Lee Phillips | Attorney at Law

Anecdotal Evidence

     Personal anecdotes illustrate the common experiences of people of color who are stopped and questioned by law enforcement officers on an ever increasing basis. A 1999 report by Professor David Harris, “Driving While Black”: Racial Profiling on Our Nation’s Highways, cites numerous accounts of disparate treatment of minorities by police. The anecdotal evidence illustrates the concern that police stop minority motorists because they do not appear to “match” the type of vehicle they occupy. Similarly, people of color are frequently stopped in predominately white areas because the police believe they do not “belong” in these neighborhoods and may be engaged in criminal activity. By far the most common complaint by members of communities of color is that they are stopped for petty traffic violations such as failing to signal properly before switching lanes, minor equipment failures, speeding less than 10 miles over the speed limit, or for following another vehicle too closely.

     One example involved Robert Wilkins, a Harvard Law School graduate and a public defender in Washington, D.C. who went to a family funeral in Ohio in May, 1992. On the return trip, while driving a rental vehicle, they were stopped for driving 60 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. The entire family was forced to stand on the side of the road in the rain for an extended period of time while officers and drug-sniffing dogs searched the vehicle. Nothing was found. Wilkins, represented by the ACLU, filed suit and ultimately successfully settled the case.

Empirical Evidence

     In addition to the ever increasing body of anecdotal evidence, scholars have begun examining the relationship between police stop-and-search practices and racial characteristics of individual drivers. The majority of empirical research collected to date has been used to prove intent to discriminate in several key criminal and civil cases. Wilkins v. Maryland State Police (1993) was one of the first cases to successfully utilize empirical evidence to prove allegations of racial profiling.

     In 1995 and 1996, as a result of Wilkins’ settlement with the Maryland State Police, Dr. John Lamberth, professor of psychology at Temple University, conducted an analysis of police searches along I-95 in Maryland. Using data released pursuant to the Wilkins’ settlement, Dr. Lamberth compared the population of people searched and arrested with those violating traffic laws on Maryland highways. He constructed a “violator” survey, which identified the racial composition of persons observed violating traffic laws and thus subject to being lawfully stopped. The violator survey indicated that 74.7% of speeders were White, while 17.5% were Black. In contrast, Blacks constituted 79.2% of the drivers searched. Dr. Lamberth concluded that the data revealed “dramatic and highly statistically significant disparities between the percentage of Black I-95 motorists legitimately subject to stop by the Maryland State Police and the percentage of Black motorists detained and searched by troopers on the interstate.”

     While the majority of racial profiling claims have been litigated in civil actions, the issue of racial profiling has also been thoroughly examined in a series of criminal cases from New Jersey. This began in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s after Black motorists reported that they were being stopped disproportionately by New Jersey troopers. In 1994, in New Jersey v. Soto, the Gloucester County public defenders’ office filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a series of searches, alleging that the searches were unlawful because they were part of a pattern and practice of racial profiling by New Jersey troopers.

     During the litigation, the defendants received traffic-stop and arrest data compiled by the New Jersey State Police. Dr. Lamberth served as the statistical expert for the defendants and conducted a violator survey to compare the percentage of Blacks stopped and arrested by New Jersey troopers against the percentage of Blacks who violated traffic laws on the New Jersey highways. Dr. Lamberth found that Blacks comprised 13.5% of the New Jersey turnpike population, and 15% of the drivers observed to be speeding. In contrast, Blacks represented 35% of those stopped and 73.2% of those arrested. Dr. Lamberth concluded that Black drivers were disproportionately more likely to be stopped and arrested than White drivers. The New Jersey Superior Court relied heavily on Dr. Lamberth’s study in its decision to suppress the evidence seized in 19 consolidated criminal prosecutions and concurred with his opinion that the officers relied on race in stopping and searching turnpike motorists. Since the Soto decision, numerous other claims of racial profiling have been made in subsequent criminal prosecutions in New Jersey. Many of these cases have recently been consolidated. As a result of the success in Soto and the other consolidated criminal cases, the ACLU has filed a class action civil rights lawsuit in federal court on behalf of all Black motorists traveling the interstates in New Jersey.