14/?? Tập Sự Cứu Rỗi :Phần 2 Salvation :Season 2 2018 | DJRoom VR Online Radio Disco apk | Bravolebs Reveal Their Favorite Beauty Products

Arizona Racial Profiling Report Driving Black or Brown

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
of 13

Please download to get full document.

View again

On average, Native Americans stopped by DPS officers were 3.25 times more likely to be searched than whites stopped by DPS officers. African Americans and Hispanics were each 2.5 times more likely than whites to be searched by DPS.
  An analysis o racial profling in Arizona Driving While Black or Brown  Driving While Black or Brown An analysis o racial profling in Arizona Published April 2008 I Introduction II Executive Summary of Findings III Overview of Dataa Searchesb Seizure of Contrabandc Duration of Stopsd Stopsi Methodology Involved in theCollection of Stop Dataii Analysis of Highway Stops IV Conclusion V Background: Arnold v. ArizonaDepartment of Public Safety VI Recommendations Table of Contents 2355911131314141517The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is the state’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily in the courts, legislature and communities to defend and preserve individual rights andfreedoms guaranteed to all by the Constitution and the laws of the United States and Arizona. The ACLU of Arizona is an afliate of the ACLU, the largest civil liberties organization in the country, with more than 500,000 members.The ACLU of Arizona Campaign Against Racial Proling seeks to end discriminatory policestops and searches through public education, legislative advocacy and litigation. This special report is designed to educate the public and enlist individuals in the ght to eliminate racialproling in Arizona. Acknowledgements  The data analysis was completed by Dr. Frederic I. Solop, Director of the Social Research Laboratoryat Northern Arizona University (NAU). The Social Research Laboratory (SRL) is a full service researchunit within the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at NAU. The SRL is best known for its work in the elds of criminal justice, municipal service satisfaction, health, environment, and electoral dynamics. For more information on the SRL, visit: www.socialresearchlab.com.Special thanks to ACLU-AZ cooperating attorneys Lee Phillips, Natalie Jacobs and Charles Babbitt for their unagging commitment to racial justice, for standing up for the victims of racial proling, and for going to court on their behalf. We also want to thank Meghan McDowell for her outstanding research on this project. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the work of ACLU attorneys Daniel J. Pochoda and Reginald T.Shuford for their vital roles in challenging civil rights violations in Arizona.ACLU of ArizonaP.O. Box 17148Phoenix, AZ 85011602-650-1967www.acluaz.org   23  Discriminatory police stopsand searches have reached epidemic proportions inrecent years – ueled by theincreased enorcement o immigration laws by local and state police and themisguided “wars” on drugsand terror. Tese policieshave given police a pretext totarget people simplybecause they “look oreign,” or t a “drug courier” or “terrorist” prole. II Executive Summary of Findings Arizona Department of Public Safety Ofcers made more than 500,000 stops between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. Just under 200,000 stops were made on Arizona’s interstate highways during  this period.Of those 200,000 interstate highway stops, approximately 13,271 resulted in searches. African Americans and Hispanics stopped by DPS ofcers were more likely than whites to be searchedon all major highways included in this analysis. Native Americans and persons of Middle Eastern descent also were more likely than whites to be searched on most highways. On average, Native Americans stopped by DPS ofcers were 3.25 times more likely to be searched than whites stopped by DPS ofcers. African Americans and Hispanics were each 2.5 times more likely  than whites to be searched by DPS. Higher search rates for minorities were not justied by higher rates of transporting contraband. In fact, on average, whites were more likely to be carrying contraband than Native Americans, Middle Easterners, Hispanics and Asians on all major Arizona highways. African Americans were at least  twice as likely as whites to be searched on all six interstate segments, despite the fact that the rate of contraband seizures for African Americans and whites was similar.Minorities, including African Americans, Hispanics and Middle Easterners, were consistently stoppedfor longer periods of time than whites traveling on all interstate highways in Arizona. In sum, this report concludes that DPS ofcers treated persons from different racial and ethnic groups unequally between July 2006 and June 2007. Minorities were more likely than whites to be searched and stopped for longer periods of time. This unequal treatment was not justied by higher contraband seizure rates from minority motorists. I Introduction Racial proling occurs when police target people for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations and searches based not on any evidence of criminal activity, but rather on their race,ethnicity, nationality or religion. Although normally associated with African Americans and Latinos, racial proling and “DWB” – or “driving while black or brown” – have also become shorthand phrases for police stops of Native Americans and, increasingly after 9/11, of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians.For the past several years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona has dedicated itself to ghting against the widespread, but unconstitutional, practiceof racial proling by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 2001, theACLU, in conjunction with attorney Lee Phillips of Flagstaff, led a class actionlawsuit against DPS, charging that their ofcers engaged in a continuing pattern of race-based trafc stops, detentions and searches of African American and Latino motorists throughout Arizona. The case,  Arnold v. Arizona Department of PublicSafety  , was resolved in 2006 when a federal district court in Phoenix approveda historic settlement agreement. That agreement called for substantial changesin DPS procedures. Most notably, the settlement required DPS to collect data on all trafc stops and modify search procedures to ensure that all ofcers obtainwritten permission from drivers before conducting so-called “consent” searches.This practice allows ofcers to conduct searches without evidence of criminalwrongdoing and even innocent people feel pressure to “consent” in this context.A nine-member Citizen’s Trafc Stop Advisory Board, which includes three ACLU representatives and other community members appointed by Governor JanetNapolitano, continues to monitor DPS’ compliance with the agreement.The ACLU of Arizona commissioned the Social Research Laboratory (SRL) at Northern Arizona University to analyze the rst year of DPS data collected under  terms of the  Arnold settlement. This report is the result of that effort. It is intended to provide a more comprehensive picture of the continuing problem of racial proling in Arizona. The analysis examines data relating to highway stops and vehicle searches by DPS between July 1,2006 and June 30, 2007. It focuses on who is being stopped, who is being searched, the frequency of contraband being found during searches, and the duration of highway stops. Within the pages of this report, you will learn that searches being conducted by the majority of DPSofcers continue to target minorities, despite the fact that people of color are less likely than whites to be transporting drugs, weapons or other illegal contraband. The report also shows that minorities are detained for longer periods of time after being stopped by DPS ofcers.We ask that you – as community members, law enforcement ofcers and elected ofcials – use this information to increase dialogue in your respective communities and implement more effective and cost-efcient police practices that build stronger relationships of mutual condence and trust between law enforcement and the community.Alessandra Soler MeetzeExecutive Director, ACLU of Arizonaameetze@acluaz.org   4 5 Tere should be little tono variation in searchesacross racial or ethnic groups i everyone is being treated equally by lawenorcement. Yet, DPS  search data demonstratesthat minorities were,in act, being treated unequally during the period analyzed. III Overview of Data  A. Searches Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) policy states that every motor vehicle stop made by an ofcer must be documented with a ticket, warning or equipment repair order. Under the  Arnold v. DPS  settlement, these paper records are put into an electronic format and regularly made available to the ACLU for analyses. This procedure facilitates regular tracking of DPS ofcer activity. According to the electronic records provided by DPS, more than 500,000 stops were made by DPS ofcers throughout the state of Arizona between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. The DPS dataset also includes information about stops resulting in searches of vehicles and/or people. Search informationincludes whether a search was conducted, the legal authority allowing for the search, and whethercontraband (such as drugs or weapons) was seized during the process of completing the search.This section of the report examines search data resulting from approximately 200,000 stops made by DPS ofcers along four major interstate highways in Arizona: Interstates 8, 10, 17 and 40. The reason for focusing on interstate searches rather than all searches made by DPS ofcers is because the srcins of racial proling of motorists begin with national Drug Enforcement Agency training programs, such as Operation Pipeline,  that teach state ofcers how to engage in drug interdiction activities on the nation’shighways. The law enforcement operation instructs ofcers to identify proles of people who engage in drug transportation. It is this so-called “drug courier” prole thatencourages ofcers to employ racial stereotypes as they engage in drug interdiction activities.Search data allows for meaningful analysis of whether minority drivers aredisproportionately targeted by police. The proportion of people within each ethnic and racial group subjected to a search can be compared against the actual proportion of people within each group that have been stopped by DPS ofcers. In this way, searchdata allows us to afrmatively say who is being searched, why they are being searched and what is the outcome of the search.Generally speaking, Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans weresearched at rates greater than the rate at which whites were searched during the study period. In otherwords, the likelihood of Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans being searched by a DPS ofcer was much higher than the likelihood of whites being searched during this period. A starting point for understanding the search data is to examine the universe of searches conductedon interstate highways and to ask what proportion of searches were conducted with African Americans,Asians, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Native Americans, and whites. Table 1 (page 6) demonstrates thepercentages by race of the total number of persons searched.The importance of information included in Table 1 is better understood when examined from adifferent angle. Table 2 (page 6) indicates the percentages of motorists within each ethnic or racial group who were subjected to a search by DPS ofcers.Looking at the column labeled “African American,” for example, we see that an average of 10% of African Americans stopped by DPS ofcers were searched between 2006 and 2007. Hispanics alsowere searched at an average rate of 10%. On average, Native Americans stopped by DPS ofcers weresearched more frequently than Hispanics or African Americans stopped by DPS Ofcers. An average of 13% of Native American stops resulted in a search being conducted.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks