|
|
Report to the State of Maryland on Law Eligable Traffic Stops
|
Maryland Statistical Analysis Center,
Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention
September 1, 2007
|
In 2001, the Maryland General Assembly passed TR 25-113. The statute,
which requires data
collection on every law eligible traffic stop in Maryland, aims to provide
information about the
pervasiveness of racial profiling. Since 2002, Maryland law enforcement
agencies have collected and
reported traffic stop data according to the legislation.
Specifically, TR 25-113 required the Maryland Police Training Commission
(PCTC), in
consultation with the Maryland Justice Analysis Center (MJAC) , to develop
four guiding documents.
The documents include: 1) a model recording and reporting format; 2) a model
policy for law
enforcement agencies to address ethnicity-based traffic stops; 3) guidelines for
law enforcement agencies
to manage, counsel, and train officers who collect traffic stop data; and 4) a
model log to record traffic
stop data. Appendix A contains the model recording and reporting format. In
addition, Appendix B
contains the PCTC-approved model policy. Appendix C contains the guidelines
for management,
counseling, and training. However, the guidelines acknowledge multiple
methods of data collection and
reporting; therefore, agencies adapted different versions of the guidelines.
Lastly, Appendix D includes
the model log. It should be noted, although TR 25-113 mandates State funding
for data collection and
analysis, neither law enforcement agencies nor MJAC received funding for traffic
stop data reporting.
METHODOLOGY
The 2007 report presents aggregate data on all law eligible stops in Maryland
that law
enforcement agencies reported to MSAC for the 2006 fiscal year. For the
current reporting period, 123
agencies were eligible to report; 111 agencies reported the data required by TR
25-113. Data were
excluded if the agency failed to submit data or if researchers were unable to
merge the data due to
reporting errors. MSAC did not audit or test the data, except for the purpose of
internal consistency.
The current report evaluates whether law eligible traffic stops among
non-Caucasian drivers
differ from stops among Caucasian drivers. To begin, law eligible traffic stops
are defined as all stops
made by law enforcement agencies that are eligible to issue traffic violations.
However, TR 25-113
excludes traffic stops that result from checkpoints or roadblocks, stops of
multiple vehicles after an
accident or emergency, and the use of radar, laser, or vascar technology. Such
stops are excluded because
officer discretion is unlikely to play a role in the stop. Researchers evaluated
driver ethnicity according to
the officer’s observations and MVA data officers consulted at the time of the
stop. The report refers to
ethnicity as Caucasian or races other than Caucasian. For purposes of this
research, Caucasian refers to
individuals that were reported by officers and/or MVA as White, Arab,
Caucasian, and Asiatic Islander;
the races other than Caucasian category collapses multiple ethnicities that are
impossible to compare
individually due to categorical disparities between Maryland Department of
Motor Vehicle ethnic data
and law enforcement ethnic data under TR 25-113. Specifically, tables 3-33
refer to Maryland licensed
driver data to compare the Caucasian and races other than Caucasian
sub-populations of stopped drivers
to the broader population of individuals who drive in Maryland.
RESULTS
As noted, tables 3-33 in Appendix E present detailed data on the similarities
and differences
among the numbers and characteristics of stops and stop outcomes between
Caucasian and races other
than Caucasian sub-populations. Overall, Maryland police departments and
sheriffs’ offices reported
649,332 law eligible traffic stops for fiscal year 2006, representing 16.67% of
licensed drivers in
Maryland. In total, the data in table 3 suggest that approximately 50% of law
eligible stops in Maryland
in 2006 involved races other than Caucasian drivers, who represent an
estimated 33% of licensed drivers
in Maryland. In addition, table 3 lists the primary reason for each stop,
according to the racial and ethnic
categories the agencies reported. Each reason refers to the title of the statute
that justified the stop,
according to the officer. The data show that officers reported similar reasons for
stops between the
Caucasian and races other than Caucasian sub-populations. The agencies,
however, reported “unknown”
as the reason for the stop in 16.8% of stops that involved races other than
Caucasian drivers and in 11.4%
of stops that involved Caucasian drivers.
In addition, tables 6, 11, 18, and 27 illustrate results concerning the actions of
the officers after
traffic stops, according to ethnicity. Specifically, table 6 reports search data,
which indicate that searches
occur in a small percentage of reported traffic stops (3.6%). The majority of
searches (59.4%), however,
involved races other than Caucasian drivers. Additionally, table 11 summarizes
data concerning the
reason for the search. When the officer provided a reason for the search, the
majority of searches were
incident to arrest (53.1%), for both Caucasian (56.7%) and races other than
Caucasian (43.3%). Notably,
law enforcement agencies did not provide a reason for search in 61.1% of
reported stops. Therefore, the
data on searches do not result in any strong conclusions. Table 18 shows the
percentage of searches that
resulted in seizures of contraband or property. Specifically, officers reported
seizures in 38.5% of
searches. Seizures followed approximately 34% of searches of Caucasian
drivers and approximately 63%
of searches of races other than Caucasian drivers. However, in general, the
data in table 23 suggest that
the most common outcome of a stop is a verbal warning for both Caucasian
(47%) and races other than
Caucasian (45%). More specifically, drivers whose ethnicity was recorded as
“other” are an exception to
this rule. In fact, officers issued a citation following 44% of traffic stops in
which the officer classified
the driver as “other.” Finally, the data in table 27 show arrests for 2.7% of all
stops officers reported, with
approximately 50% of arrests involving Caucasians. Furthermore, officers cite
the same reason for arrest
and initial stop in 57% of arrests they report.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions about the relationship between ethnicity and traffic stops, based
on the data
contained in this report, should be cautiously interpreted and carefully utilized.
The data this report
summarizes, and Appendix E provides in detail, cannot indicate definitively
whether ethnicity affects the
occurrence or characteristics of traffic stops in Maryland. A major obstacle to
traffic stop data analysis is
the determination of appropriate points of comparison. State and local
governments seek to discover
whether drivers who exhibit similar behaviors, but are of different ethnicities, are
stopped at different
rates.
The current method allows the possibility for error by neglecting confounding
variables, such as
driving behavior and law enforcement deployment. Researchers compared rates
of stops, searches, and
arrests to Maryland licensed driver data. According to the general population of
licensed drivers in
Maryland, the data suggest that law enforcement officers stopped drivers who
were races other than
Caucasian more often than they stopped Caucasian drivers. The apparent
trend, however, lacks validity
because statewide measures of driving behavior that correlate with ethnicity are
unavailable for use as
denominators. The use of licensed driver data introduces unknown estimation
problems because variables
such as rates of car ownership, driving behavior, and law enforcement
deployment may differ across sub-
populations. Furthermore, licensed driver data excludes out-of-state drivers from
the analysis because out-
of-state driver population distributions are unavailable. In the future, researchers
can reduce the
possibility of error by excluding stops of out-of-state drivers from data that
agencies report.
In addition, amendments to the statute can increase the value of the data. The
statute requires the
use of specific ethnic codes; however, the DMV refers to different ethnic
categories for licensed driver
data. As such, adoption of DMV categories will facilitate traffic stop data
analysis in future reports.
Furthermore, the current method does not allow the researchers to verify the
accuracy and
completeness of data that agencies report. TR 25-113 does not require
agencies to supply evidence that
the data reflect all eligible stops; nor does the statute mandate a data audit.
The General Assembly should
consider additional language that allows MSAC to eliminate the volume of
missing and inaccurate data.
Nonetheless, communication with the agencies in 2007 strongly suggests that
the majority of agencies
made good faith efforts to record and report on all law eligible stops as
completely and accurately as
possible.
In sum, the existing guidelines are useful for large and medium-sized law
enforcement agencies;
however, the non-binding nature of the guidelines reduces the data quality. The
data is difficult to merge
under the current method because law enforcement agencies use different
formats. In the future, the
methodology of the report will be amended so the results can more accurately
describe the effects of
ethnicity on traffic stops, searches, seizures, and arrests. Until TR 25-113 is
amended, the Governor’s
Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) is committed to strengthening
communication with
law enforcement agencies to ease the collection data and reporting, while
improving the quality of data.
By definition, racial profiling refers to the practice of constructing a set of
characteristics or behaviors based on
race and using that set of characteristics to decide whether an individual might
be guilty of some crime.
MJAC refers to the Maryland Justice Analysis Center at University of Maryland,
which hosted the Maryland
Statistical Analysis Center through 2006.
The statute requires the use of the following categories: Asian, Black, White,
Hispanic and Other. However, the
DMV utilizes the following categories: Black or African American, White,
Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander, American Indian, and Other.
The statute requires the use of the following categories: Asian, Black, White,
Hispanic and Other. The DMV uses
Black or African American, White, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander, American Indian, and Other.
GOCCP incorporated MSAC in 2007, according to Executive Order
01.01.2007.05.
Report To The State Of Maryland On Law Eligible Traffic Stops - December 2006
Report To The State Of Maryland On Law Eligible Traffic Stops - September 2005
Report To The State Of Maryland On Law Eligible Traffic Stops - December 2004
Report To The State Of Maryland On Law Eligible Traffic Stops - December 2003 (PDF)
|
|
|
