Approve Agenda Mr. Fidanque moved, Lt. Col. Willeford seconded, and the subcommittee unanimously approved the agenda.

Transcription

1 Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee (LECC) DATA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 8, 2006, 10:00 a.m. Oregon State Capitol, Salem, Oregon LECC Data Review Subcommittee Members Present Dr. Jan Chaiken, Consultant David Fidanque, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon Lt. Col. Greg Willeford, Oregon State Police LECC Staff Present Brian Renauer, Laura Uva, Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute, Portland State University Craig Prins, Mike Stafford, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission LECC Data Review Subcommittee Members Excused Dr. William Feyerherm, Vice Provost for Research/Graduate Studies, PSU Sheriff Raul Ramirez, Marion County Guests Catherine Tosswill, Legislative Counsel Approve Agenda Mr. Fidanque moved, Lt. Col. Willeford seconded, and the subcommittee unanimously approved the agenda. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2006 Meeting Lt. Col. Willeford moved, Mr. Fidanque seconded, and the subcommittee unanimously approved the minutes of the September 20, 2006 meeting. Response of Agencies to Analysis of OSP and Hillsboro Stop Data; Changes to be Made in Draft Report Based on Agencies Comments The draft report entitled Analysis of Oregon State Police and Hillsboro Police Department Stop Data: was distributed to these two agencies for their comments. The LECC has received a letter of response from OSP, and expects a response from the Hillsboro Police Department very soon. Dr. Chaiken stated that this process of distributing the draft to the agencies for their comment and then modifying the report based on their comments has worked well. The subcommittee decided to recommend to the full LECC that they include the agencies letters of response as appendices to the LECC 2006 Annual Report. In addition, the Data Review Subcommittee will incorporate changes into the OSP/Hillsboro Police Department stop data report, which will be included in the LECC 2006 Annual Report. 1 LECC Data Review Subcommittee

2 Lt. Col. Willeford read the OSP letter of response aloud (see Appendix A for a copy of this letter). Mr. Fidanque asked Lt. Col. Willeford what the training for the Criminal Apprehension Patrol Enforcement (CAPE) program consists of, and requested a report on this training at a future LECC meeting. Lt. Col. Willeford stated that the training is statewide, having expanded from a pilot program in southern Oregon. It is aimed at the interdiction of narcotics primarily, but also fugitives, guns and illegal activity of those that are traveling the highways. Lt. Col. Willeford suggested that the Commander of the Operations Bureau and perhaps the Patrol Division Director attend an LECC meeting to give a presentation on CAPE as well as to present information in response to the stop data report. The Data Review Subcommittee decided to recommend to the full committee that they invite an OSP representative to a future meeting. The Data Review Subcommittee discussed recommendations to make to OSP for further analysis of the data analyzed in the report, as well as for future data collection. The subcommittee made some additional changes to the draft report. Update on Oregon Law Enforcement Survey Dr. Renauer stated that the report entitled Training and Stop Data Collection Related to Racial and Ethnic Bias in Oregon Law Enforcement was distributed about four weeks ago to the leadership of the Oregon State Sheriff s Association (OSSA), Oregon Association Chiefs of Police (OACP) and Oregon State Police (OSP). Dr. Renauer has received notification from both OSSA and OACP that they distributed the report to their member agencies, and has received no suggestions for changing the report. Dr. Chaiken asked that we should therefore fulfill our commitment to OSSA and OACP, which was to post the report on the LECC web site, and inform them of the URL. Technical Assistance Team Update Lt. Col. Willeford informed the subcommittee that the Technical Assistance Team (TAT) has not yet held another formal meeting, but that he and Dr. Renauer had met with the leadership of OSP to discuss the draft report and the letter of response from OSP. They had also sought the opinion of OSP leadership on whether the type of analysis, the questions that were asked, the assumptions made because of the analysis, and the format of the report were workable for police administrators. OSP leadership agreed that it was. The TAT now plans to convene a meeting and begin work with other agencies. LECC 2006 Annual Report Dr. Chaiken distributed a draft summary of Oregon traffic stop data analysis, and recommended that some version of this be inserted into the executive summary of the LECC 2006 Annual Report to substitute the section entitled Five Year Analysis of Stop Data Trends. The major differences in his summary as compared to what was in the draft annual report are as follows: 2 LECC Data Review Subcommittee

3 - The new summary includes a discussion of the public perception surveys, which were discussed in more detail in the LECC 2005 Annual Report, to provide context - The new summary includes the Portland Police Bureau stop data in the discussion - The new summary raises topics in a different order - The new summary includes more numerical information The subcommittee edited this new summary, and the subcommittee agreed that this edited version should replace the section entitled Five Year Analysis of Stop Data Trends in the executive summary of the report. Other Business / Open Comments from Data Review Subcommittee The latest draft of the new LECC legislation was distributed to the subcommittee. Mr. Stafford informed the subcommittee that this is the second draft, so any changes would have to be by amendment. The subcommittee decided to wait to discuss the legislation at the full LECC meeting. Dr. Renauer informed the subcommittee that the Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute (CJPRI) of Portland State University, of which he is Director, assisted the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in obtaining a federal grant of $643,000. This grant is to be used for work related to preventing and addressing racially biased policing. Dr Renauer stated that the $643,000 will be used for two years, after which they may be able to apply for a similar amount of money to be used for an additional two years. CJPRI is currently applying for a contract under this grant. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Further information on the LECC is available at: 3 LECC Data Review Subcommittee

4 Appendix A November 3, 2006 Dear Doctor Chaiken, The Oregon State Police has reviewed the draft report of the analysis of the stop data, completed by the Data Review subcommittee of the Law Enforcement Contacts and Data Review Committee. OSP remains committed to the collection of traffic stop data and to study disparities or patterns that may indicate a need for attention. The LECC welcomed comments regarding the differences between the results for OSP and for the Hillsboro Police Department. OSP was not surprised that there were disparities in data collected from a municipal agency in a single geographic region as compared to the statewide data collected from OSP. There are significant differences between the mission of the agencies and the demographics of the communities served. The following are comments to specific questions raised by the committee. Explain the difference in the annual number of traffic stops between the first time period studied ( ) and the later tie period ( ). During 2003, 175 vacant and occupied trooper positions were lost as a result of funding reductions. An additional 205 professional support positions were eliminated necessitating that troopers assume collateral duties such as vehicle maintenance, evidence management and general clerical responsibilities. The end result was that there were fewer troopers to work proactive traffic enforcement with less discretionary patrol time. Explain the increase in searches as a percentage of traffic stops between these two time periods. During 2004, as a result of increasing illegal drug problems, including methamphetamine, OSP initiated enhanced criminal apprehension training to Patrol Division members. Criminal Apprehension Patrol Enforcement is a Primary Enforcement Program of the Division that is designed to deter and detect all forms of criminal activity that occur on Oregon s highways. Training included the recognition of indicators of criminal activity and search and seizure. Additionally, for the first time, OSP obtained several narcotics canines that were assigned to Patrol Division members. The data revealed that searches were conducted on 2.7 percent of all traffic stops during OSP is concerned that the statement that Hispanics are twice as likely to be searched as White drivers can be misleading and requires additional information. An important fact is that 95 percent of all Hispanics stopped are not searched. The data reflects an increase in the percentage of Hispanics searched during the second period (Table 3) from 4.4 percent to 6.2 percent. This increase equates to 619 stops during a two year period or about 1 search per year per trooper. 4 LECC Data Review Subcommittee

5 Without further analysis, OSP is unable to explain the disparity between the percentage of Whites and Hispanics searched. OSP plans to modify the required data reported during stops to more accurately reflect specific search information that will support further analysis. The data currently collected has proved to be too broad. Without additional specific data, our responses are anecdotal at best. In October 2003, OSP suspended all impound tows. Impound tows are circumstances where by Oregon Revised Statute; police may impound a vehicle due to violation of specific offenses. When a person s vehicle is towed and impounded, often time there is an associated search of the person. Impound tows were reinstated after July, During the remainder of 2004, 513 vehicles were impounded from traffic stops and during 2005, OSP conducted 3,143 impound tows. This significant increase in tows and oftentimes accompanying searches may also have contributed to the disparity in the data. Explain the fact that Hispanic, African American, and Native American drivers who are stopped face a greater likelihood of being searched than do white drivers, but a lesser likelihood of anything being found in the search. Inconsistent reporting of actual searches may be a contributing factor to the disparity. For example, OSP arrests four to five thousand persons each year for DUII and searches are mandated by policy. Additional data is required to determine what searches are mandatory as compared to discretionary and consensual based upon reasonable suspicion. OSP also arrests thousands of people each year for warrants and searches subsequent to those arrests are mandatory. OSP will review how those arrests are cleared by code to determine whether searches are accurately and consistently reported. OSP sees the value of differentiating a probable cause search from a search incident to arrest and a reasonable suspicion consensual search. Information such as the object of the search or whether a person was searched as compared to a vehicle would contribute to more accurate analysis. Current law allows a stop and frisk for weapons when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed. OSP plans to review how all searches are reported and to make recommendations for additional data collection. Explain why White drivers pulled over by OSP are more likely than other drivers to get a warning rather than a citation. At this time, the Department is unable to analyze current data to compare warnings and citations against race/ethnicity. With the available information, it is difficult to determine the cause of the disparity. By policy, the decision to warn or cite a person is based upon the type of violation that is being investigated at the stop. Some violations allow no officer discretion. The Department generally takes a zero tolerance position on certain violations such as no driver s license, no insurance an charges related to alcohol. 5 LECC Data Review Subcommittee

6 Additionally, any violation of the six major traffic offenses (i.e., drunk driving, reckless driving, driving while suspended) by policy requires the trooper to arrest or cite the offender. We believe that we need to examine our current data collection points and consider modification so that we can more clearly analyze enforcement action and race/ethnicity and obtain a more definitive understanding of this disparity. Conclusion The review of the draft report has brought to the surface several issues that OSP will address to improve data collection for analysis. We plan to convene an internal work group that will examine our data collection methods and recommend enhancements that will allow the Department to gain a greater understanding of stop data. For instance, classifying the type of search, i.e., consent, probable cause based or incident to a custody arrest is one example of essential data that will help in obtaining a greater understanding of our stop data findings. Thank you for giving OSP the opportunity to review and comment on the findings by the committee. Sincerely, Timothy F. McLain, Lieutenant Colonel Oregon State Police 6 LECC Data Review Subcommittee