The Evidence of Racial Profiling: Interpreting Documented and Unofficial Sources

• Published date: 01 September 2002
• DOI: 10.1177/109861102129198165
• Author: Amy Farrell,Michael E. Buerger
• Date: 01 September 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

POLICEQUARTERLY(Vol.5,No.3,September 2002)Buerger,Farrell/EVIDENCEOFRACIAL PROFILING

THE EVIDENCE OF RACIAL PROFILING:

INTERPRETING DOCUMENTED AND

UNOFFICIAL SOURCES

MICHAEL E. BUERGER

Bowling Green State University

AMY FARRELL

Northeastern University

This article summarizes the major cases that established the existence of

racial profiling in the American public debate. The authors distinguish the

widening split between the narrow, case-bound definition acknowledged by

the police and the broader definition asserted by minority communities,

which see the practice as widespread, affecting all areas of police-community

contacts. The fact patterns of incidents substantiated on the public recordset

the stage for a discussion of the expected efficacy of the palliative measures

now being undertaken in the political domain.

The term racial profiling embodies a widespread belief that minorities are

disproportionately singled out by the American police for scrutiny on a

class basis—equating race or ethnicity with criminality—rather than on the

basis of individual suspicion. Allegations that “police [use] trafficoffenses

as an excuse to stop and conduct roadside investigations of Black drivers

and their cars, usually to look for drugs” (Harris, 1999) are enshrined in the

term DWB, “Driving While Black” or Brown.Media accounts of racial dis-

crimination in Dearborn, Michigan (“Racism Charges,” 2000), Mercer

Island, Washington (Egan, 1998), Trumbull, Connecticut (Weizel, 1998a,

The authors wish to thank Mike Steeves, Andre’Belotto, Ray Eugenio, Director John Degudis of the

Plymouth (MA) Training Academy,Director Jack McDevitt of the Center for Criminal Justice Policy

Research, John M. Collins of the Massachusetts Chiefs Association, and the Massachusetts Criminal

Justice TrainingCouncil for their help and support and for the opportunities provided in the early stages

of the preparation of this article.

POLICE QUARTERLY Vol.5 No. 3, September 2002 272–305

© 2002 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

1998b; Zielbauer, 2000), Beverly Hills, California (Noble, 1995), and

Houston, Texas (“Civil Rights Groups,” 1993), Cape Cod (MacQuarrie,

2000a), among others, continue to expand on the perception. Incidents such

as the July 1999 drug arrests of 40 Black residents of Tulia, Texas (one in

every six members of the town’s Black population), based solely on the tes-

timony of one White undercover operative,allegedly with a dubious history

(Tobar, 2000; Yardley, 2000, 2002), add fuel to the fire.

DEFINITIONS

Official definitionsof racial profiling sound a common theme of race as a

determining factor for police actions. The federal government’s General

Accounting Office (GAO)cuts to the point fairly directly—“Using race as a

key factor in deciding whether to make a trafficstop” (General Accounting

Office, 2000b, p. 1)—but it thereby limits “racial profiling” to a single

aspect of police work rather than the broader scope claimed by the affected

communities (Meeks, 2000).

The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office defined it as “Any action by a

state trooper during a traffic stop that is based upon racial or ethnic stereo-

types and that has the effect of treating minority motorists differently than

non-minority motorists” (Verniero & Zoubek, 1999). That definition first

appeared in the Interim Report of the Attorney General investigating accu-

sations of racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike and encapsulates the

fact pattern of that situation.

One of the more inclusive definitionsis found in Chapter 228 of the Mas-

sachusetts Laws of 2000, which defines racial (and gender) profilingas “the

practice of detaining a suspect based on a broad set of criteria which casts

suspicion on an entire class of people without any individualized suspicion

of the particular person being stopped.” This definition most closely cap-

tures the sense of the judicial reaction to racial profiling accusations and

provides the cornerstone for refining police practices to alleviate the suspi-

cion of race-targeted enforcement.

CONTEXT

By late summer 2001, 13 states had passed racial-profiling laws, with 3

more requiring policies. Thirty-seven jurisdictions voluntarily adopted

ordinances or policies regarding racial profiling, and 5 more accepted exter-

nal review as part of consent decrees with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Buerger, Farrell / EVIDENCE OF RACIALPROFILING 273

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rhetoric aside, most of the new laws simply mandate the collection of data

(usually race and search data for motor vehicle stops) in the hopes of deter-

mining or disproving that racial profiling actually occurs. Some of the pre-

liminary data analysis have indicated race-based disparities in the number

of motor vehicle stops in the jurisdiction but without providing useful

explanations for those patterns (Cox, Pease, Miller, & Tyson, 2001; San

Diego Police, 2000; for a cogent summary of studies and issues, see Engel,

Calnon, & Bernard, 2002).

Many of the laws are presented as a deviceto prevent and eliminate racial

profiling, carrying the implicit accusation that racial profiling is a fact. That

accusation is a bone of contention with police officers and agencies, partic-

ularly because the laws seem to adopt a conclusion well in advance of any

proof.

From the police standpoint, racial profiling is a media invention, a dis-

torting label used by self-serving antipolice individuals against the hard-

working police (officers tend to personify this fear in the persons of Jesse

Jackson and Al Sharpton, or in their local counterparts, persons whose

activism against police abuses—real or perceived—has earned the enmity

of a substantial number of officers[e.g., Goldberg, 1999, p. 57; Webb, 1999,

p. 127]). Nevertheless, the term strikes a resounding chord with thousands

of citizens of minority status whose direct and vicarious experiences con-

firm that such a practice does exist and is a daily reality in their lives.

The essence of the debate over racial profiling hinges on two key ques-

tions. First is whether the phenomenon is to be narrowly defined by data, as

in the cases outlined below, or recognized in the broader context of per-

ceived inequities and occasional documentation. Regardless of which

dimension is chosen, a second question remains: What type and what level

of evidence will be sufficient to establish that “racial profiling” rather than

“good, hard-nosed aggressive law enforcement” is at work? These ques-

tions may have different answers in different communities, but the issue

(and the police) is currently saddled with a monolithic data-collection

approach that may create more problems than it resolves.

SOURCES OF JUSTIFICATION

The debate over racial profiling as a social fact is just one element in a

much larger history of adversarial relationships between the police and dis-

enfranchised communities. That history includes the slave patrols of the

antebellum South; the role of the police in enforcing Jim Crow segregation

274 POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2002)

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from