San Diego, City of Police Thugs, Racial Profilers and Snipe Hunters
A communication, essentially similar to the below was sent to each member of the San Diego City Council on or about February 4, 2014:
On Wednesday January 29, 2014, the Public Safety and Livable Communities Committee of the City Council was deftly out-maneuvered by Police Chief Lansdowne and the SDPD, at a meeting that it called (or so seemed.) The meeting was announced as follows:
“The City Council's Public Safety and Livable Communities Committee has asked Chief Lansdowne to come to City Hall on Wednesday to answer questions about the recent reports of racial profiling and the department's failure[1] to collect data at traffic stops.”
The meeting and its participants, called to address past perceived racial profiling, by the SDPD, was sent on a snipe hunt[2], by the Chief and his cohort. This Chief, possessed of great moral and recollective elasticity, distracted all attendees, most particularly, the committee members, by his claim or insinuation that there was no data of past stops and that earlier complaints and data analysis of stop data showed those complaints to be invalid. . The operative assertion, either from the chief or his deputy was the claim that “there is no precise way to determine demographics.” And off all went, seeking snipe. No one seemed to recognize the canard. The cost for the snipe expedition was estimated, by Chief Lansdowne to be around $2Million, per annum. Most markedly, no one asked or offered how data, captured by body cams, would offer a precise way of determining demographics that could be measured; how it would be entered into a database. Perhaps, that was seen as a detail to be examined later.
If anything is invalid, it is the above claims. One of the writers of the data report from which the Chief drew his conclusion, of complaint "invalidity," appears to disagree with Lansdowne's assessment.
If anything is invalid, it is the above claims. One of the writers of the data report from which the Chief drew his conclusion, of complaint "invalidity," appears to disagree with Lansdowne's assessment.
As described, in the announcement, the hastily-called meeting was supposed to be about the past. All testimony was about experiences of the witnesses. The witnesses appeared to be a credible lot, although I was puzzled by the motivation for the appearance of some. For example; it was not immediately clear, at least not to me, why a young man, recently released from prison[3], would think that it furthered his or the community’s interest for him to begin his complaint/testimony, about police practices, by disclosing his recent release from prison. I wondered who brought him there. His recent past diminished the effect of his account. It made and makes no sense; not to me.
The hearing of testimony is all well and good but, due to the SDPD's sleight of hand, no examination was made of SDPD data or information, for the traffic stops, of past encounters. No one asked, having been distracted. In early January, I did, and obtained an answer, from the chief's liaison.
For the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 the SDPD represents that it has 22953 records and it has provided them to the writer, who, in turn provided said records to many people, one or more of our city Council members. I do so again.
Accordingly, much of the representations of the SDPD were irrelevant twaddle when it was not false. Let me add that the self-serving SDPD comments are not entirely useless, but I have no interest in the useful parts since they do not reflect on past SDPD conduct.
Falsehoods and misdirection
Unless I am mistaken or mis-heard, a representation was made that three reports, using demographic data, were made since 2000 and after that data collection was discontinued, since no one sought it. It has been reported that Assistant Chief Zimmerman has said that no one has sought that data for years and years. That is false, since on multiple occasions, since 2010, I have.
Not to quibble but I recall recent publication of multiple memoranda from Chief Lansdowne, dated in recent years, instructing his minions to collect the data. I am forced to ask, for what purpose since data collection was discontinued? All of the foregoing strains credibility.
The claim that “There is no precise way to determine demographic data for the people we stop” is utter nonsense. I have told the Chief how to do it and will tell each of you. Use Citation data and DMV data, by joining on Driver’s license number (assuming that race/ethnicity is maintained by DMV[4]). Furthermore, San Diego's Citations already contain Race/Ethnicity information. Subjective assignment from body-cam videos is inferior. Moreover, data gathered external to DMV data is subject to manipulation, something that San Diego’s finest have been known to do.
The data gathered over the past (22953 stop records) 12 months is said to be incomplete[5]. Irrespective of claims of incompleteness it is wholly valid. It represents a valid random sample of the population estimated to be around 90,000 stops. Furthermore, the data used in the analysis upon which San Diego relies and to which it repeatedly refers, was and is incomplete. The analysis says so.
Data obtained over the next 3 months cannot and will not be more valid, since it will reflect a change in police procedures and practices, as discussed below.
Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones
San Diego is now fashioning a new police-behaviour testing regimen. It is not dissimilar to a drugs-testing process.
It was been widely reported that neither Armstrong nor Jones had ever failed a drug test. Both used that assertion as the primary basis of their claims of innocence. Now we know why. Why? Because they knew when and how the drugs test would be given and accordingly they prepared for it[6]. An example of a discredited testing regimen with which this writer is familiar was reported as follows:
In a now-infamous interview with the BBC, Dr. Paul Wright 
a drugs tester remarked. "The results are not good. This year alone, the results really point the finger. Remember, all of these results, except one, were caught by JADCO. The problem is these people were tested positive in competition. What that means is that months before you know the date of the test and the approximate time of the test. "So if you fail an out-of-competition test, you have also failed an IQ test. “
a drugs tester remarked. "The results are not good. This year alone, the results really point the finger. Remember, all of these results, except one, were caught by JADCO. The problem is these people were tested positive in competition. What that means is that months before you know the date of the test and the approximate time of the test. "So if you fail an out-of-competition test, you have also failed an IQ test. “
The results of SDPD data for the year ended December 31, 2013, are not good. These results are from field data that the chief did not know would be examined; in-competition data, if you will, that, according to some in the SDPD, does not exist.
As noted; this data is for the period 1-01-2013 through 12-31-2013.
All values where the count is less than 500 have been discarded. Hispanics appear to be a cultural group whose members cross what may be called racial groups. This creates a irresolvable issue for computing Hispanic representation/distribution. Population data was taken for San Diego County from http://quickfacts.census.gov/
.
.
These are the results:
All Stop Data
Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity (San Diego COUNTY)
Stop Rate to Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity
While this picture is better than 1,000 of the chief's words, words enhance what it presents. If you are Asian, you are likely to be stopped at a rate less than your presence in the population (5.22/11.6 *100 =45%). As an Asian, you will be stopped at a rate less than Whites are stopped. Whites, too, are stopped at a rate less than their presence in the population; just over half their presence in the population (42.01/76.7 * 100 =55%). Blacks are stopped at 166% of their presence in the general population (9.29/5.6 *100 =166%) and people who are Hispanic (who may be either Black or White or neither) are stopped at about a rate that approximates their presence in the population.
Stop Rate by Race/Ethnicity compared to Whites
The above chart is more telling, since it compares the stop rate for other groups to that of Whites (who are stopped at around half their presence in the population, the effect is a multiplication.)
According to SDPD data -that some would say or have us believe, does not exist- the San Diego Police Department stopped Hispanics almost twice as often as they stopped Whites; stopped Blacks 3 times as often as they stopped Whites and stopped a group described as “O” (Native Hawaiian[7] and Other?) twenty times as often as Whites. For that there can be no explanation, only excuses and ruses, founded on falsehoods.
The "new" data-collection regimen means that Chief Lansdowne knows that in 3 months there will be a test. Shortly, if not already, one or more memoranda will be issued, carrying the chief’s imprimatur. Said memoranda will include the requirements given him by one or more members of the City Council, at the committee’s meeting. It shall include these admonitions:
· Do not begin the contact by asking stopped persons if they are out on parole.
· Do not begin the contact by asking stopped persons if they are gang members.
· Do not have the kids that are stopped to sit on the curb.
We all expect that the police department will pass with flying colours. Every police officer, for the next 90 days, will be on their Ps and Qs.
A similar testing regimen was undertaken in San Jose, several years ago, as the result of complaints of bias in policing. Data was collected and after a set period that data was analyzed. The results showed that there were no substantial differences in police contacts for different racial or ethnic groups. Lance and Marion would have been proud. In other words, San Jose passed the intelligence test.
At the time of the entire data gathering and analysis, William Lansdowne was police chief of San Jose.
If the SDPD fails the new test under the regimen dictated to them, that failure shall have little to do with a predisposition to bias. Instead, it shall be an indicator of intelligence; lack of it.
I do not look forward to the “new” data. I understand the charade that shall produce it and refuse to co-operate or indulge in self-deception. I, like you, know that the police Chief, and most members of his department, have no IQ shortcomings; though he and others, including some of you, evidently believe that the public does.
Yet; there may be a valid reason to hunt snipe; I just do not know what that reason is. Until then, I do not intend to be a snipe-hunter, but I shall be sniping when I see charades using canards[8].
Until and unless the City Council deals with the truth as it exists, the recent actions on the subject matter will be seen as enabling a cover-up of prejudiced police practice.
Do your own analysis of the existing data; I am no mathematician. The data from the Chief’s Lansdowne’s office is attached in an Excel file. I have taken the liberty of also forwarding, to you, the Email that transmitted the data to me.
[1] This is not a true statement, if data provided by the SDPD is to be believed. The announcement should have said or read “department's alleged failure to collect data at traffic stops, since the department did, in fact, collect around 23,000 records.
[2] A North-American prank and rite of passage wherein older adolescents take younger boys into the wilderness for the supposed purpose of “snipe hunting.
[3] Profiling parolees is permitted police practice. It makes sense. Doubtless, this is why, absent any rationale for some stops, our finest begin contacts by asking if persons are out on parole.
[4] See also, The Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (MACR) database.
[5] A population is never 100.00% complete. Striving for completeness is a fool’s errand because it produces noting of value, for analysis purposes.
[6] The SDPD has been instructed on how to behave and shall appear for examination on April 16, 2014.
[7] Anecdotal information indicates that this group includes young Filipino males.
[8] Ducks.
