COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
HEARING ON
THE BENEFITS OF AUDIO-VISUAL TECHNOLOGY
IN ADDRESSING RACIAL PROFILING
Testimony of
Rachel King
July 19, 2001
I. Introduction
Good morning, my name is Rachel King and I am a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in the Washington National Office. With nearly 300,000 members, the ACLU is one of the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organizations. We are glad to have an opportunity to discuss the use of audio-visual technology in addressing racial profiling. Ending racial profiling is one of our organization's top priorities.
Although we support having video cameras in patrol cars, we oppose using video cameras as the sole method of addressing the problem of racial profiling unless they are used in conjunction with data collection programs. A comprehensive approach to ending racial profiling includes: (1) a ban on racial profiling (2) data collection and (3) incentive programs to enforce the ban. The ACLU supports H.R. 2074 (S. 989 is the Senate companion bill), "The End Racial Profiling Act of 2001" a comprehensive, bi-partisan bill that outlaws racial profiling and uses a carrot and stick approach to both require data collection and give departments tools to address racial profiling. It is noteworthy that one title of H.R. 2074 would provide funding for a number of "best practices" including installing video cameras in police cars.
II. Benefits of Cameras
a. Ending Police Abuse
The ACLU supports using video cameras in police cars because recording police encounters is likely to reduce the likelihood of abusive police searches and seizures. Assuming audio is included, it would also encourage police to give Miranda warnings. Video cameras are a silent witness to police encounters. They serve a watchdog function and provide a record of the encounter. Video cameras can be used to detect police abuse but also to protect police from wrongful accusations of abuse. Videotapes of citizen interactions can be a useful training tool for police.
b. Limited Help to End Racial Profiling
Using video cameras or audio recording devices in and of themselves will not solve the problem of racial profiling. Racial profiling is using race as a justification for the police to initiate a law enforcement encounter whether it be a patrol officer conducting a traffic stop or a customs official stopping an airline passenger or any other type of law enforcement encounter. Video cameras will not stop the practice of racial profiling. However, they could cut down on the abuses that might occur in a stop resulting from racial profiling. Thus, their benefit to ending racial profiling is limited, but their benefit in ending abusive stops and searches is much more direct. The following example illustrates the limitations of cameras.
III. Shortcomings of Cameras
In August of 1998, Sergeant First Class Gerald Rossario was driving with his 12-year-old son Gregory on a trip to visit his family. As soon as they crossed the border from Arkansas into Oklahoma, Sgt. Rossario was pulled over twice within a half an hour, the second time by two Troopers in different vehicles.
Two officers detained and interrogated Sgt. Rossario and his son for two hours. The officers accused the Sergeant of having drugs and demanded to search his car even though they did not have probable cause to do so. Sgt. Rossario refused saying that he was subjected to random drug tests in the army and would never use drugs and did not have any on him. Over Rossario's objection, the Trooper stated he would search the car without his consent. The Trooper then handcuffed Rossario, manhandled him, thrust him into his car and strapped him in. The Troopers placed 12-year-old Gregory in a different car from his father, with a police dog that barked at him and frightened him. They also questioned the child about his father's drug use.
The troopers rummaged through Rossario's possessions and took apart the car looking for a secret compartment. While the search was going on, they kept the Sergeant and his son detained inside the patrol cars with the heaters blasting even though it was 90 degrees outside. Finally, after failing to find any evidence of wrongdoing, the Troopers left Rossario and his dismantled car. The total damage was over $1000.
Both trooper vehicles contained video cameras. Early on in the search, a Trooper put one of the on-board cameras into the trunk of the car claiming that it was malfunctioning. The second camera worked, but the Trooper claimed that one of the videotapes had been misplaced.
In spite of the fact that the police car was equipped with a video camera, the Oklahoma Troopers violated the constitutional rights of two innocent people.
This story illustrates the limitations of video cameras.
There are other limitations in using video cameras as a method of addressing racial profiling. The camera is usually recording through the windshield of the patrol car and through the back windshield of the car that has been stopped. This makes it very difficult to determine the race of the person from the videotape. Most departments do not have any systematic way of collecting information from the videotapes. The tapes are either stored on a shelf, or in some cases the tapes are reused. Systematically reviewing, storing or extracting information racial profiling information from videotapes would be far too time consuming. Data collection is more cost effective. The police officer records the race of the person stopped at the time of the stop. This information can be recorded by using tools as simple as a pencil and paper or as sophisticated as a hand held computer.
Another concern is that video cameras are expensive. For example, the state of Texas is allocating $18 million to purchase video cameras for its police cars just for the coming fiscal year. Many jurisdictions will not be able to afford the cost. We would not want Congress to see allocate money for video cameras in place of allocating funds for data collection programs.
To my knowledge, there are no states that are using video cameras as the sole means of addressing racial profiling. Several jurisdictions have recognized that both video cameras and systematic data collection are necessary to address racial profiling and police abuse. For example, North Carolina, New Jersey and Missouri are using video cameras in patrol cars and collecting data on all traffic stops. Texas just passed legislation that requires both data collection and video cameras and Indiana and Minnesota both have bills pending that would provide for both data collection and video cameras. I have attached a map that details which states have data collection programs.
Montgomery County, Maryland probably has the most state of the art technology in the country. Not only do police officers there have video cameras in their patrol cars, they also have hand held wireless devices, similar to "Palm Pilots" that officers use to collect information during every traffic stop.
IV. A Comprehensive Solution: H.R. 2074
To seriously address the problem of racial profiling we recommend that a number of steps be taken - banning racial profiling, data collection, assistance to states and federal law enforcement agencies to develop accountability systems.
a.Ban Racial Profiling
The first step to address racial profiling is to define it. H.R. 2074 defines racial profiling, bans and permits individuals to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
b. Data Collection
Data collection is important because without it we will not know the extent to which the problem exists. We will be forced to rely on anecdotal information. Some will claim the anecdotes show that racial profiling is a serious problem; others may claim they show it does not exist. Without solid information, policy makers will never know. Also, if departments choose to implement programs to deal with racial profiling they will have no means of measuring the effectiveness of these programs without data. Many police departments are collecting data either voluntarily or because they are required to by state law or executive order; however, the vast majority of departments are not collecting data. Policy makers cannot rely on voluntary participation because those departments that have the most serious problems will probably not voluntarily choose to collect data. While some police officers resent collecting data it is worth noting that when the idea of video cameras in patrol cars was first introduced it was almost universally opposed by police. Now, the use of video cameras is almost universally embraced by the police.
Before establishing data collection programs, Police Departments should also do some type of community outreach. If they collect the data on their own without the participation of some type of community advisory board or task force, the community will argue about the accuracy of the data. Community participation encourages support and buy in to whatever efforts the Department is trying to make.
H.R. 2074 gives the Attorney General the authority to, at his discretion, limit some federal monies to departments that do not put in place programs, including data collection, to address the problem of racial profiling.
Training
All Departments offer some type of training. Some even offer diversity training and sensitivity training. But very few departments have good integrated training on how to conduct traffic stops. Ironically, police officers are often trained to handle emergencies like terrorist attacks, airplane disasters, or school shootings, even though most police officers will never encounter one. However, they will rarely be instructed in how to conduct a traffic stop, in compliance with the Constitution and how to protect themselves and the public while doing it, even though routine traffic stops are approximately 60% of what officers do. H.R. 2074 provides a grant program to help establish necessary training programs.
Accountability and Oversight
Ideally, data collection would be used as part of an overall early warning system. For example, the City of Pittsburgh has a system that not only tracks data on traffic stops, but also information on personnel issues like citizen complaints and absenteeism. In one case, Pittsburgh Police Chief McNally used this data to identify an officer who was contemplating suicide and get him help before a tragedy occurred. In other instances, there may be signs that an officer's behavior is becoming increasingly abusive. Early warning systems might prevent a fatal wrongful shooting. Ideally, frontline supervisors can review data daily and audit the data by randomly questioning citizens who have been stopped or by reviewing videotapes H.R. 2074 provides grant money to help Departments develop early warning, and other best practices programs.
V. Privacy Concerns
We do not think that the careful use of video recordings is a violation of privacy. However, any video recordings should be made available to the person videotaped. In general, videotapes should not be released to the public except to the extent that they are used in criminal or civil litigation or to resolve a dispute between a citizen and police officer. There may be times when an overriding public interest warrants releasing a videotape, (e.g. the Rodney King beating) but before the tape is released the privacy interests of the individual must be weighed against the benefits of public disclosure.
VI. Conclusion
Video technology has the potential to be helpful in addressing police abuse and the problem of racial profiling, but only if it is part of a comprehensive program. No one technique is sufficient. The End Racial Profiling Act is a comprehensive response to police profiling. We hope that each member of the Committee will co-sponsor H.R. 2074 and help support its swift passage.
Related Issues
Stay informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.