The Decision to Search

• DOI: 10.1177/1043986211425734
• Date: 01 May 2012
• Author: Kenneth J. Novak,Seth W. Fallik
• Published date: 01 May 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

28(2) 146 –165

© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986211425734

http://ccj.sagepub.com

425734CCJ28210.1177/1043986211425734Fallik

and NovakJournal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

2University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kenneth J. Novak, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology,

5215 Rockhill Road #205, Kansas City, MO 64110

Email: Novakk@umkc.edu

The Decision to Search: Is

Race or Ethnicity Important?

Seth W. Fallik1 and Kenneth J. Novak2

Abstract

This manuscript examines police officer decision making during automobile stops

to determine whether Black and Hispanic drivers are searched at parity with

nonminorities, with particular focus on officers’ legal authority to search and controlling

for other explanatory factors. Using data collected by a large Midwestern police

department, we observe Blacks are overrepresented among searches overall and

among searches involving greater officer discretion to search. However, neither race

nor ethnic effects were observed after introducing other explanatory variables into

multivariate models, suggesting factors other than minority status provide greater

understanding of officers’ decision making. Results indicate minorities are differentially

involved in searches because police engage minorities under characteristics consistent

with searches. This suggests that it is the social context of the stop, rather than the

race or ethnicity of the driver, that primarily influences searches.

Keywords

police, racial profiling, searches

Awareness of racial and ethnic disparity and bias in automobile stops has increased

dramatically over the past two decades. Reactions to “racial profiling” has focused

public, political, legal, and sociological interest in examining the manner in which

police officers and minorities interact during automobile stops by evaluating whether

officer decision making is racially and ethnically neutral. Racial profiling involves the

police differentially using race and/or ethnicity rather than behavior as the primary

factor that directs officer decision making during self-initiated encounters (Ramirez,

McDevitt, & Farrell, 2000). Typically, this term has been applied to police–public

Article

Fallik and Novak 147

encounters during automobile stops, including the assertion that police stop minorities

more often or subject minorities differentially to searches, citations, or arrest. The non-

neutral use of race and/or ethnicity comes at a substantial cost to public trust and

erodes law enforcement legitimacy.

A variety of analytic approaches have been employed to examine the racial profiling

phenomenon in a relatively short amount of time (see Fridell, 2004; Tillyer, Engel, &

Cherkauskas, 2010; Withrow, 2004). Strategies include examining public perception

on the extent of racial profiling (Gallup Organization, 1999; Higgins, Gabbidon, &

Vito, 2010; Reitzel & Piquero, 2006; Reitzel, Rice, & Piquero, 2004), citizens’

accounts of experiences during traffic stops (Allen & Monk-Turner, 2010; Engel &

Calnon, 2004; Harris, 1999a, 1999b; Lundman & Kaufman, 2003; Warren,

Tomaskovic-Devey, Smith, Zingraff, & Mason, 2006) and officers’ perceptions

(Barlow & Barlow, 2002). The primary focus among previous evaluations has been

to examine disparity in officer decision making through data collected by police

departments during routine traffic encounters with the public.

Racial profiling within automobile stops has focused on three distinct officer-initiated

decision-making points that can measure the presence of racial and/or ethnic nonneutral-

ity (Schafer, Carter, Katz-Bannister, & Wells, 2006; see also Barnum & Perfetti, 2010;

Ridgeway, 2006; Tillyer, Engel, & Cherkauskas, 2010). The first is the officer’s deci-

sion to initiate a stop. This decision-making point typically considers the propensity of

racial and ethnic minorities to be stopped or whether Blacks or Hispanics are stopped at

a higher rate than their community representation (Cordner, Williams, & Zuniga, 2000;

Lamberth, 1996; Lange, Blackman, & Johnson, 2001; Meehan & Ponder, 2002; Smith

& Alpert, 2002; Smith & Petrocelli, 2001; Roh & Robinson, 2009; Withrow, 2004). The

latter utilizes a “benchmarking” strategy that has proved to be problematic in part

because of the challenges associated with accurately estimating the racial and ethnic

characteristics of driving populations (Tillyer et al., 2009) and assumptions that officers

accurately identify the race and ethnicity of the driver prior to encounter initiation

(Alpert, Dunham, & Smith, 2007; Walker, 2001). The second officer-initiated decision-

making point considers an officer’s application of formal sanctions or the exercise of

coercion. Research from this decision-making point considers the propensity of racial

and ethnic minorities to be warned, cited, arrested, and have force used against them

(Engel, Calnon, & Bernard, 2002; Novak, 2004; Smith & Alpert, 2002; Tillyer & Engel,

2010; Withrow, 2006). The third decision-making point considers minority representa-

tion in searches (Gaines, 2006; Novak & Chamlin, 2008; Pickerill, Mosher, & Pratt,

2009; Parker, Lane, & Alpert, 2010; Vito & Walsh, 2008; Williams & Stahl, 2008; Withro w,

2002, 2004; Zingraff, Mason, Smith, Tomaskovic-Devey, Warren, & McMurray, 2000).

An extension of this line of inquiry involves analyzing the contraband hit rate or out-

come test during searches (Engel, 2008; Knowles, Persico, & Todd, 2001; Persico &

Todd, 2006).

Generally, racial profiling research indicates that minorities are more likely than

Whites to be searched during their encounters with police (Cox, Pease, Miller, &

Tyson, 2001; Knowles et al., 2001; Langan et al., 2001; Rojek, Rosenfeld, & Decker,