The Poverty Penalty
May
21, 2016
Richard Hylton
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED
The
Honorable Laura E. Duffy
United
States Attorney
U.S.
Attorney's Office Federal Office Building
880
Front Street, Room 6293
San
Diego, CA 92101
|
The
Honorable Vanita Gupta
Civil
Rights Division
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington
D.C. 20530
|
Re: Racial
Profiling or Biased-policing City of San Diego and disturbing recent trend
Dear Ms.
Duffy and Ms. Gupta:
I represent no one other than myself. Most
people would be outraged if they knew what I know.
On numerous occasions, I informed the
United States Justice Department, California Department of Justice, and anyone
else who may have a passing interest, that the City of San Diego is unique in
terms of its use of racial profiling in policing decisions. Within the last 30,
or so, days, others have echoed similar sentiments or views.
I join with the Attorneys for the late
Fridoon Nehad and the ACLU in requesting
that your offices open a civil rights investigation into the policies and
practices of the San Diego Police Department ("SDPD") relating to
every aspect of its policing. Its use of police powers for commercial purposes
“policing for profit” is particularly troubling, which matter is surpassed only
by the demonstrated dire consequences of its use of force. While many have
expressed the view that the threshold for such cases is high, I believe that
the SDPD has been operating well over that threshold for an extended
period. But more than that, the stewards
of the police department, The San Diego City Council has feigned ignorance of
these facts for over two years, and has embarked on a plan to suppress the
publication of an “independent” investigation, by San Diego State University, so as to
deliver it more than a year after its original due date. It would be
disrespectful for me to suggest that the upcoming primary elections, in which
several of them are standing for re-election, or election to other political
posts, in any way influences the craven decision to delay publication of
damning results. I do so anyway.
To support my contentions, I attach an
addendum of comments and charts..
These attachments demonstrate that there
is no activity, connected with policing, where Blacks and Latinos are not the
recipients of the worst. And now, with ever increasing frequency, new
revelations emerge. Indeed, it is the receipt of data and summarization of it
that has prompted this communication. In the weeks preceding, we learned of:
·
The
filing of an action, by former Police Officer Matthew Francois, that alleges
that supervisory personnel are advocates for biased-policing and are intolerant
of those who oppose it.
·
The
previously mentioned additional delay in the publication of the SDSU Data report;
·
The disclosure,
based on CA DMV data, that the targeting of poor people, for revenue generating
purposes, devastates and blights their very existence.
These disproportionate numbers, beginning with stops,
doubtless contribute to the disproportionate incarceration of Blacks and so
contribute to unnecessary disproportionate deaths. According to the AG, Blacks
died at a rate that was 4.39 times greater than would be expected given their
representation in the state population; Native Americans died at a rate 2.79
times greater than would be expected. Relative to their representation in
California's institutionalized population, Blacks and Native Americans were not
overrepresented among those who died.
Months ago, in response to disturbing reports on Use of Force,
by the SDPD that were published by the California Attorney General, I fetched
and summarized detail data from the SDPD. While the SDPD declined to provide
racial or ethnic information, the summarization of 5900 records, by location, demonstrated
or confirmed that persons who live in Predominantly Black and Hispanic Service
Areas suffer from greatly disproportionate use of force. When explanation of
the phenomenon was pursued, it was disclosed that police interactions (service
calls) in such areas are approached as “crimes in progress”, thus explaining,
in three short words, the gross disproportionality, and perhaps the death of
Fridoon Nehad and others.. Doubtless, adopting a belligerent stance in
interacting with people, irrespective of the circumstances is poor policing
procedure.
The Scott and Francois Suits
In the cases filed by Sgt Scott CASE NO.:
37-2015-00001940-CU-QE-CTL claims Racial discrimination, including the use
of racial caricatures in training and as obstacles to advancement in the SDPD. Scott also alleges that the SDPD retaliated
against him as a result of his complaining about its racial profiling practices.
Former officer Matthew
Francois (37-2016-00003251-CU-OE-CTL) alleges a policy of the encouragement of
disproportionate treatment, by training officers and supervisory personnel
within the police department. Francois, specifically makes a clear allegation of
North of 8/ South of 8 biases being fostered and encouraged by members of the
SDPD. I hold that the allegation as relates to bias is sustainable and
supported by SDPD data.
I request that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's
office investigate the procedures, practices and training within the SDPD
regarding: 1) its investigation of use of force, particularly lethal use of
force; and 2) its interactions with those impacted by mental illness or
substance abuse.
This is the type of situation that
requires the federal government's intervention. Immediate action is compelled by the trend that is clearly shown by data
for the first quarter of 2016. The bad is getting worse.
All
are aware that DOJ is bringing constitutional policing to communities
throughout the country, particularly in the areas of use of force and the
treatment of the mentally ill. The Blacks and Hispanics, indeed all in San
Diego, deserve no less.
Sincerely;
Richard Hylton
[1] Intended
to mean streets where no Traffic Survey has been conducted or where the survey has
expired, i.e. over 5 years old.
This
analysis is based on the summing of the top 18 post-stop actions (and derived
actions) that appear in post-stop details from a Master dataset of just under 280,000
Vehicle Stop records. This data was collected by the City of San Diego from
January 1, 2014 through March 31, 2016. I have chosen not to present tables of
each value that has been examined, preferring, instead, to use charts, since
they tell a far more compelling story than dull columns of numbers.
The
stories told by these results have been known to the City of San Diego, since
around 2000. It has chosen to ignore them, preferring instead to claim that it
does not understand what they mean and by punting to San Diego State University
for an “Independent[1]”
study. It punted again when the data analysis was completed last fall and has
punted once more so that the “Independent” analysis will be delayed by one
year, if and when it is made public, i.e. after the elections. Moreover, the
2015 dataset has been marred by poor data collection rates, the trend of which
was recognized and reported in December 2014.
Included
in this dataset are “speed-trap” stops that are outlawed by statute, but are,
nonetheless, conducted by San Diego because of their revenue-generating ability. The number and frequency of these
illegal stops are impossible to determine, due to the lack of cooperation from
the City of San Diego. See CCPRA 16-807.
Conspicuously
missing from this analysis is data relative to Use of Force by the SDPD, in the
context of Vehicle Stops, by Race or Ethnicity. Although this data was
provided to the CA DOJ, the SDPD has steadfastly ignored requests for inclusion
of race/ethnicity information, in the data that it did provide. See CCPRA
2015-1413 SUPP (Revised); CPRA
2015-1931. Instead we have to make do with the presentation of this data by
Service Area.
All
comparisons were made relative to Whites, i.e. numerical value of the post-stop
outcome for whites was computed and those for other groups were compared to
that value.
A
citation rate where the Blacks “enjoy” a citation rate than 21% below the base
is statistically significant. It suggests, more likely confirms that legal
reasons cannot be found to cite them and indicates that significant numbers of the
stops were constitutionally unsound. The issuance of SDPD
Internal Memorandum TB 14-02[1]
implies that the practice of infirm stops was widespread, and current Field
Interview data shows that it continues.
For
three years Blacks have experienced a Search rate over 3 times that of Whites
but when searched are arrested far less frequently[2]; just of half as much (54%.)
This fact is supported by the Hit Rate values that follow.
Hit
Rate: The ratio of contraband found to searches conducted. Best practices
demand that adjustments be made when the persons presumed to be suspicious
prove otherwise. For Blacks and for Hispanics in this City the opposite tack is
taken, despite the fact that these two groups have historically had the lowest Hit
Rates.
Since Black and Hispanic motorists are
subjected to higher search rates, of all types, than white motorists, the
finding of contraband in a lower percentage of their vehicles demonstrates that
searches are based on race, not results. Denial of these facts or applying
“controls” to account for this disparity as has been used and continues to be
promoted, is dishonest.
Stopcause like 'Moving Violation' and
([SearchDetaiDescriptionString] ='Written Warning')
Stopcause like 'Equipment Violation' and
([SearchDetaiDescriptionString] ='Verbal Warning')
The
data contains large numbers of records where the stop is resolved by nothing
other than a verbal warning. They are peculiar, in that they are stops where
the probable cause is said to be for “equipment violations” echoing the
complaints of the ginned –up stop, as is discussed below. Aside from Citations,
the only group that approaches verbal warnings, in volume, is the group where
the stop is resolved by written warnings.
In
addition, Written Warnings and Verbal warnings are strange items that seem to have
an inverse relationship, i.e. any group that experiences high values for the
one, has low values for the other. Written warnings are documented instances of
the lenient exercise of an officer’s discretion. A verbal warning documents
nothing. Instead; it may be used to conceal improper stops and doubtless are so
used. Citizen narratives confirm this;
the ginned –up stop[3] for equipment violations, that
are resolved by verbal warnings. Black and Hispanics[4], the most frequent complainers
or victims, happen to have the greatest number of Verbal warnings, and the
fewest number of documented or written
warnings. In other words, documented lenient use of officer discretion is extended
to Blacks and Hispanics at lower rates.
By any measure, a seven-fold disparity in any post-stop
action is an abomination. It is obvious that the SDPD has progressed from
outrage to greater outrage, has recognized it and done nothing about it other
than the ineffectual TB -1402 that was immediately countermanded by the Rose Memorandum,[5]
the requirements and instruction of which, influences the conduct that produces
the truly horrible 4th Waiver
Search results. Despite importunement, the SDPD is unable to inform this
writer on how parolees and probationers are identifyable, and may be targeted, as the Rose Memorandum
exhorts.
What is not in doubt is that the people, subjected to these searches, are far
and away, Blacks; almost 7 times as
often in 2016. Latinos lag far behind, at almost double the rate for Whites. The SDPD needs help in getting its
house in order.
These 4th Waiver
searches are the motivating
factor for many vehicle stops and are the source of bitter
citizen complaints because Black and Hispanics are targeted in accordance with
written SDPD policy; The
Rose Memorandum and by its training policy that declares that there is no
racism in Racial Profiling and consequently instructs, by implication and I
daresay, by expression that Racial Profiling[6] is
an effective and legitimate policing tool. The definition of Racial Profiling
exists in law and the SDPD “spin” on what Racial Profiling means and is remains
illegal, dishonest and damaging. Moreover, the numbers in this analysis and the
narratives demonstrate that pretext stops, for the SDPD do not need real minor infractions. For the SDPD, pretext stops are often based
on pretexts, the manufacture of which they appear to be particularly adept.
The
comment on the high disproportion of searches and the stark disappointing
results from the effort bears repetition. Black and Hispanic motorists are
subjected to higher search rates, of all types, than white motorists, the
finding of contraband in a lower percentage of their vehicles demonstrates that
searches are based on race, not results. Again, denial of these facts or
applying “controls” to account for this disparity as has been used and
continues to be promoted, remains dishonest.
**The writer does not understand this SDPD en-coded
category. It seems unrelated to Consent-Searches.
In
answer to the question of how does the race/ethnicity of those who died compare
to other statewide statistics? The California Attorney General concluded that
Blacks are significantly overrepresented when compared to the CA population;
however, that gap closes when compared to those who have been arrested or
incarcerated. White deaths are in proportion to their share of the state population;
they are overrepresented compared to arrests and incarcerations. Hispanics have
a higher share of the population, arrests, and incarcerations than deaths.
Asians have a significantly higher proportion of the state population than
deaths, arrests, and incarcerations. Native Americans are approximately the
same across all.
For
reasons that are unexplained, the SDPD, despite providing data on race and
ethnicity to the AG, is incapable of providing the same data to this writer.
Therefore using Service Area data, stripped of race identification obtained
from the City of SD, as a result of the AG’s analysis we can see that the
highest instance of the use of force occurs where Blacks and Hispanics are
found.
No
|
Serv. Area
Name
|
Description
|
%
|
|
66
|
Northwestern
|
Predominantly White/Anglo (Eastern,
Northeastern, Northern, Western)
|
1.12
|
|
199
|
Northeastern
|
Predominantly White/Anglo (Eastern,
Northeastern, Northern, Western)
|
3.37
|
|
284
|
Southern
|
Predominantly Black/Hispanic (Central, Mid-City,
Southeastern, Southern)
|
4.81
|
|
377
|
Eastern
|
Predominantly White/Anglo (Eastern,
Northeastern, Northern, Western)
|
6.39
|
|
525
|
Southeastern
|
Predominantly Black/Hispanic (Central,
Mid-City, Southeastern, Southern)
|
8.9
|
|
714
|
Western
|
Predominantly White/Anglo (Eastern,
Northeastern, Northern, Western)
|
12.1
|
|
731
|
Mid-City
|
Predominantly Black/Hispanic (Central,
Mid-City, Southeastern, Southern)
|
12.39
|
|
734
|
Northern
|
Predominantly White/Anglo (Eastern,
Northeastern, Northern, Western)
|
12.44
|
|
814
|
Unknown
|
Unknown
|
13.8
|
|
1456
|
Central
|
Predominantly Black/Hispanic (Central,
Mid-City, Southeastern, Southern)
|
24.68
|
|
5900
|
100
|
|||
According
to Chief Zimmerman’s liaison, Service calls to predominantly Black and Hispanic
Service areas are approached as “Crimes
In Progress”. San Diego’s data affirms the claim; the result of the
aggressive stance needed to deal with “Crimes
In Progress”; the status of every service call to places where Blacks and
Hispanics are the predominant ethnicities. The above values prove it.
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Nfdg4rqWt9TTFYeWtfVjZtQzVzaEFjRFlCSnplSnYyZjR3/view?usp=sharing
[2] https://youtu.be/LTGsNt3gAj8 Christina
@ 1:30
[3]
Brother Mohammed at https://youtu.be/LTGsNt3gAj8
@18:03
[5] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Nfdg4rqWt9a3pqejNURGxDdGs/view?usp=sharing
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_p01OCXFbk
beginning @1:10. The definition of Racial Profiling exists in law and the SDPD
“spin” on what Racial Profiling means is dishonest and damaging.
[1]
The claim of independence persists despite the fact that the analysis is being
paid for by the City of San Diego.
Comments
Post a Comment