Racial Bias In Motor Vehicle Search

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.

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).”

The practice of targeting individuals for police investigation based on their race alone in the last few years has been an increasingly prominent issue in American society. Numerous magazines, newspapers, and journals have explored the issue of race-motivated police actions. Recently, the ABA Journal did a study of New Jersey and Pennsylvania traffic stops from 1998 to 2001, concluding that black drivers were more likely to be pulled over and arrested than whites. The study also delves into the legal ramifications of the 1996 United States Supreme Court ruling in the Whren v. United States case, which held that police officers subjective motivation for stopping a motorist on the

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.

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 isn’t something new to today’s society. Most recently there were incidents in which the officers were accused of mistreating blacks such as Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. “Racism versus professionalism: claims and counter-claims about racial profiling” written by Vic Satzewich and William Shaffir discusses racism versus professionalism with officers. Their argument is more biased towards the police force and they argue that it’s part of their job. “

In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.

The existence of racial disparity and structural inequality within the criminal justice system renders the concept of true justice for all unobtainable. The statistics of convictions and prison sentences by race definitely support the concept that discrimination is a problem in the justice system as well as the insignificantly number of minority judges and lawyers. There are a multitude of circumstances that influence these statistics according to the “Central Eight” criminogenic risk factors. The need for programs and methods to effectively deter those at risk individuals has never been greater and the lack of such programs is costing society in countless ways.

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

Some level of racial profiling has probably always existed in the United States. The article Mac Donald says that there is something that the vehicles are stopping it belongs to drivers and the kind of vehicles. and also about the number and type of occupants fit the profile of a drug courier. But of course they do once the traffics are stopped and they want to research the vehicle. These are just for race or ethnicity (par.7-8)., found on the Article racial profiling website, speaks to the audience of the united state by providing the idea of how someone from the different race can drive differently, that make the police to stop them. The purpose of this article is to give reasons why some races are being pulled over most of the time. Finally, the author says that if police control this indictment, police safety will suffer especially the safety of minorities in the area of violence and drugs in the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are sometimes good to compliment from them for police to achieve them (par.11). The article “What is racial profiling?”, found on the wise Geek website, speaks to the audience of a general public of information searcher and educate by providing they say that people get research or suspected of being criminal because of their

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

Research shows that African Americans and Latinos have been the victims of racial profiling by the criminal justice system. African Americans and Latinos are at a higher risk of being arrested, prosecuted and sentenced that Whites. The main cause of racial disparities occurs because law enforcement agencies believe that African Americans and Latinos are at high risk of engaging in crime and violence. During prosecutions and court hearings, the jury and judges give harsher sentences to minority groups. As a result, minorities view the criminal justice system as unjust since it favors whites. This research paper reviews relevant literature to show white privileges and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Additionally, the paper provides linkages between racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system and the law. In this regard, the main objective of the research paper is to give detailed insights on racial discriminations in the criminal justice system.

This bill will focus on the implicit bias within systems, especially that of the criminal justices system, and structural inequalities. The correlation between implicit bias and color-blind racism begins to develop. According to Kimberly Papillon’s “The Hard Science of Civil Rights: How Neuroscience Changes the Conversation” (2012), “today’s civil rights leaders face a new challenge: to expose the subconscious and subtle forms of bias and fear that exist in us and of which we often are unaware” (p.7). She continues to argue that as in the past legislation that has focused exclusively on identifying the consciously-biased actors in a government institution or private company often overlooked most of the biased decisions that occur in our society on a daily basis (p.7). The multi-dimension levels of this bill incorporate individuals, communities, and government; and the interdisciplinary approach incorporates neuroscience, social work, and criminal

One of the major weaknesses of the Criminal Justice is that the Police Service does exercise biasness and discrimination in carrying out their legal duties of stop and search, and there is evidence to support this, because between 2008 and 2009, Black males were recorded as the most common victims of stop and search, compared to a small number of Whites and Asians who are also occasionally searched by Police Officers (Ministry of Justice, 2010 as cited in Sanders and Young, 2012). The Police tend to perform stops and searches on the basis of common stereotypes that are placed upon Blacks and Asians (BBC, 2003 as cited in Sanders and Young, 2012). Even though these stereotypes are active, the implementation of legislation like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 helps to encourage the elimination of judgmental behaviours that are exercised by the Police Service, as it is now a legal requirement to have all stops and searches recorded, and also for the Police Officer in question to produce a reasonable and justifiable reason for carrying out the procedure in the first place, in which by doing so, He or She will most likely be swayed to act professionally, otherwise the proposal of unjustified reasons can raise serious suspicion