CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 presents background information relative to Nevada Assembly Bill 500 (AB 500), racial profiling in general, and traffic stop data collection. Racial profiling will be defined in terms of the provisions of NRS 289.820, established by Nevada AB 500 (Appendix E) during the 2001 Legislature. A table will present the current status of state statutes prohibiting racial profiling, as well as the extent of current voluntary and mandatory data collection by law enforcement agencies across the country. The focus will then shift to the requirements of the one-year traffic stop study in Nevada.
BACKGROUND
The 2001 Nevada Legislature, like many other governmental bodies, engaged in the debate of the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement officers. Lawmakers considered anecdotal evidence of racial profiling in Nevada. The result of the racial profiling debate was Nevada Assembly Bill 500 (AB 500). Both houses of the Legislature approved AB 500 unanimously. Governor Kenny Guinn signed AB 500 into law on June 14, 2001.
There are several provisions of AB 500. First, NRS Chapter 289 was amended to provide a definition and prohibition of racial profiling in Nevada. Second, a one-year traffic stop data collection study was established for the 2002 calendar year, which expired December 31, 2002. AB 500 requires the Attorney General’s Office present the study findings to the Nevada Legislature by February 1, 2003. AB 500 required the identification of individuals stopped and the officers who stopped them remain confidential. Consequently, evidence of racial profiling would be limited to individual police agencies rather than individual officers.
Some experts
believe the practice of racial profiling to be an effective tool for combating
specific crime problems (Cohen et al. 2000). Despite this argument,
surveys of the public consistently
reflect the use of racial profiling by police is unacceptable. Given the fact
that racial profiling is prohibited by the equal protection clause of the
United States Constitution, as well as some state statutes, few could
effectively argue it is an appropriate method for fighting crime. Many argue
the consideration of race by police in making traffic stop decisions is simply
wrong and needs to be addressed. In fact, many of the articles regarding racial
profiling address ways to eradicate its existence (Fridell et al. 2001, Cohen
et al. 2000).
Definitions of racial profiling vary; however, the
consideration of race or ethnic factors in the decision to stop or otherwise
detain individuals by police is a key element.
Nevada AB 500 defines racial profiling as reliance by a peace officer
upon the race, ethnicity or national origin of a person as a factor in
initiating action when the race, ethnicity or national origin of the person is
not part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific
crime (NRS Chapter 284, 2001). Absent a specific suspect description, which
includes race or ethnicity, Nevada law enforcement officers are prohibited
by AB 500 of using racial or ethnic factors in
making traffic stop decisions.
RACIAL PROFILING STATUTES AND DATA COLLECTION
All fifty states were surveyed by e-mail with respect to current state statutes which prohibit profiling by police. State police, offices of Attorney General, and local police agencies were contacted and asked about the existence of racial profiling statutes and mandatory or voluntary data collection. Information regarding data collection was also obtained from the Northeastern University Data Collection Resource Center. As shown in Figure 1, most states have no statutory prohibitions of racial profiling.
Figure 1
n=50
Information regarding the current status of racial profiling statutes and data collection efforts nationally is shown in Table 1 (Appendix A). Only twelve of the fifty states have statutory prohibitions against racial profiling. While few states have statutory prohibitions of racial profiling, most states are involved in the mandatory or voluntary collection of traffic stop data. Fourteen state police agencies are mandated to collect data. Five states require all state and local agencies to collect data. Ten states are not involved in the mandatory or voluntary collection of traffic stop data. Some states have no statutory prohibition of racial profiling, however, mandate law enforcement agencies to establish a policy prohibiting racial profiling. Other states mandate cultural diversity training. There are also many departments across the nation collecting data voluntarily. Tables 1a and 1b reflect the extent to which police agencies are collecting data at present. Some state and local agencies are collecting data pursuant to federal consent decrees or court settlements. Others collect data voluntarily. Many of the data collection programs are considered temporary studies similar to AB 500.
Table
1a-Mandatory Data Collection-Nationally
|
|
Mandatory
Data Collection
|
||
|
None |
|
27 |
|
|
State Police Agencies Only |
|
5 |
|
|
Local Police Agencies Only |
|
9 |
|
|
State and Some Local Police Agencies |
|
9 |
|
|
Total |
|
50 |
|
Table
1b-Voluntary Data Collection-Nationally
|
|
Voluntary
Data Collection
|
||
|
None |
|
14 |
|
|
State Police Agencies Only |
|
5 |
|
|
Local Police Agencies Only |
|
23 |
|
|
State and Some Local Police Agencies |
|
8 |
|
|
Total |
|
50 |
|
THE ONE-YEAR DATA COLLECTION
STUDY
Nevada AB 500 mandated the Attorney General to conduct the one-year study of traffic stops in 2002. The study included all traffic stops made by the Nevada Highway Patrol. In addition, stops by local police and sheriffs departments in counties where the population is 100,000 or more were included. Only Clark and Washoe Counties met this criteria. The one-year study excluded pedestrian stops as well as non-discretionary police roadblocks such as sobriety checkpoints. The following police agencies were required to collect traffic stop data in accordance with AB 500:
- Nevada Highway Patrol
- Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
- Boulder City Police Department
- Mesquite Police Department
- Washoe County Sheriffs Office
- Sparks Police Department
- Reno Police Department
- North Las Vegas Police Department
- Henderson Police Department
AB 500 allowed other Nevada law enforcement agencies to collect data. Only the University of Nevada, Las Vegas police department (UNLV PD) chose to voluntarily collect data. UNLV PD briefly collected data during 2002, however, no analysis resulted from the data collection.
The following represents the information required to be included in the data collection study:
- The traffic violation or infraction alleged to have been committed that caused the driver to be stopped.
- The identifying characteristics of the driver who was stopped, including without limitation, the driver’s race, ethnicity, gender, and approximate age.
- A statement of whether the immigration status of the driver was questioned, including whether immigration documents were requested by the officer or whether an inquiry was made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with regard to the immigration status of any person in the motor vehicle.
- The number of persons who were in the motor vehicle when it was stopped.
- A statement of whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop, including, without limitation, a report of any contraband or money that was seized.
- A report of any items seized during a search of the vehicle, including, without limitation, a report of any contraband or money that was seized.
- A statement of whether any warning or citation was issued as a result of the stop.
- A statement of whether an arrest was made as a result of either the stop itself or any search conducted during the stop, and the justification for any such arrest.
The traffic stop data card (AB 500), provided by the Nevada Highway Patrol, is shown in appendix F. Nevada law enforcement officers were required to complete the data card after each traffic stop, regardless of disposition, for the 2002 calendar year.
STUDY PRESENTATION
In addition to the above introductory chapter, which outlined background information, this paper presents four additional chapters regarding racial profiling and data collection. Chapter 2 consists of a review of prior research studies including strategies to eliminate racial profiling, as well as traffic stop data collection issues. Chapter 3 includes the present study research design and methodology. Chapter 4 discusses findings and conclusions from the survey research used in this study. Chapter 5 will summarize the implications of the present study. Recommendations will be presented to Nevada lawmakers and law enforcement officials relative to an appropriate strategy for eradicating this unfortunate social problem.
CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW
Surveys
conducted relative to the belief that police racially profile have proved
disturbing. The latest survey regarding the perception of racial profiling
found that 82 percent of blacks and 60 percent of whites saw racial profiling
by police as widespread (Weitzer/Tuch 2002). The fact that the majority of
whites viewed racial profiling as a widespread police practice demonstrates the
perception cuts across racial lines. Public perception of racial profiling has
fueled the fire of controversy surrounding this issue. Anecdotal accounts of
profiling are at times sensationalized by the news media (Oliver 2002). This
sensationalism further inflames the perception that police stop minorities
because of the color of their skin. News stories about racial profiling are
supported only by anecdotal evidence. However, the fact is anecdotal evidence
is simply not empirical evidence. Reported incidents of racial profiling do
little to tell us the true nature of the problem. This underscores the
importance of empirical research into this issue. The better we understand the
problem, the better we can ultimately resolve it.
Nationally, police agencies have increasingly focused on the improvement of community relations. Recent studies indicate that community oriented policing programs have greatly increased in popularity as a result of this increased emphasis (U.S. DOJ 2001). The utilization of the community oriented policing philosophy has benefited from tremendous citizen support (Spokane Police Department 1999). The perception of racial profiling, however, tends to erode the positive community relations police agencies incorporate into their strategic plans. This erosion of relations suggests a need for an aggressive response by police administrators.
STRATEGIES TO ELIMINATE
UNLAWFUL PROFILING
Racial profiling has no single cure, however, a multifaceted approach to eliminate this problem is suggested (Fridell et al. 2001). The six strategies, recommended by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), for combating racially biased policing include: Accountability and supervision, policies prohibiting biased policing, recruitment and hiring, education and training, minority community outreach, and traffic stop data collection. Another strategy, not suggested above, includes the use of mounted video cameras in patrol vehicles (Kamb 2001). Police officials believe video cameras to be valuable in determining if a racial profiling pattern is present.
New Jersey officials have moved aggressively
to address discriminatory practices by police.
Pending legislation in New Jersey would make the act of racial profiling
a felony crime punishable by a term of imprisonment for 3 to 5 years and/or by
a fine of not more than $15,000. Lawmakers in New Jersey have also sought to
ban law enforcement from conducting consent searches of motor vehicles. Some
would argue that such a response to racial profiling was necessary given the
extent to which the unlawful practice was occurring in New Jersey. After all,
officials found widespread profiling in a 1999 study by the Office of Attorney
General (Verniero 1999). Others
would say this is simply going too far. Philosophies aside, the act of
attempting to criminalize racial profiling and prohibiting consent searches of
vehicles represents the most aggressive strategy to date.
Some argue data collection is more than a strategy to address unlawful profiling. Davis maintains that data collection is symbolic (2001). It is a gesture of good will and an expression to the public that law enforcement has nothing to hide. This argument focuses on the importance of favorable police-minority group relations. Regardless of the basis for data collection, it is apparent that the collection of data is playing a larger role in the response to racial profiling. More than 100 municipal law enforcement agencies currently collect traffic stop data (Ward 2002). While some municipalities are collecting data voluntarily, others do so by consent decree or other local mandate. Legislation is pending in twelve states with regard to data collection requirements. Despite the increased level of data collection by law enforcement nationally, many experts agree that it is not the ultimate solution given the inherent limitations (Davis 2001).
LIMITATIONS OF DATA
COLLECTION
Researchers have examined the advantages and disadvantages of initiating traffic-stop data collection. But exactly what will data collection tell us? If one simply wants to know if racial profiling is occurring, data collection is probably not the answer. The success of data collection and analysis is limited. The most noteworthy case favorable to data collection is the New Jersey study. Analysis determined that state troopers were in fact engaging in racial profiling (Verniero 1999). Unfortunately, data collection efforts generally result in inconclusive findings. A 2000 report from the United States Government Accounting Office, despite the existence of disparities between whites and minority groups, was unable to conclude whether or to what extent racial profiling was occurring (US GAO 2000). The Department of Justice also found differences involving racial or ethnic factors, however, again no conclusion regarding the existence or extent of racial profiling could be established (US DOJ 2001). Still another study confirmed a higher level of traffic stops of minorities was not associated with officer race (Smith, Petrocelli 2001). This finding casts doubt on the suggestion that the data points to biased policing. The difficulty associated with data interpretation is a legitimate concern to those who seek the truth to the extent of racial profiling (Ramirez 2000). Traffic stop data reflecting differences among races does not necessarily make a case for racial profiling. Racial disparity does not necessarily amount to racial discrimination (Zingraff et al. 2000). Disparities between race or ethnic factors suggest further inquiry rather than a hasty declaration of profiling.
Data
interpretation also presents difficult challenges. Exactly how should we
interpret the traffic stop data? What does it mean when disparities exist
between the races. The establishment of a suitable baseline for data comparison
has been a key limitation of traffic stop data analysis. Census data is clearly
unsuitable for comparison as it assumes all drivers stopped are residents.
States, including Nevada, experience a high level of tourists traveling by
automobile, especially in the Las Vegas area. This suggests the use of tourist
demographic information be considered. The AB 500 data card does have a
provision, which includes whether a stopped motorist is a resident of Nevada.
This would allow for the comparison of tourist demographic data if available.
Unfortunately, AB 500 made no mention of the establishment of a statistical
comparison, commonly referred to as a baseline or denominator. It has been
suggested that the challenges associated with establishing comparison
benchmarks cannot be overcome (Walker 2001). This argument is based on the
assumption that a valid baseline must include demographic information of
motorists at risk of being stopped. Given an assessment of whether or to what
extent a police agency is engaged is disparate treatment of motorists is
expected to result from data collection and analysis, this issue must receive
careful consideration. The unfortunate truth is data collection will not tell
us if racial profiling is occurring and to what extent (Davis 2001).
Data collection implies the subsequent analysis of the gathered information. The data analysis is critical in drawing conclusions with respect to whether law enforcement is engaged in unlawful profiling. The implications of making such conclusions are compelling. At what point can one establish that police are engaged in racial profiling? This question remains largely unanswered. Meanwhile, the search continues for many agencies, which seek the ultimate yardstick for measuring data. Law enforcement officials often use census data as a benchmark for comparison despite the limitations. The ultimate findings from statistical comparison are critical, as the image and reputation of law enforcement will in part rest upon the conclusions of the data analysis.
Data collection in many cases involves officers completing data cards, which are later analyzed. Of course, this amounts to another document for the officers to complete. Law enforcement distaste toward paperwork is hardly a new concept. Despite technological advances, many officers collecting traffic stop data are doing so by hand. The addition of another document for officers to complete has implications as many officers believe law enforcement to be of a burdensome nature and may change their behavior to avoid having to complete another form.
The
reliance on the self-reporting of officers is not considered the most effective
way to determine if officers are engaged in unlawful profiling (Ward 2002).
This argument assumes that officers will ultimately change their behavior due
to concerns about being watched. Error rates and the failure of officers to
comply with the completion of data cards are factors, which would impact traffic-stop
data collection validity.
RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
Researchers have largely ignored
the impact of racial profiling issues including data collection implications on
law enforcement. Beyond a reduced level of traffic enforcement, we simply do
not know how police officers will respond to mandatory data collection. Will officers fear being labeled a profiler
and avoid enforcement contact with minorities? Will law enforcement support
data collection as necessary for maintaining favorable minority group relations
and increased accountability? Will
officers take offense to perceived mistrust by the community they serve? Will
the burdensome nature of police work be adversely affected by another form?
This study will examine these and other questions as well as provide an
analysis of the behavioral response of Nevada law enforcement to mandatory data
collection.
CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY
SURVEY PROCEDURE
All nine Nevada law enforcement agency chiefs mandated to collect traffic stop data were asked to allow officers to participate in the present study. E-mails and/or certified letters were sent to each law enforcement agency chief requesting their participation (Appendix B). The University of Nevada, Las Vegas police department collected data voluntarily, however, was excluded from the survey as the present study focus was limited to mandatory data collection. Of the nine agencies contacted, the Reno police chief responded by e-mail declining to participate in the survey due to concerns regarding the “Sensitive” nature of the issue. North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Sparks police departments did not respond to e-mails and/or certified letters requesting their participation in the study. The remaining five Nevada law enforcement agencies required to collect data agreed to allow officers to be surveyed. In some cases, law enforcement agency attorneys reviewed and approved the survey prior to allowing officers to participate.
The five participating agencies forwarded a roster of officers whose duties included traffic enforcement. Officers assigned to internal affairs, dignitary protection, or other non-uniform assignments were excluded. Agency chiefs and officers who were temporarily serving in the military or who were on extended leave of absence were not surveyed. Officers assigned to traffic duties limited specifically to major accident investigation were also excluded. This included 13 officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department who do not operate marked patrol vehicles and are not involved in traffic enforcement.
The survey packages included: A cover letter (Appendix C), the three page survey (Appendix D), and a postage paid envelope provided by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Surveys were either delivered in person to the law enforcement agencies, or mailed first class, return receipt requested. Each officer was sent a sealed survey package individually addressed. In the cover letter, the researcher identified himself as a fellow law enforcement officer and graduate student. The cover letter provided information regarding the nature of the research being conducted. Officers were asked to complete and promptly return the survey.
Surveys
were numbered for the purpose of sending reminder letters to non-respondents.
Follow up surveys were sent only to officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department due to an initial response rate lower than other departments
in the study. However, follow up surveys were not sent to non-respondents of
the Washoe County Sheriffs Office. This represents a study limitation, but was
unavoidable due to time restrictions. Moreover, four surveys were received
after the compilation of statistical data and analysis and were not included in
the present study.
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The survey consisted of 15 questions.
The brief nature of the survey was designed to maximize participation. Twelve
of the 15 questions were close-ended. The remaining questions were open-ended.
Examples of the responses to the open-ended questions are shown in Appendix G.
The population of 352 Nevada troopers was included, the largest group in the
study. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) employs
approximately 2,000 officers, many of which have limited involvement with
traffic enforcement. Consequently, the population of 117 traffic officers with
LVMPD was selected to be surveyed. The 111 Washoe County Sheriffs Office
deputies whose duties included patrol or traffic were also included. The
population of officers employed by the Mesquite (18) and Boulder City (19) police
departments was also surveyed.
DATA PROCESSING
Answers from returned surveys were entered into a computer database. Responses to the three open-ended questions were also data coded into one of several response categories. All surveys were destroyed subsequent to the data coding process. Data analysis was accomplished with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.0. The resultant tables and figures were based on SPSS analysis.
RESPONSE RATE
Of the 617 surveys mailed, 399 were returned for an overall response rate of 65 percent. Table 2 reflects the response rate by department. The Nevada Highway Patrol had the highest response rate at 69 percent. The Washoe County Sheriffs Office had the lowest rate of return at 44 percent. Seven respondents returned surveys with the number removed. Consequently, they could not be identified by department and are considered missing data in table 2. Figure 2 represents survey respondents by department. The Nevada Highway Patrol employed 61 percent of respondents. Nineteen percent of respondents were officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The Washoe County Sheriffs Office employed 12 percent of respondents. The Mesquite and Boulder City police departments employed the remainder of officers.
Figure 2
n=399
Table 2-Response Rates by Department
Agency |
Surveys Mailed |
Surveys Returned |
Response Rate |
|
Nevada Highway Patrol |
352 |
242 |
69% |
|
Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police |
117 |
76 |
65% |
|
Washoe County Sheriffs Office |
111 |
49 |
44% |
|
Boulder City Police Department |
19 |
13 |
68% |
|
Mesquite Police Department |
18 |
12 |
67% |
|
Missing Data-Unknown |
|
7 |
|
|
Total |
617 |
399 |
65% |
STUDY LIMITATIONS
It is recognized that the survey responses of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department represent only a small subset of all LVMPD officers. Discussions with LVMPD administrators led to the strategy of surveying only 117 of the approximately 2,000 officers of the department. The 117 officers surveyed were identified as a group whose function was primarily traffic enforcement.
The number of surveys mailed to respondents of the Nevada Highway Patrol was three times that of the next largest agency in the study. This suggests an overrepresentation by state troopers. This represents a possible study limitation as no statistical weights were used in the data analysis.
Only five of the nine Nevada law enforcement agencies participated in the present study. The generalizability of the findings to all Nevada law enforcement assumes the views of officers from the other four nonparticipating law enforcement agencies are similar to those in the present study.
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
The data in Figure 3 reflects the demographic makeup of respondents. Interestingly, 9 percent of respondents refused or otherwise failed to indicate racial or ethnic information. As expected, the vast majority of respondents were white (77 per