue, stop nnt] search citizens. The point is net that the police are powerless until crlrn~nnlg strike, but rather that poli~e rnnnnt treat everyone l~lro a cr~m~n] in order thn~ some secretive wrongdoers be caught. From every practical van~ge point, Whren upends this venerable end sensible principle in the ,~nm~ of the war on drugs. Its implications are clear:. everyone is fair game; members of m~n~rR~ groups will pay the largest price, but there ere casualties in war, so Afxican-Americans ~ m~nics will just have to bear the cost. The Supreme Court could have Copr. c West 1998 No C~m to 0rig. U.S. Govt. Works 87 JCRLC 544 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page (Cite as: 87 J. Cr~m L. & Cr~me-ology r~44, used Whren as an occasion to repudiate the worst of what th~ tragic ~.a ultimately unwi~n~hle war , has hro~ght us. Instead, it increased police power nn~ discretioa We are all the losers for it, but tllffOrtnns~ely l$ollle Of tis--those of tls with dark skln-will lose a lot more th~n the rest. Perhaps police del~ztmental reguhtion, ,~na further study, can lead us in new directions. FNal. Eugene N. Balk Professor of Law and Values, Unive~s~y of Toledo Co~ege of Law. LD. 1983, Yale Law School; LL.M. 1988, Georgetown Univezs~y Law C.e~r. My rh~nk~ ~ 3eEzey Gamso, Deborah Jeon, Mark Eappelboff, Tom Perez, Daniel S~einbock and Lisa Rurge~ 17 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 Citation Search Result Rank(R) 2 of 2 Database 1998 CONG US HR 118 CONG-BILI IT 105th CONGRESS, 2d Session United States Library of Congress PER 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 Dn 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 ALLAFTERTHE 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 ell stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers. Included i. this data shall be information pertaining to'- (1) the number of individuals stopped for routine traffic violations; (2) identifying characteristics of the individual stopped, including the race ~nd 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 violations by law enforcement officers. Such study shall include collection Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page Z 19'CONG US HR 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 under this section shall not be used in any legal or administrative proceeding to establish an inference of discrimination on the basis of pa icular identifying characteristics. Sec. 4. RESULTS OF STUDY. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the study conducted under this Act to Congress. 1998 CONG US HR 118 END OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 18:11; *> U OF Z COLLEGE LAW; Page 14 16:19 P, 14/19 '~ NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW E~ORCE~ E~CUT~S 29 ~e 199~ T~ Hon~le 3o~ V~n~llo~ C~r ~te Pub~ S~ ~ law ~or~ o~e~ ~ ~x~ ~d c~ lev~. S~ce ~t m~b~p o~N03~ ~ ~o~ ~ i~ude ov~ 3,000 ~ed~, s~e ~ 1o~ hw ~t F~o~ d ~1 l~ek ~ile ~e ~p ~v ~ve c~ged ~ ~e ~, ~ ~i~ oF ~e o~on ~ not Th~ fo~ ofNOB~ ~ ~d now.~ b~l~g b~es be~ ~liee ~d co~ ~ey se~. Bcca~ OX ~ f~, NOB~ ~ co~n~ FOvi~ l~hp ea s~n w ~e proration of comm~w ~lic~, ~ ~ ~e Wk~ ~ offfie pdofi~ it nc~ W ~c fo~ov of ~h~ ~ hw ~t~ent ~ c~cs, NOBLE i~v~ dcd~ m ~ ace ~ ~ ~ ~n for stopping moto~ of color of m~ imp~ce- The build~ of b~dg= h ~p~ble m ~e ~ of ~st h a ~t ~o~ s~y co~a.~ ~ ~ Police Fo~o~ r~k-~-~lz o~c~ e~ve m~ of ~i~ ~i~ ~bl~s. ~ou~ely ~g ~ f~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ color of~¢~ s~ ~m ~ ~m~ j~ce ~ .-- ~ ~ s~o~Iv ~o~es ~e ~ for f~ ~ ~nd of p~ ~t c~ ~ ~!ic pf~. He~, NOB~ ~d ~ a ~h ~ of le~on ~,~ w ~ 12~ ~t ~ berg a ~ co~n[cnt of lo~ hw ~o~=t o~c~s u well u ~ 1~ It ~ te ho~ of NOB~ ~t ~e C~o~ S~ ~1 vote ~r ~ced ~1~o~ m~o~ps by ~ ~ 12~. ~IC~T O~1~ PA~ ~R.. $[IT[ F. ,~.~ORIA. VA ~2 [2-I~ r:~l~-I ~ FAX '~l ~-~'~ 10 SENI-lY-~u 1E: 18 P. 13/19 d.m 2 9 ~ ~ (an) ,aemtM..tp.ug, uam~m~, ~ ~.~~..N.W. ~ ~m~. a. , ~lc ]o~ V~OS ~e 30. 1995 T~ ~ *~ S~r V~os: ~0,.~ · n Io~ and ~o~y~ ~ ~ ~ C. ~ ~~ ~ly ~ of~ ~ of ~ ~. ~H,~- ~o.~ p~e~a~ ~ws - T~J.~ 21 SEP-81-19cj8 16:19 P. 15/19 AUgUS= 3, 1998 Hon. Kevln Murray Asscmblym~n Forty-Seventh Dis~ct Pos~ Oaice Box 942849 Sacramento. C, nli forni~ 94249-0001 D~r A.u. embly'man Murny: · l~.e: A. ssembly Bill 1264 I azn pleasL, d to suppor~ Assanbly BiG 1264, the" California Traz'fic Swp Sw. isdcs Ach" The blac~ motorist is oitcn stopped by police for no ~e~son other than th= ~olor orbls or hrrdch. Iknow thisto be true from my ovm expe~o~9. O The first time I was stopped. by z police o/~ccr v,,u when I was ~6 yca~ old. The officer ran a ch~ck on my vehicle and me azgl ~ dePrmi,~ I i,,a no warrant..% rcturngd :o my vehicl:: IJn~vmyljcense~u3~rc~cmjumyAc:e, mtdtumedm~lvraiZcd away without uttedng zuother woTd. In 1981, Z w~ ddv~ a bz3nd new spore car in WhileLet, Calffor~a. Los AngeLes County Sizriff's Dcptzdcs d_----ndect t~oon me :nd pulled mg over. A deputy holdinl a handgrin w~o ordered, me Dora r. be vehlole ~'ee~ect m~. I verbally idenrj/i~ mysclfbu~ did not tdl tede~ufT Twas .county ~roscc~or. The ~-?uty dcmzndccL to know why I was i, the ares. I asked th~ dcput~ why I was stopped a~d he rdused to prov!dc me an cxpl?--H,m. I vas then told to ~o to his parmet, who I:~gan in~e=-o~ me in an ~c,'_-'_':~'y~ ~ I turned ~o see the ~ Depu~ enxef m)' vdcle. ostensibly w ,,ond. L~t n. $e~x'~h. l obj,~'lz~d ~ ~ { ned w~ told. ~ sl's~ up. .Just then, the person I c. lane to vidt ~ ~7,"MUicr r,a~cd ~ ~ rde showed ~ dep~ies 'h/s badge, that o£a rcth~ Ca~tah oftlxe Los ~ Couxny SherifF,= Department. The Cap. rain demanded to know why the "Deputy Di~i~t AH"~' had been sb~cd. It was then that the d~utie~ stated that X {tthe. desdlytixm da Imurilazy suspw- Imagine this; it's a.e, cr 6:00 PM on { weekday, daylight lavln.R thne. ] am wed~ a brad new blue doubl~-breasted 1~a-stdpped s,,~t eed cldving a brmd new N'xssan Z. And yet, the d~pufics cla{xned that I fit tho du~:dption of ablmzSlad 0vef the years, the Ca~foraia Hi.~xway Patrol, Lo~ Aageles l~olice Depax~ent, Se~kele)' Police Department, Arhany Police Deparanent, TmTanee Police Depanmen~ San lose ) 22 5EP-el-19':~ 16:19 P' Police Dcpargznc~, and many other~ ~*e stopp~ ~ve. ~ow~r, ~ stopped ~ co~on~ed b:.' ~ going offic~ ~ ~ 1 pi~e my h~ on ~e st~g w~e} or e~t my ve?~cle ~ lie ~ ~ ~ ~ mo~ of ~esc cu~. no le~fim~ ~on wU ~v~ for ~h~ ~ ~p. ~ ~-y of~c c~, of~;~ s~ch~ my vehicle '.~itoul: w~L consent or pmb~le ~c. c~cil .~f~h:se ~ I ~fl~ on ~e $~ ~d =~er in w~ch I ~ my v~cle. W~ i spea~? No. Wu I follo~ff =~ closely ~saf~ ~ c~e, ~s7 No. Co~'= be. H~ s~o~inS me. Offiy ~e ~uS ~n. I ~ ~ ~ color. Y~ ~o, ~c wor~g a cidi s~c ~t ~n the T~ce Polic~ D~ent Offic~ o~ ~ ac~ w~ To~::," ~$ xo the office. bhck mo~risrs lcg~ ~c~on ~ solely ~r ~e p~s~ of h~sing b~ ~d ~m~g ~h~ ~. '.';si~n~ or ~id~g ~ ~e ~ ofTo=a. ~ =c v~a~o~ on ~ ~' code. 0~ !uch v~axion is '~' or "Dh~ing while MEEo~ afminori~ ~vm bc~e ~ey ~e ~z~rly :~ by ~ist ~Bce offi~ ~d ~opp~ solely on ~e b~s of~eir color. M~y of my minc~es ~ quick ~o poin~ ro z ~i or me~ ofv~clc s~ops by po~ o~m ~r ~e H~a~e ofM~l~d ~cst ~t mlno~ m~cris:s ~ ~jec~ed zo a di~ro~o~e n~b~ oivei~:i, stops ~d s~u.- h ~ ~c~t to ~d ~: v~ue ~ such sWps. Most o1~ ~= src.~s evid::c: o[~rongdoing, ~' ~, howr~. ~ve: ~y oi~d~ public c~n~denc~ in Dofic: snd ~e c=i~al j~:~ ~yS:-~- I hope the l~s~ h~ five tesli~ony ~o~ m=y oi~c vic~ ofi~ese a~.~awM s~ops. Sev~ ~c:5~nt. k is not ~common m he= ~m ~i:iz~:~ ~vho ~ ;2~ r~q~es I~ police d~a~ ~o ~o~ ~e ~:ur2 ~d r~ons. ior ~ sm~s aI Cai~i~ mo~. id~;k~' just w~ ~ ~o~p~ ~d why- I Eo~ L~= '.~isl~ ~o~s s~h in/o~ion ffa~. On the one ~ ~: ~ most of~= co~ isn't ~i~ ~;.Calif:mia:s pmv~ ~o be ~e b~is for a ~ro~nionn:t auab~r ofsmp~ will only h;ip hw to~t. h will ailow '~ :~ protect Lhe ~tu~onat ~;h~ of ~ :i~zc~. ~:-i:ce ~~ ~ g~ a ~lcd ]oo~ =c ~eir o~c~' ~v~o~ ~ ~e E=!d- ~= .:~c~ ~ ~3i help d~men~ dec~c wh~er '~' ~e ::m~;::*n~ coo much or s~ 23 Rece:l, vect: 9/ 1/98 18:12; -> U OF Z COLLEGE LAW; Page 17 SEp-01-19cJ~ 16:2I~ P.17/19 traffic en.fozv. cmcnr. It may sh~ som~ light on the ~. crime-fighting TOoL 1! will allow police deparnne~ts the chance to est,qb~,h policies thzt wilt t~|p them Fotect ~be~_-~elves horn l~wsuits sure thc~ af~ additioz~ bent, fits to Zazh~htz this .Thm-e is no ~xcusc rot not passing All 1264. Thete is a l~' ofi-ucatuh in Californi~ on th~ iuue o_rhow race plays ~ ~ole in ~ police offic~r's decision TO stop g ve~icle, Corm-dry to the Deparmx~ ofi~inance Bill Anal'y~, dated july 6, 1998, t~ ~ o£2nxhez~ tlxis information shotlid not be ptohl'bit~vc. All polic~ delxaxtmenn xequ~ ~ otcm to include much of the information demanded by A~ 1264 in th~ dilly i~tivity lop wh~ncwr they stop a vchiclc or contact & ci"b. zen. ~ and every time w~tes s zral~c ticket she/he ~cords the dxiver'$ rnee, It~e, 2cndcf n~_ e~wl~iiy sad the lc~ bMis fOr thc Stop and issuncc o£ a ticket. V,n~_~ th~ police dlf~vet coxxtnband/or rn~k-~ an arest, thcy routinely write - repoxt ~ includes all of the ibovc idkonnalion and the probible ~ or legal ju~cstion thax led TO any sesfch of xecovex'y of evidence. The Depaztment offirusticc necd only devise a simple teponing fom~ ~ ~ ~clp ofilc~ q~i. ckly ~ the z~qucxted infozn~on above, and the ~.~'s tar2e bud2e~ surp|~, cost alone provides no x~ason for voting down ~ bill. I support AS 1264. Very truly you~, Associaxe Professor 3 IN TI~T, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR ~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NAACP, Philadelphia Branch and: POLIC~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 25 I. Introduction In this Monitoring Report plaintiffs examine two issues: fffst, 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 impermi~sible considerations of rice or ethnicity have entered into the decision to stop or detain individuals. It is important to note at the outset that we are unable at thi.~ time to draw any hard and fast conclusions from the documents that we have reviewed. As we detail below, we have reviewed and analyzed all stops (as recorded in PPD Incident Report.;, "75-48s") that were made by Philadelphia police in the 9th, 14th and 18th Districts for the week of March 7, 1997. Despite the voluminous documentation (5,000 75-48s), on review only about 15 percent record stops of individuals under circumstances implicating constitutional judgments on the part of officers. This is too small a sample from which accurate conclusions can be drawn. Accordingly, we will follow up with a more extensive and focussed review of additional 75-48s (a process that should be more efficient now that a computer database has been established). But even without a statistically conclusive base, the document review did reveal important information. First, the 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 and/or properly alarms, and transport the sick and injured to hospitals. These patrol fimctions 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 fTom even this limited data. First, many of the 75-48s that involve stops and detentions of pedestrians or automobiles, 26 do not state any cause for the police activity. Second, in aggregate, there are unexplained parterre 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 rum conclusions on either of these issues. II. Background and Methodology of the Review The 39th Police District scandal presented graphic evidence of widespread abuse of police stop, search and seizure powers. Hundreds of individuals were stopped and/or arrested without cause and virtually evezy 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 occasiom 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 uncoustitutionality 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 CE.D.Pa. 1985) (enjoining police sweep of Latinos in Spring Garden area in aftermath of a shooting of a police officer); Arrington v. City of philadelphia, Civil Action No. 88-2264 0i.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 Corranissioner should (1) monitor police records and complaints as they involve minorities and allegations of racial discrimination, (2) act as a liaison to representatives of minority communities and to officials in the Depat~nent 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 depat ht~ent policies and practices such as discretionary pedestrian and vehicle stops that have the potential for racially biased law enforcement. All pedestrian and vehicle stops should be recorded on 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 panems of these stops to determine whether irapermissible 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 panems. D. Individual officers' and supervisors' files (as computerized) should contain any allegations or tindings of racial bias. In addition, the records of stops. searches, arrest and civilian complaints in the fdes should be periodically reviewed to determine whether racial bias or panems are evident. In this audit process the Depamnent should randomly interview individuals who were stopped, but were not charged with any criminal conduct. Our initial review of these 5,000 75-48s disclosed that overwhelmingly the documents concerned police activities (e.g., responses to alarms, reports of stolen propert2..'. 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 officers in the stopping and investigation of pedestrians or automobiles. To facilitate this review we created a database of the information contained in the 75-48 by replicaring that document in computer form. The ternplate appears as follows: 4 i t ! I ~0 All legible information on each form was transcribed. In addition, as can be seen above, any information about the individual who was stopped was further entered into the following fields entitled Suspect Information: first name, last name, middle name, address, city, state, zip code, race, sex and date of birth. Finally, one additional field was created in order to distinguish those 75-48s in which the officer provided a specific reason for her actions from those which merely labeled her activity. As can be seen from the ternplate, the 75-48 contains a field entitled "Crime or Incident Classification. ~ In all instances the officers entered a description. Thus, an officer might write when stopping a pedestrian any of the following in that field: "Pedestrian Stop,' "Pedestrian Investigation,~ "Ped Stop,~ "Ped Inv. ," uP/S" or "Pa. similarly when stopping a car any of the following might appear: "Car Stop," ~Vehicle Investigation," "Veh. Inv.~" "C/S' or "V/I." In many instances, however, the information that appears in the "Description of Incident" field does not refer to the incident. Rather, it merely describes the individual who was stopped. Depending on completeness, the description may include any of the following: name, address, date of birth, race, ethnicity, social security number, driver's license number, insurance policy number, Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN"), tag number, telephone number, and whether there are any outstanding warrants for the individual's arrest. Confronted with a form that contains only information about the person who was stopped, notwithstanding the completeness of the description, we coded these interactions as being without explanation. If, however, the officer gave any reason, regardless of its legal sufficiency (an issue addressed below) as to why she decided to stop the individual, it was coded as an explained interaction. Finally, with regard to any 75-48 which contained no explanation as to why the stop was 6 31 % made, we took the further step of exa/~ining the Department's Computerized Assisted Dispatch (CAD). The CAD is the computer system used by 911 Operators and Police Radio dispatchers. Police Radio is the unit which assigns the unique District Control ("DC') number appearing on each 75-48, as well as all other police paperwork associated with the particular incident. There are essentially two ways in which a "DC' number is generated: A call to 911 may result in an officer being dispatched W 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 ent~ of this information, the system automatically notes the time of each such event as can be seen below from a saraple 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 information/explanation may not have been legally sufficient to stop an individual. Using all tills information, we generated the tables which appear below. IV. Document Analysis A. Issues Concemin~ the Requisite Cause for Stops of Pedestrians and Automobiles. The police practices reflected in the relevant 75--48s present serious issues concerning the legality of many police initiated stops and detentions. It is well settled under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution that whenever an individual is stopped by a police officer and his freedom of movement restrained in any manner, a "seizure" has occurred. This police power can be invoked only upon "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity or, in cases of an arrest or search, full probable cause. See, e.g., Dunaway v. New Fork, 442 U.S. 200 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. I (1968); Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996); Commonwealth v~ Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Zogby, 689 A.2d 280, 282 (Pa. Super. 1997) (most police "requests" are viewed as commands by the civilian).I Of the 754 car and pedestrian stops2 that we reviewed, 269 provide no explanation for the stop. They merely state that a "pedestrian" or "automobile" stop has been made (while recording i 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. Lewisl 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 are analyzed separately at the end of the Section IV. 8 33 biographical information about the person(s) stopped.s In our view, these documents present · prirna facie cases of constitutional violations. It is conceivable that in some cases cause actually existed, but went undocurnent~d, 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 Depa~huenl. Given the applicable Pennsylvania case law, the fact that 75-48s are not generally used to document non-invesfigative 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 low or non-existent. ~ The Police Depaxtment does not appear to disagree with the proposition that lack of documentation in the 75-48s is highly questionable. At the time the Depat ttaent provided counsel for plaintiffs with the 75-48s, it issued a Memorandum instructing all police officers that there is "no such thing as a 'Routine Stop. '" This Memorandum (Assist Officer, No. 32, issued May 1, 1997) states in full: VEHICLE INVESTIGATION Directlye 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 75-48s record biographlc 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 PEDESTRIAN INVESTIGATION There are three types of situations in which a police officer and a citizen meet face-to-face: (1) a Mere Encounter; (2) an Investigative Detention; and (3) a Gustodial Detention. 1. MERE ENCOUNTER: · Request for information. Officer does not use any words or actions which would lead the person to reasonably believe that he is not free to leave. · Theperson is consenting to speak with the officer. ff the person does not consent, they must be permitted to leave without restraint. 2. INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION: · Not an arrest. · Must be supported by REASONABLE SUSPICION.' · Is a temporary detention (approximately 20-30 minutes). · Suspicion must be supported by specific and articulable facts that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity. · Does not involve intrusive, coercive conditions, i.e., no handcuffrag. 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 all 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 75-48s at issue, one could assert that the citizens subject to the stop were inconvenienced only slightly and the need for broad police intervention on this limited scale is important in the overall police effort 10 35 to combat crime .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 enforcement, the repercussions of such conduct are in some instances highly injurious to innocent individuals. As a recent IAD investigation makes clear, when police officers believe that they have the power to stop and frisk individuals without reasonable suspicion, and then to effect arrests as cover charges when the citizen complains of this conduct, the. constitutional violations become serious indeed and the cost to the system and to the City is substantial. In IAD No. 96-555, it was determined that acting on a radio call concerning a man, for whom no ~hvsical description was given, selling narcotics near the Bellevue Hotel at 2:00 p.m., the police, without cause, stopped and frisked the complainant and his girlfriend, accused-them of selling drugs and, when they protested, arrested them for disorderly conduct. IAD determined that the officer acted improperly and the City settled the damage claim for false arrest and illegal detention. Indeed, the problem may run deeper than the "unexplained" 75-48s. As we noted above, we have not questioned in this Report whether the requisite cause is established by the explanation for the stop that is set forth in the 75-48s. However, there are examples even in the "explained" documents that present substantial questions as to the legality of the stop. Consider the stated reasons for the stops in following 75-48s: (1) 97-09-15699 (person stopped was a "cross dresser"); 97-09-16577 ("female not cooperating with police sgt.. . on location"). In other documents the stated reason is, on its face, quite ambiguous (e.g., 97-09-15699, person was 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, hut 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 Ratka 2213 6 I 4 0 0 1 Wilson 2790 6 0 3 0 1 2 Vassallo 1169 5 0 0 0 5 0 Baker 5379 5 0 0 0 5 0 Stover 3813 4 0 3 0 0 1 Liciardello 4383 4 0 3 0 0 1 London 6760 4 0 4 0 0 0 Spencer 7152 4 0 0 0 0 4 Gaultrey 7234 4 0 3 0 I 0 Coleman 7510 4 0 0 0 0 4 Long 1113 3 0 1 0 0 2 Hammond 1811 3 0 1 0 0 2 Lee 1961 3 0 3 0 0 0 Riley 1997 3 0 2 0 1 0 McBride 3019 3 0 0 0 0 3 Williams 3088 3 0 1 0 ~0 2 Greene 3106 3 0 2 0 1 0 Graidirio 4140 3 0 3 0 0 0 Reid 4815 3 0 3 0 0 0 Luca 6903 3 0 0 0 0 3 Balzer 9902 3 0 1 0 0 2 Spence 9967 3 0 3 0 0 0 · O A, II 82 t1 140 0 '14 27 II s 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- t4-23207, 97-14-23237, 97-14-23314, 97-14-23477, 97-14-23487.97-14-23488, 97-18-18305, 97-18-18634, 97-18-18727, 97-18-18904 and 97-18-19234. 12 37 B. Evidence of Possible Racial Bias. The data derived from the 75-48s raises a serious question as to whether irapermissible 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 maker of this study -- stops and detention for allegeally suspicious activity -- does not in our view involve the kind of police work which if undertaken without any racial stereotyping or bias would result in significantly disproportionate stops of African-Americans. This is particularly true given the very high percentages of African-Americans who were stopped in situations where no explanation for the' stop was provided by the police officer. We acknowledge that explanations other than racial bias may explain some of the disparities that were revealed by hhe data and, given the relatively small number of encounters that make up the database, we are hesitant to draw conclusions on this very sensitive issue. It is important, nevertheless, to report our findings. The evidence in aggregate calls out for further review by all pardes to this litigation. The following discussion, therefore, is submitted with these considerations in mind. 13 38 In reviewing the data there are two ways in which racial/ethnic bias may be revealed. The first limits the analysis to the universe of the data itself: comparison between the instances in which the police provide an explanation for why the stop was made and those in which no explanation is provided. If a higher number of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians or other minorities are stopped without explanation, there is cause for concern. The second analysis compares the data generated by the documents with census material covering comparable geography. It turns out that Philadelphia Police Districts encompass specific census tracts. Combining these tracts enables one to determine an estimate for that district's racial and ethnic composition. The numbers are estimates only because tract data is now seven years old. As shown below, both forms of analysis uncover racial/ethnic trends which need further examination.~ Of the 754 of 75-48s which involved either a car or pedestrian stop race data was recorded in 450 of instances. Of these the breakdown is as follows: 6 To assist the Department we append a complete printout of the database organized in the following fashion: Exhibit A: 9~" District car steps with explanation Exhibit B: 9~ District car stops without explanation Exhibit C: 9~' District pedestrian stops with explanation Exhibit D: 9m District pedestrian stops without explanation Exhibit E: 14t" District car stops with explanation Exhibit F: 14~ District car stops without explanation Exhibit G: 14m District pedestrian stops with explanation Exhibit H: 14~ District pedestrian stops without explanation Exhibit I: 18m District car stops with explanation Exhibit J: 18th District car stops without explanation Exhibit K: 186 District pedestrian stops with explanation Exl-fibit L: 18t" District pedestrian stops without explanation Exhibit M: Curfews from all districts 14 39 All Car and Pedestrian Stops ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 15 361 7 67 450 3.3% 80.2% 1.6% 14.9% 100.0% In 1995, Philadelphia's census revealed a population which is 54.1 percent Caucasian and 42.2 percent African-American. Measured against this breakdown the racial proportions of these stops warrants further Depaz haaent attentiom This is especially true concerning car stops. Of the 516 75-48s which were generated pursuant to a police car stop, 262 contain racial and/or ethnic data about the individual(s): All Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 11 207 7 37 262 4.2% 79.0% 2.7% 14.1% 100.0% In 202 of these 7548s, the police provide an explanation as to why the stop was made. The race and/or ettmicity of the parties stopped in these instances is as follows: All Explained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 10 155 6 31 202 5.0% 76.7% 3.0% 15.3% 100.0% In 60 instances the police provide no explanation for the stop. The racial/ethnicity of the parties stopped in these instances is: All Unexplained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO 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~4plained stops, they drop to 10 percent of the non-explained stops. Again, these statistics give pause not just in light of Philadelphia's census dam, but further given the demographics of the adjacem counties. Philadelphia is surrounded by counties all of which are home to signlficantiy 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 Philadelphia, including the University of Permsylvarda, during the week in question, a total of 114 cars were stopped. In 62 instances racial/ethnic information was provided as follows: 16 All Eighteenth District Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR, AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 3 58 I 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 thi.~ tLr~e period, but again the percentages of African-Americans who were stopped without explanation rises sliarply in comparison to the number stopped with explanation. Thus, while the percent of African-Americans driving cars stopped with explanation is as follows: Eighteenth DLstrict Explained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 3 32 1 0 36 8.3% 88.9% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0% It changes when no explanation is provided to: Eighteenth District Unexplained Car Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. ] LATINO WHITE TOTAL 0 26 I 0 0 26 0.0% 100.0% I 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% A sirniJar partern occurs with regard to this District's pedestrian stops. A to~al of 73 stops were recorded for the week in question. Of these 60 contain racial/ethnic information. They break down as follows: All Eighteenth District Pedestrian Stops with Known Race of Suspect ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHI~"E TOTAL' I 55 0 4 60 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 ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL I 20 0 3 24 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 ASIAN AFR. AM. LATINO WHITE TOTAL 0 35 0 I 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 m 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 IOO percent of these instances the individuals were Afn'can-,,imerican. Even assuming the remaining three instances all concerned Caucasians (for which assumption there is no basis) this would still mean that 92.7 percent of all stops in these districts were African-American. Again, however, the actual districts encompass populations which range from a low of 14.3 percent African-American in the 9th to a high of 72.1 percent in the 14th. The curfew stop of African- Americans was therefore 20 to 78 percentage points higher than the relevant population. 18 V. Reconunendations 1. Depa~ 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 Deparnnent should conduct its own audit and review of 75-48s and any other . data that may be relevant to the two major issues discussed in this Report. The Settlement Agreement requires such a "review and audit" and our study underscores the need. b. The Department should carefully monitor compliance with the Assist Officer Memorandum requiring statements of reasons for stops, not only to ensure that such information is recorded, but also to ensure that they are not of a boilerplate or routinized nature. c. The Department should ensure the recording of the race, on all 75-48s, of any person stopped by its officers as is required by the Settlement A~eement at Proposal VIII (C). d. The Depa~'t,uent 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 m their districts. If the data shows stops without cause or unexplained racially disproportionate stops and detentions, district commanders and other supervisors should be held accountable. 2. Computerization. There is no good reason why in 1997, plaintiffs had to spend substantial 19 44 time in creating a program and database for the 75-48s. The Departmere should be entering all 75-48s into computers to allow for the kind of analysis that we have undertaken. Of course, even more is required by way of computerization to enable the Department and others to audit and review a multitude of police functions and personnel. 3. Curfew Enforcement. The data here is particula~y compelling and the DepaxU~ent should ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of the curfew ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Stefa~nr~'~sesse!''a'h'k' \ 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~TTEE ON OPINIONS SUPEKIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ROBEXT s:. YP, ANCI~ ~ P.O. BOX 419 ]I3DGE COUIT HOU~ , WOODBURY, NJ. 0S0~ March 4 ~ 1996 John M. Fahy, SDAG Brent Hopkins, Assistant Prosecutor P. Jeffrey Wintner, Deputy Public Defender CarTie D. Dingle, Assistant Deputy Public Defender Wayne E. Natale, Deputy Public Defender II William H. Buckman, 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 prima facie case of selective enforcement which the State has failed to rebut requiring suppression of all contraband and evidence seized. Defendants base their claim of institutional racism primarily on statistics. During discovery, each side created a database of all stops and arrests by State Police members patroling the Turn- pike between exits i and 7A out of the Moorestown Station for thirty-five randomly selected days between April 1988 and May 1991 from arrest reports, patrol charts, radio logs and traffic tickets. The databases are essentially the same. Both sides counted 3060 stops which the State found to include 1212 race identified stops (39.6%), the defense 1146 (37.4%). 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, November 28, 1994, I dismissed the motions of DarTell Stanley, Roderick Fitzgerald, Fred Robinson, Charles W. Grayer, Keith Pe~y and Alton Willjams due to their unexplained nonappearances. 46 To: All Counsel Page 2 March 4, 1996 To establish a standard against which to compare the stop data, the defense conducted a traffic survey and a violator survey. Dr. John Lamberth, Chairman of the Psychology Depa~tment~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 1993 and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at four sites, two north- bound and two southbound, between exits 1 and 3 of the Turnpike. Teams supervised by Fred Last, Esq., of the Office of the Public Defender observed and recorded the number of vehicles that passed them except for large trucks, tractortrailers, buses and government vehicles, how many contained a "black" occupant and the state of origin of each vehicle. Of the 42,706 vehicles counted, 13.5% had a black occupant. Dr. Lamberth testified that this percentage is consistent with the 1990 Census figures for the eleven states from where almost 90% of the observed vehicles were registered. He said it is also consistent with a study done by the Triangle Group for the U.S. Department of Transportation with which he was familiar. The violator survey was conducted over ten sessions in four days in Ju'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 co~unitting 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% oflthe race ~dentified stops between exits i and 3 were of blacks consti- tuting an absolute disparity of 32.7%, a comparative disparity of 242% (32.7% divided by 13.5%) and 16.35 standard deviations. By if convention, something is considered statistically significant ' it would occur by chance fewer than five times in a hundred (over two standard deviations). In case I were to determine that the appro- priate stop data for comparison with the standard is the stop data for the entire partion 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. La=d3erth found that 408 or 35.6% of the race identified stops be- tween exits i and 7A were of blacks constituting an absolute dis- parity of 22.1%, a comparative disparity of 164% and 22.1 standard deviations.3 He opined it is highly likely such statistics could have occurred randomly or by chance.~ 3Dr. Lamberth erred in using 13.5% as the standard for com- parison with the stop data. The violator survey indicates that 14.8%, rounded to 15%, of those observed speeding were black. This percentage is the percentage Dr. Lamberth should have used in mak- ing statistical comparisons with the stop data in the databases. Nonetheless, it would appear that whatever the correctly calcula- ted disparities and standard deviations are, they would be nearly equal to those calculated by Dr. lamherth. 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 Packing Co. v. Atonio. 490 U.S. 642, 109 S. c~t 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989). Ap~-30-98 10:31A P,O2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~__< FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA WILSON, LAWRENCE BOWDEN, : .CIVIL. ACTION ,-, ¢,.C) KIMWAN TOPPIN, SHIRLEAN LOPER, : co on behalf of themselves and all : cD others similarly situated : : .VS. : : TINICUM TOWNSHIP, TINICUM : TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTME,x:T : NO. 92-CV-6617 TiNICUM POLICE CHIEF : ROBERT T. LYTHGOE, JR., : OFFICERS THOMAS CANZANESE and : ; WALTER FIFE OF THE TINICUM : TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, in : their individual and official : capacities, and UNKNOWN POLICE : OFFICERS NUMBERS ONE AND : TWO OF THETINICUM TOWNSHIP : POLICE DEPARTMENT, in th=ir : individual and official capacities : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CONSENT DECREE I. ~rNTRODU('T-~O>~ This Coysent Decree is intended to settle all claims in this action. The Consent Decree is based upvn federal and state co~titutional principles and reflects ill part r-,:'cent in~crp. rcmtions by th~ appellate cotlos of Pennsylvania of Article L Section 8 ~he Pen.,~Lsylva~. Co:~.s;ir~tiou. regarding the powers of the pohce to s:op. d=:a,~.~card~..: :~: :c~ pcrs~v~ in the Ct~m:nomvcalC~ of P~rmsyb'a~Ua NtX~g e'¢uI=,'~' ;. 49 cone!ned in the Consent Decree and settlement of this case shall be deemed an admission of liability or wrongdoing ,of any of the Defendants, H. PROVISIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC, MOTOR VEHICLE AND CRIMINAL LAWS IN TINICUM TOWNSHIP ON 1-95 The Defendants, in the enfomemeat of the criminal and motor vehi~'le laws of Pennsylvania on 1-95, shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Consistent with this Consent Decree, the defendants shall not stop, detain, search or arrest any person because (in whole or in pan) of the race or e~mic identity of that person. 2, Where the defendants receive irdormadon concerning specific criminal activity and this information includes race or ethnic background, the infor,..__m. ation 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 back-up from other law enforcement agencies. Time defendants i4hall not stop or detain any autouobile or i'.s occupants unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the operator or Vassenger(s) has corru"nittcd or is co,'~.mitting a traffit: or funlot vehi~zle violation. vr have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the operator or a passenger(s) have co:r,:mtte~2 n: =re conLm~:;mg ~: trimins! Apr-30-gB 10:32A P,Q5 6. During the stop of a vehicle, defendants shall not subject the persons in the vehicle to a dog search, absent consent obtained consistent with the provisions of this Consent Decree or probable cause to believe xhat the persons stopped possess a controlled substance under state or federal law. Provided, however, that nothing in this Consent Decree shall preclude the defendants from using a canine to search for bombs, chemical weapons, or hostages under circumstances thnt legally wanant such sca~ches. 7. If the stop of ~e Yehicle is based on either reasozable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime other r~m a tnffic or s.umma~/motor vehicle offense has been commiV, ed or is currently being commitrod, or is based on emergency health or safe~y 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 opL, fions construing the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I. Section 8 of the Constim~on of the Coah"aonwealth of P~nnsyh'ania. ~. Any actions of the defendares that arc no~ covered by this Consent Decree shall v, ot be punishable by contempt cvcn if they at: determined to bc ille~a! or ~r,,constim~ional. · - III. COMPLIAI~CE PROVISIONS A. The d.~i¢ndan~.s sh"11 provide ~o pta~,ntiff.~' cc~uasel o:~ a r,~nthh' basis for 2. pence o: .~.ve years f,j..ox,;irFZ th~ e.r,.rr:' o: :b. is Consent Decree ~.~!i.'. [~.gib!e copies 51 A~-3Q-gB 1Q:32A PoU4 4. If the stop of the vehicle is for a traffic or motor vehicle violation for which no arrest is' authorized by law, the defendants may .issue a summons or warning, but my not search the vehicle or its occupants or detain the operator or passcuger(s} for any period longer 'than that which is reasonably necessary to issue said process, or to end the car stop because no process is necessary, unless the officer, consistent with this Consent Decree, possesses reasonable suspicion or probable cause to'believe that ~e operator or:passenger(s) has committed or is cornmining a c,'imiual a~:t, or-pOses'an immediate danger to the safety of the officer. 5. ' Once the summons or warnin_g has b__een issued, -IJ;e defendant~ ~halt not _request consent to s~art:h the occupants, their possessions or the vehicle. and shall not detain the occupants or vehicle to try to obtain consent unless the officer. consistent with this Consent Decree, possesses r~asonable suspicion 6r probable cause to believe that the operator or passenger(s) has co_remitted or is committing a criminal act. A request for consent to search may be made during the time between the stop of the vehicle and the issuance of a sun'u'nons o.- w~rning, or the determinatioa that no process will issue, only uDoz: the folluwin~_ conditions: (a) ~vhere said request does not delay the investigation or issuance oi' process. (b) where the ,~tcp was based upon reasonable suspicion or probable cause tha.'. -'. tralIic or motor veki.::,.~ '. i:,lation had occurred or reasonable suspicion t,r probable cause to believe a cr'--'ne ~.- b~ing committed t,r has been con:miued. E!!,-'i (C) where the police t!o r..,_,.~ :::.~aten. intunidate or o:~erwis~ coerce tNe occupant{.~) into givin.'+' ~3 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT March, 1998 O~R DA~ CASE ~ ~E~ FOR~ USED 32 3~ 1 9g 1874 ~on U~r ~ ~le ~g ~ a ~bj~ ~ut a Ag. PU~A c~. ~_~ to ~ a~v. ~e ~r s t 31 3~ 1 9~1881 '~c ~to~on Subj~ ~ ~ ~r ~b~c intoU~6on. He ~, ~ ~t ~ / ~ ~ ~ p~ ~M ~m ~ ~/' 13, 40 3~1 ~18~ Di~2rly ~nd~ ~m p~l~ 1 50 3~1 98~01S9~ ~ d~r ~r sho~ ~ inj~ ~r ~ffi ~s 42 3~1 ~1~3 $i~ ~i~l ~r shot a sick si~. 41, ~5 3~ 9~1975 W=~ ch~ A~ng on a d~or's ~ w ~ a f~e w Umv=ni~ of I~ Ho~i~, offi~ ~d to ~t ~e a~t c~n 17, 39 3~5 98802~ El~g a PoS~ ~p~ Poli~ ~u~ I~D ~1~ to ~p ~d ~d~. ~er~r~s / ./ si~ when he app~ch~ No one =1~ 13 3~5 98802~8 Drag ~ ~cr ~ing pla~ ~der ~bj~ ~ m g~ a~v. ~e offi~r '~ gb~ ~s h~ of ~e 26 3~7 98802115 C~ ~ef S~j~ ~e out ~ ~e a~ent ~d p~l~ ~e officer a~v ~m ~e d~r. ~e offier ~r ~d ~m nd pla~ ~ a~t 61 OI,-s~iCER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 36 3-16 98802330 Fight After being involvcd in a light the person ran from the officer. He was caught and put over the trunk of a car. He was then handcuffed. 13.20, 23.2.~ 3-16 9880233 1 H. igh'tisk warrant A~_I_~_~e. listed officers displayed a 49, 50, 85, 98 2, 28, 43 3-16 98802351 COmmittal VVhi]e selNing conMIijttaJ papers, file person ran towants the kitchen. where there were knives on the counter top_ ...... .:,' / Officer grabbed her and took her to tb~, ground._.A wrist flex ~ applied ~nd --sbe'~ts handcuffed..At the hospital " she refused to get out of the car. Another wrist flex was applied and she 22, 38, 53 3-17 98802372 Man with a knife Subject was in the hospital with a icn[fe. I~PS, Campus Police, requested assistance from ICPD. The subject refused to relinquish the knife and was asked W leave. While leaving he threatened officers. Campus then initiated the arrest. He fought with officers and was taken to the ground. 13, 40. 42 3-19 98802422 Vehicle theft Officer stopped a stolen vehicle while it was driving down Hwy. 6. The two occupants were ordered out of the vehicle. Officers had their side. drawn during the stop. ' ..... 40, 95 3-20 98802449 · Vehicle thet~ Officer drew ~ s~dcarm during a traffic stop of a stolen vehicle. 39 3-21 98802476 Public Intoxication Subject was arrested and one cuff Obstruction of Offcers placed on his wrist. He then twist~ and pulled away f~om the officer. The officer directed him toe a cot and placed the other cuff on his ~Ti~ He · resisted officer while being escormd to the squad, getting into the squad and going into the jail. 62 OFFICER DATE CASE # IIqCIDENT FORCE USED 35 3-29 98802739 Public Int~.v, ication During a PAULA investigation the subject was placed under arr~L Officer auempted to _~__t~ed him out ~ -~ ' from the officer. A "goose-neck" /~ ."".-~ subjmxvastakenoutside. Hex~asthen 45 3-30 98802781 Cxlmi%,~! Try-pass O~cers responded to a burglary in Public Intoxication prog~ss. 'A suspect v/as found on the /~/~. roof ef the sorority. The officer drew ~'~ suspect was not armecL CC: Chief Librat7 City Clerk IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT April, 1998 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCidENT FORCE USED 97 04-03 98802924 Welfaz~ ck'ck Officer responded to a disuarbance call and found windows broken. He could not get anyone to ans'wer the door. Management unlock~l. the..door and th'~'c**h~a~x'~as cut. · 38 04-05 98802~44 Traffic stop. Officer ~topp~d a van that matthai the descflption of a v~icle that rel~fi~Hy . '* "~' ~/ had a handgun inside. Occupatba~ .- : were removed at gun ~i_nt. No weapon was fomid. "' 41 04-04 98802954 Public Intoxication When told he was under arrest, the Pos___~s_~on Controlled subject started to rim. The officer S.bstance' caffgh~'~'~'f~'orde~t his i~nds behind his back. The The officer put him up against a wall · and pulled his arms back, so he could 17, 35 04-04 98802956 Public Intoxication Subject w'dS mid not to be in a business. He refused to leave. Officers then applied a pressure point co.n~uol technique and ~'~vrist flex. ~e was ~out of ~he b~r. 43 0404 98802996 Assist other a~en~' DPS. Campus Police, requested assistance in a foot clms~. The officer caught the subjec~ and ordcred him to the ground. The officer then pulled his arms and ba~ds behind his back and handcuffed 35.39 04-05 98802999 Possesion of Alcohol Officer placed subject under arrest. Under Legal :~ge. then tr~ed to mn a~,'ay. One officer grabbed his coat and the other grabbed his arm. A struggle ensued and thc.~ went to the ~round. The subject then hit the officer an thc face. He %vas rolled onto his stomach and his lu-ms and wrists were pulled behind his back. He ~s then handtrifled. 64 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 50 04-05 98803029 Welfare check Officer was attompUng to find the parent of an unattended 4 year old. The person refused to cooperate with the investigation and was placed under affcst. She attompted to run away'. When caught she was placed up agmnst a car and handcuffed. 46 04-05 98803035 Injured animal An injured rabbit was shot with the.22 cal rffie. 36 0407 98803080 Traffic stop While writing a ticket, the driver of the car stopped, statT~l walking at the officer. The driver held his right ann beh~adhist~:kand:~:dmdi~lay I~nds m the offcer. Officer ~d~l Car and ch'ew his sidearm. Thedriver then showed his hands. 34 044)7 98803090 lllVOlnmtal~ COmmlttnl O~cer assisted medical personnel restraining a suicidal subject. She was strapped to the stretcher and taken to the hospital. 95 04-10. 98803171 Di~ce call Subject was identified as being involved in a fight. The officer requested him to stop. The person took off running. He fell and as he was getzing up. the officer directed him to the ground. The person continued to resist officer. After vet'oal threats to use OC spray the subject quit resishng. 11 04-10 98803195 Fight Subject ran from the officer. She was caught and resisted officer. She became verbally abasix~. She was l 1.44. 53 04-|0 98803201 OWl After being placed under arrest. subject refused to get into the car. A pressure point control technique and physical f0rcc were used to put her in the car 97 04-14 98803275 Injured animal An injured opossum shot ,~ith a.22 cal rifle 2. ! l 04=17 98803380 Public Intoxication While being walked from the squad to the jail. the subject twisted out of ofiicer's grasp and attempted to away. He Wn~ tnlcen to the ground and held until JCSD DepuUes arrived. 65 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 40. 43 04-18 98803436 Public Intoxication Thc man was :dcnti~cd as being :nvolved m an altercation at a bar When the Officer attempted to stop him, he turned and raised his fist. He then came at the officer. The officer attempted to keep him at arm's length. but the man hit his outstretched ann. The officer then sprayed him with OC. 43 04-19 98803442 Public Intoxication The subject interfered with another investigation. When the officer tried to question him, he began to walk away. He resisted officon 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 gtm Officer responded to an n~ult tail Involving a gun. Subject was seen v~tking away from the scene carrying aguncasu. The officer drew his sidearm and ordered him to the ground, Hc was handcuffed. 13. 16 04-28 98803521 Public Intoxication Subject pushed officer and took off running. When he was caught he was taken to the ground. He continued to resist officers while being handcuffed. 39 04-24 98803647 Distufoance at a bar Subject was causing problems at a bar, When officer arrived a U~ DPS Officer was alraa~.' at the scene. The subject refused to obey orders and ~s verball.v abusive. He was handcuffed and placed in a squad car. The subject attempted to move his cuffed hands from the back to the front. Officer's removed hint from the car and put his bands behind his back again. He refused to get back in the car and was physically placed there, 17, 54 04-24 98g03650 Fight Officcrs obser%'cd a fight in progress, ~ the' approached one the subjects mn a~va,v. The officers chased him arid caught him. Hc refused'to put his hands behind his back Each officer grabbed an arnl ;rod pulled it behind his back. 66 OFFICER DATE CAS!~ # INCIDENT FORCE USED 1L 17 - 04-24 98803681 ~m,,It with a Firearm Otficers stopped a car identified as being involved in an ~,~-mult with a firearm. Theoflicersdrmvtheir sidearm and orden:d the two o~cupant~ out of the car. A starter pistol v, as '. found in the pants of one of the 12, 16 r04-25 :9gg03710 lnterfe~ncewith AX~er being placed under atrest, the att~mptedtonmaway. Hewas g~ound and handcuffed. 85 04-28 9~803821 Bur~lnty Alartn Key holder to a ~ine~s feques~d .o~cer to search the inside. Ot~cer buSin~s, No one was found inside~ 6,8,44 04-25 99803715 Unknown Problem O~icer~ were disp~tched to an Warrant Service unknown problem call. During the inve~ti~ga,tion,.the s~bject attempted to walk away from ofl~cen. When he failed to stop the officer gxabl~ed his ann. He pulled away and misted o~icer~ attempt to stop him. A vn-ist flex ,,~ used to pull hjs hands behind his back and he ~ handcuffed. 2 04-26 98803739 Possumion Alcohol Subject attempted to get awa.v while Under Legal Age. officer was conducting a PAULA investigation. Officer I;rabbed her ann and escorted her out of the bar. CC: Chief City Manager Captains Lieutenants Libthe. City Clerk' 67 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT '~ USE OF FORCE REPORT : ; .~ May, 1998 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED "' ""- 54 5.0 1 98803916 Possession of Alcohol While doing a b~'_check~e ofi~r Under Legal Age saw the subject ~w~.'kh a b~._: When she saw the officer s~ took o~running. Officer caught up with her and ~ her ann. She quit nmning 32 5-02 98803974 OWl, Interference with While conducting an investigation the Official Acts subject attempted to walk away. The ~ officer gnbl~d his ann and he misted by psdling away. His ann was pulled behind his back and handcuffed. 9, 40, 42 5-03 98804020 Fight in progress Subject was placed under am:st but refused to ba handcuffed. He resisted officers and was ~akcn to the ground. The subject continued to resin and a pressure point control technique was ~ to get him to comply. He was then taken io 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 98804 1 ~2 Domestic Assault During the investigation the subject ~ walked away from the offic~z'. He refused to stop. The officergnbbed his arm. The subject attempl~d to pull away and resisted the officers attempts to stop and calm him. He was laken to the ground and handcuffed, 28, 50 5-05 98804117 Public Intoxication Subj~'t started to nm away from the officor after he was told he was under arrest. The officer grabbed' his ann and took him to the ground. The Subject was th=n hand~-uffed. 26 5-06 98804123 Sick animal Officor shot a sick raccoon with a .22 cal. title. 92 5-12 98804381 Injurexl animal An injured deer was shot by an officer with his sidearm. 68 OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED 16 5-14 98804418 Public Intoxication While helping emergency medical Personnel, the subject was harassing · ', ,' other people. He was mid to leave the area several times. placed under arre~ He refused and was Fleresistedand aa arm bar was used to control him while the _l~ndcu/fs were pla~ on 46 5-15 98804501 Armed Person Officer was investigating an incident where people were thi~atened by a . .., person with a shotgun The suspect · sidearm until he was sure ~e did not Kave a weapon. 35, 40, 47 5-16 98804505 Stolen vehicle Officers stopped a stolen_._~r and sid'~'~'~we~g-~red until everyone was out of the car. 43 5-15 98804506 Public Intoxication Subject was dsunk and causing a disturbance. When he was placed under arrest he resisted being bandcuffed. Officer pulled the subject's hands behind him and he was handcu~ed. 41 5~17 98804552 Subject .tan from hi~ ,-m' after the officer stopped him. The ofcer caugh..~.J.t him and directed him to the 14 5-18 98804579 Distm'oance ground. He was handcu~ed. Offcers were investigating a ~ce- The subject was seen leaving the m'ea with a 4 foot long metal Pipe- The ofcer ~PPi'~ched I him and asked him twice to put it sidearm and ordered him to put it down. He did and was arrested for public intoxication. 34 5-19 98~}4631 SusPiciousperson Offcer responded to a call of two subjects with a long gun. O~cer c~ on foo! with his 21 ...... ' "" '''! r s.ig dqwn. 5-22 98804644 ' Burglary The subject resisted a Coralville Inves~gator's attempt to stop him, .... , Iowa City Officer grabbed the subject :J; ;~ ~ .~ a~n and held i, bahind his back. , OFFICER DATE CASE # INCI])ENT FORCE USED 36 ~-23 99804771 OWl Officer ~_s_ei_q~:l Johnson County Deputies, who werc tP/ing to place, a subject in a paddcd cell. Officerheld the subject's arms behindllis back 14 ~-24 ~$804~97 Driving Under t/During the investigation the ~,bject *' · Suspension alxeraptedtolealte. 3~ ~-25 98804810 Injured snimn! An injm~d snim~! was shot once with the officer's sid,~_rm. 93 ~-26 98804836 lnjur~i deer An injured deer was .~hot with the - wrestling with two viol~ntjuvenilcs. :'; ~" Officer grabbed the leg of one of the girls and she quit lighting. 13, 35, 40, 48 ~-29 93804928 Disorde. riy Housc Subjccz interfered-with officers while they wcrc invcs0~**ion a loud party. ltcwasplacedundcr~arrcstaadrcfus~t to be handcuffed. Officers pulled his' him, A female was told sh~ was under arrest for the psny. She attempted to run into the house. An officer grabbed her and she kneed him in the groin. ~ gtabbed her and pulled her arms behind her back She was 97 5-29 98804933 Disorderly conduct Subject fled on foot when be was mid Public Intoxication hewas t~de~a~t' He trippedand fall and the officer held him down. He was handcuffed. 49 5-31 9880:502'7 Assault Subject was a suspect in un assaulL He refused lo leave the alea near the ..~, viclim~ Officer requested him to move away. When he refused omce his hand on his chest and pushed him · '~? away from the area. ,.~..~,~ ,. .,! CC: Chief . · City Captnln~ Lieutenants { :a ~l'J q' i~,'Lf' a3 Library ~ City Clerk d ~ i i ~ 70