McIntyre, Spencer
Mrs. Dziadek
English 1301 Sec 203
Feb 23, 2011
Racial Profiling: Draft One
Racial profiling has been a heated debate within 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 show 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 practice flagrantly ignores the Fourth Amendment, but is considered by many to be a
necessary evil. 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. Lange’s study of the New Jersey Turnpike suggests that Hispanics are especially
discriminated against in traffic stops. 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 (Lange 209). White drivers, representing
65.9% of drivers, only represented 51.7% of traffic stops (Lange 209). This enormous disparity
in stops shows that Hispanics are profiled as criminals, where whites are considered to be lawabiding. African-Americans are profiled nearly as badly, representing 15.1% of drivers and
28.8% of stops (Lange 209). 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). As each race drives roughly the same speed, as found by the
motion sensing cameras, in an equal society, one should expect an even percentage of each race
to be stopped. This study shows that police along the New Jersey Turnpike consider a minority
to be more likely to break the law than a white person. Because of such a weighted number of
traffic stops, many of these 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 (Maryland Court Orders State Police To Turn Over Racial Profiling Records).
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 (Young). 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). These statistics show that the races were fairly evenly stopped, a small
enough gap to be considered random coincidence, rather than profiling. This case shows that it is
possible to prevent crime without illegally profiling suspects. 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). In this case, the search
was considered legal because in the end, the suspect had in fact broken the law. Had Moore not
been in possession of crack cocaine, the verdict likely would have been that the search was unConstitutional, as is found in a similar case involving an African-American Harvard professor
trying to enter his own house. Dr. Henry Louis Gates had just returned from a trip to China,
when he could not open his front door. With the aid of his taxi driver, he managed to open the
door. Several minutes later, police officers came to Gates’ house. Gates showed proof that he
lived in the house, but was ordered to exit the house anyway. He began shouting that he was
being arrested because he is “a black man in America” (Jan). At this point, the officer arrested
Dr. Gates for disorderly conduct, an action that could be considered entrapment, as Dr. Gates had
proved that he was not illegally entering his own house (Jan). After President Barack Obama
criticized the arresting officer for profiling Dr. Gates, the charges were dropped, and Dr. Gates
was invited to the White House for an apology by the arresting officer. Gates denied claims that
he would sue the police department for illegal search and seizure, but the department began
expanding racial sensitivity classes for every officer on the force (Allen). In this case, as opposed
to Moore’s case, profiling was considered unacceptable, as the suspect was found to be innocent.
Had Gates been in possession of an illegal narcotic or in some other way been guilty of a crime,
the search would likely have been approved of. 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 use of racial profiling should not even be an issue of each state’s decision. In the Bill
of Rights, the Fourth Amendment clearly 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
African-American cannot be considered probable cause, and thus racial profiling is unConstitutional. Somehow, groups distort the wording of the Amendment to suit their own goals.
These groups find it to mean that for each person to be safe, anyone that could potentially be
breaking the law must be searched. Many groups opposed to racial profiling read is that there
must be a sign of criminal activity before a search may be conducted. The Fourth Amendment
can be interpreted many different ways, and that battle is being fought out in every state that has
not yet passed a law regarding racial profiling.
The widespread illegal profiling use in law enforcement has made the victims of racial
profiling feel like second-class citizens. Seeing many African Americans be arrested for “driving
while black” has led African Americans feel inferior to whites. They distrust police officers
because of it, leading to an increased chance of actually committing a crime. This increases the
perception by whites that African Americans are criminals. This division between races starts a
cycle of mutual separation. While segregation has been outlawed, it is still effectively in place
because of this effect. Whites feel that many African Americans are criminals, while African
Americans feel that whites cannot be trusted. This shows that America is not truly the “melting
pot” it is advertised to be. America is more of a salad; the ingredients are in close proximity to
each other, but they can still be seen as separate. The tomato is nest to the lettuce, but the two
have not become each other. The country still has a long way to go before it truly becomes a
melting pot. Racial stereotyping and the dividing effects of its usage must be removed before the
races can join together and become one.
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. These groups 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, each state must make its decision on outlawing racial profiling.
Works Cited
Allen, Mike. "White House meeting set with Henry Louis Gates Jr., Sgt. Jim Crowley ." 28 July
2009. Politico. 22 March 2011
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25506.html>.
Fortunato, Stephen J. "Supreme Court Unanimously OKs Racial Profiling." 24 March 2008.
AlterNet. 7 March 2011 <http://www.alternet.org/rights/86335/>.
Jan, Tracy. "Harvard professor Gates arrested at Cambridge home." 20 July 2009. Boston Globe.
22 March 2011
<http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html>.
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>.