Racial Profiling Works!!!

Most research concludes that racial profiling has been used by law enforcement officers for the last few decades. The practice and comments about the practice have cost several officers their careers. Civic leaders have rallied against it. The practice has been vilified by politicians at every level of government. Popular media and academic publications have painted police as ignorant racists who humiliate minorities by subjecting them to repetitive and fruitless searches. Although this stance sells newspapers, it ignores a troubling, if unpopular, question: Is drug possession correlated with race? In the March, 2006 issue of Police Practice & Research, Dr. Illya Lichtenberg of Montclair State University in New Jersey concludes that

"...analysis lends support to a police contention that race may be one predictor for detecting more serious drug offenders. Searching African American and Hispanic motorists clearly was the most productive in terms of the quantities of drugs found during consent searches."

A 2000 study conducted by the General Accounting Office and studies by other academics have proven racial profiling exists, but have never really proven why it exists. The most convenient explanation was that police officers are racists who target minorities to perpetuate a racist agenda. Racial profiling is said to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The police targeted and searched more minorities. Logically, the more one group is searched, the more drugs would be found on that group. It was posited that drugs were dispersed evenly throughout society, but uneven application of law enforcement efforts resulted in more minority arrests.

Police countered by stating they were fighting a War on Drugs. Law enforcement resources are finite, and the most efficient and effective tools must be utilized. Targeting individuals by race was not racist, but rather a statistically sound method of efficiently apprehending drug offenders. This position was rebutted by a 14th Amendment argument, that stated laws must be applied equally to all segments of the population. Accusations of racial profiling are supported by widely cited studies that compared the proportion of minority motorists stopped to their proportion in the general population. Dr. Lichtenberg went beyond this simple measure and examined the types and amounts of drugs seized.

Research data was collected from the Maryland State Police and was available due to a consent decree agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union. The data studied all (1,914) consent searches conducted between January 1995 and June 1997. Only consent searches were studied; searches based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion would remove subjective motives from the police. A consent search presupposes probable cause or reasonable suspicion does not exist.

Dr. Lichtenberg only studied arrests involving 4 drugs: marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin. The highest overall rate of detection was for Asian motorists, at 34.6% (the author cautions that this finding may be deceiving; only nine Asians were found to be in possession of drugs, but only 26 were searched. This is far too small a sample to draw any valid conclusions). The second highest rate of detection was among white drivers (26.3%), followed by black drivers (25.3%), then Hispanic drivers (14.2%). These preliminary statistics show that a "brown" driver is least likely to possess drugs and supports the allegations that black and Hispanic drivers are victims of discriminatory treatment by police. But the crux of Dr. Lichtenberg's research lies beyond these statistics. He endeavored to determine:

1. What is the relationship between a driver's race and the type of drugs found?
2. What is the relationship between a driver's race and the amount of drugs found?

When calculating the quantities of drugs discovered, Dr. Lichtenberg eliminated the 5 largest discoveries, so one or two huge seizures did not skew the overall picture.

Marijuana

• 19% of Asians were found to possess marijuana.
• 15.9% of whites were found to possess marijuana.
• 11.4% of blacks were found to possess marijuana.
• 0% of Hispanics were found to possess marijuana.

A total of 351,391 grams of marijuana were found. Lichtenberg indicated that "African-American motorists possessed approximately 99.4% of the total marijuana found."

The average white driver possessed under two grams per search; the typical black driver possessed almost 400 grams. Although black motorists were least likely to possess marijuana, those who did possess it, possessed it in much larger quantities.

Cocaine

• 11.5% of Asian drivers were to possess cocaine.
• 9.7% of black drivers were to possess cocaine.
• 8.5% of Hispanic drivers were to possess cocaine.
• 1.9% of white drivers were to possess cocaine.

A total of 127,818 grams of cocaine were found. Black motorists possessed 76.8% of all cocaine seized. Hispanic drivers possessed 21.9% of cocaine found. Asian and white drivers possessed the remaining 1.3% of cocaine found).

• The average search of Hispanic drivers yielded 265.2 grams of cocaine.
• The average search of black drivers yielded 111 grams of cocaine.
• The average search of Asian drivers yielded 49.1 grams of cocaine.
• The average search of white drivers yielded about 1/10th of a gram of cocaine.

"Similar to marijuana detections, race may be a predictive factor in seizing larger quantities of cocaine…African American motorists possessed the largest quantities of cocaine. In examining quantities, African American motorists possessed the largest total amount of cocaine, but Hispanics averaged larger quantities based on number of searches and detections."

Crack Cocaine

Only a few consent searches resulted in seizures of crack cocaine, with Asian and Hispanic drivers most likely to be in possession. Black drivers and white drivers were least likely to be in possession of crack cocaine. Though black drivers were less likely to possess crack cocaine, those who did possess it had it in much larger quantities. Black motorists possessed 77.5% of all crack found; Hispanics possessed approximately 20%.

Heroin

Heroin was the least common drug found. Asian drivers were most likely to possess heroin, followed by Hispanic, black, then white motorists. Blacks possessed 60% of the heroin seized, and white drivers possessed 24%. Hispanics possessed 12% of the heroin seized. Asians, though most likely to be in possession of heroin, possessed only 3.2% of all heroin seized.

On page 57, Dr. Lichtenberg states

"Although African American and Caucasian motorists were the least likely to be in possession, they possessed the largest quantities of this drug when the drug was discovered"

Dr. Lichtenberg concluded that rates of detection are basically identical for black and white drivers. The differences are seen when the type of drug and the amount of drugs are considered. Most law officers would prefer to make a large seizure, rather than a simple possession arrest. Most officers would prefer to seize "harder" drugs. The goal is to get as much drugs off the street as possible.

Lichtenberg writes,

"Assuming the public policy focus of motor vehicle consent-based searches is the removal of drugs for retail consumption and the incarceration of dealers or traffickers, these findings suggest race may be an effective tool in achieving this goal."

The author notes several limitations to his research. It was only one database, taken from one police agency in one state, and the searches took place on one interstate. The research was limited only to the four drugs, at the exclusion of ecstasy, methamphetamine, steroids, etc. The research did not take into account such vital drug interdiction factors, such as time of day, direction of travel, ownership of vehicle, number of occupants, dress, demeanor, etc.

The author is quick to point out that though this one study may indicate racial profiling works, it does not mean it is an effective law enforcement tool. Dr. Lichtenberg points out that only 25% of all the consent searches yielded any contraband; that means 75% of the drivers subjected to a long, harrowing and humiliating experience were innocent travelers. Racial profiling subverts many laws and the 14th Amendment. Raw statistics will never tell the complete story of the damage inflicted to police-community relations by racial profiling. Many of these consent searches may alienate the exact communities law enforcement is trying to enlist in the War on Drugs.

Law enforcement officers are a dedicated, honest lot. They believe in their cause and literally risk their lives to protect strangers. This country is lucky to have such an enthusiastic and dedicated force. Police who used racial profiling may have been misguided in their efforts. They may not have been able to foresee the long term consequences of their actions. In a New York Times Magazine article (June 20, 1999), it was determined "Police may not consider racial profiling as racism, but as an effective tool". Lichtenberg concludes his findings actually support this explanation for profiling.

The findings are heartening in that they add some statistical validity to a common police practice. It is more comforting to know that police who practiced racial profiling were probably motivated by a desire to remove poison from the streets, as opposed to an ignorant racist agenda. Either way, the consequences of racial profiling are profound. In United States v. Radka the Court

"...recognize(d) that our government is in the midst of waging a 'War on Drugs.' Yet, the valiant effort of our law enforcement officers to rid society of the drug scourge cannot be done in total disregard of an individual's constitutional rights."