By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The city of Davis has taken a number steps of to “re-imagine” policing. The two biggest are the creation of a department of social services, moving a number of duties out of the realm of the police and the creation of a CRISIS Now approach to mental health crises, which moves away from an armed police response.
However, the biggest problem for policing in Davis—by far—is police stops. The data that has emerged mirrors that of the rest of the nation. Black and brown people are more likely to be stopped by police than whites. Blacks are nearly six times more likely to stopped, which is much higher than the state average and once stopped they are more likely to be searched, but when they are searched they are less likely to be found with contraband.
Statewide, the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board found that “individuals perceived to be Black were searched at nearly three times the rate of individuals perceived to be White.” In addition, “officers arrested individuals perceived to be Black at nearly 1.6 times the rate as individuals perceived to be White.”
The same research, however, finds that Black vehicles that are searched are actually less likely to contain contraband than white vehicles that are searched—the presumption seeming to be that they are searching white people based more on objective factors than on pretext or prejudicial guesswork.
There have been a variety of different approaches to solving this problem—everything from not allowing the police to pull people over for non-moving 
violations to ending searches during traffic stops when there is not probable cause to believe there was a criminal violation.
Berkeley Dean of the Law School Erwin Chemerinsky’s 2020 book, Presumed Guilty, noted that, starting in 2012, three cities in North Carolina—Fayetteville, Durham and Chapel Hill (note the college connection)—created policies that required the police to obtain written rather than verbal consent to a search.
Chemerinsky reported, “The number of searches of cars decreased significantly.”
One of the problems with such searches is that police, while they do not need a search warrant to conduct a search on the car, need probable cause to conduct a search.
Absent probable cause, the police can request permission from the driver to search the vehicle. Most people who are asked by police if they can search, consent to that search—even when they have contraband in their car.
Why? For the most part because they are not aware and not informed that they have the right to say no and so, while it is a request to search, it feels more like a command.
By going the route of written consent, the person has to sign an admonishment that advises them of their rights and, informed about their rights, many people at that point exercise their right not to have the vehicle searched.
Are we taking away a powerful tool from the cops by doing this? Not really. The data shows that racial profiling does not yield a very high hit rate for finding contraband, which is why whites who are searched generally on the basis of probable cause end up being found with contraband much more often.
The result of going to written consents works to reduce the number of searches. When political scientists Frank Baumgartner, Derek Epp and Kelsey Shoub studied their data, they found, “The number of cars searched following a traffic stop dropped precipitously.”
As Neil Gross wrote in a 2020 NY Times op-ed, “The reason is simple. Written consent forms explain to motorists what their rights are, giving some of them the courage to tell the police no. This changes the incentive structure for police officers looking to stop cars as part of a fishing expedition for contraband.”
Gross however warns, “written consent forms won’t eliminate racial disparities in traffic stops. The police department in Austin, Texas, for example, has used these forms since 2012 and continues to stop Black drivers disproportionately.”
He said, “But by reducing the frequency of vehicle searches, consent forms make the experience of being stopped less onerous. It’s one thing to be pulled over and ticketed, quite another to have your car rifled through.”
As communities look at ways to address disparate police stops, this might be a reasonable path to look at. It still gives police the ability to conduct a search, but it makes sure that the public is knowingly and voluntarily waiving their rights rather than being coerced into doing so.
I will support this. I’ve known for years that you can deny consent to search but only because I knew a progressive young Davis lawyer who spread the word on this as a bit of a life mission. Most people don’t know this, and consent as they don’t know they have a choice. A written form with an explanation of rights seems a good path here.
I do believe there’s an issue. The disproportional pullovers on non-white-appearing people seem ridiculously high. Either the reason for the error has to be explained, or the problem dealt with. However, I don’t believe ceasing safety stops and low-level traffic infractions is the solution. There are obvious safety reasons to do so.
Though it may already be happening, unspoken and unofficial. This isn’t scientific, but I’ve had several conversations with people in Davis over the past year-plus who have seen cops ignore obvious traffic infractions in front of them, not been pulled over themselves even when a cop saw it, and say they hardly ever see people pulled over for traffic tickets anymore. I wonder if stats would confirm this.
Why would anyone assume that this is an “error” or mistake? Why would anyone believe that traffic stops would be “proportional”, even when based upon objective criteria?
The same question applies regarding the “disproportionality” of the prison population. Some view this as evidence of “systemic racism”, without acknowledging differences in crime rates between different populations. (The latter being a “taboo” subject, apparently.)
That’s for sure.
Ron, I find a lot to think about in your comment that: “The same question applies regarding the “disproportionality” of the prison population. Some view this as evidence of “systemic racism”, without acknowledging differences in crime rates between different populations.” It’s a long and winding road from “crime rates between different populations” to the “‘disproportionality’ of the prison population.”
Are you suggesting that “crime rates” are free of bias and are factual statements about populations rather than estimates of crimes that are influenced by 1) who is reporting the “crime”; 2) who is doing the arresting; 2) who is making the decisions about charging; 3) who is doing the finding of guilt/innocence; and 4) who is doing the sentencing? Then there are the lawmakers who 1) decide what is a crime; and 2) legislate the penalties.
For example, a glaring example was the difference in sentencing law for crack vs. powder cocaine. This had a definite racial aspect which then lead to a disproportionate impact on federal prison population.
There are also differences in how crime is reported. Racial/ethnic difference are apparent in victimization reports (see e.g. the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports of crime victimization vs. the FBI’s Uniform Crime reports).
So I think there is a lot of complexity in connecting crime rates to the rates of incarceration of what you euphemistically call “different populations”.
There really isn’t a lot to “think about”.
The difference in crime rates between different groups is the primary factor, but also influences the other variables you mentioned.
Are you suggesting that there aren’t differences in crime rates between cities, in which there are significant racial differences? (Stockton vs. Davis, for example? Oakland vs. San Francisco? Chicago, Philadelphia (vs. other cities)? Richmond vs. anywhere in Marin?
So I’ve heard. Are there a lot of people in prison (only) for possession of crack cocaine?
That’s right. The victims are primarily those who live in those communities. And for the most part, they aren’t being victimized by “white” or “Asian” offenders. I suspect that there’s also large differences between Hispanic vs. black rates of offenders.
That wasn’t a “euphemism”. And no, I don’t think it’s as complicated as some “wish” it would be. What I primarily see are a group of people (who think of themselves as “progressives”) who do everything possible to obscure basic facts.
For that matter, I understand that “whites” are not at the bottom of the list, regarding percentage of offenders.
One point, Robert, that I think gets lost in here is that the vast majority of the people getting pulled over and searched have no contraband. We are talking about a hit rate of less than five percent of time, people are getting searched and the police find something. It’s not like they had probably cause to believe that a crime was committed. And so the result of this fishing expedition by the cops, on the basis of race, innocent people are the ones by and large being harassed. So attempting to control for criminal rate actually misses the entire problem.
Sounds like “white” people have been the ones who have primarily suffered as a result of finding contraband, in regard to searches that they could have declined.
Here’s a hint for anyone: If anyone (including a police officer) asks for permission from you, they don’t already have “permission” or authority to proceed without it. Honestly, it’s Darwin’s theory at work, regarding someone who gives “permission” to search a vehicle, in such a case.
How many people (in general) get their vehicles searched, when pulled-over (solely) for traffic violations in Davis? And, is there a racial breakdown for that in Davis? (Actual numbers, not percentages.)
Are there other differences, as well (e.g., time of day/night)?
Overall, this seems like a pretty minor issue, compared to other issues.
But yeah, police should be clear (one way, or another) in cases where searches are not mandatory.
1) If people (of any color) did not break a law, cops could not pull them over. Are there data to disprove this?
2) And what of searchable probation:
3) So if people in prisons or on searchable probation are disproportionately Black or, otherwise, people of color, they already have broken some law(s). So why would it be surprising that they might commit traffic laws or have their vehicles searched disproportionately?
“1) If people (of any color) did not break a law, cops could not pull them over. Are there data to disprove this?”
A huge percentage of the people pulled over are not ticketed. And over 95 percent of those searched by police are found not to have contraband. So I’m not sure what data you have to say the opposite.
We are not talking about people on searchable probation, we are talking about consent searches.
If true, that does not mean that they haven’t broken the law.
How many people in Davis are being pulled-over for not breaking the law?
And for that matter, are police allowed to pull people over based upon suspicious activity? (Matching subject descriptions in areas which have experienced crime, groups of people driving around late at night, etc.)
Also, do groups of young males match those descriptions more often than other groups – regardless of skin color?
Are there lots of old ladies getting pulled-over, because they’re suspected of stealing catalytic converters, for example? Gangs of them out at 3:00 a.m., for example?
Assuming they identify as “female”, of course. (Always need that disclaimer, nowadays.)
So, don’t give them consent (if you don’t want to). And yeah, make sure that the police make that option clear.
Okay, you claimed that in the City of Davis,
So, I asked you:
But, instead of answering my question or providing data to support your claim or disprove mine, you made yet another claim:
Where are your data to show that the City of Davis police officers are stopping drivers, but releasing a “huge percentage” without tickets? And, if you have such data, what is the racial distribution of “stopped” vs “ticketed?”
I do believe the City Council has taken some positive steps to improve community policing, but also believe we need to take time to evaluate the effectiveness of each change before making additional changes that might protect criminal behavior at the expense of the larger, law-abiding community.
I believe your core question is unanswerable. Police can always pull people over. What happens if a cop pulled someone over for zero reason? They would invent one. And nothing will happen to them.
Moreover, your question is also aside from the point. The issue raised here in this column is about being searched, not stopped.
This is from the 2019 RIPA report: “The data shows that of the stops meeting RIPA criteria, 36% (N=2,026) of the individuals stopped were either cited or arrested”
That means that two-thirds of those stopped were neither cited nor arrested.
Thanks for the 2019 RIPA data statement. I appreciate that. I also appreciate your admission that my “core question is unanswerable. ”
Because, without those key data – especially as they apply directly to the City of Davis – it seems unproductive for us to argue this further.
Still, unless you’ve discovered a way for police to search someone without first stopping them, then the reason for someone being stopped in the first place is certainly not “aside from the point.”