Revisiting Who Is Guarding the Guardians? 

Chapter 2

Recruitment, Selection, and Training for Police Work

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has noted in several reports that law enforcement agencies can implement two actions to help protect civil rights: increase the recruitment and hiring of women and people of color from the communities being served and train officers not only in police work but also in community relations, cultural sensitivity, and the importance of diversity. As discussed below, most police departments have not implemented these recommendations, to the detriment of the communities they serve. The American population is more ethnically diverse now than at the time Who Is Guarding the Guardians? was published. In April of 1980, the U.S. Census Bureau accounted for 226,546,000 Americans.[1] By 1990, the number of Americans had increased by more than 22 million.[2] In July 1998, the Census Bureau reported that the population had grown by another 21 million,[3] increasing the total number of residents by more than 43 million since 1980. As the general population grew, so did the relative numbers of each ethnic group.[4] At a 1992 Commission hearing on racial and ethnic tensions in America, then-director of population and policy research for the University of Louisville, William O’Hare, testified that people of color accounted for approximately two-thirds of the total population growth from 1980 to 1990.[5] Professor O’Hare determined that people of color had increased by around 32 percent, and Caucasians had increased by about 4 percent.[6]

Professor O’Hare also identified Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics as rapidly growing groups of residents. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of Asian Americans doubled, increasing by six million from 1980 to 1998.[7] The Hispanic population increased by over 50 percent, adding 15 million people to that population between 1980 and 1998.[8] African Americans grew by more than 12 percent, increasing that group by seven million from 1980 to 1998.[9] Aleut, Eskimo, and Native American residents grew by approximately one million.[10]


The lack of diversity in the ranks of law enforcement officers continues to be a major problem with police departments throughout the country. In 1981, the Commission found that the “serious underutilization of minorities and women in local law enforcement agencies continues to hamper the ability of police departments to function effectively in and earn the respect” of the communities they serve, thereby increasing the likelihood of tension and violence.[11]

This observation stands true today as revealed in hearings throughout the nation and documented by several Commission reports. In Chicago, the Commission found a “significant under-representation of minorities and women” among police officers, particularly those who speak other languages.[12] A 1995 briefing held in Washington, D.C., revealed that careful recruitment and selection procedures would improve diversity in the police force and officers’ ability to deal with community members without resorting to discriminatory practices or harassment.[13] Examining the justice system in South Dakota as it relates to Native Americans, the Commission found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other U.S. Department of Justice divisions that serve Native Americans must expand efforts to recruit Native Americans.[14] Even in the small town of Caruthersville, Missouri, where the general population is predominately black and Hispanic, almost 80 percent of the police officers are white, which some community members believed contributed to the “abusive attitudes toward black residents.”[15]

The experts at the Commission’s June 2000 briefing on national police practices and civil rights echoed the call for increased diversity. Charles Ogletree suggested that the Commission continue to focus its attention on diversity in the recruitment, selection, and training of law enforcement officers.[16] He opined that the solution to repairing the public’s perception of the police is to encourage African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and women to become officers, so that the communities of people of color will begin to see a police force that “looks like us.”[17]

James Fyfe, professor of criminal justice at Temple University, similarly stated that the first issue to be addressed should be how police hiring standards have changed since the publication of Guardians.[18] He said that at the time Guardians was published, police departments hired on the basis of very objective standards: “white males who are a certain height and who could lift a certain amount of weight and who had 20-30 corrected vision.”[19] Since then, police hiring standards have changed radically, and consequently the composition of police departments has changed.[20] Dr. Fyfe said police departments are more diverse today; the Philadelphia Police Department is 22 percent female,[21] and the police departments in Baltimore, Memphis, Newark, and New Orleans average 7 percent nonwhite officers.[22]

While acknowledging that the increase in diversity is impressive, Sandra Bass noted that more should be done. She promoted the idea of taking diversity goals a step further, recommending that police organizations become culturally competent by recognizing and responding in a systematic way to the diversity of their constituency by ensuring that this diversity is represented and respected within their own organizational structure and culture.[23] A culturally competent police organization could develop the means for delivering public services that respond to the diversity of its community.[24]

Indeed, Robert Louden advocated that a major study be done to determine how to increase diversity. In particular, he suggested the study look at municipal and local policing as opposed to departments in large cities or federal law enforcement agencies.[25] Hubert Williams, however, thought more modest steps should be taken and noted that the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement recognized that some police personnel problems might be rectified if interested applicants could learn about the profession at a younger age.[26]

Although diversity has been recognized as an ideal that should be achieved, the Commission has found that its realization has been, at best, difficult.[27] Indeed, even when some police departments made real efforts to increase diversity, they were unable to achieve their desired results. In Chicago, for example, although universal support existed for a diverse police force and great progress had been made in accomplishing that goal, the Chicago Police Department had a “significant under-representation of minorities in comparison with other city departments,” especially with regard to leadership positions such as lieutenants and captains.[28] Additionally, some law enforcement agencies such as Los Angeles, which increased diversity, could not maintain it, leading to high attrition rates among women and officers of color.[29]

Many reasons exist for this lack of interest by women and people of color in joining and remaining in police departments. One is that the recruitment efforts of police departments are often too broad and fail to target minority groups and women. Some departments, when formulating a recruitment plan and advertising program, fail to consult leaders of communities from which they seek new recruits. This may partly account for why underrepresented groups tend to shy away from becoming police officers.

Another reason for the lack of interest appears to be that these groups do not look favorably upon the police force. As discussed in Guardians almost 20 years ago, many women and people of color have negative perceptions of police officers.[30] Indeed, James Fyfe explained at the briefing that for a long time the “social order” of things has held people at the bottom; therefore, “anyone who is at the bottom of the social totem pole has absolutely got to resent the police because they are seen as the people who are keeping them in their place, whether it is African Americans or Catholics in Belfast or Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.”[31] This perception hampers recruitment, especially when it is reinforced by statistics showing low rates of hiring, high levels of attrition, and lack of opportunity for advancement of women and officers of color.[32]

In Washington, D.C., the Commission learned that many residents in the Hispanic community viewed police departments as “symbols of oppression.”[33] The Commission found that in Los Angeles a “deep and long-standing schism” existed between communities of color and the police.[34] In fact, officers of color suffered the same discriminatory behavior, including racial slurs, offensive comments, unjustified stops, and harassment, from fellow officers as that experienced by civilians.[35] Moreover, female officers reported that sex discrimination and harassment occurred within police departments, which many cited as primary reasons for leaving the force.[36]

Negative perceptions of law enforcement are not confined to local departments but also extend to federal agencies. A recent lawsuit filed by African American Secret Service agents alleges that officers of color cannot break the “glass ceiling” in their respective departments and/or agencies. Ten current and former agents filed a federal class action suit in May 2000 alleging that “they were denied promotions, given dead-end assignments, unfairly disciplined, and subjected to repeated racial slurs in what they called a long-standing hostile work environment.”[37] Since the suit was filed, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said the remaining Secret Service agents have suffered reprisals, “including forced transfers to jobs with less responsibility and warnings by senior officials to some of the black agents that their careers could be in jeopardy as a result of the class-action lawsuit.”[38] Jennell Walker Clark, who left the Secret Service after six years of service, stated, “The Secret Service cannot just say it was one office or a personality thing. We were in different offices with different supervisors. It’s pretty pervasive.”[39]

Other factors seem to dissuade people from joining the police force. James Fyfe stated that “the desirability of the police job is inversely related to the state of the economy.”[40] He said urban policing is at an all-time low due to recent scandals.[41] These two factors alone make it very difficult to recruit people for police work.

Dr. Fyfe pointed out another contributing problem: significant differences between urban and suburban police departments. A major point of tension appears to be the pay disparity between the two. Police officers in the suburbs are paid more than urban police officers. In fact, Dr. Fyfe considered the poor pay of urban police officers as a civil rights issue: “the low salaries of urban police officers have no doubt had a deleterious effect on the quality of police-citizen interaction on inner-city streets.”[42] He advocated increasing salaries for urban police officers because higher salaries attract people with professional skills.[43] He testified that during the past nine years he has watched suburban police departments achieve the higher standards of the profession while city police departments have not, and that this phenomenon is due to the fact that “you get what you pay for.”[44]


In its reports, the Commission found several problems with the selection process for hiring police officers, notably with regard to citizenship, psychological evaluation, and background investigations. In Guardians, for example, the Commission found that selection standards did not accurately measure qualities actually required for adequate performance as a law enforcement officer.[45] This factor contributed to the perpetuation of a “nonrepresentative police force” by disproportionately disqualifying people of color and women applicants.[46] Overall, biases seemed to exist within many recruit selection systems.[47]

In areas with large immigrant populations, many people of color cannot apply to become officers because they lack U.S. citizenship despite having lived in the country for decades.[48] In particular, Hispanic and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders may be presumed ineligible regardless of their citizenship status. The citizenship factor may largely account for the racial and ethnic disparity among officers.

At the briefing, Robert Louden noted that one of the selection factors, educational attainment, must be reviewed.[49] He called for a better educated police force. However, citing a Law Enforcement Management Administrative Statistics report, he stated that for major police departments in the country, only 1 percent require a four-year degree and 8 percent require a two-year degree as a prerequisite for selection.[50] Improving the educational attainment of police recruits would result in a more professional police force and put a more “culturally competent officer on the street,” he said.[51] Echoing testimony from James Fyfe, Dr. Louden said one way to do so would be to increase police salaries to encourage college graduates to join the police.[52]

The Commission also discovered that with regard to selection, the police misconduct problem is, in part, a function of the personality type attracted to police work. Thus, screening out those applicants predisposed to such behavior serves an important purpose with regard to civil rights.[53] Interviews, background checks, and psychological testing enable departments to detect individuals with the propensity to transgress.[54] However, the problems inherent in these examinations tend to eliminate women and people of color from candidacy. The lack of psychologists of color, biases in evaluating candidates of color from urban areas versus white candidates living in the suburbs, and the subjective nature of the entire process all play roles in building bias into the selection system.


A well-trained law enforcement professional deals effectively with community members and works with them to create a safe and orderly society. Proper training on appropriate interaction with constituents, including the use of force, is the cornerstone of police-community relations. Twenty-first century police practices must manifest sensitivity to the increasingly changing communities being served to fully realize police departments’ mandate to serve and protect.

Scholars have had a variety of opinions regarding appropriate training. In Guardians, the Commission found that training programs should give sufficient priority to “on-the-job training, programs in human relations, and preparation for the social service function of police officers.”[55] Later reports focused on the biases and prejudices in the training process that may affect police-community relations. One commentator suggested that a value system existed that made officers “act like oppressors.”[56] James Fyfe stated that a better way to define the police is to understand that they are there to maintain order and not necessarily to look for criminals.[57] He suggested this philosophy should pervade police training programs. He emphasized that nondiscriminatory behavior at basic training would make a significant impact since officers at the early stage in their careers are “eager and receptive,” and such training would “stay with them throughout their careers.”[58]

Sandra Bass noted that inadequate training plays a role in situations where some police officers choose to refrain from intervening in potentially controversial situations, particularly in large public gatherings where a possibility exists that aggressive police action will create a violent reaction.[59] She cited the sexual attacks on women at a parade in New York and her personal experience at an Oakland, California, public lake where police officers allegedly failed to respond to calls for help because of their concern that the crowd might react violently.[60] Robert Louden discussed the same incident and surmised that the problem stemmed not from training inadequacies, but from the failure of police supervisors to control the officers and deploy them into action.[61] He remarked: “I think supervision at that point in time was the key. You know, who was guarding the guardians?”[62]


Many law enforcement agencies do not provide adequate cultural sensitivity training to new recruits and veterans. Indeed, problems have occurred when police departments created their own cultural sensitivity training courses without community input. Some did not use outside experts or community leaders to formulate the learning materials or lectures. For example, at a Commission hearing on police practices and civil rights in New York City, testimony indicated that training materials designed to reduce or eliminate racial, religious, and sexual stereotypes were often laced with negative and potentially offensive stereotypes.[63] Input from community leaders, as well as ethnic and religious groups, could eliminate many of the limitations found in training programs across the country. However, many police departments have insisted on developing their own training programs on the use of force and cultural sensitivity without the insight and assistance of civic leaders.


An issue not specifically addressed in Guardians is how the police are trained to interact with people with mental impairments. Police officers, with limited or no training, often confuse the mentally retarded as drunk, mentally ill, or drug addicts.[64] One commentator noted:

Mental retardation should not be confused with mental illness. Mental retardation is lower than average intellectual functioning and is a lifelong condition. Mental illness is an emotional disorder that can often be treated.[65]

Mental retardation and mental illness are distinct conditions. Thus, law enforcement officers should not treat members of those communities alike.[66] As stated in the Commission report Sharing the Dream: Is ADA Accommodating All? police should anticipate a dramatic increase in involvement with persons with disabilities as the trend toward full integration and participation for people with mental disabilities continues.[67] 

The Law Enforcement Resource Center (LERC) formulated a training program titled “Police and People with Disabilities,” which discusses mental illness and retardation.[68] The LERC instructed trainees that “approximately ten million Americans . . . experience some emotional or mental disturbance serious enough to require treatment. As a law enforcement officer you will certainly encounter mentally ill individuals in the course of your work.”[69] The LERC also reported that approximately 3 percent of Americans are developmentally delayed or mentally retarded.[70]

Some commentators believe the expectation of law enforcement to easily recognize people with mental impairments is unrealistic. At a hearing held by the Commission, Hennepin County (Minnesota) Police Department senior human resources representative Jim Ramnaraine testified that the American Medical Association reported that general practitioner doctors “are more likely not to diagnose someone who has a mental illness . . . than to identify that person with bipolar disorder or depression. So if you look at that premise, the people who are working as professional doctors in the field can’t identify somebody who has a mental illness, I think it’s really challenging to expect that police officers can do that based on an encounter.”[71] Nevertheless, law enforcement officers must receive instruction on how to communicate effectively with people with mental impairments when able to identify them.

The LERC recommends to police officers the following guidelines for interaction with the mentally retarded: (1) fully explain who you are, why you are there, and your expectations of the subject; (2) ask the subject directly, if you suspect he or she may be developmentally delayed; (3) use simple language, avoiding slang terms and “yes or no” questions (subjects may give you the answer they think you want to hear); (4) discuss one issue at a time, asking questions to ensure the subject understands; (5) develop an accord between you and the person; and (6) remain patient and calm.[72] The Arc, a national organization of and for people with mental retardation and related disabilities and their families, recommends the following to law enforcement officers who deal with the mentally retarded: (1) request the person repeat each phrase of a Miranda warning in his or her own words to ensure understanding and not parroting, and (2) videotape interviews.[73]

The LERC offers the following separate guidelines to police officers on dealing with mentally ill persons: (1) remain calm and nonthreatening; (2) be tactfully truthful; (3) inquire about medications (ascertaining the types of medications prescribed to the subject and when they were last administered to aid in assessing the situation); (4) be alert, as the behavior may be unpredictable; and (5) remember that most mentally ill people are not a threat.[74] The recommended long-term solution for police interaction with people with mental disabilities involves what the LERC calls “networking” or interagency agreements between law enforcement and human service providers.[75] The purpose of such an agreement is to alleviate police interaction with mentally impaired persons unless police intervention is absolutely required.[76] In those situations where officer involvement is necessary, then the human service agency can provide expert assistance.[77]

The following story is an example of unfortunate consequences when law enforcement officers have not been instructed on how to communicate with people with mental disabilities. In 1996, Deborah Stagg of Ithaca, New York, “was known around town as a woman so disturbed that she had once delivered her own baby by cutting her womb open with a penknife.”[78] Ithaca police officers arrived at Ms. Stagg’s apartment in response to a call from neighbors that she was “screaming and raving alone in there.”[79] Ms. Stagg “bolted from her barricaded bathroom and stabbed (Ithaca) Inspector Michael A. Padula in the neck” with a steak knife.[80] The remaining officers opened fire on Ms. Stagg.[81] Both Inspector Padula and Ms. Stagg died as a result of the injuries they sustained during the incident.[82]

The Memphis (Tennessee) Police Department developed “one of the most effective programs” for teaching municipal police departments on how to effectively handle calls with emotionally disturbed persons.[83] The “Memphis Plan” requires police officers to form Crisis Intervention Teams and receive special training from mental health experts on how to handle crisis situations and de-escalate any violence. The Crisis Intervention Team is dispatched to defuse volatile situations and transport mentally disturbed people to local mental health crisis centers rather than police stations.[84] The model developed by the Memphis Police Department has been adopted by other police departments across the country.[85] The police department in Ithaca, New York, implemented the Memphis Plan with a variation that addressed prevention. Police resources are used to follow-up on people with chronic problems who refuse treatment.[86] For example, Lieutenant John Saul of the Ithaca Police Department and social worker Terry Garahan persuaded a “paranoid factory worker who wanted the police to investigate ‘mind intrusion machines’ that he insisted were planted in his home and workplace” to enter into treatment.[87]

Recent history brought the term “suicide by cop” into discussions on police practices. Amnesty International defines “suicide by cop” as “incidents in which suicidal individuals have overtly provoked the police into shooting them.”[88] One such incident occurred in Denver, where a young man, distraught over the breakup with his girlfriend, “ran towards an officer with a kitchen knife in his hand yelling ‘shoot me, shoot me.’ ”[89] Effective training on how to handle all situations with emotionally disturbed persons under the Memphis Plan would also assist officers with encounters with suicidal individuals.


The headlines have not been filled with accounts of abuse against members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) community at the hands of law enforcement. Nevertheless, as integration of this community grows, police officers will encounter openly gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans. The Committee United Against Violence is one of few organizations collecting data on police-community relations with GLBT people. In 1998, the committee reported that “[it] received information on 51 documented incidents of anti-GLBT violence by law enforcement officers in the USA (up from 42 in 1997).”[90] The committee also reported that police officers allegedly selectively enforce and entrap gay Americans.[91] The alleged entrapment occurs when undercover police officers approach gay men and then charge them with lewd conduct.[92]

Some police departments incorporate nonhomophobic instruction in their diversity training. For example, the New York City Police Department’s Executive Development Program for high-ranking officers offers an optional course on issues involving law enforcement officers with gays and lesbians.[93]


Officers with limited experience tend to rely on force to achieve order.[94] At a 1992 Commission hearing in Washington, D.C., then-chairman of the Metropolitan Police Labor Committee of the Fraternal Order of the Police, Officer Gary Hankins, concluded that “when officers don’t have that kind of confidence, don’t have the knowledge they need about alternatives, [they] may resort to their authority or the color of their authority to hide their fear.”[95]

In Guardians, the Commission found that “[t]raining in the use of deadly force is essential but usually insufficient and subject to ambiguities.”[96] Recent headlines have been filled with tales of minorities allegedly suffering injuries, indignities, and even death at the hands of police officers.[97] As a result, there has been a trend to train officers on how to avoid the use of deadly force. One example comes from Montgomery County, Maryland. In a Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Montgomery County Police Department,[98] the police department must integrate “incident de-escalation techniques” into its training program.[99]

Governor John Rowland of Connecticut developed a Law Enforcement Council that reported its findings on police use of deadly force.[100] Although the council concluded that there “is no evidence that officer-involved shootings are not effectively and fairly investigated” in Connecticut, it also made recommendations regarding the use of force.[101] The recommendations of the council include the following: (1) establish a statewide policy on the use of deadly force; (2) emphasize the use of nondeadly force by providing equipment effective in controlling aggressive behavior but not lethal to persons; and (3) implement procedures that reveal an officer’s predisposition to use excessive force.[102]

Some experts find value in exploring alternative methods to diffuse potentially volatile situations. Dr. Louden said policy changes sometimes occur in response to a critical incident.[103] He recalled a case in which a citizen was shot and killed by a police tactical team.[104] Dr. Louden explained that these types of incidents cause law enforcement agencies to ask, “How can we do things differently?”[105] He opined that although incidents of persons being shot by police will not be eliminated, alternative approaches should be used before officers take “more affirmative physical action.”[106] “Maximizing safety for the officers, we’re trying to figure out can we do it in a—if you will—a kinder, gentler way before we have to revert to the final use of force,” he said.[107]

Even within the ranks of police departments, perceptions vary regarding the consistent use of physical force. One report found that 31.1 percent of officers agree that police are not permitted “to use as much force as is often necessary” in making arrests.[108] Even more law enforcement officers (42.9 percent) agree that “always following the rules is not compatible with getting the job done.”[109] However, officers do believe that police seldom “use more force than is necessary to make an arrest.”[110]

The majority of our nation’s police force believe officers do not “always report serious criminal violations involving abuse of authority by fellow officers.”[111] Most police officers (52.4 percent) also agree that “it is not unusual for a police officer to turn a blind eye to improper conduct by other officers.”[112]

When the statistics are divided based on race, officers disagree. Most white officers (95 percent) do not believe police are more likely to use physical force against blacks and other minorities than against whites in similar situations.[113] The majority of black and other minority officers (69.5 percent) believe persons who look like them are more likely to receive physical force from police.[114] The officers were also divided regarding their views on the use of physical force on persons of different socioeconomic classes. When asked if police officers are more likely to use force against poor people than against middle-class people in similar situations, 91.2 percent of white officers disagreed,[115] while 71.6 percent of black and other minority officers agreed.[116] Nearly all law enforcement supervisors (97.3 percent) agree “good first-line supervision can help prevent police officers from abusing authority.”[117] Most supervisors (54.5 percent) also agree that police department policy should be no stricter than the law.[118]

Dr. Fyfe expressed concern at the Commission’s June 2000 briefing on national police practices and civil rights about the militarization of the police force.[119] The basis for this concern was rooted in the new vernacular of law enforcement, including “street survival,” “edged weapons,” and “zones of safety.”[120] Dr. Fyfe opined that some police officers are distracted from their focus on resolving the problems they were hired to solve by an unrealistic concern for their own safety.[121] He conceded that officers should be aware of safety issues “but [an officer’s unrealistic concern for his or her own safety] is a form of unhealthy paranoia that in my experience has caused some impressionable young officers to become too quick on the trigger.”[122]


Racial profiling was not discussed in Guardians but has become a major problem throughout the nation. Attitudes and theories on racial profiling vary considerably. Both law enforcement professionals and scholars voiced their opinions at the Commission’s briefing on how the beliefs of individuals are not easily shed when they carry their badges.

Commission Chairperson Mary Frances Berry asked whether racial profiling issues are related to training.[123] In response, James Fyfe maintained that when he was a witness for the public defender in Glouchester County, New Jersey, racial profiling was a matter of official policy and training.[124] In that case, the municipal police department used a training video where a Jamaican American officer “talked about Jamaican posses” and “included scenes from the old Jimmy Cliff movie, The Harder They Come.”[125] The video, Dr. Fyfe said, “pointed out that Jamaicans can be identified because they wear dreadlocks. But that lots of Jamaicans have gotten wise to the fact that the police identify them on the basis of dreadlocks so a lot of them don’t wear dreadlocks. So, what the message I got out of that was any black man was fair game.”[126] This example shows that officers of color are capable of engaging in racial profiling. The perpetuation of stereotypes encourages an “us versus them” mentality that can infect any police department. As a result, even the most objective officer of color can look at a person of color with insolence and suspicion, he said.[127]

Some experts believe that such attitudes are not accidental but result from a history of oppression. Hubert Williams testified that the fundamental role of the police is to equitably enforce and uphold the rule of law without regard to race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.[128] Nevertheless, Mr. Williams explained that the nation’s history involves a legal order that “has not only countenanced but sustained slavery, segregation, and discrimination, and the fact that police were bound to uphold that order set a pattern for police behavior and attitudes towards minority communities that has persisted until the present day.”[129] The enforcement of laws that are mechanisms for discrimination further divides police officers and the community. As stated by Mr. Williams, the obligation of police to enforce unjust laws, as during the Jim Crow era, perpetuates the legacy of fear and mistrust in minority communities.[130]

Mr. Williams added that the responsibility for racial profiling should be placed directly with top police personnel.[131] He stressed the importance of enforcing departmental regulations throughout the upper levels of police management, as well as among the rank-and-file members.[132] By doing so, it would reduce the incidence of racial profiling. For example, while discussing the war on drugs,

every indicator of drug use outside of those police statistics, like the NIDA household surveys, and emergency hospital room entrants, . . . shows a completely different breakdown in terms of who the drug users in this country are. The police statistics tell you that the great majority of drug users are African Americans and minorities.[133]

In other words, Mr. Williams believed that racial profiling could be, in part, the result of police departments trying to demonstrate that they have made a significant number of arrests in combating the drug problem in America.[134]

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a special report in June 1999 which argued that racial profiling should be viewed in its proper historical context.[135] It found that “[p]olice abuse against people of color is a legacy of African-American enslavement, repression, and legal inequality.” During the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (the Kerner Commission) hearings in the fall of 1967 “one of the complaints lodged repeatedly was ‘the stopping of Negroes on foot or in cars without obvious basis.’ ”[136]

The ACLU report indicates that a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent developed the first profile in the early 1970s.[137] The special agent developed a drug courier profile while assigned to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.[138] By 1979, the agent’s drug courier profile was in use at more than 20 airports. The components of the DEA drug courier profile were behavioral, not racial. Some of the characteristics included in the profile were: “Did the person appear to be nervous? Did he pay for his airline ticket in cash and in large bills? Was he going to or arriving from a destination considered a place of origin of cocaine, heroin or marijuana? Was he traveling under an alias?”[139]

The previously color-blind profile changed considerably. In 1982, the Reagan administration intensified its war on drugs by establishing the Task Force on Crime in South Florida. Then-Vice President George Bush managed the task force whose mission was “to intensify air and sea operations against drug smuggling in the South Florida area.”[140] By 1985, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles joined in the war on drugs in the state and developed guidelines titled “The Common Characteristics of Drug Couriers.” Troopers were instructed to be suspicious of (1) rental cars; (2) drivers who did not “fit the vehicle,” wear “lots of gold,” or are obedient to traffic laws; and (3) racial groups associated with the drug trade. State troopers, using this overtly race-based profile, made countless traffic stops.[141]

The Los Angeles police force has been credited as the originator of the “professionalism” model of policing once used by the department.[142] Under the professionalism model, the emphasis was crime control.[143] LAPD officers cruised the streets in an attempt to identify “possible criminals by their appearance and their demeanor.”[144] People, believing they were viewed as potential criminals, began to mistrust the police department.[145] The mistrust was not limited to Los Angeles and may have been more pervasive among people of color. A 1968 eleven-city Johns Hopkins University study showed that the “urban lower class” was disproportionately African American and that “dark skin is to the police a statistically significant cue to social status and thus potential criminality.”[146]

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”[147] Any warrant issued in compliance with the Fourth Amendment shall “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”[148] As the Commission has stated:

Stopping an individual based on statistical probabilities or demographics is prohibited; individualized suspicion remains the relevant standard for initiating a legal stop. As the United States Supreme Court concluded in Terry, [the] demand for specificity in the information upon which the police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court’s fourth amendment jurisprudence.[149]

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers stopping a vehicle with probable cause to believe the traffic code was violated is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.[150] In Whren v. U.S.,[151] the petitioners were stopped at a stop sign in a “high drug area” when they were noticed by police officers in an unmarked car.[152] After the officers made a U-turn to return to the location of the petitioner’s car, the driver suddenly turned right, without signaling, and at an “unreasonable speed.”[153] When the officers overtook the petitioner’s vehicle, one of the officers approached the driver’s window and “observed two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine” in the petitioner’s hands.[154] The Court determined that the Fourth Amendment’s emphasis on the reasonableness of a search and seizure allows certain actions to be taken regardless of the subjective intent.[155]

The Whren decision does not extend to the sidewalks to allow officers to randomly stop pedestrians. In Florida v. J.L,[156] the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the anonymous tip received by a Miami-Dade police officer that a young black man was at a bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a gun was insufficient to stop and frisk the defendant fitting that description.[157] The Court determined that the detention of J.L. was unlawful because (1) the officer did not observe any unusual conduct upon which he could reasonably conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and (2) there were no indicia of reliability of the tip.[158] Thus, the law remains that without probable cause, individuals’ right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects must not be breached.

According to Charles Ogletree, the African American community does not want to choose between public safety and civil rights.[159] He argued, “They don’t want to have to sacrifice their rights to walk in the streets and to avoid profiling, while insisting that they have security in their communities, and I don’t think that because of your race you should have to make that compromise.”[160]

As the Commission stated previously:

One of the real problems with many forms of “profiling” is that the characteristics that are typically compiled tend to describe a very large category of presumably innocent persons. This point was expressly recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980). Indeed, using profiles that rely on racial or ethnic stereotypes is no better, and in many respects is far worse, than allowing individual officers to rely on inchoate and un-particularized suspicions or “hunches,” which is clearly not permitted under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.[161]

In 1999, William Brewer, then-director of the Department of Public Safety for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, agreed that some police officers engage in racial profiling.[162] Mr. Brewer stated that many residents were afraid to drive into the next town because “[c]hances are they’re going to get pulled over.”[163]

At a 1999 community forum sponsored by the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, former Rapid City (South Dakota) Police Chief Thomas Hennies explained that prejudices and racism exist among all people, including law enforcement officers.[164] Mr. Hennies recalled:

When I first became a policeman here, if you found a drunk Indian downtown, you’d put him in a garbage can. And when he got out, he was sober enough to leave, and that’s just the way things were. I can tell you if those things do occur [today], and I’m not so naїve as to say never, but if they do occur, they will be dealt with because we are trying to make a difference.[165]

At a 1992 Commission hearing in Washington, D.C., members of the Latino community and other D.C. residents testified regarding police conduct allegedly targeted to the Latino community. They reported the pervasive nature of misconduct and insensitivity from the Metropolitan Police Department.[166] An attorney who worked with the Latino community testified that “members of the Latino community may be subject to police misconduct . . . at any time, notwithstanding their socioeconomic status, language skills, profession, location, or even their conduct.”[167] Another attorney testified that such slurs as “spic” and “wetback” were commonly used by police officers at that time.[168] Several Latino witnesses testified about alleged false arrests, harassment, demeaning language, and excessive force from officers.[169] One young Latino man testified that a Latino officer allegedly approached him while sitting in front of a school, told him to leave, choked, and beat him.[170] In another case, while parking a friend’s car, officers allegedly pulled their guns, verbally abused, and accused the young Latino driver of stealing the car.[171] The officers allegedly left without an apology after checking the witnesses’ identification and the car’s papers.[172]

Some law enforcement officials have supported using ethnicity as part of the determination to detain a citizen if “objective crime trend analysis validates the use of these characteristics as ‘risk factors’ in predicting and responding to criminal activity.”[173] The data used in support of such statistics may mirror the stereotypes of those reliant upon these statistics. When police rely on arrest data that they have generated as a result of targeted drug enforcement efforts, such statistics can create a self-fulfilling prophecy.[174] According to an ACLU report, Driving While Black, law enforcement officers look for “drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos [and consequently] they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband. Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is primarily a minority activity. This perception creates the profile that results in more stops of minority drivers.”[175] This cycle repeats despite the statistic that 80 percent of cocaine users are typically “middle-class, white suburbanite[s].”[176]

Dr. Fyfe expressed the view that law enforcement training and policy issues tend to dictate how officers perform when confronted with split-second decisions.[177] Dr. Fyfe spoke specifically about the Amadou Diallo case[178] and said every officer with whom he spoke believed he would react in the same manner in those four or five seconds.[179] “[T]he question in that case has always been where the liability lies rather than whether the liability existed,” he said.[180]

Many officers (48.8 percent) admit that they are more likely to “arrest a person who displays what he or she considers to be a bad attitude.”[181] Law enforcement officers (88.9 percent) deny that they are “more likely to use physical force against blacks and other minorities than against whites in similar situations.”[182] But the story is much different when the officers’ answers are split by race. When officers were asked if “police officers often treat whites better than blacks and other minorities,” most black and other minority officers (74.7 percent) agreed[183] and most white officers (88.2 percent) disagreed.[184]

During the Commission’s briefing on national police practices, Dr. Fyfe posed the question of whether it is appropriate to criminalize professional mistakes by the police, as in the Amadou Diallo case. He concluded that racial profiling is a policy and training issue.[185] Sandra Bass stated cultural competence is more than how many people of color are hired and promoted and the number of hours of diversity training.[186] Culturally competent organizations not only understand and consistently respond to their constituencies, but also ensure diversity by representing and respecting the community within their own organizational structure and culture.[187]


The police department is the place where the criminal justice system and the community converge.”[188]

Community policing requires a partnership between law enforcement and citizens. The implementation of community policing programs is oftentimes a result of “a forced change rather than voluntary movement.”[189] The Bureau of Justice Assistance defines community policing as “a collaboration between the police and the community that identifies and solves community problems. With the police no longer the sole guardians of law and order, all members of the community become active allies in the effort to enhance the safety and quality of neighborhoods.”[190] The Community Oriented Policing Services Division of the U.S. Department of Justice defines community policing as “proactive, solution-based, and community driven.” It occurs when “a law enforcement agency and law-abiding persons work together to do four things:arrest offenders, prevent crime, solve ongoing problems, and improve the overall quality of life.”[191]

The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office was created by Attorney General Janet Reno to implement and promote community policing.[192] The COPS office declared that 105,000 community policing officers were funded and 30,000 grants were awarded to more than 12,000 law enforcement agencies, covering 87 percent of the country. In fact, some reports indicate that crime has dropped to its lowest level since 1968.[193] A benefit of the COPS program, and a critical part of its legacy, has been its focus on training. The COPS regional network of training institutes across the country has trained officers in areas including building partnerships within the community, supporting victims of domestic violence, and problem-solving. COPS has also made a substantial contribution to numerous police integrity initiatives and is continuing to develop additional resources to strengthen this critical area.[194]

Sandra Bass said research has shown fear of punishment and obtaining a favorable outcome were not the most important factors for the public’s perception of fairness in the American justice system.[195] “[T]he belief that they were treated fairly, equitably, and respectfully were more critical indicators for determining overall satisfaction with criminal justice agents, like the police, and positively affected their decision to voluntarily comply with the law in the future.”[196] Thus, law enforcement treating residents with respect deters crime and may prevent future crime problems.[197]

In the 1970s, the Los Angeles Police Department instituted a version of community policing known as the “Basic Car Plan.”[198] Under the plan, a team of officers patrolled a specific area and held monthly community meetings.[199] Lack of community support and budgetary restrictions abolished the team policing approach in 1979.[200] In 1991, the Christopher Commission[201] advised that a community policing model would improve the LAPD’s relationship with the community.[202] The perception of the Christopher Commission was that community policing emphasized problem-solving, not arrest statistics.[203] The Christopher Commission also found that consistent communication and interaction with community members were necessary to prioritize their concerns and inform them of police efforts to prevent crime in their neighborhoods.[204] As a result, the LAPD implemented the Community Policing Advisory Board composed of residents in each geographic region served by the department. The boards meet monthly to identify quality of life and law enforcement issues, discuss possible resolutions, and recommend police priorities.[205] LAPD stations house Community Police Academies, which explain police procedures to residents and allow the community to become familiar with how the department operates.[206] The instruction is offered in English and Spanish.[207]

The LAPD solicited the input of various community groups in developing its cultural diversity training.[208] The ethnic communities within the LAPD’s jurisdiction were not only included in developing the materials for the cultural diversity programs, but also participated in training programs.[209] The LAPD’s cultural awareness training goal is to assist officers in the following areas: (1) identifying their own biases about cultural groups; (2) understanding how those biases negatively affect the performance of their duties ranging from problem-solving, community policing, and officer safety; (3) emphasizing skills required to overcome differential treatment of other people; and (4) offering guidelines on how to communicate effectively with specific groups.[210]

Former Rapid City (South Dakota) Police Chief Thomas Hennies contended sensitivity training does not work.[211] Alternatively, Mr. Hennies thought recruitment of qualified persons that mirrored the makeup of the community was the best approach to cultural awareness within the department.[212] Nevertheless, the Rapid City Police Department conducted cultural training that included a member of the community teaching the Lakota language.[213]

Former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir testified that the community was involved in developing the curriculum for the police department’s diversity training.[214] The issues addressed in the NYPD diversity training included community-police relations, officer attitudes and their effects on job performance, stereotypes, avoiding stereotypical language, and discussions with community leaders about their concerns.[215]

At the Commission’s briefing, Dr. Louden discussed his involvement in New York’s Streetwise program.[216] The Streetwise program deals with “language, cultural, and people issues.”[217] The curriculum was developed by police academics, anthropologists, foreign language professors, “cultural people,” and “police people” to remove stereotypes from police training.[218] The course provides in-depth information on the culture and language of five groups of Americans: Hispanic, African/Caribbean, Chinese, Haitian, and Russian.[219]

At a Commission-sponsored 1995 community forum on race relations in rural Kansas, Dodge City (Kansas) Police Chief Oakley C. Ralph defined community policing as a “partnership” between the community and law enforcement.[220] Through a community policing funding grant received by the Dodge City Police Department, one officer: (1) conducts community surveys where residents identify issues requiring resolution, (2) coordinates the community policing program, (3) provides training in community policing philosophy, and (4) develops closer community relations.[221]

At the community forum, Ford County (Kansas) Sheriff Arlyn Leaming discussed the “youth out-of-school suspension program” as part of the department’s community policing efforts.[222] The Ford County program, called Community Education Opportunity, performed the following services (1) conducted individual assessments of youth to identify problems, (2) referred youth to appropriate community agencies, and (3) assigned a mentor.[223] Sheriff Leaming said the program is a “good gang prevention approach that uses parent groups.”[224]

Another county in Kansas tried to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the Hispanic community. Then-Finney County (Kansas) sheriff, Grover Craig, reported that his department “encourages” officers to be bilingual.[225] Sheriff Craig stated the department issued some community bulletins in Spanish.[226]

Some scholars of community policing suggest that a benefit of the practice is a reduction in the possibility that law enforcement will engage in gross forms of corruption, such as extortion. Statistics also support the belief that community policing increases the chance that law enforcement will engage in softer forms of corruption, such as receiving free lunches, professional discounts, or “gifts of appreciation.”[227]

At the Commission’s briefing, Dr. Fyfe responded to an inquiry regarding the rewards for police officers who participate in preventing crime.[228] Dr. Fyfe reported that making arrests for possesory offenses has become a police goal.[229] Dr. Fyfe shared that a former law enforcement partner found that “the problem with policing is that there is no credit for prevents.”[230]

According to Hubert Williams, African Americans are only 13 percent of the drug-using population but are arrested at a rate five times greater than white Americans.[231] Mr. Williams noted that discriminatory enforcement of laws against any minority community undermines the ability of law enforcement to engage persons in partnership for policing.[232] Information vital for crime control does not filter to police without community participation and support.[233] Dr. Louden added that people should be taught how to respond when detained by law enforcement.[234] “We train cops how to stop people. We don’t tell people how to be stopped,” he said.[235]

Professor Larry Hajime Shinagawa of Sonoma State University in California participated in the Sonoma County Police Department training focusing on police relations with the Asian American and Pacific Islander community.[236] Professor Shinagawa found the training to be fragmented and noted that diversity training must reflect the changing realities of the jurisdiction.[237] Diversity training should be holistic, broad-based, and have a comparative approach for officers.[238] Culturally competent organizations deliver services that respond to the diversity of their constituency, whether the diversity is in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language, or gender.[239]


Training may be changed as a result of consent decrees that law enforcement agencies enter into with the federal government. The Justice Department, under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,[240] may enter into consent decrees with municipal police departments alleged to engage in a “pattern or practice” of conduct that infringes upon the civil rights of its persons, as afforded by federal, state, and local laws.[241] A city does not have to admit to any violations to enter into a consent decree.[242] Training is one of many areas within which the Justice Department may negotiate with local police departments in consent decrees.

An example of some of the areas covered by such agreements can be found in the consent decree between the United States and the New Jersey State Police (executed December 30, 1999).[243] The decree appointed an independent monitor to review and evaluate training offered by the New Jersey State Police regarding motor vehicle stops.[244] It required police academy educators to receive training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation.[245] It further provided that “all recruits and troopers” shall continue mandatory in-service cultural diversity training, including “interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations.”[246]


James Fyfe said at the briefing that police departments have a problem retaining high quality personnel in municipal police departments because candidates perceive other law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and state police departments, as challenging and prestigious, while considering municipal policing as a “poorly paid, low status, and eventually corrupting endeavor.”[247] He recommended current personnel problems of urban police departments should be investigated.[248]

The experts discussed the promotion and reward system at the briefing and found it to be seriously flawed. Robert Louden argued that a major problem with police departments today stems from their reward systems.[249] Currently, departments reward officers for activities such as arresting people and seizing large quantities of narcotics.[250] However, the system neglects other activities and it fails to “see the value in selling to the public the other services that [officers] do.”[251] Dr. Louden did not describe what those other services might be, but the system does not recognize them favorably. In other words, the perception of “good” police work and “bad” police work must be revised.

Dr. Bass explained that the reward system and racial profiling affect each other. She suggested that racial profiling might be encouraged by the reward system.[252] Dr. Bass cited the Rampart Division case in Los Angeles as an example of how the incentives structure, which rewards police officers based on their numbers of arrests, may actually promote the perception among some officers that certain people commit crimes and therefore, they should be arrested in greater numbers.[253]


In sum, the problems reported 20 years ago persist with very little meaningful change over time, and other problems, such as racial profiling have developed. Despite repeated recommendations to make significant internal changes that would considerably curb police misconduct and improve police-community relations, few police departments seem to have fully adopted the Commission’s recommendations, resulting in continued abuse of civilians at the hands of police officers. Police departments throughout the nation must improve diversity within their ranks, incorporate cultural sensitivity into their training and police culture, and work closely with the communities they serve to create a new partnership. New developments such as racial profiling could be curbed if police departments addressed basic structural and systemic problems. Continued disregard of these recommendations will only aggravate current problems while further disenfranchising the very communities that most need police protection.


The Commission reiterates its findings and recommendations set forth in Guardians and subsequent police practices reports, many of which have not yet been realized.


Finding 2.1: The lack of diversity in the ranks of law enforcement officers continues to be a major problem with departments throughout the country. The serious underutilization of people of color and women will continue to prevent police departments from functioning effectively.

Finding 2.2: Some police departments have been unable to maintain diversity even though specific actions have been taken to increase minority representation. Several reasons account for this problem. Recruitment efforts are not specifically directed to communities of color and women. A negative perception of police officers and police departments persists. Claims of harassment and oppression along with low job satisfaction, especially the disparity in pay, account for only a fraction of the barriers to attracting people of color and women to law enforcement.

Finding 2.3: A large percentage of law enforcement officers live outside the communities they serve. Employing police officers who live in the jurisdictions they patrol would create familiarity between the residents and the officers. Officers would learn more about the local communities, have a greater stake in safe neighborhoods, and gain understanding and respect from residents. Community input is necessary to effectuate real change within police departments.

Finding 2.4: Programs such as the NYPD’s Cadet Corps and Explorers programs have increased minority recruitment into the force.

Recommendation 2.1: As was recommended in Guardians and several subsequent reports, law enforcement agencies should develop and implement affirmative action plans so that ultimately the agencies reflect the composition of the communities they serve. Increased hiring of city residents would greatly contribute to that effort.

Recommendation 2.2: As discussed in previous reports, all law enforcement agencies should evaluate and revise their recruitment plans. They must increase the numbers of applicants and cadets from local communities of color. Large cities with large minority populations should institute aggressive affirmative action programs. They should also establish permanent minority recruitment units with adequate funding. At a minimum, they should increase their preference points for local residents.

Recommendation 2.3: At each and every law enforcement agency, more people of color, bilingual personnel, and resident officers should be hired. Incentives such as hiring bonuses should be instituted to encourage applications from these individuals. Public perception of local police departments should be improved. Involving community leaders at every stage in the selection and recruitment process would assist departments in fully implementing these recommendations.


Finding 2.5: As discussed in previous reports, the disproportionate representation of people of color and women in law enforcement stems, in part, from the application process. Some law enforcement agencies receive fewer applications from people of color and women than white men. Moreover, biases may exist that eliminate candidates of color during the application process, including within background checks and psychological testing.

Finding 2.6: The selection process contains several problematic requirements. Many communities of color include noncitizen residents who are ineligible for police work. The lack of psychologists of color, biases in evaluating candidates from the urban areas versus white candidates from the suburbs, and the subjective nature of the process all play roles in building bias into the selection system.

Finding 2.7: Some law enforcement agencies require that new cadets have at least 60 college credits and at least a 2.0 grade point average. Although laudable, a more stringent requirement should be instituted to professionalize the police force. A professional police force would develop officers who possess sound judgment, good reasoning abilities, knowledge of law, and the maturity to deal effectively with the people they serve.

Recommendation 2.4: Law enforcement agencies should encourage all new police recruits to have a college degree. They should also build closer ties with local colleges and universities to recruit cadets, provide career guidance, and utilize faculty in their training programs. Additionally, programs such as the NYPD’s Cadet Corps and Explorers groups should be created in major American cities with low minority representation.


Finding 2.8: Good basic training on diversity issues would make a significant impact on law enforcement personnel at the earliest stage in their training and stay with them throughout their careers. Inadequate training reveals itself at the time when officers have to make quick and life-altering decisions.

Cultural Sensitivity

Finding 2.9: Training is essential in developing good police officers. Cadets may not receive enough training time and experience, especially diversity training. Some law enforcement agencies use training materials with offensive and prejudicial racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, and gender stereotypes. Such materials exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions by oversimplifying and generalizing facts about the communities that are served. Additionally, sexual harassment training is often inadequate.

Finding 2.10: The quality of instructors conducting diversity and sexual harassment training and the number of instructors of color need improvement. Poor instruction leads to harmful misunderstandings among trainees. Further, trainees do not take such training seriously. Some training academies fail to use outside experts and community leaders to formulate curriculum. Many departments include diversity training as part of their police academy curriculum with no supplemental or follow-up training.

Finding 2.11: Basic police training is inadequate to address officer interaction with people with mental disabilities. Trained medical professionals have difficulty diagnosing mental illness; therefore, it is unrealistic to expect police officers to always be able to discern if someone has a mental impairment, especially from one encounter.

Finding 2.12: Only a few law enforcement agencies incorporate nonhomophobic instruction into their diversity training curriculum. As gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals (GLBT) become more mainstreamed, the need for such training grows.

Recommendation 2.5: Based on these ideas, appropriate police training remains an imperative for all law enforcement agencies, particularly courses focusing on cultural sensitivity. Some law enforcement agencies should strength­en their diversity training and sexual harassment programs. As the characteristics of American residents continue to evolve, law enforcement should become increasingly aware of the unique characteristics of the various racial and ethnic groups and gain an appreciation for their cultures. They should include members of the local communities in developing courses.

Negative stereotypes embedded within training materials should be eliminated. Materials should explore the meaning of racism, sexism, bias, oppression, stereotyping, peer pressure, and related concepts. Implementing training on appropriate interaction with the GLBT communities as part of diversity training would be appropriate for many jurisdictions. Trainees should be tested on the material. Law enforcement agencies should make it imperative that police officers receive training on how to interact effectively with the disabled community.

Recommendation 2.6: Municipal police departments should implement some variation of the Memphis Plan and partner with local social services offices for training and assistance with interaction with people who have mental disabilities.

Recommendation 2.7: Community cultural leaders and scholars should be consulted in all phases of law enforcement diversity training, including course implementation. Police departments should mandate annual diversity training for all officers, regardless of rank.

Use of Force

Finding 2.13: Law enforcement officers with limited experience tend to resort to using force before implementing nonviolent alternatives more than experienced officers. When abuses of law enforcement authority occur, they are seldom reported.

Recommendation 2.8: Police departments should implement de-escalation procedures that offer officers alternatives to use of force, particularly deadly force, in diffusing potentially volatile situations.

Racial Profiling

Finding 2.14: Racial profiling persists throughout the United States and is an egregious violation of civil rights.

Finding 2.15: Law enforcement officers may stop cars with probable cause that the traffic codes have been violated. Some officers, however, engage in racial profiling or the practice of initiating contextual stops with no individualized suspicion of criminal conduct.

Finding 2.16: Communities of color do not want to choose between public safety and civil rights.

Recommendation 2.9: To break the cycle of racial profiling, law enforcement should apply the Florida v. J.L. test to these racial profiles. Indeed, without some reliable tip or individualized suspicion of criminal conduct, the officer does not have the legal authority to detain any citizen. States should pass legislation against the practice of racial profiling similar to those enacted or introduced in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Oklahoma.

Recommendation 2.10: Officers guilty of engaging in racial profiling must be subject to sanctions up to and including personal liability. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA) empowers the Attorney General to bring civil actions against state and local law enforcement agencies that are found to engage in a pattern or practice of depriving persons of the rights endowed to them by the Constitution of the United States.[254] Upon a finding that an officer persists in engaging in racial profiling after explicit warnings to cease, then he or she should be subject to individual liability. Individual liability would be an effective deterrent to profiling.

Recommendation 2.11: Police departments should institute a zero tolerance policy against racial profiling. Any officer found to engage in racial profiling should be subject to immediate dismissal from the police force.

Community Policing

Finding 2.17: Community policing occurs when a law enforcement agency and law-abiding people work together to arrest offenders, prevent crime, solve ongoing problems, and improve the overall quality of life in the community. Good police-community relations deter crime.

Finding 2.18: Effective diversity training is essential to successful community policing. Police-community relations are tainted when police officers lack understanding about the cultures of the department’s constituency.

Recommendation 2.12: Community policing should be instituted in all local law enforcement agencies.

Recommendation 2.13: Law enforcement agencies should mandate supplemental diversity training that incorporates changes to the communities patrolled. Local community leaders should be consulted and used as resources for that training.

Consent Decrees

Finding 2.19: Consent decrees are useful in eliminating a pattern and or practice of police misconduct that infringes upon civil rights. Entering into consent decrees with the U.S. government allows an independent monitor to review and evaluate training and other policies. These consent decrees eliminate expensive and lengthy litigation and address the immediate concerns of local community members.

Recommendation 2.14: Those law enforcement agencies targeted by the U.S. Department of Justice as engaging in a pattern or practice of misconduct violating civil rights should immediately begin negotiating consent decrees to prevent further abuses and infringements on civil rights.

Recommendation 2.15: The U.S. Department of Justice should be fully funded to support review of local law enforcement agencies for possible violations of the VCCLEA.

Promotion and Retention

Finding 2.20: The promotion and reward system of many law enforcement agencies is seriously flawed. As discussed in previous reports, having officers of color in command-level positions improves police-community relations and decreases the likelihood of police misconduct. However, officers of color have difficulty reaching command levels. There may be biases built into the process such as pressuring officers to produce summonses, arrests, and seizures while neglecting to provide incentives for officers who protect individuals’ civil rights. This encourages officers to engage in unlawful and illegal practices. Some retaliation by law enforcement agencies against officers who report such misconduct may occur. Further, the pressure harms police relationships with local communities.

Finding 2.21: Racial profiling may be encouraged by some aspect of the reward system.

Recommendation 2.16: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate their retention and promotion process to determine what biases exist in the system and seek ways to improve the promotion of officers of color and avoid racial profiling. A system of rewards should be implemented that rewards crime prevention and not simply arrests.

Recommendation 2.17: Claims of retaliation should be investigated vigorously, and departments doing such investigations should be properly funded and empowered with the appropriate authority to be effective.

[1] Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1999, table 12, “Resident Population—Selected Characteristics, 1790 to 1998, and Projections, 2000 to 2050,” 119th ed. (1999), p. 14 (hereafter cited as 1999 Census Statistics). The total listed above represents the addition of the total number of males and the total number of females.

[2] Ibid. The total listed above represents the total number of males and the total number of females reported in April 1990 minus the total number of males and females reported in April 1980.

[3] Ibid. The total listed above represents the total number of males and the total number of females in July 1998 minus the total number of males and the total number of females reported in April 1990.

[4] Perhaps one of the strongest indicators of the change in the American population is the difference in racial data used by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau’s racial data reflect the self-classification of the respondents, or how the individual perceives his or her own racial identity. 1999 Census Statistics, p. 5. See also Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1982–83, 103rd ed., p. 3 (hereafter cited as 1982 Census Statistics). In 1980, if a resident of “mixed racial parentage” was unable to provide a single response to the race identification question, then the race of the mother was used. Ibid., p. 3. If a single response for the racial identity of the mother could not be provided, then the first race reported by the respondent was used. Ibid. This practice varies from 1970 when the race of the respondent’s father was used. Ibid. The 1990 census included an “other” racial category with a provision for a write-in classification. 1999 Census Statistics, p. 5.

[5] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination—A National Perspective, May 1992, p. 94.

[6] Ibid. Professor O’Hare attributed the rapid increase in the population of people of color, in part, to immigration. “Roughly speaking, about 75 percent of the Asian and Pacific Islander growth in the 1980s was due to immigration, and about half of the Latino growth in the 1980s was due to immigration. A lot of people don’t realize that almost a sixth of the African American population growth was due to immigration from Africa and the Caribbean.” Ibid., p. 95. 

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. The total listed above represents the total number of African American people reported in July 1998 minus the total number of African American people reported in April 1980.

[10] Ibid. The total listed above represents the number of American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut people reported in July 1998 minus the total number of American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut people reported in April 1980.

[11] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Who Is Guarding the Guardians? October 1981, p. 5 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Guardians).

[12] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume III: The Chicago Report, September 1995, p. 149.

[13] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racism and Sexism in Local and State Law Enforcement Agencies Briefing, October 1995, transcript, p. 3 (hereafter cited as Racism and Sexism Briefing Transcript).

[14] South Dakota Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Native Americans in South Dakota: An Erosion of Confidence in the Justice System, March 2000, p. 40.

[15] Missouri Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Race Relations in Pemiscot County, October 1994, pp. 23–24.

[16] Charles Ogletree, statement before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, National Police Practices and Civil Rights Briefing, June 16, 2000, transcript, p. 14 (hereafter cited as Police Practices Briefing Transcript).

[17] Ibid., p. 15.

[18] James Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 20.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., p. 21.

[23] Sandra Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 17.

[24] Ibid., p. 18.

[25] Robert Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 18.

[26] Hubert Williams, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, pp. 70–73.

[27] See generally Commission reports dealing with police practices listed in appendix A.

[28] Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Police Protection of the African American Community in Chicago: An Update, June 1999, p. 37.

[29] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume V: The Los Angeles Report, May 1999, p. 89 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Los Angeles Report).

[30] USCCR, Guardians, p. 11.

[31] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 59.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Racism and Sexism Briefing Transcript, p. 3.

[34] USCCR, Los Angeles Report, p. 76.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., p. 77.

[37] Bill Miller, “Black Agents Sue Secret Service; Federal Class Action Suit Alleges Bias in Hiring, Promotion Practices,” The Washington Post, May 3, 2000, <http://www. File> (July 24, 2000).

[38] David Johnston, “Black Secret Service Agents Say Agency Tried to Intimidate Them,” The New York Times, June 2, 2000, <> (July 24, 2000).

[39] Miller, “Black Agents Sue Secret Service.”

[40] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 21.

[41] Ibid., pp. 21–22.

[42] Ibid., p. 23.

[43] Ibid., p. 24.

[44] Ibid.

[45] USCCR, Guardians, p. 15.

[46] Ibid.

[47] See, e.g., U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Polices Practices and Civil Rights in New York City, August 2000, p. 40 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Police Practices in New York City).

[48] See ibid., p. 12, fn. 24.

[49] Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 32.

[50] Ibid., p. 33.

[51] Ibid., p. 32.

[52] See Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 34.

[53] USCCR, Guardians, p. 18.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid., p. 23.

[56] Racism and Sexism Briefing Transcript, p. 3.

[57] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 59.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 77.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 85.

[62] Ibid., p. 86.

[63] USCCR, Police Practices in New York City, p. 29.

[64] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Sharing the Dream: Is ADA Accommodating All? October 2000 (hereafter cited as USCCR, ADA Report) (citing Leigh Ann Davis, People With Mental Retardation in the Criminal Justice System (Arlington, TX: The Arc, October 1995), p. 2).

[65] Law Enforcement Resource Center, Police and People with Disabilities: Facilitator’s Guide (Minneapolis, MN: Law Enforcement Resource Center, 1996), pp. 11–27.

[66] Most people with mental retardation live independently in the community and may not appear to have a significant disability. USCCR, ADA Report.

[67] Ibid. (Davis, People With Mental Retardation in the Criminal Justice System, p. 2). Law enforcement activities are covered by Title II of the ADA. Title II requires state and municipal governments to make all activities, programs, and public transportation accessible to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12131–12165 (1990).

[68] Law Enforcement Resource Center, Police and People with Disabilities, pp. 11–27.

[69] Ibid., p. 11.

[70] Ibid., p. 25.

[71] USCCR, ADA Report (citing Ramnararine testimony, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Americans with Disabilities Act Hearing, Nov. 12–13, 1998, p. 81).

[72] Ibid., p. 26.

[73] Ibid. (citing The Arc, A Police Officer’s Guide). See also Leigh Ann Reynolds, Understanding Mental Retardation: Training for Law Enforcement (Arlington, TX: The Arc, 1998).

[74] Ibid., p. 12.

[75] Ibid., p. 14.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Laurie Goodstein, “Trying to Prevent the Next Killer Rampage,” The New York Times, Sept. 6, 2000, p. A1.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Ibid.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Ibid. The report lists the following municipal police departments as implementing the Memphis model for handling calls from emotionally disturbed persons: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Waterloo, Iowa.

[86] Ibid., p. A18. The article lists Los Angeles, California, and Birmingham, Alabama, as cities that have paired law enforcement with social workers.

[87] Ibid.

[88] Amnesty International, United States of America: Race, Rights and Police Brutality, no. AMR51/147/99 (September 1999), p. 11.

[89] Ibid., quoting an August 1999 Denver Post report.

[90] Ibid., p. 17.

[91] Ibid.

[92] Ibid.

[93] USCCR, Police Practices in New York City, p. 33 (citing Task Force on New York City Police/Community Relations: Report to the Mayor, March 1998, pp. 64–65).

[94] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume I: The Mount Pleasant Report, 1993, p. 31 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Mount Pleasant Report).

[95] Ibid. (citing Officer Gary Hankins, Fraternal Order of Police, testimony, Hearing Before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29–31, 1992, transcript, vol. 2, p. 266) (hereafter cited as USCCR, Mount Pleasant Hearing Transcript).

[96] USCCR, Guardians, p. 29.

[97] See the stories summarized in the introduction.

[98] Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Montgomery County, Maryland, the Montgomery County Department of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., executed on Jan. 14, 2000. The agreement was executed under the authority given to the DOJ in Title VI of the Safe Streets Act under, Title VI of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The DOJ may investigate complaints of alleged discrimination by law enforcement agencies and attempt to resolve those matters through nonadversarial means. Implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101–42.112 (1999). See also Implementation of § 815(c)(1) of the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.201–42.215 (1999).

[99] Montgomery County Police Department Agreement, sec. VII (B).

[100] Rachel Gottlieb, “A New Look at Deadly Force; Special Panel Urges Policy Changes; Skeptics Say Racial Tensions Will Remain,” The Hartford Courant, Dec. 16, 1999, p. A1.

[101] Ibid.

[102] Ibid.

[103] Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 36.

[104] Ibid.

[105] Ibid.

[106] Ibid.

[107] Ibid.

[108] David Weisburd, Rosann Greenspan, Edwin Hamilton, Hubert Williams, and Kellie Bryant, Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority: Findings from a National Study, National Institute of Justice, May 2000, p. 2 (hereafter cited as Weisburd and others, Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority). The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[109] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[110] Ibid., p. 3. Sixteen percent of officers answered that police never use more force than necessary to make an arrest; 21.7 percent answered that police “sometimes, often or always” use more force than necessary to make an arrest.

[111] Ibid., p. 5.

[112] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[113] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly disagree or disagree with the statement.

[114] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[115] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly disagree or disagree with the statement.

[116] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[117] Ibid., p. 11. The percentage in the text is the total of those supervisors who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[118] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those supervisors who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[119] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 29.

[120] Ibid.

[121] Ibid.

[122] Ibid., p. 31.

[123] Chairperson Mary Frances Berry, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 78.

[124] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 79.

[125] Ibid.

[126] Ibid.

[127] Charles Ogletree Jr. and others, Beyond the Rodney King Story: An Investigation of Police Conduct in Minority Communities (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1995), p. 121.

[128] Williams, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 49.

[129] Ibid., pp. 49–50.

[130] Ibid., p. 50.

[131] Ibid., pp. 86–87.

[132] Ibid.

[133] Ibid., p. 87.

[134] Ibid., pp. 88, 91. “[T]here are police officers that have biases, prejudices and they are looking to harass people. I don’t consider this to be big numbers. I think this is a small percentage of officers.” Ibid.

[135] David A. Harris, “Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation’s Highways; An American Civil Liberties Union Special Report,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 1999, < profiling/report/inm>dex.html> (Sept. 27, 2000).

[136] Ibid.

[137] Ibid.

[138] Ibid.

[139] Ibid.

[140] Ibid.

[141] Ibid.

[142] USCCR, Los Angeles Report, p. 29 (citing David Shaw, “Chief Parker Molded LAPD Image—Then Came the 1960’s,” The Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1992, p. A1). See generally Joseph Gunn, assistant deputy mayor, city of Los Angeles, letter to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May 15, 1998. The tenures of LAPD police chiefs Brown, Reddin, and Murdoch immediately followed Chief Parker’s. Chief Gates became chief of police after Chief Murdoch’s tenure. USCCR, Los Angeles Report, p. 29, n. 138.

[143] Ibid. (citing Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991, pp. 98–99) (hereafter cited as Christopher Commission Report).

[144] USCCR, Los Angeles Report, p. 29 (citing Shaw, “Chief Parker Molded LAPD Image”).

[145] Ibid. (citing Christopher Commission Report, pp. 99–100). See also Shaw, “Chief Parker Molded LAPD Image.”

[146] USCCR, Los Angeles Report, p. 29, fn. 142 (citing Daniel E. Georges-Abeyie, “Symposium: Law Enforcement and Racial and Ethnic Bias,” Florida State University Law Review, vol. 19 (Winter 1992), p. 717).

[147] U.S. Const., amend. IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Id.

[148] Id.

[149] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume VI: The New York Report, December 1999, p. 106 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 21 (1968)) (hereafter cited as USCCR, New York Report).

[150] Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 819 (1996).

[151] Id.

[152] Id. at 808.

[153] Id. “Their [the MPD officers] suspicions were aroused when they passed a dark Pathfinder truck with temporary license plates and youthful occupants waiting at a stop sign, the driver looking down into the lap of the passenger at his right. The truck remained stopped at the intersection for what seemed an unusually long time—more than 20 seconds. When the police car executed a U-turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathfinder turned suddenly to its right, without signaling, and sped off at an ‘unreasonable’ speed. The policemen followed, and in a short while overtook the Pathfinder when it stopped behind other traffic at a red light.” Id.

[154] Id. at 808–09.

[155] Id. at 807, 813–16.

[156] 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed.2d 254 (2000).

[157] Id.

[158] Id.

[159] Ogletree, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 10.

[160] Ibid.

[161] USCCR, New York Report, p. 106.

[162] South Dakota Advisory Committee, Native Americans in South Dakota, p. 26.

[163] Ibid.

[164] Ibid. The South Dakota Advisory Committee community forum entitled “Native Americans and the Administration of Justice in South Dakota” was held in Rapid City, SD, on Dec. 6, 1999. At the time of the forum, Hennies had been elected to the South Dakota State Legislature.

[165] Ibid.

[166] USCCR, Mount Pleasant Report, p. 20.

[167] Ibid. (citing Daryl Veal, attorney, Fulbright & Jaworski, Mount Pleasant Hearing Transcript, vol. 2, p. 12).

[168] Ibid. (citing Juan Milanes, attorney, D.C. Latino Civil Rights Task Force, Mount Pleasant Hearing Transcript, vol. 2, p. 17).

[169] Ibid., pp. 20–21.

[170] Ibid., p. 21 (citing Emilio Chavez, Mount Pleasant Hearing Transcript, vol. 2, pp. 103–04). The witness testified that he was sitting in front of the Bell School when an officer told him to move. The witness asked him if he was prohibited from being there. The officer allegedly answered in the affirmative, threw the witness against the wall, and choked him. The witness testified that the officer did not handcuff him because he felt “sorry” for the witness and did not want to see him deported. Also, the officer allegedly told the witness that he “should change.” Ibid.

[171] Ibid. (citing Omar Centurian, Mount Pleasant Hearing Transcript, vol. 2, pp. 82–83).

[172] Ibid.

[173] Interim Report of the State of New Jersey Police Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling, Apr. 20, 1999, p. 56.

[174] Ibid., p. 58.

[175] Harris, “Driving While Black.”

[176] Ibid.

[177] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 85.

[178] Ibid. Dr. Fyfe testified for the accused police officers in the Diallo case. See introduction for more information on the Diallo case.

[179] Ibid.

[180] Ibid.

[181] Weisburd and others, Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[182] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly disagree or disagree with the statement.

[183] Ibid., Exhibit 7. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly agree or agree with the statement.

[184] Ibid. The percentage in the text is the total of those officers who answered that they strongly disagree or disagree with the statement.

[185] Ibid., pp. 79–83.

[186] Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 17.

[187] Ibid.

[188] Williams, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 49.

[189] Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 19. Dr. Bass attributed the above quote to “one scholar.” Ibid. However, the name of the scholar and his or her study were not identified. Ibid.

[190] U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action, August 1994.

[191] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, < info/bg_info/bg_definition. htm>.

[192] Ibid.

[193] Ibid.

[194] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, < info/press_releases/pr_9_13_ 00f.htm>.

[195] Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 18.

[196] Ibid.

[197] Ibid., pp. 18–19.

[198] USCCR, Los Angeles Report, p. 29 (citing National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report on Police (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 157).

[199] Ibid.

[200] Ibid. (citing Gerald Woods, The Police in Los Angeles: Reform and Professionalization (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993), pp. 310–12).

[201] Ibid., p. 1. After the Rodney King incident (see introduction for details), Warren Christopher headed an independent commission mandated to “examine any aspect of the law enforcement structure in Los Angeles that might cause or contribute to the problem of excessive force.” Ibid. (citing Christopher Commission Report, p. ii).

[202] Ibid., p. 30 (citing Christopher Commission Report, p. 100).

[203] Ibid.

[204] Ibid.

[205] Ibid.

[206] Ibid., p. 160.

[207] Ibid.

[208] Ibid., p. 93 (citing Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination—Los Angeles Hearing, June 15–17, 1993, transcript, p. 118).

[209] Ibid.

[210] Ibid., p. 68 (citing Los Angeles Police Department, “Cultural Awareness for Law Enforcement: Living and Working in Our Diverse Society” (course materials), 1996, p. 1). For example, many Central and South American immigrants may be reluctant to talk to police because of the differing functions and activities of law enforcement in those countries. Ibid., p. 167.

[211] South Dakota Advisory Committee, Native Americans in South Dakota, p. 26.

[212] Ibid.

[213] Ibid., p. 27.

[214] USCCR, Police Practices in New York City, p. 33 (citing Howard Safir, police commissioner of the city of New York, testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City, Hearing, New York, NY, May 26, 1999, p. 194 (hereafter cited as New York Police Practices Hearing Transcript). Safir testified that the City University of New York, Columbia University, and St. Johns University collaborated on the cultural diversity training. Ibid. Safir also testified that the Columbia University director of the African Studies Institute, Dr. Manning Marable, advised on the curriculum. Ibid.

[215] Ibid. (citing Safir, New York Police Practices Hearing Transcript, pp. 158–60).

[216] Louden, Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 37.

[217] Ibid.

[218] Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 38. See also USCCR, Police Practices in New York City, pp. 32–33. The course is titled Streetwise Language, Culture and Police Work in NYC. Ibid.

[219] Ibid. (Safir, New York Police Practices Hearing Transcript, pp. 159–60).

[220] Kansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Race Relations in Rural Western Kansas Towns, June 1998, p. 11 (citing Kansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Community Forum on Race Relations in Rural Kansas Towns, Garden City, Dec. 13–14, 1995 (hereafter cited as Kansas Advisory Committee, Kansas Race Relations Transcript), pp. 348–49).

[221] Ibid. The text of the report does not identify the source of the funding for the grant received by the Dodge City Police Department. At the time of the Kansas community forum, Police Chief Ralph had been an officer for 32 years and the chief of the Dodge City Police Department for 25 years. Ibid.

[222] Ibid., p. 12 (citing Kansas Advisory Committee, Kansas Race Relations Transcript, pp. 377–78). Sheriff Leaming managed the Ford County jail at the time of the community forum. Ibid.

[223] Ibid.

[224] Ibid.

[225] Ibid. (citing Kansas Advisory Committee, Kansas Race Relations Transcript, pp. 382–84). At the time of the community forum, Sheriff Craig had been in his position for 25 years and had 37 years of experience as a law enforcement officer.

[226] Ibid.

[227] Weisburd and others, Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority, p. 7 (citing David Weisburd, Jerome McElroy, and Patricia Hardyman, “Maintaining Order in Community Oriented Policing,” in Police and Policing, ed. Dennis J. Kenney (New York: Praeger, 1989)). It was also suggested that community policing had no effect on police corruption. Ibid. Nationally only 7.1 percent of officers believe that community policing increases the risk of corrupt behavior. Of the law enforcement officers questioned regarding the effect of community policing on the use of excessive force, 50.9 percent believe that the practice decreases the use of excessive force. Weisburd and others, Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority, p. 8. When that sampling of officers is divided by race, the answers vary; 1.2 percent of white officers believe community policing increases the number of incidents involving excessive force while 10.5 percent of black and other minority officers join in that contention. Ibid., p. 10.

[228] Chairperson Berry and Vice Chairperson Reynoso, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, pp. 68–69.

[229] Fyfe, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 69.

[230] Ibid. Dr. Fyfe did not identify the former partner to whom he referred.

[231] Williams, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 50. Mr. Williams did not cite a source for the statistical information.

[232] Ibid., p. 52.

[233] Ibid.

[234] Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 100.

[235] Ibid.

[236] California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Community Concerns about Law Enforcement in Sonoma County, May 2000, p. 21. Professor Shinagawa participated in the training from 1992 to 1994.

[237] Ibid. (citing California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Police Practices and Police-Community Relations in Sonoma County Forum, Santa Rosa, CA, Feb. 20, 1998, transcript, p. 25).

[238] Ibid.

[239] Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 18.

[240] The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is discussed in-depth in chapter 5.

[241] 42 U.S.C. 14141 (Supp. IV 1998).

[242] Id.

[243] Ralph Siegel, “Two experts selected to monitor State Police,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Mar. 29, 2000.

[244] Ibid., ¶ 94.

[245] Ibid., ¶ 99.

[246] Ibid., ¶ 100.

[247] Ibid., ¶ 21.

[248] Ibid.

[249] Louden, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 62.

[250] Ibid.

[251] Ibid., p. 63.

[252] Bass, Police Practices Briefing Transcript, p. 75.

[253] Ibid., pp. 75–76.

[254] 42 U.S.C. 14141 (Supp. IV 1998).