Police Officers And The Civil Libertarian And Economics Approaches

Data shows the racial profiling and illegal pullovers and search of cars driven by Black, and Hispanic males are a police action performed throughout the nation. “Even Famous Black celebrities and prominent African Americans say police have victimized them. They say they have been pulled over and subjected to a vehicle and physical search by police without probable cause, based on none other than the fact they are the black men driving an expensive car. Thus, the Police assumed they must be a drug dealer or involved in some criminal behavior to afford such an expensive car. “DWB” protocols by police and their departments according to the ACLU is also a violation of a person’s civil rights that are illegal, invasive as well as intrusive (8).”

This paper outlines the studies, incidents, facts and statistics that have found evidence of racial profiling which causes distrust in the law enforcements (police, government etc0. Studies of racial profiling shows that blacks, Hispanics, Middle Eastern and other racial minorities are more likely to be stopped than those who are white. They are more likely to be stopped and searches, traffic stops, license and registration checks. In addition they are more likely to be ticketed or arrested after being stopped and search. Some scholars and studies believes that minorities being that are frequently stopped and searched has nothing to do with them being racially profiled. According to Roh and Robinson,” studies raise the possibility that minorities may be more involved in criminality (Gaines, 2006), some drug crimes (Lichtenberg, 2006), and speeding offenses (Lange, Johnson, & Voas, 2005), thereby justifying higher stop and arrest rates by police of some groups.” (Roh, S., & Robinson, M.)

Racial profiling is a very prevalent issue within the criminal justice system that is quite controversial, but there is a significant number of evidence that shows that racial profiling has been present since the 1600’s and continues to be a significant issue. Racial profiling is evident in the criminal justice system in various ways such as in interrogations, jury selection, misleading statistics, stops, and immigration laws. Racial profiling within interrogations and jury selection can be seen with the Brandley v. Keeshan case. Racial profiling within statistics can be seen in instances where the numbers focus on arrests and incarcerations that do not necessarily mean a crime was committed. Stops are seen as evidence showing racial profiling with a personal experience, and lastly, immigration laws are seen as showing racial profiling by the encounter of a Mexican American women had with an officer in Arizona.

“In 2005, a study analyzing data accumulated statewide in Texas reveals disproportionate traffic ceases and searches of African Americans and Hispanics, even though law enforcement authorities were more liable to find contraband on Whites.” (The Reality of Racial Profiling) The utilization of personal characteristics or comportment patterns to make generalizations about a person is called racial profiling. Throughout time, the utilization of race by law enforcement agencies in their policing activities has received considerable attention across the nation. The 4th amendment right that one has as an American, which is protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, is becoming contravened; one reason for the way one looks. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that racial profiling violates the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the law, but it is still occurring in our society. Racial Profiling has caused the violation of our rights whether it maybe from a terry stop that was originated for the case Terry vs. Ohio, stop and frisk, racial vehicle stops, and the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act also known as Arizona SB 1070.

Research focusing on the calculation of racial disparities in police outcomes has generally examined police traffic stops and the follow up police activities, such as, citations, search and warnings. Review of these studies suggests that calculation methods of racial disparity vary from one study to another; however, majority of those studies employed population as a baseline measure or benchmarking variable (Withrow, 2002; Smith & Petrocelli, 2001; Withrow & Williams, 2015). Early studies using population as a baseline measure to compare disproportionate traffic stop counts found substantial racial disparities (Lamberth, 1996; Verniero & Zoubek, 1999). Studies later have begun to discuss that

The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.

In relation to the debate of ‘racial profiling,’ Taylor and Whitney define racial profiling as “the practice of questioning blacks in disproportionate numbers in expectation that they are more likely than people of other races to be criminals” (Taylor & Whitney, 2002). Statistics show that African-Americans and Hispanics commit more crime than Caucasians, with 90% of the 1.7 million interracial crimes stemming from the hands of African-American men. Even looking at these numbers, does that make it okay for the police to arrest and interrogate these racial minorities at such a high frequency? Where are these statistics coming from? How accurate are they? Does the media provide a skewed analysis of these findings? These are the types of questions that need to be addressed in regard to evaluating the validity of racial profiling.

Law enforcement officials often confront situations where it’s an almost certainty that illegal activities are taking place despite not having sufficient resources to investigate every possible perpetrator. Research on race and vehicle stops by police show that African American drivers are disproportionately stopped in traffic by police for driving violations (Kowalski & Lundman, 2007). The reason is because law enforcement officials use characterizations or

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

Apart from periodically publishing stop and search records, supervisors and managers of police force are now required to closely monitor such statistics and take timely actions if something wrong is being observed. Also stricter rules on stop and search have since been imposed, along with the requirement of police officers writing a detailed report on spot about every single incident which subjects to review seems helpful in improving police conduct (Fyfe 1979; Skogan and Frydl 2004 in Miller 2010). While stop and search practice has been somehow improved, racial discrimination can still be seen in stop and search statistics. The notion of “Black and minority ethnic groups, particularly black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search—a fact associated with profound community resentment towards the police” (Bowling and Phillips 2002 in Miller 2010) still largely applies today. Miller’s (2010) analysis indicate that black people are about 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched, while it is about 2 times more likely for Asians. Similar idea is seen in Bennetto’s (2009) report, which draws on police statistics that shows in 2009 “black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white”, worse than Miller’s analysis with the most recent figures in 2008. No official explaination is provided by Police, but Bennetto (2009) assumes this may be caused by simply discrimination of

The research problem in Black and Hispanic Men Perceived to Be Large Are at Increased Risk for Police Frisk, Search, and Force, is one in which the bigger or larger the defendants are at risk for experiencing police force mistreatment of racial profiling, with the black and Hispanic men being more likely to experience excessive force than Caucasian men across the same dimensions (Milner, George, & Allison, 2016, p. 1). The particular design of this study was a is a quasi-experimental design, the data-gathering strategy of this study was simple and straightforward; 3 million cases from the New York Police Department (NYPD) Stop, Question, and Frisk (SQF) Database, from the following years, 2006–2013 (Milner et al., 2016, p. 1).

Racial profiling has no role in many of the police departments to prevent and stop crimes. Racial profiling provides no logical conclusion that a person of a different race and skin color subjected under stop and frisk is a criminal or deemed to be suspicious. A study conducted in New York by the New York Civil Liberties Union explains how many of the stop-and-frisks conducted by the New York police department depicts that racial profiling show no clear signs in reducing crimes. The NYCLU reveals, “Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent (Par 1). If nine out of ten bystanders are innocent, the police department portrays the ineffectiveness of racial profiling. It only shows how racial profiling is not a ground breaking instrument for the police department, and provides no merit in stopping crime. Therefore, there is no solid reason to why racial profiling should persist. Furthermore, data gathered by the NYPD further shows a large disparity in race from a 2006 annual report of stop-and-frisk by the New York police department. Of the 506,491 stopped, 457,163 made up 90% who were innocent. The data table reflects that 53% made up blacks, 29% were Latinos, 11% were white, and 50% were between the ages of 14-24 are products of stop and frisks (Par 5). The data clearly suggests that most targeted group were blacks, only to further exhibit that the police department is indiscriminately subjugating minorities under stop-and-frisks on the basis of their race. To be targeted on the basis of race, but then released upon innocent, causes uncertainty towards the public of whether the police are merely profiling with

A major issue that has been at the forefront of the topic of race in America is racial profiling. This practice of targeting individuals based on the individual’s race is not new and has been in use for many many years. However it has recently come to national attention with the killing of unarmed black teenagers by police officers. The issue of racial profiling not only highlights the lack of equality in America but the issue of policemen using excessive force when dealing with criminal activity.

Harris examines in his article, Driving While Black, the increasing circumstances of roadside police violence. The criminalization of minorities directly links to the war on drugs, in which highway patrol officers pull over motorists based on race to conduct a drug search. “Driving while drunk” is a connotation play off of “driving while drunk” to emphasise how racial profiling of drivers is excused as a justifiable reason for the police to stop them just as they would a drunk driver. Harris provides numerous accounts of African American men and women drivers pulled over for the simple infractions or allegations such as a seat belt check, illegal lane change, illegible license plate, and the driver appearing to be nervous. He presents Operation Pipeline as proof of the beginnings of racial profiling by the police. A system of “encouraged targeting of minority motorists,” (Harris,1999) or pretext stops, was included in the training of highway patrol officers to conduct offroad drug searches. In declaring that “police are not only unfair and biased, but untruthful as well,” (1999) Harris implies that the real reason the cops pull over African American drivers is not to cite them but to search their cars for drugs. As for making the police accountable for their actions, Harrison also contributes multiple court cases in which the judged ruled in favor of the police to continue their discriminatory enforcement. Cases like Ohio v Robinette, Maryland v Wilson, and Wyoming v Houghton gave the police the right to search a car without informing the driver of his right to refuse consent, to order the driver or passenger out of his car, and to search the passenger’s purse without consent, respectively (Harris, 1999). The targeting of people based on race contributes directly to the rising number of African American and Hispanic inmates convicted for simple drug related crimes, leading

Police subculture undermines ethics and has a constant influence on officers’ decision-making process, which ultimately leads to misconduct. Police, like most professions, have a secretive yet unique type subculture because the lifestyles of its members are significantly different. Law enforcement officers tend to befriend other officers or people with similar roles within the criminal justice system. Many times, friendships extend to firefighters and other civil service personnel to include military members.