Profiling, Racial

Starting in the 1990s, law enforcement agencies nationwide faced accusations of “racial profiling.” Generally, the citizens complained that police were targeting racial and ethnic minorities for vehicle stops because of a heightened suspicion that they were disproportionately involved in criminal activity. Indicative of the breadth of national concern was the December 1999 Gallup poll that showed a majority of both whites and blacks surveyed believed that racial profiling was prevalent. That is, 56% of the whites and 77% of the blacks believed the following practice was widespread: “police officers stopping motorists of certain racial and ethnic groups because the officers believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes.” (Data were not provided for other races/ethnicities.) A 2001 Gallup poll indicated that 44% of blacks surveyed believed that “police have stopped them at some point in their life because of their race or ethnic background.” Only 7% of the white respondents and 29% of the Hispanic respondents felt this way. The phenomenon became known, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and civil rights groups, as “Driving While Black” or “Driving While Brown.”

Two lawsuits helped bring this issue to national attention—one in New Jersey (New Jersey v. Soto, 1996) and one in Maryland (Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, 1993). In the former, brought in 1990, public defenders representing Pedro Soto and others sought to suppress evidence obtained during searches conducted by New Jersey troopers, alleging that the searches were the [Page 382]result of racial profiling practices. These public defenders had detected an alarming number of cases involving black people who were stopped by troopers on the turnpike. The defendants obtained data on New Jersey State Police traffic stops in various areas from 1988 through 1991 and hired a social scientist, John Lamberth, to analyze the data. The court relied heavily on the results of his analysis—indicating overrepresentation of blacks among people stopped—in deciding to suppress the evidence. The 1992 Maryland lawsuit arose out of an encounter by Maryland State Police with a Harvard-educated public defender, Robert Wilkins. Maryland State troopers detained him and members of his extended family by the side of an interstate highway. Refusing the troopers’ request to search, the family was then required to stand in the rain while a drug-sniffing dog checked the car, finding nothing. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit on behalf of Wilkins and his family, alleging that the police detention was the result of racial profiling. The case was eventually settled. The settlement included a mandate for the Maryland State Police to collect data on traffic stops. The results from these stop data—again analyzed by John Lamberth—“strongly support the assertion that the state police targeted the community of black motorists for stop, detention and investigation within the Interstate 95 corridor” (Lamberth, 1996, p. 10). These cases sparked additional stories and lawsuits alleging that police were engaging in racial profiling, and the issue became one of the most critical issues facing law enforcement in the late 1990s.

In tracing the origin of racial profiling, some law enforcement practitioners and other experts point to the use of drug courier profiles developed during the war on drugs and, in particular, in training conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) during the 1980s. Although DEA officials claim that race was never part of the training on profiles, other observers and some local and state law enforcement practitioners report that local and state police came to link blacks and Hispanics with criminal drug activity as a result of exposure to this training.

...