How not to address claims of 'racial profiling'

Star Tribune
March 14, 2001
Katherine Kersten

Racial profiling is a hot-button issue in Minnesota and across the nation. In recent legislative hearings in St. Paul, minority motorists charged angrily that police often stop them because of their race, not their actions, and frequently mistreat them.
Legislators have responded with a flurry of bills. Some would mandate statewide collection of racial data on traffic stops from Albert Lea to Ely, at a hefty cost in both tax dollars and officer time. (Minneapolis and St. Paul have already initiated such studies.) Data collection is necessary, we are told, to determine the extent of the problem so we can take steps to correct it.

Are demographic studies of traffic stops the best way to address claims of racial profiling? No. The reason is simple. No one can say what sorts of numbers would actually demonstrate that officers are stopping people because of their race, not their illegal conduct. Raw numbers are meaningless -- and can be very misleading -- unless we compare them to the appropriate statistical baseline. It would be misguided, for example, to conclude that Minnesota police are sexists, who unfairly target men, because men make up 95 percent of our state's prison inmates, but only about 50 percent of its population.

The danger is similar in racial profiling studies. Suppose one officer works in Minneapolis' Phillips neighborhood; over several months, 80 percent of the drivers he stops are black. Another officer works near Lake Harriet. Only 15 percent of his stops are black drivers. Can one conclude that the first officer is a racist, while the other isn't? Of course not.

In analyzing traffic stops, we must know the racial composition of the neighborhood where they took place. More specifically, we must know the racial breakdown of the drivers on the roads where they occurred. The time of day is also crucial. Between 4 and 6 p.m., for example, traffic on Minneapolis' Portland Avenue is made up largely of white suburban commuters. But between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m., when most enforcement takes place, drivers on Portland are far more heavily minority. We cannot simply conclude that an officer who works nights in Phillips is a racist because, on average, he stops a larger proportion of black drivers than exist in the Minneapolis population.

But things get even more complicated. For in Minneapolis, crime victims report that blacks commit far more offenses -- both serious and minor -- than other racial groups. Should this be factored into a racial profiling study? No one seems to know.

In outstate Minnesota, racial profiling studies are likely to tell us even less, because minority populations are so small. But if we hope to identify the rogue officer who pulls over and harasses Indian youths, we will probably be disappointed. Most likely, this officer stops so many whites that statistics are unlikely to reveal his misdeeds.

It is risky business to collect raw numbers when we don't know how to interpret them. For if we conclude that our police are racists without adequate foundation, we may create a situation where officers are unwilling to work in high-crime neighborhoods, or young minority citizens refuse to join the force because they believe the police are racist thugs. When we commission ideologically driven advocacy groups to analyze traffic stop data -- as Minneapolis and St. Paul have -- we substantially increase the risk that the conclusions reached will be untrustworthy.

Is there a better way to address charges of widespread racial profiling and police mistreatment? The Minneapolis Police Officers Federation thinks so. Far from trying to avoid public scrutiny, the federation is calling for more. Federation officials want to fit squad cars in high-crime areas with video cameras, and launch a campaign to teach citizens how to file a complaint if they believe their rights have been violated. The Minnesota State Patrol uses such cameras with great success, and patrol spokesmen emphasize the cameras' value in protecting both officers and the public.

On the East Coast, cameras are being used increasingly by both state patrols and municipal police forces. John Hagerty, the New Jersey State Police's communications director, views cameras as essential in squad cars that make routine traffic stops. According to Hagerty, since the State Police installed cameras, not one citizen complaint of racially motivated mistreatment has been sustained. Indeed, New Jersey has successfully prosecuted both minority and white motorists for falsely swearing that they were mistreated because of their race.

But the problem underlying the dispute over racial profiling goes well beyond what cameras can address. The issue is merely one aspect of a larger, national discussion, which focuses on how to balance individual rights and community interests, and how to fashion police tactics that are both effective in reducing crime and consistent with democratic principles.

George Kelling, a criminologist who helped develop the computerized crime reduction strategy that has worked so successfully in Minneapolis, believes that the solution lies in rethinking the nuts and bolts of police work. Kelling endorses setting neighborhood crime-fighting priorities; improving public education about the rationale for certain tactics; and drafting clear department guidelines to help officers use their discretion fairly and effectively. The next revolution in police work, says Kelling, will come in these areas. Rather than wasting time and money on racial profiling studies, Minnesota would do better to join the conversation.

-Katherine Kersten is a director of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis.