Take me to the Commissioner
June 19, 2019
Commissioner Warren Stanley
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Sacramento, CA 95811
By Certified mail 7017
1450 0001 3022 3352
Dear Commissioner;
When the procedures that sliced and diced, stratified and
accumulated values from the RIPA-stop data were done, last Thursday or Friday,
I, mindful that the CHP had been collecting stop data for around 20 years under
compulsion by a Settlement Agreement or Court Order, to analyse that data, decided to use Google to see what results were
published on the CHP’s analyses. I found nothing. Instead, what existed and
exists in some abundance, is press coverage of discussions that seemed centered
on the 24 complaints, none sustained, of Racial Profiling that were fielded by
the California Highway Patrol, and investigated by the CHP itself (I am sure
that the CHP did not notice the obvious conflict-of interest.) The
self-exoneration was reported as proof that there was little, if any, Racial Profiling
going on.
I had read about the 24 complaints before. They were a part of a
useless passage in the Second Annual RIPA Report (2019.) The press seized upon
it, and if one were to believe your comments, the RIPA Board and AB953 have no
purpose[1]. I rarely believe the
press, for often they are whores who fashion stories to maintain access to law
enforcement.
I deemed the passage useless, especially for an agency such as yours
for the reasons stated above, i.e. the more than $1.3 Million per month spent
on data collections, the over 1million RIPA records held by the CHP and a
Settlement Agreement that requires your agency to analyze those records;
independent of RIPA requirements. Why would anyone rely on 24 complaints, where
the CHP investigates itself, in the face of all of these things. That the CA-DOJ
included that foolishness tells me more about them than I know about your organization.
And, I have come to learn quite a bit about the California Highway Patrol. More
than I wish to know. More than some in your agency’s employ, and that of the
California Department of Justice, wish for me to know. My wealth of learning is
summarized below.
Summary of Findings
Figure 1
1.
In first half of the first RIPA
data-collection period, on the basis of 1,028,561 records (1,033,421 stops[2]) California Highway Patrol
officers (CHP) stopped, searched, arrested, handcuffed and field interviewed[3] more Blacks and Hispanics,
by proportion to population and by rate, than Whites and Asians. These facts
are elaborated upon (and cannot be disputed by data) in the full report that
may be viewed here[4]. But those who are more
persuaded by visuals should go no farther than the charts in the single figure;
Figure 1, especially The Towers of Iniquity and Inequity. Items in Figure1 compare
all groups to the encounter experiences of Whites.
2.
As is the case in other agencies, Blacks
and Hispanics lead the way in RIPA-mandated post-stop actions. They are searched,
forced to exit their vehicles, handcuffed, are subjected to force more often. Especially
noteworthy is the fact that Hispanics are beaten-up more than 100% more often
than Whites. Stops of Blacks take much longer (48%), and they are stopped for
no reason[5] (No action) 19% frequently.
However, even as I write this, it should be noted that the disparities for this
agency, by and large, generally are less than those for others. See Graphic
labelled “AllThings.”
3.
The citation data shows no distinct
difference between groups except for a seeming attempt to support the
stereotype concerning Asians. Here, too, it is proper to note that the massive
citation disparity that exists in every other LEA is not present with the CHP.
It does appear that 61% of the stops of Blacks are justified or
constitutionally supported. The Citations of all groups are “in the same Ballpark.”
The other post-stop actions are not, but racial profiling is not limited to stops
alone. Moreover; these data show that the CHP over-compensates in
the other 39% of stops.
4.
The stop disproportion for Blacks 1,70 (1.81
when compared to that of Whites) to population, by far, outstrips that all
other groups[6],
no other group comes close. The reasonForStopExplanation
field(s) are embargoed and this evaluation and comments are foreshortened by their
absence.
• Some 10.18 % of CHP stops were of Blacks,
who make up 5.9%
of California’s population. When compared to the inverse
disproportion; the under-representation enjoyed by Whites (.94) Black comparative
stop-disproportion soars to 1.81.
• Asians
are around 13.9% of the population but compose only 6.68 %
of stops; an inverse disparity to population (.50) and to Whites. The inverse
comparative disproportionality of the
stops of Asians to Blacks and Hispanics is more massive than ever seen, giving an
even newer meaning to the term preferred
stock[7].
• Whites
are 38.40% of the population but compose 37.25% of stops; an
inverse disparity to population presence (.94)
• Hispanics
are 38.10% of the population but compose 39.28% of stops. Hispanic stops are slightly above parity (1.05)
5.
In past times, warnings were either written
or oral. Written warnings denoted forbearance; oral warnings, on the other
hand, were places where un-productive pretext stops could have their unconstitutional
characteristics hidden. Now Warnings are an almost useless mush. Datamining
offers few opportunities to separate these warnings; moreover, on the basis of
a spurious claim the CA-DOJ has withheld the free-form text that could assist in
that endeavour. Accordingly, Warnings have been made useless; part of a well-considered and deliberate CA-DOJ
attempt to frustrate the ability to ferret-out preferential treatment and its
obverse or counterpart; biased treatment.
6.
In cities, many stops continue to appear
to be motivated by a “Hit”-driven desire to determine the parole or
probationary status of individuals who are said to be predominantly Black or
Hispanic. These data show that Blacks stopped by the CHP are found to be parolees
or probationers at more than twice the rate of Whites and more than that when
compared to other groups. This leads to a conclusion that Blacks are targeted
or are subjected to the targeted questioning that denotes or identifies a
particular form of racial profiling; i.e. , “substance
of law enforcement activities following a stop ….actions during a stop, such as
asking questions.”
7.
Field Interviews; a category of stop
outcomes that the CA-DOJ
had pointedly and expressly refused to recognize,
as a discrete action, remains alive and well-in-use[8]. Here too, the disparities
shown in CHP data are much less than observed in other places, but still
substantial. With the CHP, one is “only” 13% more likely to be subjected to a
Field interview if one is Black or Hispanic rather than White. If one were Asian,
that likelihood is halved.
8.
When suspicion formed the basis of the
decision to stop a person, in whole or in part, Blacks were deemed to be
suspicious 30% more often than Whites. Again, the reasons explanation fields are embargoed, and
accordingly this assessment is foreshortened and so is incomplete.
9.
Hispanics are arrested 49% more often, and
Blacks 42% more often, than Whites. Asians are arrested 31% less often.
10. If
you are a passenger in a vehicle driven by either a Black or Hispanic past
experience shows that you are 33% more likely to be subjected to a search, by
the CHP.
11. In
spite of searching Hispanics (53%) and Blacks (28%) more often than Whites, the
CHP has precious little or nothing to show for it. Indeed, with respect to
Hispanics, the returns are negative. For Blacks 28% more search-effort,
produces 2% more recoveries. This item directly addresses the RIPA “Advisory”
Board’s question, Number 5; to wit:
5.
Are there observable differences in peace officers’ decisions to search
individuals?
Example
Question: Does the proposition of
individuals searched vary based off racial/ethnic and identity groups?
Example
Question: How often do searches
conducted during a stop result in a successful search across identity groups?
These data, particularly
searches, show that the behaviours that resulted in a lawsuit and
Settlement Agreement are unabated.
Perhaps, some would say
that they, the continuing aberrant police behaviours, are evidence of breach of
the Settlement Agreement that was secured by the ACLU.
“Racial
or identity profiling” according to California Penal Code 13519.4, subdivision
(e), is as follows: o “the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree,
actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion,
gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical
disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon
the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except
that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific
suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or
pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks,
consensual and non-consensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any
property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation,
and making an arrest.”
These data
show that the CHP practices Racial Profiling, as defined by law, and that it does
so extensively.
Other data
shows that the CHP’s Racial Profiling is not limited to encounters
in-the-flesh. It practices Racial Profiling by phone too.
“If you
can bear to hear the truths you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for
fools.”
Kipling
From
your underling Montano, I learned that the CHP does not tolerate criticism,
especially from the likes of me; a Black, according to current classification.
It was nothing new. Your errand-boy, the knave, sought to cast my threat to sue
as, what you police people call, a “terroristic threat” with his “hear something
say something” crack. Doubtless he, Montano, wanted me to arrive at that
conclusion. It is a matter of grave
seriousness; one for the court and that I hope all and each of you shall come
to regret.
I
point you, he and the CA-DOJ, specifically to the last item in the US-DOJ’s summarized
findings from when it investigated Racial Profiling in Baltimore:
and (4) retaliating
against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression.”
US. v. Police Department
of Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 7-cv-00099-JKB
I
ask this much of you: please ensure that your officers, particularly Montano of
Woodland, not call my home again. Of course, this request must be construed
to be a complaint against him (I am simultaneously fashioning a legal
complaint against him, and others.)
Like the
puffed-up popinjay, who styles himself, Officer Montano, I adjure you, “If
you see something, say something.” These is much to see in the summary
above and in the over 1 million records that produced it
Much more,
may be seen here. It is a link to complete report on the over 1 million CHP
stop records.
My
analysis will be made complete upon verification and validation of the data. To
that end, I ask that you send me the arrest and citation records to the full
extend disclosable, for the period July 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 in
computer readable format. At a minimum, I seek:
Citations:
[CitationNumber] ,[CitationDateTime]
,[ActivityType] ,[Age] ,[Beat] ,[StreetNumber] ,[StreetDirection] ,[StreetName]
,[StreetType] ,[CrossStreetDirection] ,[CrossStreetName] ,[CrossStreetType]
,[City] ,[State] ,[ZipCode] ,[LastName] ,[FirstName] ,[MiddleName] ,[SexGender]
,[ViolationSection] ,[ViolationType] ,[ID] ,[PID] ,[ServArea] ,[ServAreaName]
,[BeatName] ,[RaceEthnicity]
Arrests:
[ActivityNumber] ,[ActivityDateTime] ,[ActivityType]
,[Age] ,[Beat] ,[StreetNumber] ,[StreetDirection] ,[StreetName]
,[StreetType] ,[CrossStreetDirection] ,[CrossStreetName] ,[CrossStreetType]
,[City] ,[State] ,[ZipCode] ,[LastName] ,[FirstName] ,[MiddleName] ,[SexGender]
,[ViolationSection] ,[ViolationType] ,[ID] ,[PID] ,[ServArea] ,[ServAreaName]
,[BeatName] ,[RaceEthnicity]”
The
graphic, from the Google search, points to an article concerning the
performance of The
Los Angeles County Sheriff,[9] with respect to heightened
search rates motivated by hoped-for hits. My analysis of LACSO data generally confirms
the reported findings. I found that Hispanics are searched 42% more often than
Whites and yield 26% less contraband. Blacks are more disappointing; the 56%
increased search premium yields even less; 34% less. These levels of disappointment
must have also been felt within the ranks of the CHP for their minority-directed
search efforts or investments were equally futile; unproductive.
The
policing practices that cause the racial disparities in stops, searches, and
arrests, along with evidence suggesting intentional discrimination against
Hispanics and Blacks, undermine the community trust that is central to
effective policing. Trust cannot be built upon deception or lies; both of which
exist in all of these things in spades.
Finally;
although, I do not wish to hear from any of your officers, you can to call me. Perhaps
we can speak about the professionalism of the 24 who were completely exonerated
by the CHP’s investigation of the complaints against them, on condition that
you are willing and able to discuss and dispose of all that over 1 million soggy or watered-down stop
records stop records say about CHP’s policing practices.
Sincerely;
Cc AB953
Xavier Becerra
Manny Alvarez
Nancy Beninati
Sgt.Timmons
[1] A view that I sometimes hold, but for the reason that
both the Advisory Board and the law are emasculated; neutered; de-fanged, as
lies are told and data is doctored or hidden.
[2] Substantially more than the 24 complaints, none
sustained, that were investigated by the CHP, in 2018, and led to the
self-congratulatory conclusion that it, CHP, had no instances of racial
profiling. The 24-complaint result—a part of the Second Annual RIPA Report @
page 40— RIPA board member Warren Stanley, the CHP’s commissioner, said shows “the professionalism of the agency’s
personnel.” These data say otherwise, as does history. When sued,
in 2003 for racial profiling (Rodriguez
v. California Highway Patrol, 99-20895), the CHP settled. The settlement
also required the agency to track all stops and review that database to ensure
no officer is pulling over a disproportionate number of black or Hispanic
motorists. It required CHP to pay $875,000 in legal fees and damages. There is
no evidence of the CHP analyzing data, on a day-by-day basis, as is
required by its settlement agreement. So much for the much ballyhooed and
publicized 24 complaint finding.
[3] Field Interview rates, @1.13 times that of Whites, are
the same for Blacks and Hispanics.
[5] The essence of what most people call Racial Profiling;
being stopped for no reason; none legally articulated or articulable.
[6] If you stop people for bad reasons, you will not be
able to ticket them or to have those tickets sustained in court.
[7]
stock that entitles the holder to
a fixed dividend, whose payment takes priority over that of common-stock
dividends; priority is a form of preference.
[8] Too late for the City of Oakland, where Field
Interviews— for which there were around 8,032 in 2016, and 10,523 in 2015—
disappeared in 2017, thus contributing
to Oakland’s data analyst’s report of a “Sharp Drop in Number of Stops…” a reduction in the “policing footprint.” However, in
late 2019 the Federal Court that oversees Oakland’s Consent Decree castigated
the OPD for producing false Use-Of-Force Reports. In June 2019, I told the Court so.
Comments
Post a Comment