DOCSLIB.ORG

Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications Inlaw Enforcement Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications Inlaw Enforcement Policy AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GP0 RACIAL PROFILING AND THE USE OF SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS INLAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 17, 2010 Serial No. 111-131 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56-956 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COIVIITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. "BOBBY' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida TOM ROONEY, Florida LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois GREGG HARPER, Mississippi TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DANIEL MAFFEI, New York JARED POLIS, Colorado PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ROBERT C. "BOBBY' SCOTT, Virginia Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TOM ROONEY, Florida HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan JIM JORDAN, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas JUDY CHU, California DAVID LACHMANN, Chief of Staff PAUL B. TAYLOR, Minority Counsel CONTENTS JUNE 17, 2010 Page OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ....................................... 11..... The Honorable Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............................ ............. 6 The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ..................................... ............... 6 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............ 6 WITNESSES Mr. Hilary 0. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau Oral Testimony .............................................. ........ 8 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 11 Mr. Christopher Burbank, Chief of Police, Salt Lake City Police Department Oral Testimony ............................................. ........ 14 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 17 Mr. Brian L. Withrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Oral Testimony ............................................. ........ 21 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 23 Ms. Deborah Ramirez, Professor of Law, Northeastern University Law School Oral Testimony ............................................. ........ 31 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 34 Mr. Amardeep Singh, Program Director, Sikh Coalition Oral Testimony ............................................. ........ 38 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 40 Mr. David A. Harris, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Oral Testimony ............................................. ........ 52 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 54 Ms. Farhana Khera, President and Executive Director, Muslim Advocates Oral Testimony ............................................. ........ 62 Prepared Statement ...................................................... 64 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Rep- resentative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............ 3 IV Page Information submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Con- gress from the State of California, Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties .................. ........................... ............ 82 APPENDIX Material Submitted for the Hearing Record ................... ............. 89 RACIAL PROFILING AND THE USE OF SUS- PECT CLASSIFICATIONS IN LAW ENFORCE- MENT POLICY THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold Nad- ler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Nadler, Conyers, Scott, Johnson, Cohen, Jackson Lee, and Chu. Also present: Representative Ellison. Staff present: (Majority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee Chief of Staff; Keenan Keller, Counsel; and (Minority) Paul Taylor, Mi- nority Counsel. Mr. NADLER. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitu- tion, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to order. I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. Today's hearing examines racial profiling and the use of suspect classifications in law enforcement policy. Racial profiling is a prob- lem, not simply because it unfairly targets people for different treatment by law enforcement based on the immutable characteris- tics such as race, nationality or religion, but because it is bad polic- ing policy. Looking for people of a certain race in the hope that this will make it easier to find criminals is simply not an effective way to identify and apprehend the bad guys and make us all safer. It would be nice if all criminals and terrorists walked around with the mark of Cain on their foreheads, but the real world is not like that. Focusing on people who fit the profile of what some be- lieve a criminal would or should look like distracts and diverts the attention of law enforcement in ways that can prove disastrous to public safety. So, in addition to being unfair, profiling does not de- liver on its alleged benefits. What makes the problem of racial profiling more complex and re- quires policymakers to think about it in a more careful and sophis- ticated manner, is that racial profiling cannot simply be attributed to a few races abusing their power. They, of course, are still with us. But just as it would be easier if every crook carried around a sign saying, "I am a bad guy," so, too, it would make our jobs a lot easier if every law enforcement agent or officer who engaged in the practice looked like Bull Connor. But that also is not the case. We need to deal with the fact that profiling is not always, and not necessarily, a result of racial or religious bigotry. It can be the result of poor training, flawed policing methods, or simply conven- tional wisdom, which may not be true, but which is commonly held-which is, of course, the definition of conventional wisdom. This is not to say that bigots have not tried, sometimes success- fully, to use the public's justifiable fear of crime and terrorism to malign entire groups or faiths. Racist demagoguery is still with us, and we have an obligation to confront it forcefully and effectively. The facts, however, clearly belie the assertion that profiling is good or effective law enforcement. The view that it is appropriate law enforcement to go after certain groups is thankfully a marginal one in this day and age. Today's hearing will look at all the dimensions of racial profiling and examine what actions Congress can take to protect individuals from being singled out by law enforcement for reasons based on characteristics having nothing to do with whether or not they are fairly suspected of committing some kind of wrongdoing. The solution lies not just in enforcement of rules against profiling, but in education and training for our law enforcement personnel. Our law enforcement officers deserve our support and the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. I want to thank the Chairman of the full Committee for his ef- forts over the years and for his continued leadership on this very important issue. The effort to eliminate racial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final CERD Follow up Report
    THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES A FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO THE U.N. COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE RIGHTS WORKING GROUP JUNE 30, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program, is the principal author of this report. Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Program, reviewed and edited drafts of the report. Nicole Kief of the ACLU Racial Justice Program also provided significant material and valuable editing assistance. Mónica Ramírez of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project provided substantial material and reviewed sections of the report. Reggie Shuford of the Racial Justice Program; Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project; and Michael Macleod-Ball, Jennifer Bellamy, and Joanne Lin of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office also reviewed drafts and contributed to the report, as did Ken Choe of the ACLU LGBT Project. Rachel Bloom and Nusrat Jahan Choudhary of the Racial Justice Program; Mike German and John Hardenbergh of the Washington Legislative Office; and Dan Mach of the ACLU Program on Religion and Belief all made contributions as well. Two law students, Elizabeth Joynes (Fordham Law School) and Peter Beauchamp (New York Law School), provided substantial editorial support and research assistance; Aron Cobbs from the Human Rights Program also contributed. Many ACLU affiliates made available extremely valuable material about and analyses of their state-based work, including Arizona, Arkansas, Northern California, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Eastern Missouri, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • SAALT Testimony to House Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil
    CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Written Testimony for the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law Enforcement Policy” June 17, 2010 Submitted by Deepa Iyer, Executive Director South Asian Americans Leading Together 1 ABOUT SAALT South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), is a national, nonpartisan, non-profit organization that elevates the voices and perspectives of South Asian individuals and organizations to build a more just and inclusive society in the United States.1 SAALT’s strategies include conducting policy analysis and advocacy; building partnerships with South Asian organizations and allies; mobilizing communities to take action; and developing leadership for social change. SAALT works with a base of individual members and advocates and is the coordinating entity of the National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSO), a network of 39 organizations in 13 geographic regions that provide direct services to, organize, and advocate on behalf of the South Asians in the United States. The experiences and local knowledge of member organizations within the NCSO in large part inform the policy recommendations included in this testimony. SAALT denounces the use of profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, nationality, and immigration status. Especially since 9/11, South Asians, Sikhs, Muslims, and Arab Americans have been subjected to policies that are based in profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement activities. SAALT works closely with partner organizations to identify the impact of profiling tactics and advocate against their utilization.2 SAALT strongly urges the passage of federal legislation, such as the End Racial Profiling Act, that eliminates profiling in all its forms, including those resulting from post-9/11 policies and practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Towards Responsible Security Technology Fields
    KI-NA-24835-EN-C E UROPEAN European Science COMMISSION Research Area in Society This publication, introduced and edited by René von Schomberg, consists of a series of research articles reflecting on how to proceed towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Towards Responsible Security Technology fields. Research and The authors who contributed to this publication are coordinators or participants to major FP7 Innovation in the projects funded under the Science in Society Programme. A total of 10 projects have inspired Information and the authors to reflect and address various governance and ethics issues underlying Communication the responsible development of these new technologies. Technologies A deliberative approach to the responsible and Security development of these technologies implies inclusive governance, based on broad stakeholder Technologies Fields involvement, public debate and early societal intervention in research and innovation, among other, by means of ethics assessments and various technology and privacy impact assessments. Research and Innovation Policy European Commission Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2011 – 217 pp. – 17.6 x 25.0 cm ISBN 978-92-79-20404-3 ISSN 1018-5593 doi: 10.2777/58723 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Government Failed You
    YOUR GOVERNMENT FAILED YOU BREAKING THE CYCLE OF NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTERS R IC HAR D A. CLARK E In Memory of Sam Hamrick aka W. T. Tyler, Dedicated public servant, Talented author, iconoclast, and friend Contents one 9/11 Changed Everything? 1 two No More Vietnams 10 three No More Iraqs 46 four Can We Reduce Intelligence Failures? 92 five Terrorism 154 six Homeland Security 203 seven Energy 261 eight Into Cyberspace 285 nine Getting It Right 319 Acknowledgments 359 Notes 360 Index 389 About the Author Other Books by Richard A. Clarke Credits Cover Copyright About the Publisher One 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING? hen I said “Your government failed you” to the families of the W victims of 9/11, it seemed to me that I was merely stating the obvious: the government had failed the American people. And I had. Three thousand people had been murdered in a morning, not on a battlefield, not in their battleships as had happened at Pearl Harbor, but in their offices. They had been killed by a terrorist group that had promised to attack us, and which we had been unable to stop. The CIA had been unable to assassinate its leadership. It had also been unable to tell anyone when the terrorists had shown up in this country, even though it knew they were here. The national leadership had been un- willing to focus on the threat for months, although repeatedly warned to do so. And I had been unable to get either the bureaucracy or the new national leadership to act toward the terrorist network before the big attack in the way they would want to respond after thousands of Americans had been murdered.
    [Show full text]
  • ADSA16 Final Report
    for Securityfor Applications Development Advanced Strategic Study Workshop Series Advanced Development for Security Applications Addressing the Requirements for May 2017 Workshop Final Report Final Workshop 2017 May Different Stakeholders in Transportation Security ADSA16 ADSA16 May 2017 Workshop ALERT 2017 Publication ALERT Awareness and Localization of Explosives-Related Threats This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Award Number 2013-ST-061-ED0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Disclaimers 4 3. Introduction 5 4. Discussion 6 5. Acknowledgements 12 6. Workshop Planning and Support 13 7. Appendix: Notes 14 8. Appendix: Agenda 15 9. Appendix: Previous Workshops 19 10. Appendix: List of Participants 20 11. Appendix: Presenter Biographies 26 12. Appendix: Questionnaire 45 13. Appendix: Questionnaire Responses 46 14. Appendix: Acronyms 67 15. Appendix: Minutes 75 16. Appendix: Presentations 137 1 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop ADSA16 WORKSHOP Addressing the Requirements for Different Stakeholders in Transportaon Security Hosted by ALERT: Awareness and Localizaon of Explosives-Related Threats a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Center of Excellence May 2 - 3, 2017 17th Floor, East Village, Northeastern University 2 Advanced Development Final Report for Security Applications May 2017 Workshop 1. Executive Summary A workshop entitled “Addressing the Requirements for Different Stakehold- ers in Transportation Security” was held at Northeastern University (NEU) in Boston on May 2-3, 2017.
    [Show full text]