home

Racial Profiling in Palo Alto

Racial profiling on the part of many police departments seems obvious to those who are profiled, as well as to many of us who interact regularly with the victims of profiling. An officer's true motivation is easy to conceal since officers are more likely to say "I pulled him over because his tire touched the fog line" than "I pulled him over because he's black and his tire touched the fog line." Statistical evidence of profiling seems compelling to some, less so to others.

In Palo Alto, however, there's no ambiguity at all, thanks to a police chief who made departmental policy abundantly clear:

Police Chief Lynne Johnson [during on October 30 interview on KGO-TV] ... said she instructed her officers "to make contact with African-Americans in Palo Alto," adding: "When our officers are out there and they see an African-American, in a congenial way, we want them to find out who they are."

[more ...]

It is difficult to imagine a more blatant admission of racial discrimination in law enforcement. Johnson doesn't want officers to approach white people "in a congenial way" to "find out who they are." Only blacks who venture into Palo Alto get that "congenial" treatment. The unmistakable message: if you're black, you don't belong here.

Johnson claims she meant to say that police should question any African-Americans who are "acting suspicious" in light of a number of recent robberies in Palo Alto. A reasonable suspicion that a particular individual has committed a crime is a valid reason to question that person, but an officer's subjective notion that someone is "acting suspicious" isn't.

More importantly, why did Johnson single out "suspicious acting" blacks for questioning?

One suspect in the unusually high number of street robberies has been apprehended so far. That suspect is white.

But even if most of the recent robbery victims described their robber as black, that isn't a license to question black people generally. Since the population of Palo Alto is only about 2 percent black, it stands to reason that more crime in Palo Alto is committed by whites than by blacks. Is that an excuse to start questioning white people to find out "who they are"?

In a country that has recently found reason to celebrate its commitment to equality, you can imagine that the victims of profiling feel equal treatment under the law is an empty promise.

Kevin Ward, a 15-year-old Palo Alto High School student, said he and his father were recently stopped on their way to play basketball, an experience he described as humiliating for his father, who was forced from his car before being released.
Protesters yesterday marched on city hall, some wearing T-shirts that said, "Am I a suspect?"

A phalanx of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto City Council members, as well as San Mateo County Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson, attended the Sunday protest, which featured calls for Johnson's ouster.

Johnson needs to go.

The city council meets today to issue a resolution condemning racial profiling, and there is talk among city officials about the possibility that Johnson will resign from her post.

If she doesn't resign, she needs to be fired, and a new police chief needs to change the culture in the Palo Alto police department by making it clear that (unless it is part of a more detailed description of a specific suspect) race is not an appropriate basis upon which to decide whether an individual should be questioned.

< Obama Adds Progressive Blogger/Advisor to Transition Team | Howard Dean Resigns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well, (none / 0) (#1)
    by bocajeff on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    If blacks make up 2% of the population and a victim of crime reports that the perpetrator was black then it's easier to stop a black person than it would a white person.

    Anecdote: Recently I stayed in a hotel in Washington D.C. I was greeted very coldly by the staff and after the 2nd day I asked the manager if I did anything or if all the staff was rude. I was told that the hotel serves mainly blacks and that most whites that stay there are thought of as undercover cops.

    As someone who has an African American wife and mixed children I am very sensitive to racial profiling, but I am also a realist that understands statistics...

    Also, aren't blacks more likely to be victims of crime than whites???

    I know that feeling.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    being "profiled" as an undercover cop, as a white-skinned person in a largely minority area...it s*cks to be treated with suspicion without just cause.

    But that ain't nothing compared to being assumed a criminal bases solely on the color of your skin at the hands of law enforcement.

    Sadly, such prejudice and inequality will be with us for a long time to come, one election can't change it.  As a wise man once said, we need to get busy f*ckin' until we are all the same color, then we'll be rid of the scourge of racial profiling for good.  Until then I'm pessimistic a real change will come.

    Parent

    or maybe require more education for (none / 0) (#25)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    police officers...

    maybe a degree in sociology or psychology or something....just something to get them out of that Academy mentality where they must teach police officers to be total aholes who 'am the law'...

    I'm so tired of seeing 22 y/o kids driving around in police cars in small towns it's not even funny...who's bright idea was it to give an immature kid with 2 years of academy 'learnin' a gun and a license to be a big ahole?

    a 4 year degree on top or coinciding with the Academy training would allow for the officers to be a little more open-minded, or at least exposed to a bit more of the world, and more mature since there wouldn't be 22 or 23 y/o's holding the keys to my life...obviously there would need to be some sort of reimbursement for the officer, but that would be advantageous for all too...maybe if officers were paid more less criminals would become officers...

    Parent

    "Easier" (none / 0) (#4)
    by TChris on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    "Easier" is not the appropriate standard. Rounding up all the blacks in town for questioning every time a report is received that a black man committed a crime might be "easy," but it isn't just, and it sure isn't equal justice. Questioning a specific black person because he meets a detailed description (something better than "tall black male") is a different story.

    Parent
    Damn (none / 0) (#2)
    by kmonster on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    Pretty racist.

    true (none / 0) (#13)
    by wystler on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    but a fairly common attitude in most suburban settings

    a couple decades ago, local cops in a 'burb in which i officed offered black men on the street a ride to the train station (with an unspoken or-else)

    Parent

    But, but (none / 0) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:40:08 PM EST
    it's Palo Alto! Bird feeders start at 100k.

    Parent
    Common sense (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    Johnson set off a firestorm during a community meeting Thursday night with about 40 residents to discuss what police were doing to solve 16 street robberies that have happened since mid-June. The suspects in most of the robberies were black.[...]

    Among the first actions she took as chief was starting an outreach effort to allay complaints that minorities were stopped for questioning more often than white people and that police were unfairly collecting racial data.

    Chief Johnson said it's not unconstitutional and the people stopped by officers have a right to not engage in the conversation. She said the street robberies have increased and police need to use common sense when trying to find the suspects, even if that means stopping people based on vague descriptions.


    "The right not to engage.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    in the conversation" is one of those rights that only exist on paper.  In practice, when you try and walk away from a police officer questioning you, they stop your arse cold, by force or threat of force.  

    Parent
    Probably so, (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    although we had some detectives come to the door a month or so ago due to something some other employee did at my wife's company. We told them to hit the bricks, that if they want to talk to my wife they can subpoena her. They just turned around and left. If it wasn't for TL I probably wouldn't have known that I could tell them no.

    Parent
    Good for you guys man.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    I guess the TL crew is rubbing off on ya:)

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by TChris on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    it is unconstitutional if officers are stopping black people based on nothing more than "vague descriptions," particularly if the stops occur significantly after the crime ended, when the robber could be anywhere.  A vague description will rarely provide the particularized and individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires before police are authorized to stop and question someone.

    Parent
    I agree, and so does the police chief: (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    "I am very apologetic and regretful if I offended anybody by my comments," she said. "If anybody knows me, they know my whole career I have been a leader in fighting racial profiling.

    "Racial profiling is unconstitutional, immoral and violates our department policy."

    Johnson said officers should stop people on the street only if they have probable cause to believe that questioning them can help solve a crime. That cause has to include more than the person's race, sex or other characteristics, she said.



    Parent
    Well, she's wrong again. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TChris on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    Police don't need probable cause to stop people on the street to question them.  They need to have an objective, particularized and reasonable suspicion that the person is committing or has committed a crime, a standard that is much less onerous than probable cause.  So Johnson has gone from "stop them because they're black" to "stop them because they're black and are acting suspicious" to "stop them if they meet a vague description" to "stop them only if you have probable cause," none of which express the controlling Fourth Amendment standard.  The two conclusions I draw from this are that: (1) Johnson is back-pedaling because she got in hot water when she initially told the truth about the department's policy (and only made it hotter with each subsequent revision); and (2) Johnson has no clue about the limitations the Fourth Amendment places on the police.  Either conclusion provides reason enough to justify her termination.

    Parent
    Interesting, makes sense to me I guess. (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    So why do you think there are no similar arguments/analyses to yours in any of the many news articles on the issue?

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#16)
    by TChris on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    news reporters are rarely lawyers?

    Parent
    Well, that's the obvious answer. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    let's be realistic, (none / 0) (#23)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:51:18 PM EST
    how many chief's of police have more a than the barest clue what the bill of rights entails? johnson didn't get where she is, by virtue of her publicly demonstrated knowledge of the constitution, as did few, if any, of her peers.

    i've no doubt you're correct: she got in hot water, for being uncharacteristically honest. her backpedaling is only making the hole deeper.

    Parent

    Agree? (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    "When our officers are out there and they see an African-American, in a congenial way, we want them to find out who they are."

    What, so it is not racial profiling because she is asking the officers to be congenial?

    She can defend her reputation all she wants to but it is now in tatters due to her current "project" which is blatant profiling.


    Parent

    I think you misread my comment(s). (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    Not sure what you intended then.

    I do not think that she has any defense, whether or not she gets 100 cops to swear that she is against racial profiling.

    Her statement in defense does not mitigate her earlier order, imo. And she should not be concerned about offending anyone rather she should be concerned about voicing her blatantly disregard for constitutional protections.

    Parent

    I agreed with TChris when he said (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    it is unconstitutional if officers are stopping black people based on nothing more than "vague descriptions," particularly if the stops occur significantly after the crime ended, when the robber could be anywhere.  A vague description will rarely provide the particularized and individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires before police are authorized to stop and question someone.


    Parent
    Got That (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    But no matter what the police chief says, she obviously does not agree with us no matter what she says.

    I agree, and so does the police chief:


    Parent
    Ah, yes, right. (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Thanks for explaining what you meant.

    Parent
    Someone is also (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM EST
    conflating a detention, which requires reasonable suspicion with a consensual contact, which requires nothing.   A cop can walk up to anyone and strike up a conversation, even if it is their intent to work that conversation into reasonable suspicion to detain.

    'Stop' (none / 0) (#26)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    and "detention" are equivalent.  When the chief talks about stops, she's talking about detention.  She clearly isn't talking about engaging someone in a voluntary conversation who is free to walk away from the officer without saying a word.

    Parent
    TChris, (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    Are you sure? This is the quote you used:
    Police Chief Lynne Johnson [during on October 30 interview on KGO-TV] ... said she instructed her officers "to make contact with African-Americans in Palo Alto," adding: "When our officers are out there and they see an African-American, in a congenial way, we want them to find out who they are."
    This certainly sounds like she's promoting consensual contact to me as Patrick suggested.

    Patrick, thanks for pointing out the difference between detention and consensual contact.

    Parent

    The rub, as I see it, (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    is that the people the police engage in consensual conversation may not know their rights, ie, they may not know that they can ignore the cop, if they wish, and continue on their way.

    In fact I'd bet most don't know...

    Parent

    Or The Rub Is (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    That anyone dark skinned person that walks away after "casual conversation" is initiated by the cop, they are automatically a suspect.

    Dress it up however you want. Selecting one group to "get to know" because there are robberies that match that racial group, is racial profiling.

    Parent

    Is consensual contact via racial profiling illegal and/or unconstitutional?

    Parent
    Certainly unconstitutional (none / 0) (#32)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    as a denial of equal protection.  Singling out black people for so-called "consent encounters" is plainly a constitutional violation, although probably not one for which there is a meaningful remedy.

    Parent
    the 'we want them to find out who they are' (none / 0) (#30)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    part is what catches my eye...

    what if the person doesn't want to tell the cop who he/she is...will that be a problem?  I'm guessing it would be considering my experiences with police officers...

    Parent

    But also (none / 0) (#34)
    by TChris on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    look at the story of Kevin Ward, who says his dad was "forced from the car." There's no doubt that a traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment detention, and there's nothing consensual about "forcing" someone to exit a car.  Also, in your comment #5 you quote Johnson as justifying "stopping people based on vague descriptions," and in comment #10 you quote her as saying a "stop" requires probable cause.  When Johnson uses the word "stop," she is using a term of art, well understood by lawyers and police to mean an assertion of authority to prevent an individual from continuing about his business until the officer decides to let that person continue on his way.

    Parent
    I'm not suggesting the Kevin Ward story (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    is an example of these specific "contact" directives.

    Obviously "stops" occurred before the day the directive was given, and would have continued to occur after that day, whether or not the directive had been given, so I don't think it's reasonable to assume the Ward stop is an example of that directive simply becuase it was one of the many that occurred after the directive.

    I'll accept your experience with the word "stop" as a "term of art" as I'm neither a lawyer nor LE.


    Parent