Racial Profiling:
The Law, Police and Community Attitudes and
Responses
BACKGROUND
Racial profiling and/or the perception that racial profiling is occurring is one of
the most important issues currently facing law enforcement. While this certainly is not a
new issue, there have been accusations of it throughout our nation’s history; it probably is
the single law enforcement issue that has received the most media coverage and citizen
involvement during the last two years. It is an issue that is not simply going to go away
on its own. It is an issue that police agencies must address in order to maintain credibility
with the citizens that they serve. This paper will explore the issue and offer some
solutions in addressing the problems.
DEFINITION
The logical starting point for a discussion about racial profiling is to define what it
is and what it isn’t. The most basic definition of racial profiling is: the unlawful police
practice of using race, color, or ethnic background, as the reason for conducting a traffic
minority individual. It is only racial profiling if the reason for the stop is the individual’s
race, color, or ethnic background.
DOES IT ACTUALLY OCCUR?
The next question that must be answered is: Does racial profiling actually occur?
There are many people in law enforcement that do not believe that racial profiling ever
occurs, or at least occurs so infrequently, that it is not a significant problem for law
enforcement to address. There are others who believe that racial profiling is a proper
activity for law enforcement to participate in.
Just prior to his dismissal, Carl Williams, the former director of the New Jersey
State Police, defended profiling by indicating that it was proper to stop more minorities
because they were the most likely group to be involved in drug trafficking.2 Profiling has been used successfully for identifying plane hijackers, serial killers, serial rapists, and
arsonists.3
The National Association of Police Organizations has announced its opposition to
a federal bill, the Traffic Stops Statistics Act, which would require police agencies to
collect racial identification data from all traffic stops that officers made. The
organization declared that there was no need to collect the data, indicating that there is no
problem with racial profiling occurring.4
There are many more examples of individuals in law enforcement who do not
believe there is a problem with racial profiling. While I believe these individuals are
sincere in their beliefs, I believe they are ignoring, or are not aware of, the overwhelming
the United States. There are two studies that have been widely cited to prove that racial
profiling currently exists.
The first, and most comprehensive study to date, was conducted during 1993 on
interstate highway I-95 in New Jersey. The study was conducted by John Lamberth, a
Temple University professor and statistician. Lamberth was hired by attorneys for a
group of African-American men who were suing the New Jersey State Police. The goal
of the study was “to determine if the State Police stop, investigate, and arrest black
travelers at rates significantly disproportionate to the percentage of blacks in the traveling
population, so as to suggest the existence of an official or de facto policy of targeting
blacks for investigation and arrest.”5 The results of the study showed that 73.2% of individuals stopped and arrested were African-American. While only 13.5% of all
vehicles on I-95 had an African-American driver or passenger, these vehicles accounted
for approximately 35% of the total traffic stops by the State Police.6 Lamberth’s conclusion was that the race of the driver was a decisive factor in determining if the
vehicle would be stopped.7
The second study was also conducted by Lamberth. This study occurred on a
section of I-95 in Maryland. In this study Lamberth’s analysis showed that while 17.5%
of African-Americans were responsible for traffic violations, the total traffic stops
conducted consisted of 72% African-American, and only 28% non-African-American. 8 In Michigan, in December of 1999, an EPIC/MRI poll was released which
showed that while African-Americans were stopped by the Michigan State Police about
as frequently as Whites were, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely to
A Gallup Poll was also released in December of 1999. This poll showed that 59%
of all adults believe that racial profiling by police officers does occur. 77% of
African-Americans believe that profiling is widespread. 72% of African-African-Americans aged 18-34
reported that they had been stopped because of their race.10
The only logical conclusion that one could make from these studies and polls is
that racial profiling does occur.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
In researching this paper I discussed the issue of profiling with five (5)
African-American police officers that I work with or that I know with other Michigan police
agencies (the officers did not want to be identified in any way). I specifically wanted to
know what their experiences were, not on-duty, but off-duty as an apparent civilian. All
five of the officers told me that they believe they had been stopped at least one time
because of their race during the last five years.
I will detail the statement of one of the five. While all of their experiences were
similar; I found this officer’s experiences to be the most compelling. This officer is in his
late thirties. He has been a sworn and highly successful officer for over fifteen years. He
resides in a Detroit suburb. He also teaches at a regional police academy. This officer
related that on over ten occasions during a three-year period when he worked a four p.m.
to midnight shift, he was followed and stopped in one particular Detroit suburb while on
his way home. The officer stated that he was absolutely certain that he did not commit
any traffic violation because he was aware of the reputation of the police agency there for
there. Ironically, each time that he was stopped was by officers that he kne w from having
trained them at the police academy or having worked with them in a mutual aid capacity.
Immediately upon recognition he was waved on from the stops and told, “Sorry - you’re
all set.” Sometimes the officers would engage in a friendly conversation with him.
This officer (and the other four officers in their incidents) chose not to confront
the individual officers or to complain to the officer’s supervisors about the actions.
When I questioned the officer about why he didn’t complain, he told me, “That’s just the
way things are; it wasn’t worth making an issue about it.”
While I in no way fault the officers for not taking action, and I understand their
logic, I am concerned about the level of this apparent activity. I speculate that if more
African-American officers would complain about their off-duty encounters, this issue
would receive greater attention from ranking police officials. My initial belief was that
there is a very small percentage of police officers that take part in profiling activities of
any type. While admittedly my random sample was small, the fact that all of them had
been stopped is a troubling disclosure. I can only compare this to my own experience (as
a White male) and state that as an admittedly chronic speeder; I have not been stopped
during the past five years.
In researching this paper, I also attended a community meeting on racial
profiling. The meeting occurred on February 5, 2000, at Perry Elementary School in
Ypsilanti. The meeting was sponsored by the N.A.A.C.P. I listened to eight
African-American citizens who shared their individual experiences with what they believed to be
incidents where they were victims of racial profiling. The individuals ranged from
that there were some incidents that they were recounting where it was obviously correct
and justified for the police officer to have stopped them, it was just as obvious to me that
several of the stops lacked justification and it did appear that race was the motivating
factor behind the stop.
While it is impossible to reach any accurate statistical conclusions from these
individual accounts, it is clear that a large segment of the community believes that racial
profiling does exist and that African-Americans are much more likely to be stopped than
Whites.
FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO PROFILING
To assume that the only reason behind profiling is racists beliefs of individual
officers or of society as a whole would be an oversimplification and an incorrect
conclusion. I see four additional primary factors that contribute to the practice of
profiling.
The first factor that contributes to a profiling mentality is the erroneous law
enforcement belief that African-Americans should be stopped more frequently than
Whites because African-Americans are disproportionately greater involved in drug
trafficking and in crime in general than Whites. Studies of the hit rate (for drugs during
searches) have shown that the rates are virtually identical for traffic stops involving
African-Americans and Whites. A United States Customs Agency hit rate report showed
a 6% hit rate for both groups – although African-Americans were subjected to the
The second factor is that police training courses such as “Highway Drug
Interdiction” often focuses on minorities as the targets of searches. While race is usually
not mentioned (at least officially) as a factor, several of the other indicators that officers
are trained to look for as indicators of criminal activity may disproportionately apply to
minorities, not because of criminal involvement, but because of economic factors. For
example, officers are trained to stop vehicles for minor equipment violations.
African-Americans may have a disproportionately high number of equipment violations due to the
economic restrains of maintaining a vehicle.
The third factor is the effect of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling:
Whren v. United States.12 The issue in Whren was the use of pretext stops. Pretext stops are traffic stops in which the police officer stops a vehicle for a minor violation (typically
one which officers would not or would rarely stop a car for) in order to run a check on the
driver or to attempt to search the vehicle. The facts in Whren, were that two plain clothes
Washington D.C. officers conducted a traffic stop on the defendant for speeding. This
was an unusual activity for the undercover officers to perform. In fact, their departmental
regulations prohibited undercover officers from conducting traffic stops. The officers
admitted that the primary reason that they stopped the defendant’s car was because they
believed he was involved in drug sales and they wanted to search his vehicle. A search of
the vehicle did locate drugs. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the subjective
intent of the police officer did not matter as long as there was a legitimate reason for
conducting the traffic stop.
This ruling, in effect, allows police officers to make pretext stops. Some officers
attempt to discover criminal activity even though there is no legitimate reasonable
suspicion to indicate that such activity is occurring. This is one of the areas that many
segments of the community are most concerned with. There is a feeling among many
people that this type of behavior is not good, aggressive police work, but rather it is
harassment of people based on their race.
The Court did caution that it might allow challenges to the use of race as a basis
for making stops under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Court stated: “We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis
for objecting to intentionally discriminating application of laws is the Equal Protection
Clause, not the Fourth Amend ment analysis.”13
A final factor is the use of productivity systems in police agencies. There are
several different types of productivity systems used by police agencies. In general, these
are systems that are designed to measure the work output of each individual officer. I
worked under a productivity system in the Ann Arbor Police Department for several
years. That system monitored several activities that patrol officers engaged in. The
system was used as a factor for determining who would receive special positions (such as
detective training) and it was used for promotions. Performing well on the productivity
system was important for officers who wanted to advance their careers. The system kept
statistics on, among other things, the number of traffic stops made, citations issued,
arrests made, and field- interview cards obtained.
Many officers had the belief that stopping a car being driven by, and containing,
productivity system. This belief, like the belief that African-Americans are
disproportionately involved in drug trafficking, became a self-perpetuating activity.
Officers were stopping more minority males, therefore there was a better chance that they
would have a traffic warrant on them. A stop that yielded a traffic ticket and an arrest or
two, was like hitting a jackpot under the productivity system. These types of productivity
systems inadvertently led to profiling activities by many officers.
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The simple answer to the question of “Why does it matter if racial profiling is
occurring?” is that it is both morally and ethically wrong. But there are several reasons
that go beyond it just being the wrong thing to do.
First, it is an actionable constitutional violation. The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.14 Several courts have allowed civil actions against police officers and their supervisors for profiling
activities. A recent United States district court ruling affirmed that making traffic stops
on the basis of race has been clearly established as an unconstitutional activity. The court
allowed a civil lawsuit to go forward against Maryland State Police officers and their
supervisors. Interestingly, the court ruled that even though the supervisors did not at any
time directly participate in making profile stops, just the fact that there was strong
statistical evidence indicating disproportionate traffic enforcement and searches of
minorities was sufficient to have given the supervisors notice that their troopers were
duty to take action to end these constitutional violations. Their failure to act was
actionable against them.15
Racial profiling activities could also rise to the level of criminal offenses by the
officers involved in it. There are several state statutes and/or state common law that
cover offenses such as malfeasance of duty. I believe that there are prosecutor’s offices
that would charge individual police officers with these types of criminal offenses if the
facts of the individual incidents would support the charges.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for police agencies to end these practices
though is the effect that racial profiling has on the relationship between the police and the
communities that they serve. For the past several years most police agencies have
stressed community policing as the model of policing that they are operating under, or are
attempting to operate under. Community policing is a model in which the police and the
community form a partnership in order to work together to both reduce crime and to
improve living conditions for the citizens of the community. These police agencies have
stressed the concept that the police are part of the community that they serve. By
becoming more involved in the community, the police hope that the community will trust
them more and work with them in solving the problems of the community.
Racial profiling activities by members of these police agencies causes irreparable
harm to community policing. Years of positive police community interactions can be
destroyed by racial profiling activities. Police agencies cannot hope to achieve any level
of community support if any segment of the community is being treated unfairly by the
police agency. It is clearly in the best interests of police agencies to take immediate
LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES
Many civil rights groups and individuals have called for police agencies to
develop policies that would prohibit profiling and to begin collecting traffic stop data that
would list the race of the driver of all vehicles that the agency stopped. There have
already been some limited legislative responses to the issue.
In April of 1999, a federal bill, was introduced in the United States House of
Representatives.16 This bill would require the Attorney General to conduct a nationwide study of traffic stops by police officers to determine: the race, gender, ethnicity, and
approximate age of the driver; the reason for the stop, information on any search that was
conducted, and information on any enforcement action that was taken. The bill has not
been passed by the full House as of this writing.
There have also been legislative actions at the local level. For example, in
February of 2000, the Ann Arbor City Council passed a resolution mandating the Ann
Arbor Police Department to begin collecting information similar to that required in HR
1443 for all traffic stops that their police officers made after July 1, 2000.17 This resolution also mandated obtaining information identifying the individual officer making
each stop and identifying the gender, age, race, and ethnicity of the officer making the
stop.
Several other communities are considering resolutions that would require their
POLICE RESPONSES
There was a strong initial resistance to requiring police agencies to report racial
data on traffic stops by many police organizations and individuals. Farmington Hills
Chief of Police William Dwyer, who is a leader in the Michigan Chiefs of Police
organization, expressed a concern about how the statistics would be interpreted and who
would interpret the statistics. Dwyer warned that data collection could lead to inaccurate
interpretations of racism if the statistics were misinterpreted.19 Dwyer, and several other law enforcement leaders, are concerned that the media and the general public will
misinterpret the statistics by comparing the racial information on the traffic stops to the
racial make-up of the jurisdiction where the stops occur; instead of comparing the stop
data to the racial make-up on drivers on the roadways that the agency is enforcing. For
example, the statistics from a small predominately White suburb that borders the City of
Detroit, a with a predominately African-American population, would very likely show
that the agency made a disproportionate number of stops on African-Americans as
compared to the number of African-American residents of that city. The raw data would
not reflect that the actual number of African-American drivers on the streets of this
suburb were probably much greater than White drivers, because of the large
African-American driving population traveling through this suburb to and from their residences in
Detroit.
There have been a limited number of studies made to determine the accurate
racial data of the driving populations in specific jurisdictions. One of the problems with
collecting racial data is that while it is relatively inexpensive to obtain the raw racial data
provide factual information on the race of the actual driving population in a specific
jurisdiction.
Some agencies have begun collecting racial data on traffic stops in Michigan. On
January 1, 2000, the Michigan State Police and the City of Dearborn Police Department
began collecting data.20 On July 1st the City of Ann Arbor Police Department also began collecting data.
The actual mechanics of the collection methods for all three agencies are similar.
The agencies are obtaining information from all traffic stops that their officers make.
This information is either obtained from the officers’ daily reports or from a separate
computer data form that the officers must complete on each stop that they make. The
information that each agency obtains does have some minor variations. For example,
Dearborn, with a large Middle- Eastern population, has a specific category to capture if
the driver should be in that classification, while the State Police and Ann Arbor forms do
not capture that information – they would only capture the driver as being White.21
Another issue that is closely related to profiling is the issue of consent searches.
A consent search is defined as a search made by law enforcement officers after receiving
permission from an individual. This is a search where the officer lacked sufficient
probable cause and/or exigent circumstances, or where an arrest or warrant was not
involved to conduct a search. Many individuals and organizations have complained that
minorities are unfairly and disproportionately targeted for these searches. Police agencies
have taken affirmative steps to address this issue.
For example, in August of 1999, the Michigan State Police issued a policy order
observations and questioning indicate a need to do so based upon an articulable reason.”22 In July of 2000, the Ann Arbor Police Department published a policy that states,
“Officers shall not request an individual to consent to a search of his/her person and/or
vehicle unless the officer(s) can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the search would
reveal evidence of a crime.”23 These policy changes were designed to address complaints that officers routinely conduct “fishing expeditions” in searching minorities with no
factual reasons to support the search.
It is not enough though for the agencies to become aware of the existence of
profiling activities; these police agencies must take affirmative actions to eliminate these
activities when they are discovered. One of the most effective ways to eliminate these
behaviors is through the use of internal administrative discipline. Police attorney Carl
Milazzo, in addressing the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in
1999 stated that, “Officers are more likely to be deterred from misconduct by the
prospect of losing days off without pay or their job, than losing a case because of a
motion to suppress, or a class action lawsuit against the entire agency where the agency
settles the suit without bothering to contest the merits.” 24
Police agencies must also develop policies that prohibit racial profiling and they
must provide training to their officers on those policies. Police agencies also need to
provide current on-going legal training to their officers. I am personally aware of police
agencies in Michigan that have not provided their officers with any type of legal update
While it is too early to make accurate evaluations about the effectiveness of these
policies, the initial results in Ann Arbor have shown a reduction in the number of race
related complaints.
There are many actions that police administrators must immediately take to
eliminate the problem or the perception that racial profiling is occurring in their
individual agencies. Police administrators cannot simply ignore this problem and assume
that it will go away – it will not.
CONCLUSIONS
Racial profiling continues to be an important issue that police agencies must act
on. Several agencies have taken steps to address the concerns with the issue. The
collection of racial data from traffic stops and policies prohibiting searches without an
articulable suspicion of criminal activity, are two important steps forward that some
agencies have taken. Police agencies must continue to address the concerns of the
community about racial profiling if the agencies truly hope to attain their goals of
Sources
1 Michigan Civil Rights Commission. Position Statement on Racial Profiling . Lansing, MI: 1999.
2 Racial Profiling on Our Nation’s Highways . American Civil Liberties Union Special Report, 3, (1999).
3 Turvey, Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, Academic Press, San Diego (1999).
4 Jackson, Robert L., “Push Against Bias in Traffic Stops Arrested.” Los Angeles Times 1 June 1998: A5.
5 Booker, Chris. “Driving While Black – A Modern Variant of an Historical
Problem: Traveling While Black.” African American Male Research 3.2 (1999) : 2-3.
6 Lamberth, Dr. John, Revised Statistical Analysis of the Incidence of Police Stops and Arrests of Black Drivers/Travelers on the New Jersey Turnpike
Between Exits or Inte rchanges 1 and 3 from the Years 1988 Through 1991. 20, State V. Pedro Soto, 734 A.2d 350 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 1996
7
Id. at 25-26.28. 8 Id. at 5 table 1.
9 Arellano, Amber. “Blacks Are Ticketed More Often, Poll Says.” Detroit Free Press 7 February 2000.
10 Arellano, Amber. “Whites, Blacks Say Stops Based On Race, Poll Says.” Detroit Free Press 13 December 1999.
11
Harris, Professor David. “Driving While Black – Community Meeting.” Perry Elementary School, Ypsilanti, Michigan. 5 February 2000. Professor Harris is a law professor at the University of Toledo College of Law in Toledo, Ohio.
12 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). 13
Id. at 808.
14 United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment. 15
Maryla nd State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Department of Md. State Police, D. Md., Civil No. CCB-98-1098, (1999).
16
Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999, H.R. 1443, 106 Cong. (1999). 17 City of Ann Arbor City Council. Resolution Supporting and Providing Guidelines For the Collection of Data to Inform Community Concerns About Racial Profiling. Ann Arbor: 2000.
18
Forrest, Captain Edward, City of Lansing Police Department, Personal Interview, 13 Sept. 2000.
19
Arellano, Amber. “Tracking of Race Resisted by Police.” Detroit Free Press 14 April 2000.
20 Shepardson, David. “Cops Will Log Race of Drivers.” Detroit News 10 December 1999.
21 Id.
22 Michigan State Police. Consent Search Policy. Lansing, Michigan: 1999. 23
Ann Arbor Police Department. Non-discrimination Policy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 2000.
24 Milazzo, Carl. “ Race Relations in Police Operations: A Legal and Ethical Perspective.” International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, 30 October 1999.
