McIntyre, Spencer
English 1301 Sec 203 (instructor)
Feb 23, 2011 (course)
Mrs. Dziadek (date)
Racial Profiling: Draft One
Racial profiling has been a heatedly debated subject in law enforcement for many
decades, but the recent use of racial profiling in airport security and Arizona’s border laws have
brought it to the forefront once again. Many states have outlawed the use of racial profiling, by
monitoring the traffic stop statistics by race compared to the races of the general population.
However, statistics have shown that in certain areas, one race might be more likely to be
breaking the law than others. This might lead one to assume that race should be searched more
often in these areas, but this practice is morally unsound. Being searched simply for being a
minority is in direct opposition to the Fourth Amendment. Each police search and seizure must
have probable cause, and race does not qualify. Many law-abiding Muslims have been searched
at airports, and many law-abiding Hispanics have been pulled over along the US-Mexican
border, simply for their race. This use of racial profiling is receiving massive support, as well as
massive opposition, and the legality of its usage will be determined in the near future.
The usage of racial profiling is found everywhere in law enforcement, from traffic stops
to airport security. Minorities are drastically overrepresented in jails, as well as simple traffic
stops. Hispanics are especially discriminated against in traffic stops, suggests Lange’s study of
the New Jersey Turnpike. Using motion sensing cameras, police statistics, and tollbooth
statistics, Lange broke down the statistics of racial profiling in traffic stops. In one segment of
the turnpike, Hispanics represent only 4.6% of drivers at tollbooths along the segment, but also
represent 11.9% of traffic stops (citation). White drivers, representing 65.9% of drivers, only
represented 51.7% of traffic stops (citation). This enormous disparity in stops shows that
Hispanics are profiled as criminals, where whites are considered to be law-abiding. AfricanAmericans are profiled nearly as badly, representing 15.1% of drivers and 28.8% of stops
(citation). No race was statistically more likely to speed, drive drunk, or exhibit any signs of
criminal activity than any other race. Each race was within 1% of their representative body of the
population in speeding, small enough to be considered random coincidence (Lange 193-209).
Add analysis Because of such a weighted number of traffic stops, many groups feel they have
been discriminated against.
Groups opposing the usage of racial profiling are fighting in each state to have its use
banned in law enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union is the strongest force against
profiling, having sued many police precincts for illegal discrimination in traffic stops. The
ACLU’s recent study of the Maryland State Police showed that minorities were more than twice
as likely to be pulled over as whites. An enormous 70% of traffic stops were of minorities
(Maryland Court Orders State Police To Turn Over Racial Profiling Records), while the US
Census Bureau states that only 35% of Maryland residents are of a minority (Maryland
Quicklfacts). This outraged the ACLU and has led to several lawsuits, including cases in 1992,
1998, and 2007 (citation). Each time the case was brought up, the ACLU won, but no action was
taken to force the MSP into preventing the usage of racial profiling. A similar case was battled in
Jacksonville, Florida. After numerous complaints of profiling occurred through 2005, the ACLU
sued the city and forced the police to monitor the percent of each race stopped. In 2008, there
was not a single complaint of racial profiling and the statistics backed it up. Whites represented
53% of the population and 55% of traffic stops, where minorities represented 47% of the
population and 45% of stops (Young). This case shows that it is possible to prevent crime
without illegally profiling suspects. Add analysis Several unresolved cases have escalated to the
Supreme Court regarding racial profiling.
The most recent Supreme Court case over racial profiling, Virginia vs. Moore ruled that
the use of profiling is in fact legal and Constitutional. In this case, a call went over the radio that
a man nicknamed ‘Chubs’ was driving without a license. The arresting officer pulled over David
Lee Moore, assuming that a man with the name ‘Chubs’ was black. Moore had in fact been
driving with a suspended license, a non-arrestable offense in Virginia. The officer then searched
Moore’s hotel room and found crack cocaine and $516. Moore argued that he had been illegally
searched and anything found in the search was unusable in the case. The Supreme Court ruled
that it had been a legal search and an arresting officer does not have to give a reason for the
search, nor prove that the suspect had in fact broken the law (Fortunato). Add analysis Such
cases have led to many states passing racial profiling laws in prevention of being sued. Laws
preventing the usage of racial profiling have been passed in 29 states as of March 2007,
including Texas, California, and Florida (National Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource
Center at Northeastern University). Such laws should be passed in all 50 states, as well as a
federal law, because the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution has already ruled it illegal.
The Fourth Amendment states, ‘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.’ Simply,
there must be probable cause before a search and seizure. A person being Hispanic or AfricanAmerican cannot be considered probable cause, and thus racial profiling is un-Constitutional.
Add analysis The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment can be seen many different ways, and
that battle is being fought out in every state that has not yet passed a law regarding racial
profiling.
Discuss the ‘melting pot’
Racial profiling has been a source of much pain and harsh feeling between races. It has
made ethnicities feel like second-class citizens and empowered law enforcement authorities to
discriminate to their hearts’ content. Others argue that it is protecting the very people that protest
its usage. They say that racial profiling allows dangerous criminals to be arrested before damage
can be done. This argument has been spread throughout the country, with massive support and
opposition in every region of America. The Supreme Court has already made its ruling, and now,
in the near future, each state must make its decision on outlawing racial profiling.
Works Cited
Fortunato, Stephen J. "Supreme Court Unanimously OKs Racial Profiling." 24 March 2008.
AlterNet. 7 March 2011 <http://www.alternet.org/rights/86335/>.
Lange, James E. "Testing the Racial Profiling Hypothesis for Seemingly Disparate Traffic Stops
on the New Jersey Turnpike." Justice Quarterly June 2005: 193-209.
"Maryland Court Orders State Police To Turn Over Racial Profiling Records." 2 February 2010.
American Civil Liberties Union. 7 March 2011 <http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/maryland-court-orders-state-police-turn-over-racial-profiling-records>.
"Maryland Quicklfacts." 4 November 2010. U.S. Census. 7 March 2011
<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24000.html>.
National Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center at Northeastern University. Boston,
2006.
Young, Kelly. "Jacksonville Police recieve no racial profiling complaints in '08." 15 February
2009. Jacksonville Daily Progress. 7 March 2011
<http://jacksonvilleprogress.com/local/x154933226/Jacksonville-police-receive-noracial-profiling-complaints-in-08>.