Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee Annual Report

Transcription

1 Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee 2002 Annual Report

2 Annual Report

3 Contents Executive Summary... i Statement of Purpose...1 The Committee...1 Background... 2 Committee Activities...4 Findings...5 Conclusions and Recommendations...10 Appendix 1: Summary of 2001 OASIS survey findings...13 Appendix 2: 2001 SB

4 Annual Report

5 2002 Annual Report of the Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee Executive Summary: The was created by 2001 Senate Bill 415 with the responsibility to obtain data on law enforcement stops, provide technical assistance in collecting and analyzing that data, and identify and disseminate information on programs, procedures and policies from communities that have made progress toward eliminating discrimination based on race, color or national origin during law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals. This charge was based on the legislative finding that state and local law enforcement agencies can perform their missions more effectively when all Oregonians have trust and confidence that law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals are free from inequitable and unlawful discrimination based on race, color or national origin, and that data collection can establish a factual foundation for measuring progress in eliminating discrimination. In its first partial year of work, the committee has found that: 1. One in five Oregon drivers is likely to be stopped by a police officer in a given year, and it is reasonable to assume that being stopped influences the formation of public opinion about law enforcement; 2. Preliminary data shows that members of all Oregon racial or ethnic groups are stopped by police at approximately the same rate as their proportion of Oregon s general population; 3. While searches resulting from traffic stops are very infrequent, preliminary Oregon data suggests that members of minority groups tend to be searched slightly more frequently than the stopped population generally. Data on this stopped population can provide a reliable source for additional analysis and interpretation; 4. Oregon needs to continue data collection to provide more reliable data and observe changes over time; 5. Officer training and community dialogue stimulated by the data collection effort has provided a valuable contribution to the effectiveness of law enforcement. Oregon needs to continue and expand the dialogue. 6. Efforts by Oregon law enforcement agencies to collect and use data to engage members of the communities they serve requires a substantial and sustained effort. The agencies that have engaged in that effort report numerous tangible and intangible benefits from that 2002 Annual Report Executive Summary, i

6 work. The Committee commends the law enforcement agencies that have accepted the challenge. Racial profiling and concerns about disparate treatment of minority communities by law enforcement remains a compelling issue for our communities and our state. In some areas of the country, allegations of racial profiling have led to lawsuits and consent decrees governing policies, procedures, and governance of law enforcement agencies. Some Oregon communities have established oversight, review, or advisory bodies to respond to these concerns. Even when there is no incident to grab headlines, concerns about disparate treatment can be an ongoing source of tension between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and can have a corrosive effect on public support of law enforcement and confidence in their actions. Finally, the events of September 11, 2001, and resulting changes in security and enforcement measures continue to bring forward questions about how law enforcement should appropriately use race and ethnicity in enforcing laws and preventing crime. ii 2002 Annual Report

7 2002 Annual Report of the Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee Statement of Purpose: State and local law enforcement agencies can perform their missions more effectively when all Oregonians have trust and confidence that law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals are free from inequitable and unlawful discrimination based on race, color or national origin... Demographic data collection can establish a factual and quantifiable foundation for measuring progress in eliminating discrimination based on race, color or national origin. 1 The Committee: The was created by 2001 Senate Bill 415 for a period of six years. The committee was charged with the responsibility to report its findings and recommendations annually on its work to: 1. Solicit demographic data concerning law enforcement stops and other contacts between state and local law enforcement agencies and individuals; 2. Publicize programs, procedures and policies from communities that have made progress toward eliminating discrimination based on race, color or national origin during law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals; 3. Provide technical assistance, including refinement of the minimum data elements as necessary for effective analysis, to state and local law enforcement agencies that desire to begin collecting demographic data; 4. Provide technical assistance to communities and state and local law enforcement agencies that desire to engage in local efforts to involve individuals in the establishment and implementation of programs, procedures and policies that will advance the goal of the act; 5. Obtain resources for independent analysis and interpretation of demographic data collected by state or local law enforcement agencies; Senate Bill Annual Report 1

8 6. Accept and analyze demographic data collected by a state or local law enforcement agency if requested by a state or local law enforcement agency and if resources are available; and 7. Report to the public the results of analyses of demographic data. The committee is composed of eleven members appointed by the Governor. Members of the committee are: Jan Clements, Sheriff Lane County, Oregon Ronald Ruecker, Superintendent, Oregon State Police Keith Aoki, Assoc. Professor University of Oregon Law School William Feyerherm, Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies Portland State University David Fidanque, Executive Director ACLU Oregon Dave Frohnmayer, Committee Chair and President, University of Oregon * Co-chairs of the Community Relations subcommittee ** Chair of the Data Review subcommittee Background: Annabelle Jaramillo*, Vice-Chair Benton County Commissioner Walt Myers*, Chief of Police, Salem, Oregon Frank Thompson, Chair Oregon Commission on Black Affairs Jan Chaiken**, Ashland, Oregon, Consultant and former Director, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Peggy Nagae, Consultant Portland, Oregon Efforts to address charges of racial profiling on the part of law enforcement officers became a statutory mandate during the 69 th Legislative Assembly in During that session, a top priority of law enforcement agencies was a revision of the statute regulating stops of citizens by police. The debate stirred by that issue resulted in House Bill That bill included several provisions intended to provide a compromise between law enforcement agencies (that sought to make stops safer for officers and more effective) and community groups that sought to protect the civil rights of those stopped. HB 2433 included several provisions intended to foster the protection of the rights of citizens by requiring: All state and local law enforcement agencies in Oregon to adopt policies prohibiting the practice of racial profiling. All law enforcement agencies to adopt means to facilitate the filing of complaints by citizens who felt that their rights had been violated, and to develop a process to resolve those complaints. All law enforcement agencies to report to the Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee the number and type of complaints filed Annual Report

9 during the first year after the adoption of HB (That effort continued on a voluntary basis for another two years.) Initiating a data collection effort in an effort to move away from anecdotal information. Implementation of HB 2433 was coordinated by a workgroup under the auspices of the Governor s Public Safety Policy and Planning Council. As described by Marla Rae, a consultant retained to facilitate the workgroup, at its beginning this workgroup comprised over 60 members from diverse groups and backgrounds. Nevertheless, they were able to come to agreement on three basic principles: 1. All law enforcement agencies should be responsible for their actions. 2. No person should be subject to improper law enforcement conduct. 3. Every person has the right to a fair and prompt response to a complaint. The first action of the workgroup was to adopt a model policy for law enforcement agencies that was distributed to all law enforcement agencies in Oregon. That policy or one similar to it was adopted by every Oregon law enforcement agency. The workgroup identified three purposes for data collection: 1.) to evaluate the implementation of the new stop and search law; 2.) to insure the fair and equitable implementation of the law; and 3.) to increase public awareness and confidence in the application of the law. The data collection effort itself focused on three activities. The first was a public perception survey to ascertain how the general public and two specific minority groups viewed the new law and the extent of racial profiling in Oregon. The second was to collect data on the types of complaints filed against law enforcement officers. The third was to encourage developing a full traffic stop data collection effort. In the furtherance of those efforts, the workgroup made its report to the 1999 Legislature along with several recommendations for further work. The Legislature did not act on those recommendations at that time. In 2001, then-rep. Vicki Walker introduced HB 2441 to require law enforcement agencies to collect traffic stop data and report the data to the state. Deliberations on that bill included a broad spectrum of interested parties, and resulted in passage of 2001 SB 415. That bill, which provided for voluntary data collection and formation of the Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee, had unanimous support from all interested parties and passed the legislature without a dissenting vote Annual Report 3

10 Deputy Attorney General Pete Shepherd, in describing the statutory charge at the committee s first meeting, described its role as including consideration of what is inequitable, not just what is unlawful. The committee, he said, must deal with a rich tapestry of interwoven beliefs and hard, factual data. That tapestry includes the recognition that public perceptions are an important factor. The committee must collect and analyze data (with broad authority to decide on what data should be collected). The committee must collect and publicize community successes and provide technical assistance to communities. The structure of this response recognized that lasting solutions arise from local efforts, not state mandates. The committee s work is just one step towards the goal: data collection should not be viewed as an end in itself. Thus the work of the committee should be viewed as part of an ongoing effort to address concerns about racial profiling. Within the constraints of its resources, budgetary and otherwise, the committee is attempting to provide a continuum of survey data begun with the 1999 Public Perception Survey, and continued through participation in the 2001 and 2002 Oregon Annual Social Indicators Surveys (OASIS). The committee recognizes that the data collection effort has many valuable aspects. The importance given to the racial profiling issue by the data collection program can influence the social climate. As committee member Jan Chaiken observed, collecting data will change behavior. Thus it has supported the continuing data collection effort which was begun in May, 2000 by the Hillsboro Police Department. That effort was joined by the Oregon State Police in January of Other agencies currently collecting traffic stop data include the Washington and Multnomah County Sheriff s offices and the Beaverton, Portland, Fairview, Troutdale, Gresham, Eugene, and Corvallis police departments. Committee Activities: The committee has received testimony and information from a variety of sources, including communities working to address data collection and community involvement issues, entities conducting state and national surveys related to racial profiling, and agencies working on developing law enforcement training. The committee formed two subcommittees to focus on community outreach activities and on data collection and analysis. The Data Review Subcommittee is chaired by Dr. Jan Chaiken, and is responsible for collecting data and developing methods for its analysis. The subcommittee has solicited and received data from law enforcement agencies and done some preliminary analysis of that It is not possible to draw statistically valid inferences about the state as a whole from the data currently available Annual Report

11 data. The analysis thus far has been limited to developing methods to merge data contributed by individual agencies into a statewide database and examining what conclusions may appropriately be drawn from that combined data. Pending the contribution of data from a broader base of agencies and without more detailed analysis of that data, it is not possible to draw statistically valid inferences from the data currently available. Law enforcement agencies accounting for a large share of the traffic stops made in Oregon are currently collecting data, and most of those have been working closely with the committee and have indicated a willingness to contribute their data to the committee s statewide database. To date, the committee has received data on nearly 600,000 stops by Oregon law enforcement officers, principally from the Oregon State Police. While there has been some inconsistency among agencies in the manner in which data is recorded, those differences have not been a barrier to producing a combined database. For example, the Oregon State Police record Middle Eastern as a race or ethnicity category, while most agencies do not, and there is no corresponding Census Bureau data. This category, however, accounted for less than one-half percent of the stops reported. Other inconsistencies are merely semantic. The Community Relations Subcommittee, co-chaired by Commissioner Annabelle Jaramillo and Chief Walt Myers, is focusing on involving police agencies and communities in discussions on racial profiling issues, and will identify and disseminate effective policies, practices, and procedures for those efforts. The committee has also received information on a variety of approaches to community involvement activities, worked with experts in the field, and begun the process of identifying and disseminating those methods and information. As with many other agencies, budget reductions and the related state employee hiring freeze have hindered the committee s efforts to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Findings The committee has made several findings based on the public opinion surveys and its traffic stop database, described above. The committee wishes to emphasize that this data should be regarded as preliminary. The committee needs data from additional law enforcement agencies and more analysis before it can draw conclusions that are meaningful to policy-makers and interested parties. While there has not yet been adequate time to analyze the information received by the committee, preliminary results are consistent with analyses 2002 Annual Report 5

12 released earlier by agencies and individuals who presented testimony to the committee. Based on the information received to date, the committee makes the following findings: 1.) One in five Oregon drivers is likely to be stopped by a police officer in a given year, and it is reasonable to assume that being stopped influences the formation of public opinion about law enforcement. This finding is based on surveys conducted in Oregon and nationally to identify the level of police contacts. The committee received testimony from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on its study of stopped drivers, as well as two Oregon studies conducted in 1999 and In the two Oregon studies, the proportion of drivers residing in Oregon reporting that they had been stopped during the previous year ranged from 17 to 22 percent. In contrast, the national survey by BJS indicated that only 10 percent of drivers report having been stopped during the previous year. The most recent Oregon study is the OASIS survey, conducted by the University of Oregon s Oregon Survey Research Laboratory. That survey of Oregon adults asked a number of questions about how respondents felt about police. While 70 percent of those who had not been stopped reported positive feelings about police, only 49 percent of those who had been stopped shared those feelings. Only seven percent of those who had not been stopped reported negative feelings, while 22 percent of those who had been stopped reported negative feelings. 2.) Preliminary data shows that members of all Oregon racial or ethnic groups are stopped by police at approximately the same rate as their proportion of Oregon s general population. Based on the preliminary data that the committee has received from police agencies, it does not appear that any minority group is substantially overrepresented in stops when compared to its proportion of the general population. As the committee receives more data, these results could change since the preliminary data is not representative of the state as a whole, and is mostly from one agency. The committee also would point out that there is no generally accepted methodology by which to compare the population stopped by police to larger groups, such as all drivers. While traffic stop data reported by race may be compared to the proportions of Oregonians selecting that race as its primary racial or ethnic identification, it is not at all clear that that should be used as a valid standard for comparison. What data should be used has been the subject of national debate for a number of years. The best comparison would be made with the portion of the driving population that is likely to be stopped for a violation at the time each stop occurs. Those likely to be stopped are those driving over the Annual Report

13 speed limit, with faulty equipment, or exhibiting some other law violation. The make-up of that pool of people fluctuates dramatically by time of day, day of the week, and location within a given community. Efforts around the nation to identify a valid comparator for stop data have focused on several methods of finding an appropriate comparator, none producing generally applicable results. One method useful for comparing data from a very limited geographic area such as a defined stretch of a major arterial is a manual survey of those driving in that area. These have included stationary surveys in which trained surveyors score cars and drivers passing by, or moving surveys in which surveyors drive at a fixed speed above the speed limit and survey cars passing them. In both cases, it is frequently difficult to make judgments about the race or ethnicity of the driver, and in the latter case, violations of vehicle codes by slower cars are not likely to be observed. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics and Department of Transportation also have cooperated to test methods of collecting comparison or base population data at immigration checkpoints and airport terminals. While results have not yet been released, it is unlikely that these studies will provide methods for finding definitive comparators for traffic stop data. It is unclear to what extent a police officer would be able to know the race or ethnicity of a driver until after the stop has been made. It remains unknown then, to what extent any intentional discrimination could be determined from the stop data. Due to these considerations, the committee believes it can more productively focus its analytical efforts on post-stop activities such as searches, arrests, citations, and warnings. 3.) While searches resulting from traffic stops are very infrequent, preliminary Oregon data suggests that members of minority groups tend to be searched slightly more frequently than the stopped population generally. Data on this stopped population can provide a reliable source for additional analysis and interpretation. Once a stop has been made, a more reliably characterized population exists to assess possible disparities in subsequent actions. For this reason, the committee intends to focus its future analytical activities on post-stop data. Searches following a traffic stop occur infrequently. The committee s preliminary data shows that about one in 40 stopped drivers is searched. Of those stopped, it appears that members of minority groups may be the subjects of searches somewhat more frequently than are members of the stopped population as a whole. The committee at this time has not established whether this distinction is statistically significant Annual Report 7

14 Another factor that might affect any significance of this search data is the reason for which the stop was made. The preliminary data also shows differences in the frequency with which members of some minority groups are stopped for criminal code violations, which itself might result in a higher likelihood of search or arrest. The committee has not received sufficient data for this type of analysis to provide reliable results. This is an important area on which the committee intends to focus its future analytical efforts. 4.) Oregon needs to continue data collection to provide more reliable data and observe changes over time. As noted above, finding reliable comparator data is a major barrier to the interpretation of stop data. Stop data also may be influenced by a variety of factors, such as: Local enforcement priorities: Traffic complaints may lead to increased enforcement at locations frequented disproportionately by one racial group. Economic disparities: These may lead to one group being at greater risk due to a disproportionate share of poorly maintained vehicles. Age and gender distributions: Younger male drivers are more likely to be stopped than older drivers. A minority group with a lower median age or larger proportion of males might have an increased likelihood of being stopped for that reason alone. Differences between the jurisdiction s population and the driving population: The demographics of drivers on a specific road may be substantially different than the overall population of a jurisdiction. This can affect police stops on routes leading to employment or recreational destinations, or on roads with large amounts of interstate or commercial traffic. The data should not be expected to reveal the extent to which racial disparities may be influenced by the actions of individual officers, or by highly localized effects resulting from enforcement priorities. The results described here provide only a limited picture of the state as a whole. Only localized analysis, which takes these and other factors into consideration, can produce conclusions that are significant to individual communities. Despite these challenges in interpreting the data, ongoing data collection will provide the ability to observe changes over time Annual Report

15 5.) Officer training and community dialogue stimulated by the data collection effort has provided a valuable contribution to the effectiveness of law enforcement. Oregon needs to continue and expand the dialogue. The difficulties in understanding the extent or causes of possible disparities noted in the traffic stop data underscore the need for using the data in the context of community discussions. We may not be able to provide a definitive answer to the question does racial profiling exist? but data collection still can be an invaluable tool for furthering the dialogue between law enforcement and community groups. Captain Becky Hanson of the Eugene Police Department provided the committee with a first-hand account of the usefulness of this effort. The positive benefits that we have gotten from working with the community have just been astronomical, she said. They have developed relationships with community leaders such that if they have an issue on any incident, regardless of whether or not it is related to racial profiling, they have established the foundation to discuss it and do a reasonable inquiry. From that standpoint, this has just been a tremendous offering in terms of the broad-based application that adds to all of their policing endeavors, she said. The need for officer training has long been recognized in Oregon as an essential part of the solution to eliminating racial profiling. In July, the committee provided a demonstration opportunity for law enforcement officials and policy makers to attend a workshop conducted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a group with extensive experience in law enforcement training, community dialogue and racial profiling issues in California. It is hoped that further train the trainer sessions will be possible, allowing for more cost-effective dissemination of means to avert racial profiling. The committee has not attempted to collect data on the extent or results of officer training, but has had continuing contact with the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. In cooperation with members of the former workgroup and this committee, the Department has revised many of its training modules to address racial profiling concerns, and participated in the production of a video used regionally in officer training. The need for continuing community dialogue and involvement has been a major concern of the committee, but limited resources have made it difficult to implement its work plan in support of this endeavor. It is apparent that the emphasis and effort brought to the issue by data collections efforts have had, and will continue to have, a positive influence on community dialogue Annual Report 9

16 6.) Efforts by Oregon law enforcement agencies to collect and use data to engage members of the communities they serve requires a substantial and sustained effort. The agencies that have engaged in that effort report numerous tangible and intangible benefits from that work. The committee commends the law enforcement agencies that have accepted the challenge. Several Oregon law enforcement agencies are collecting or plan to collect data on stops. These include the Oregon State Police, sheriff's offices in Multnomah and Washington Counties, and city police agencies in Portland, Eugene, Hillsboro, Corvallis, Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, Beaverton, and Salem. Many of these agencies have actively participated in and supported the committee's work to date. Conclusions and Recommendations National and Oregon data indicate that as many as one in five Oregon drivers is likely to be stopped by a police officer in any year. Those contacts are likely to be a major factor in the formation of public opinion about law enforcement methods. Racial profiling and concerns about disparate treatment of minority communities by law enforcement remains a compelling issue for our communities and our state. Testimony received by the committee emphasizes the importance of continuing its efforts. National data from the Gallup polling organization, which are mirrored by data collected during the earlier public perception survey, indicate that tensions generated by perceived racial disparities in law enforcement remain high if not increasing. In some areas of the country, racial profiling has led to lawsuits and consent decrees governing policies, procedures, and governance of law enforcement agencies. Some Oregon communities have established oversight, review, or advisory bodies to respond to these concerns. Even when there is no incident to grab headlines, concerns about disparate treatment can be an ongoing source of tension between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and can have a corrosive effect on public support of law enforcement and confidence in their actions. As recognized by SB 415, those tensions are a major obstacle to the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. Finally, the events of September 11, 2001 and resulting changes in security and enforcement measures continue to bring forward questions about how law enforcement should appropriately use race and ethnicity in enforcing laws and preventing crime Annual Report

17 Specifically, the committee emphasizes the need to pursue this effort through the following: We should continue the data collection effort with the goal of providing multi-year data for trend analysis. Even if a definitive description of the extent of racial profiling may be impossible, we can in this way assess whether apparent racial disparities are becoming more or less pronounced, whether or not it is the result of overt racial profiling. Given the difficulties in finding reliable comparators for those who are stopped, the committee intends to focus its efforts in the future on the actions which occur after a stop has been made. We should continue to develop analytical resources to assist communities in the interpretation of the data. We should develop a network and database of community involvement programs. In this way, we may better assess what works, what have been the barriers to effective community discussions, and who can help. These efforts should not be viewed in isolation. For maximum effectiveness, we should foster training, data collection, and community dialogue as a continuous feedback process in which each component contributes to the desired goal of increasing the effectiveness of state and local law enforcement agencies through increasing the trust and confidence of all Oregonians that those agencies are free from inequitable and unlawful discrimination based on race, color or national origin. Finally, it should be noted that Senate Bill 415 directed the committee to assist the Oregon Progress Board in creating and adopting an Oregon Benchmark to measure progress toward the committee's purpose. The two bodies agreed that creating a Benchmark was premature at this time, because the data with which to create quantifiable goals and targets is not yet available. While Progress Board staff agreed to help develop non-benchmark performance measurements, that work has been suspended because of budget reductions affecting the Board. While much has been accomplished during the past year, much of that progress has been the result of the determination of community groups and state and local agencies to work together to address the concerns about racial profiling. With its limited resources, the committee has been able to encourage and coordinate that effort, but meaningful results will require sustained effort and continued support from the legislature Annual Report 11

18 Annual Report

19 Appendix 1: Summary of Police Stop Findings from the 2001 Oregon Annual Social Indicators Survey (OASIS) 1. Fairness Questions: Overall, when you think about Oregon police officers, are your feelings generally positive, generally negative or are they neutral? (Excludes federal officers) Positive = 64% Negative = 11% Neutral = 25% How often, if at all, do you believe Oregon police officers allow race, ethnicity, or national origin to unfairly influence their decision to stop and question a person about a suspected traffic violation or suspected crime? Never = 8% Rarely = 26% Sometimes = 39% Often = 14% Always = 3% Don t Know/Other = 10% In the last 12 months, do you believe Oregon police officers overall have been more fair, less fair or about the same in whether they allow race, ethnicity, or national origin to unfairly influence their decision to stop someone? More fair = 19% Less fair = 7% About the same = 54% Don t Know/Other = 20% Are Oregon state police troopers more fair, less fair, or about the same as other Oregon police officers in whether they allow race, ethnicity, or national origin to unfairly influence their decision to stop someone? More fair = 26% Less fair = 5% About the same = 51% Don t know/other = 19% Are county sheriff s deputies more fair/less fair/about the same? More fair = 10% Less fair = 15% About the same = 58% Don t know/other = 17% 2002 Annual Report 13

20 Are your city police officers more fair/less fair/about the same? More fair = 9% Less fair = 20% About the same = 56% Don t know/other = 15% Are you more concerned or less concerned about unfair stops based on race, ethnicity, or national origin since the September 11 terrorist attacks? (half sample) More concerned = 36% Less concerned = 22% No change = 37% Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, do you think it is now more appropriate for Oregon police officers to use race, ethnicity, or national origin as a reason to stop people for suspected law violations? (half sample) More appropriate = 21% Less appropriate = 7% Opinion the same = 69% 2. Findings from traffic stop-related questions Twenty-two percent of drivers (165) had experienced a traffic stop in the last 12 months. Of those drivers stopped, 67 percent had been stopped once and 15% had been stopped twice. Eleven percent of drivers stopped reported having their vehicle searched as a result of the stop. Fifty-five percent of drivers stopped reported receiving a ticket, citation, or being arrested from the stop. Thirty-one percent of drivers believed that the real reason they were stopped was different from the reason given by the officer. 3. Variables for analysis (cross-tabs) Years lived in Oregon Positive feelings about Oregon, their community, and/or Oregon police Whether stopped by police Action resulting from stop (search and/or ticket/citation/arrest) Age, gender, primary news source, county, urban/rural, education level, household income, employment status, volunteer in community, number of years as licensed driver, miles driven/week Annual Report

21 Appendix 2: 2001 Senate Bill 415, 5-11 (2001 Oregon Laws Chapter 689) SECTION 5. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: (1) Surveys of the trust and confidence placed by Oregonians in state and local law enforcement indicate that there are Oregonians who believe that some law enforcement officers have engaged in practices that inequitably and unlawfully discriminate against individuals solely on the basis of their race, color or national origin. (2) State and local law enforcement agencies can perform their missions more effectively when all Oregonians have trust and confidence that law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals are free from inequitable and unlawful discrimination based on race, color or national origin. (3) Representatives of community interest groups and state and local law enforcement agencies agree that collecting certain demographic data about contacts between individuals and state or local law enforcement officers will provide a statistical foundation to ensure that future contacts are free from inequitable and unlawful discrimination based on race, color or national origin. (4) Demographic data collection can establish a factual and quantifiable foundation for measuring progress in eliminating discrimination based on race, color or national origin during law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals, but data collection alone does not provide a sufficient basis for corrective action. Proper analysis of the demographic data and enactment of meaningful reforms in response to the results of that analysis require careful consideration of all relevant factors including the context of the community in which the data has been collected. (5) It is the goal of this state that all law enforcement agencies perform their missions without inappropriate use of race, color or national origin as the basis for law enforcement actions. This goal may be achieved by providing assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies and the communities that they serve. (6) This state shall foster, encourage and support the collection and analysis of demographic data by state and local law enforcement agencies. SECTION 6. (1) There is created the Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee consisting of 11 members appointed by the Governor on or before October 1, (2) The purpose of the committee is to receive and analyze demographic data to ensure that law enforcement agencies perform their missions without inequitable or unlawful discrimination based on race, color or national origin. (3) To achieve its purpose, the committee shall collect and analyze demographic data to: (a) Provide information to assist communities and state and local law enforcement agencies in evaluating the policies, training and procedures of law enforcement agencies regarding the treatment of individuals during stops and other contacts with law enforcement; (b) Inform state and local law enforcement agencies and communities about law enforcement practices; and (c) Provide opportunities for communities and state and local law enforcement agencies to work together to increase public trust and confidence in law enforcement and to 2002 Annual Report 15

22 enhance the capacity of communities and law enforcement agencies to provide more effective public safety services. (4) The committee shall: (a) Solicit demographic data concerning law enforcement stops and other contacts between state and local law enforcement agencies and individuals; (b) Publicize programs, procedures and policies from communities that have made progress toward eliminating discrimination based on race, color or national origin during law enforcement stops and other contacts with individuals; (c) Provide technical assistance, including refinement of the minimum data elements as necessary for effective analysis, to state and local law enforcement agencies that desire to begin collecting demographic data; (d) Provide technical assistance to communities and state and local law enforcement agencies that desire to engage in local efforts to involve individuals in the establishment and implementation of programs, procedures and policies that will advance the goal of section 5 of this 2001 Act; (e) Obtain resources for independent analysis and interpretation of demographic data collected by state or local law enforcement agencies; (f) Accept and analyze demographic data collected by a state or local law enforcement agency if requested by a state or local law enforcement agency and if resources are available; and (g) Report to the public the results of analyses of demographic data. (5) In carrying out its purpose, the committee may not receive or analyze any data unless the data for each reported contact includes at least the following information: (a) The reason for the law enforcement stop or other contact; (b) The law enforcement officer s perception of the race, color or national origin of the individual involved in the contact; (c) The individual s gender; (d) The individual s age; (e) Whether a search was conducted in connection with the contact, and if so, what resulted from the search; (f) The disposition of the law enforcement action, if any, resulting from the contact; and (g) Additional data as recommended by the committee that state and local law enforcement agencies should collect and submit. (6) Data received by the committee for analysis under this section may not identify a particular law enforcement officer or a particular individual whose demographic data is collected by a state or local law enforcement agency. (7) Members of the committee shall appoint a chairperson from the members of the committee. Members of the committee are not entitled to compensation or expenses and shall serve on the committee on a volunteer basis. (8) The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall provide administrative support staff necessary to the performance of the functions of the committee. (9) All agencies, departments and officers of this state are requested to assist the committee in the performance of its functions and to furnish such information and advice as the members of the committee consider necessary to perform their functions. (10) The committee shall make findings and issue recommendations for action to achieve the purpose of this section. The committee shall submit a report containing its findings Annual Report

23 and recommendations to the appropriate interim legislative committees on or before December 1, 2002, and annually thereafter on or before December 1. (11) After completion of the analysis of the data from at least two state or local law enforcement agencies, the committee may recommend the collection of additional data elements. (12) This section does not prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency from collecting data in addition to the minimum information required in subsection (5) of this section. SECTION 7. The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall provide $300,000 to the for the purposes of section 6 of this 2001 Act from moneys allocated to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission by the Legislative Assembly for the biennium beginning July 1, SECTION 8. The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission may accept contributions of funds from the United States, its agencies, or from any other source, public or private, and agree to conditions thereon not inconsistent with the purposes of the Law Enforcement Contacts Policy and Data Review Committee. SECTION 9. All moneys received by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission under section 8 of this 2001 Act shall be paid into the State Treasury and deposited into the General Fund to the credit of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Such moneys are appropriated continuously to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission for the purposes of section 6 of this 2001 Act. SECTION 10. The shall assist the Oregon Progress Board in the creation and adoption of goals as provided in ORS 285A.168 to measure progress toward the purpose of the committee under section 6 of this 2001 Act. SECTION 11. Sections 5 to 10 of this 2001 Act are repealed on December 31, H:\Shared\Law Enf Contact Commt\AnnualReport02\LECC_Report_2002_FinalPrinter.doc 2002 Annual Report 17