Deception

Background

The United States Department of Justice has an opinion and position that is at odds with that of the San Diego Police Department. It holds that:

"The guarantee to all persons of equal protection under the law is one of the
most fundamental principles of our democratic society. Law enforcement
officers should not endorse or act upon stereotypes, attitudes, or beliefs
that a person’s race, ethnicity, or national origin increases that person’s
general propensity to act unlawfully. There is no tradeoff between effective
law enforcement and protection of the civil rights of all Americans;

we can and must have both."


In 2011, during litigation, Vehicle Stop data for the prior two years was sought. The City of San Diego, in sworn and other statements or filings, denied having any Vehicle Stop Data and convinced the court of that fact. In January 2013 I learned that the City had committed perjury.

Following that I obtained and distributed Vehicle Stop Data to anyone with an interest, including Josh Chanin of SDSU.

On December 11, 2014, Josh Chanin of SDSU presented his findings, based on data from Jan 1, 2014 through Sep 30, 2014 (9 months) on racial profiling, to a group of more than 40 individuals, including members of interested and respected organizations. The findings concluded that Blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately, stopped, arrested and searched; and, if searched, race appeared to be a determinant in the decision to search.

In Spring 2015 the San Diego City Council awarded Chanin and SDSU a commission to study San Diego's Vehicle Stop Data with a goal of determining if the SDPD practices Racial Profiling. Chanin and the Chair of the school have never disclosed the previous study. Al pretend of actively deny its existence.

All examinations of Vehicle Stop Data, irrespective of datasets, show massive disparities in stop outcomes by race/ethnicity. The failure to have acknowledgement of Chanin's prior data study is consequently alarming. It strongly suggests that there is potential for the manipulation of the results.  The decision of the City Council to delay the publication of Chanin's report (Phase One) as provided for, by the agreement, in the interests of "fairness", is not a confidence-builder either. Furthermore the notion that a study is required to determine if the SDPD practices Racial Profiling is ludicrous, The SDPD trains its officers in the practice and then tries to convince us that the fault is in our perception of its practice; that Racial Profiling is not an expression of Racism and other similar nonsense.

Fig 1. Citations and Arrests 

Furthermore; Chanin noted that the excessive searches produced little, since Blacks and Hispanics were shown to have the lowest instances of contraband (the Hit Rate). 

Fig 2. Searches and "Hit Rate"

Chanin’s findings were congruent to or with mine, as relates to the foregoing, but I went further or, more accurately, elsewhere; Field Interviews. Unexplained significant statistical disparities in stops are the essence of Racial Profiling, as defined by state law.[1]  The values shown remain unexplained by the SDPD; perhaps because they are unexplainable. But, what is known is that the SDPD does practice targeted law enforcement and the targeting is done in service areas that it has classified as being predominantly populated by minorities. Doubtless; the SDPD knew or should have known that the impact would be disparate. In truth, it knew as far back as 2002 (see page 4, paragraph 3) :

"Unfortunately, it cannot be determined with any confidence whether the San Diego data for 2001 indicate any systematic patterns of bias in vehicle stops or searches. As discussed above, there is evidence of disproportionate impact on Black/African American and Hispanic drivers."

But, recently, it has recast these findings into something that seems innocuous; innocuous to the lazy reader and lazy thinker, who elects not to find the section of the report that explains why there is the lack of confidence (See page 2 , paragraph 4 ):

"The substantial decrease in stop forms in 2001, and resulting concerns about the representativeness of the data, severely limit the confidence that can be placed in any findings and conclusions."

Verbal Warnings and Written Warnings

And, one would, at best, be remiss if one did not comment that disproportionate use of Verbal Warnings with any particular group may be an attempt to mask illegal or constitutionally infirm conduct stops. This is particularly so when the stop is viewed in the context of of San Diego's training on the use of Racial Profiling in conjunction with pretext-stops, and where the encounter, is recorded and resolved (Action Taken) by a Verbal Warning and nothing else.  See Below:

It should be noted that search and seizure rates may be motivated, at least in part, by financial considerations. Indeed, according to data provided by the USDOJ, the SDPD benefitted to the tune of some $18 million, in recent years, by way of civil forfeitures. The City has refused to provide details of this data by claiming that it is all the subject of ongoing investigations.

The San Diego Police Department's approach or orientation to service calls, from predominantly minority neighbourhoods (all South of highway 8) as crimes in progress is not reassuring; instead it is damning; damning because of the disproportionate use of force.

---

[1] Prior to AB 953, the law defined “racial profiling” as “the practice of detaining a suspect based on a broad set of criteria which casts suspicion on an entire class of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped.”

* Computed by string matching) According to SDPD data, no articulable reason was given for these Field Interview stops. An articulable reason must exist (here recorded) for a traffic stop (Terry v Ohio) otherwise it is improper or illegal, and, in the presence of these massive disparities where no reason for the stop is evident, Racial Profiling. See TB 14-02 and Rose Memorandum;   which documents provide explanations for these disparities.

Verbal Warnings and Written Warnings

One would, at best, be remiss if one did not comment that disproportionate use of Verbal Warnings with any particular group may be an attempt to mask illegal or constitutionally infirm conduct stops. This is particularly so when there stop, viewed in the context of of San Diego's training on the use of Racial Profiling in conjunction with pretext-stops and where the encounter, is resolved (Action Taken) by a Verbal Warning.  All identifiable groups receive these more than Whites, however, we note that the highly significant 38% disparity for these sparsely recorded undocumented (if articulated and legal ) stops and empty sanctions is highest for Blacks See Below:

The SDPD's Written Warnings (the least biting of the articulated sanctions) are as attention-getting. Blacks and Hispanics get them at around half the rate that they are received by Whites and Asians. As always, no explanation is provided for this condition.

It should be noted that search and seizure rates may be motivated, at least in part, by financial considerations. Indeed, according to data provided by the USDOJ, the SDPD benefitted to the tune of some $18 million, in recent years, by way of civil forfeitures. The City has refused to provide details of this data by claiming that it is all the subject of ongoing investigations:

Of course, San Diego's data shows that precious little booty is recovered from Blacks and Hispanics and common sense should direct that policing efforts be directed elsewhere, perhaps to groups that provide higher returns. But habits are stubborn things.

Use of Force

There is no verifiable data on use of force. The summary data that has been provided shows that force is more frequently used in neighbourhoods that are classified by the SDPD as being predominantly populated by Blacks and Hispanics. Given that the SDPD approaches service calls from such areas as "crimes in progress" the summary results are unsurprising. However, despite the fact that they are counter to the interest of the SDPD we must accept them until better information becomes available. At this writing the SDPD, has yet to produce detail records or to refuse/deny production.

Furthermore, San Diego's representations concerning use-of-force are all over the place; e.g.

1. On November 11, 2015 it reported that Assaults of Officers have increased since body cameras have been deployed. See at 1:15:40 w/Gloria and @ 1:20 w/Emerald; @36% increase in assaults of officers but a substantial (KPBS reports 44%) reduction in complaints and allegations against officers. But see contradiction here
2. On December 08, 2015 it reported that Use-of-force complaints have decreased
3. On December 10, 2015 it reported that Use-of-force has increased.

While the contention in 1 is an obtuse way of saying use-of-force incidents have increased, its implausibility would seem to be self evident. The same holds true with respect to the likely meaning of the second part. The second contention has similar challenges, i.e. a reduction in complaints often means a reduction in citizen confidence. Confidence that complaints will be properly addressed or handled. There is little doubt that the speakers, referenced above, have knowledge of the level of citizen confidence in complaint process and in the Citizens Review Board. 

The tables that follow may be of interest to those who subscribe to the "Veil of Darkness Fantasy"