The CA-DOJ can't stomach the truth

Around two weeks ago, VOSD published a piece that asserted that the SDSU-produced report was watered-down. The piece claimed that there were several places where analysts had made findings of "bias" but had changed those findings to findings of "disparity." All that water evoked remembrance of The Rime of The Ancient Mariner.

It is a [an ancient Mariner] racist policeman, 

And he stoppeth one of three. 

'By thy long grey beard and glittering eye, 

Now wherefore stopp'st thou me? 

Following that watering-down revelation, Myrtle Cole, full of fury, had her say. So did the ACLU. They both know better and so both signify nothing, for either or both saw the barely-hidden water can(s) as early as fall 2014. And some of you, certainly, saw evidence of or heard complaints about the strangeness of SDPD data by spring 2015.

Do not allow yourself to be beguiled by stalking horses; horses placed in the public pasture on behalf of persons with influence, by media flacks.

The SDSU report was watered-down, all right, but not by the change of the word from “bias” to “disparity”; for what is disparity if not the measure of the degree or magnitude of bias? The difference in both terms is the same as the difference between speed and miles-per-hour. The latter is the unit of measurement of the former (if you disagree, I invite you to view the exchange between Professor Chanin and Scott Sherman @ February 27, 2017[1].) No, the watering down is in the watering-down of data, and in how the report's "findings” were presented. They were presented to mislead, to deceive.

The data was watered-down by not being entered and/or by being ripped out; i.e. purged from the database. And, prognostications were presented as though they were measurements of actual disparities. Here are examples:

1.      Citation data for Asians was entered, on average 99.26% of the time; Whites 85.45%; Latinos 82.17% and Blacks 81.27%.

Observation: The higher the actual citation rate, the lower the entry-rate of those citations, by SDPD.

Race Category	Jud. Number	VSD Number	Diff.	VSD Race %	Jud. Race %	Data-entry Compl. Rate	Adj. To Maj. Rate	Cited %	Adj. Cite Rate	Stop Year	EDP	Disp. Act	Disp. VSD
Asian	6450	6624	-174	6.46	7.74	102.70	12.65	54.06	41.41	2014	16.99	0.38	0.46
Black	9195	7754	1441	9.21	9.06	84.33	-5.72	48.04	53.76	2014	5.50	1.67	1.65
Hispanic	30097	26631	3466	30.14	31.10	88.48	-1.57	61.23	62.80	2014	27.03	1.12	1.15
Other	11946	6639	5307	11.96	7.75	55.58	-34.47	64.51	98.98	2014	3.23	3.70	2.40
White	42166	37972	4194	42.23	44.35	90.05	0.00	61.26	61.26	2014	47.20	0.89	0.94
Asian	5215	4997	218	6.34	7.90	95.82	14.98	54.37	39.39	2015	16.99	0.37	0.46
Black	7643	5977	1666	9.29	9.44	78.20	-2.64	48.21	50.85	2015	5.50	1.69	1.72
Hispanic	25186	19106	6080	30.63	30.19	75.86	-4.98	55.47	60.45	2015	27.03	1.13	1.12
Other	10023	5584	4439	12.19	8.82	55.71	-25.13	58.74	83.87	2015	3.23	3.77	2.73
White	34167	27620	6547	41.55	43.64	80.84	0.00	55.37	55.37	2015	47.20	0.88	0.92
	182088	148904	33184

2.      By locating records in the judicial citation database, it was determined that records affecting Latinos were purged at almost 4 times the rate of Whites (3.98); those for Blacks, over twice as often(2.15.)

This is what the summary information, on located citations related to purged items, looks like:

VSD Null Records that were found in Judicial Citation tables
Number	Race	% Null	EDP	Disparity	Comparison To Majority
103	Asian	2.41	16.99	0.14	0.25
283	Black	6.61	5.50	1.20	2.15
2573	Hispanic	60.12	27.03	2.22	3.98
192	Other	4.49	3.23	1.39	2.49
1129	White	26.38	47.20	0.56	1.00
4280		100.00	99.95

To summarize the above, the SDPD failed to enter data (or illegally purged it) in a biased or disproportionate way, when Blacks or Browns were involved.

3.      The SDSU Table 5.3[2], which I hold to be highly accurate (except for the ruse concerning Asians) is the only place in the SDSU report where actual measurements are represented.

All else are expressions of likelihoods and odds. So my experiences, my fate and my safety are reduced to gambler’s terminology or jargon; facts are further concealed in turgid and cryptic text; like so:

1.       “Black and Hispanic drivers were more likely than White drivers to be searched following a traffic stop, and despite facing far greater search rates, were less likely to be found with contraband;”

And;

2.       “when aggregated at the city level, the odds of a stop involving a Hispanic driver is not affected by the change from daylight to darkness, regardless of when the stop occurred or the comparison group used, as indicated by odds ratios that align so closely to 1.0.”

And;

3.       “To account for the possibility that those factors that led to a search may affect the likelihood that a driver will receive a citation.”

And;

4.       “Propensity score matching allows researchers to pair drivers of different races across the various other factors known to affect the likelihood of receiving a citation, being searched, arrested, subject to a field interview, or being found with contraband. In other words, this technique …..”

None of the above four items are about actual measurements.

Declarative statements would have been better, because it is such conflation-inducing mealy-mouthedness as we have above, that has caused the ACLU, Alliance San Diego and others to claim that Blacks are subject to field interviews (only) over twice as often as Whites; a watering-down. The actual measured numbers “shine plain,” after mental arithmetic, in Table 5.3. The number 8 divided by 1.5 = 5.33. It means that Blacks are field interviewed over 5 times as often as Whites. That is real fact rather than and odds-based likelihood. It is a fact that made TB 14-02, April 9, 2014 necessary. This disparity number, this 5.33, this measurement of bias, is much more often than the odds predicted. Please perform similar divisions for Arrests, Searches, Hit Rates and Citations to satisfy yourself.[3] And if you are curious, the confounding 46.1% citation rate for Blacks is the product of the behaviour that the demonstrably-ignored TB 14-02, April 9, 2014 pretended to attempt to curb; behaviour that increased the denominator and so drove the rate down.

84,000 Verbal and Written Warnings

The failure to analyze the use of verbal warnings to conceal constitutionally infirm stops, and the forbearance given Whites and Asians, in the form of written warnings rather than expensive citations, is massively troubling, even scandalous. This is so for obvious reasons but particularly so because analysis of these items are a specific requirement of AB953[4]. This omission, by the analysts, lies behind a false claim that these records do not exist[5]. And Zimmerman’s equally false statement to that effect, and in support of that falsehood, is at best, a cover-up or, at worst, more watering-down.

As many of you know, or should, the state’s second largest is an automatic consultant to the CA-DOJ with respect to data-collection or submission practices. “The Gold Standard” as some of you are fond of claiming by arrogation, as is documented by the data-management practices shown above, is not what serves the public interest; even though it supports the agenda of some. Please abandon the claim. San Diego having humbled by measurements of its abuse of Black and Brown persons, ought to appear humble.

Finally; the CA-DOJ, specifically the AG, despite the duty and obligation of ensuring that the rights of all citizens are protected and that all laws are obeyed, has asked me not to bring the foregoing matters to the attention of individuals employed there. I have chosen to ignore them, because they:

1.)      Despite my being registered for email notifications concerning policing, did not provide such notifications and effectively denied me the opportunity to comment on AB953, and;

2.)      Failed to follow the law themselves, by not issuing regulations for the implementation of AB 953, which regulations are now almost six months overdue.

As regards this last item, I refer each and all of you to the comments of some of you, which comments were directed to Chief Zimmerman, on February 27, 2017.

They, the CA-DOJ shall hear from me, in a formal way, sooner than they think.

Water, water, every where, 

And all the disparities [boards] did shrink; 

Water, water, every where, 

Nor any drop to drink. 

Coleridge rolls.

---

[1]  Professor Chanin, in the Q&A part of the February 27, 2017 presentation speaks eloquently of “significant” disparities, while he speaks of the complex difference or distinction between bias and disparity. There is no complexity. Disparity is a means of measuring the magnitude of bias.

[2] The number of Asian/API records is around 19,000 records less than appears in this table. This ruse causes Asians, “the model minority”, to appear to be more heavily policed.

[3] Compared to Whites; Searches Blacks 3.17 and Hispanics 2.03 times more. Hit Rate: Black 31% and Latinos 34% less. Arrests:  Blacks 1.5 and Hispanics 1.25 times more. Field Interviews: Blacks 5.33 and Hispanic 2.00 times more. Citations: Blacks 20% and Hispanic 2% less. For the reason presented earlier, the numbers presented for under-policed Asians are invalid.

[4] Section 12525.5 further requires agencies to report the warning provided or violation cited (if any) (id., subd. (b)(4)) as well as the offense charged if an arrest was made (id., subd. (b)(4)). Accordingly, data values were included to satisfy these reporting obligations and to allow the RIPA Board to analyze, for example, whether racial disparities exist among certain categories of warnings…

[5] At page 20, as a footnote, the SDSU analysts falsely claim: “Because we do not have records of warnings given, there is no way to confirm this one way or another.”