John Lambeth of Temple University conducted a study to determine whether blacks were being targeted on the New Jersey Turnpike. He found that African Americans made up 13.5 percent of highway users and 15 percent of the speeders, but he found that they represented 35 percent of those stopped by police. They were almost five times more likely to be pulled over as other drivers. Similar results were found in studies conducted in Maryland and Florida.
Other minority community members complain that they too are stopped and questioned by authorities for no good reason. Latinos protest that they are targeted at Border Patrol checkpoints within the United States, and Arab-Americans claim that they are often detained for long periods by airport security, especially after some terrorist scare.
Pulling over a car, or stopping a person, solely on the basis of the driver's race violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. If proven, it would invalidate an arrest or the use of any evidence seized from the driver. Federal civil rights laws outlaw it and several states have passed laws specifically against this practice. The more difficult question arises over police officer discretion in deciding who to pull over. In the 1996 case of Whren v. U.S. , the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police may stop a car for any traffic or equipment violation even if they have a different motivation for making the stop, such as the suspicion of drug trafficking. Some experts point to "profiling" as the major cause of disproportionate traffic stops on minorities. Profiles are systems used by police to predict criminal behavior. Some use scientific methods and statistics to develop a list of factors that make up a profile of a potential suspect. They might include age, location, type of car, time of day, driving patterns, route of travel, and whether the driver is alone. Profiles can also target white citizens. For example, a police officer might be more likely to pull over a late-model car for a minor traffic violation if it were driven by a white youth at night in an inner-city neighborhood where drug dealing occurs. In this case, the driver might fit a profile of someone who is likely trying to buy drugs. There are two types of racial profiling—full and partial. A full racial profile is when race is the only factor that causes an officer to stop someone. As mentioned above, this practice is unconstitutional, illegal, and universally condemned. Even so, many minorities complain that it happens all the time. Police officials disagree and say the practice is not widespread.
In 1999, Connecticut and North Carolina passed laws requiring police to keep track of the race and ethnicity of everyone they stop. The data will be forwarded to experts to analyze whether and to what extent officers are targeting people on the basis of race or ethnicity. These laws are widely supported by minority leaders. Walter Wilson, legislative director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has stated: "The NAACP believes that comprehensive data collection is critical to the process of ending racial profiling. Without data collection, there is no progress on this issue." Other states and the federal government are considering such laws. But strong opposition to these laws has come from police groups. They argue that stopping people is already hazardous and forcing officers to ask people about their race and ethnicity will needlessly lengthen stops and inflame the situation. They also don't think the statistics will prove anything because people stopped will probably reflect the racial makeup of the community they are stopped in. They believe that instead of collecting data, all allegations of officers targeting minorities should be thoroughly investigated.
Another set of issues concerns partial racial profiling, where race or ethnicity is one of several factors. Many people support this type of profiling. They argue that it is an effective law-enforcement tool. Bernard Parks, chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, has stated: "We have an issue of violent crime against jewelry salespeople. . . . It's a collection of several hundred Colombians who commit this crime. If you see six in a car in front of the Jewelry Mart, and they're waiting and watching people with briefcases, should we play the percentages and follow them? It's common sense." Parks is an African American. He sees nothing wrong with partial racial profiling.
Randall Kennedy, a law professor at Harvard, opposes using race as a factor in profiles. He doesn't think that police necessarily use this practice because they have racist motives. He thinks they may believe it is an effective law-enforcement tool, and Kennedy believes they may be right. But Kennedy points out that many innocent people get stopped by police using these profiles. And, he says, they often don't just get stopped once, but many times. This, he says, causes great anger and alienation. "Alienation of that sort gives rise to witnesses who fail to cooperate with the police, citizens who view prosecutors as 'the enemy,' . . . and jurors who yearn to 'get even' with a system that has, in their eyes, consistently mistreated them. For the sake of better law enforcement, we need to be mindful of the deep reservoir of anger toward the police that now exists within many racial minority neighborhoods. Racial profiling is a big part of what keeps this pool of accumulated rage filled to the brim."
For Discussion
- A bank is robbed and the suspect is described as an Asian woman driving a red sports car. Police start looking for such a suspect. Is this a racial profile? Explain.
- What is the difference between partial and full racial profiling?
- Do you think profiling is an effective law-enforcement tool? If so, are its benefits worth its costs? Explain.
- Should police ever be allowed to consider race when deciding whether to stop someone?
From: Criminal Justice in America, Copyright 2000 Constitutional Rights Foundation (Los Angeles).
What Should Be Done About Profiling?
Overview
To find out more about racial profiling, some states have passed laws requiring police to collect data on the race and ethnicity of everyone they stop. Other states and the federal government are considering doing the same. Opponents of data collection support other measures such as police videotaping every traffic stop or police distributing their card to everyone they stop so that people can easily file complaints. In this activity, students role play advisers to a state governor who is considering introducing legislation on racial profiling.
Instructions
Divide the class into small groups.
Each group should:
- Discuss the problem of racial profiling and various proposals for addressing it.
- Decide which proposal, if any, to support. (Students may create their own proposal.)
- Prepare to report its decision and the reason for it back to the class. Have the groups report back and discuss the various proposals. Conclude the activity by voting as a class on the proposals.
From: Criminal Justice in America, Copyright 2000 Constitutional Rights Foundation (Los Angeles).