NCJ Number
202991
Date Published
September 2003
Length
74 pages
Annotation
This document provides an analysis of traffic stop data collected by the 65 law enforcement jurisdictions in Minnesota that voluntarily participated in this racial profiling study.
Abstract
The results of the study revealed that law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates than White drivers; searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White drivers; and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at lower rates than in searches of White drivers. Law enforcement officers stopped and searched White drivers at lower rates than drivers of color and found contraband in searches of White drivers at a greater rate than in searches of drivers of color. These disparities are particularly large for Blacks and Latinos. The pattern for Blacks and Latinos existed in nearly every participating jurisdiction. These disparities in discretionary search rates are particularly troubling given the rates at which contraband was found as a result of these searches. Overall, 24 percent of discretionary searches of Whites produced contraband compared to only 11 percent of searches of Blacks and 9 percent of searches of Latinos. The greatest relative differences between actual and expected stops and searches for Blacks were found in suburban cities and central cities other than Minneapolis. The greatest stop and search disparities for Latinos were also found in the suburban cities. The largest absolute differences between actual and expected stop and searches for Blacks and Latinos were found in Minneapolis, the largest jurisdiction participating in this study with the highest number of traffic stops. These patterns suggest a strong likelihood that racial/ethnic bias plays a role in traffic stop policies and practices in Minnesota. This is also true for the searches that result from these stops. These patterns warrant serious examination. The problems that they suggest are not isolated to a handful of jurisdictions or present only in those jurisdictions that chose to participate in this study. 51 footnotes, 21 appendices