The following suggestions are designed to produce ...



Executive Summary

This report was prepared in response to requirements from legislation that passed in the 2000 Legislative Session, Chapter 218, Washington Laws 2000 (E2SSB 6683), Section 1 (2), and codified in the 2000 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.43.480.

43.43.480 Routine traffic enforcement information—Report to the legislature.

1) Beginning May 1, 2000, the Washington State Patrol shall collect, and report semiannually to the criminal justice training commission, the following information:

a) The number of individuals stopped for routine traffic enforcement[1], whether or not a citation or warning was issued;

b) Identifying characteristics of the individual stopped, including the race or ethnicity, approximate age, and gender;

c) The nature of the alleged violation that led to the stop;

d) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop; and

e) Whether an arrest[2] was made, or a written citation issued, as a result of either the stop or the search.[3]

(2) The Criminal Justice Training Commission and the Washington State Patrol shall compile the information required under subsection (1) of this section and make a report to the legislature no later than December 1, 2000.[4]

Recent national events have heightened the public’s awareness of police enforcement activities, with specific concern in regard to the possible existence of “racial profiling”, or the targeting of certain racial groups during the course of conducting traffic stops.

Law enforcement agencies recognize it is essential that the foundation of trust within all communities is predicated on policing activities that provide for respect and equal treatment under the law for all citizens. It is clear that stopping, arresting, and/or searching persons with biased intentions is contrary to sound law enforcement strategy, inconsistent with our commitment to the principles of community oriented policing, and a violation of law.

An analysis of current data shows that the Washington State Patrol is not engaged in any statewide practice or pattern of initiating traffic stops based on the race of drivers. In fact, officer-initiated contacts of violators are racially proportionate to two standards: driving age populations, and collisions. Even so, differences were found for white persons and non-white persons regarding enforcement action and related searches that require more thorough analysis to account for the differences.

In conjunction with the Criminal Justice Training Commission, our research and analysis of this data continues to be enriched through critical review by members of the academic community, civic leaders, and criminal justice experts.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Table of Contents 3

Background 4

Data and Analysis 5

Standard(s) for Comparison 7

Conclusions and Recommendations 13

Appendix A 15

Appendix B 17

Appendix C 21

Background

The Washington State Patrol and the Criminal Justice Training Commission recognize the importance of responding to the increasing concern expressed by citizens regarding how police determine when to initiate contacts and any subsequent enforcement action. In response to this growing concern, beginning October 1, 1999, State Patrol traffic law enforcement personnel were required to report the race, age, and gender of persons contacted for violation of routine traffic laws.

Subsequently, legislation passed during the 2000 Legislative session requiring the State Patrol to collect and report additional data. The data included in this report are followed by analysis and recommendations that will help to prepare the State Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to better address the protection of our citizens’ freedoms in our democratic society, while implementing effective police strategies to enhance public safety.

Stops for routine traffic enforcement are best indicated by officer-initiated contacts—policing activities initiated by patrol officers—rather than by other types of contacts, such as responding to collisions or other calls for service. All data cited in this report reflects officer-initiated contacts, unless stated otherwise. The State Patrol policy addressing traffic stops directs officers to identify the violation and initiate appropriate enforcement at a level that requires the minimum degree of enforcement necessary and consistent with the traffic mission of the department.

After the driver has been stopped, an officer may determine a search of the driver’s person and/or vehicle is warranted. The State Patrol policy regarding searches affords each citizen protection as prescribed by the United States and Washington State Constitutions against unreasonable search and seizure, and demands that all searches protect the dignity and privacy of the person, in conformance with law and departmental training.[5]

Data and Analysis

The intent of analyzing the traffic stop data is to determine if any agency-wide disproportionate treatment of people due to race, age, or gender is occurring. In tracking and analyzing this data, the State Patrol has complied with the Legislative requirements, and discussed additional suggestions from other sources, including the U.S. Department of Justice 2000 National Conference on Traffic Stops and Data Collection. The following analysis summarizes these suggested approaches, discusses the State Patrol approach, and includes an analysis of statewide traffic stop data collected May 1, 2000, through October 31, 2000.

RCW 43.43.480 requires the State Patrol to report the number of individuals stopped for routine traffic enforcement; their race, age, and gender; the type of violation prompting the stop; and whether a citation, arrest, and/or search was conducted. Similarly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) calls for stop rates, post-stop actions, and reasons for stops, compared across race. The review of other law enforcement efforts to address these issues reveals that many are currently collecting data related to the agencies’ stop rates, stops resulting in citations/arrests, types of violations, and number of citations for each stop compared across race.

Our analysis focuses on four steps of traffic enforcement: reason for the stop, contacts (stops), arrests, and searches. The diagram on the following page explains each of these steps, including data recorded for each step.

|Violation(s) observed, including reason for the stop |Contact (stop) |Arrest/Warning |Search/No Search |

|One or more violations are recorded for each stop, from a |86% of all contacts by the WSP are |For every officer-initiated contact, one |Any search and search outcome (contraband |

|list of 110 possible violations.[6] The violation for |“officer-initiated” contacts. These contacts|or more violations are recorded. For each|found/not found) involved in a contact is |

|which the stop was made is coded first, followed by any |are policing activities initiated by law |violation, some enforcement action is |recorded. Searches are infrequent: only 2.3% |

|other violation. 56% of first entered violations are for |enforcement personnel and reflect “stops for |taken and recorded: either arrest, or |of officer-initiated contacts involve |

|speeding. Other first violations of more than 5% are |routine traffic enforcement.” (Other types |written or verbal warning. For the |searches. |

|vehicle license, lights, and lane travel violations– all |of contacts include responding to collisions |338,885 officer-initiated contacts during | |

|readily observable violations. By comparison, 63% of the |and calls for service). Data is recorded for|May-October 2000, 38.2% of individuals | |

|second violations are comprised of vehicle registration, no|the individual stopped: age, gender, race, |were arrested; and 61.8% received | |

|insurance, suspended or improper operator license, seat |and vehicle license. Race is coded based on |warnings. | |

|belt, and defective equipment – violations usually |the officer’s perception. | | |

|uncovered in the course of the contact. | | | |

For each of the four steps, data is presented below for comparison of white and non-white persons. These comparisons help to evaluate key aspects of traffic stops to determine if they are conducted in a fair and equitable manner.

To summarize the comparisons, data for specific minority groups has been combined into the general non-white persons category. Data for specific race, age, and gender groups is presented in Appendix C.

Contacts

The contact data of most value to analyze is officer-initiated contacts. If disproportionate treatment of minorities were to occur, it would more likely occur in “high discretion” officer activities, rather than in contacts in which the officers responded to calls for service, such as collisions.

The following table shows the most frequently reported reasons for officer-initiated stops, and the rates of reported occurrence for white and non-white persons:

|Violation |White |Non-white |

|Speeding |56.5% |50.4% |

|Lights |8.2% |7.7% |

|Vehicle License |5.9% |5.0% |

|Lane usage |7.9% |11.6% |

|Other violations |21.5% |25.3% |

Table 1: Leading reasons for officer-initiated contacts

The data indicates that white and non-white persons are infrequently stopped for other types of violations.

Standard(s) for Comparison

Contact rates of non-white persons need to be compared against a reasonable standard to evaluate whether these rates are fair and equitable. One commonly used standard is the driving age population of racial groups. If racial driving age populations are used as the standard, it is assumed that driving problem behavior is evenly distributed across race. It is not known if this assumption is valid or not. Criminal justice experts have suggested that rates of driving problem behavior may be a more relevant standard than driving age populations, since traffic problem behavior is the real citizen concern and the focus of patrol efforts.

One definite type of traffic problem behavior is collisions. Reducing collisions has been targeted in two main strategic objectives of the agency’s Field Operations Bureau—specifically, targeting efforts toward prevention of speed and impaired driving related collisions. Thus, comparing “routine traffic enforcement” contacts of various racial groups against a standard of collision rates for various racial groups seems very appropriate, as this standard is a key focus of routine traffic law enforcement efforts.

In order for collision data to be a useful standard, this data needs to be recorded objectively and provide sufficient numbers for reliable comparisons. All collision contacts are recorded as reactive police contacts, as opposed to officer-initiated. Collisions reaching a threshold of $700.00, and/or personal injury are investigated by an officer at the scene, including a written report and diagram, then reviewed by supervisors. Only the causing driver is attributed to the collision data, which further focuses this data on “driving problem behavior”.

State collision data shows that 10,930 white and 2,436 non-white persons were identified as causing-drivers in collisions investigated by the State Patrol during the period between May 1 – October 31, 2000. These numbers are sufficiently large to provide reliable standards for evaluating traffic stops of white and non-white persons.

The following graphs and tables summarize officer-initiated contacts with white and non-white persons, compared with two standards: the Office of Financial Management’s (OFM) 1998 estimates of white and non-white driving age (15 and older) populations, and white and non-white persons causing collisions.

Contacts with non-white persons occur at a slightly higher rate than the percentage of the driving age non-white persons, but at a slightly lower rate than the percentage of non-white drivers causing collisions. By comparison, officer-initiated contacts with white drivers occur at a slightly lower rate than the white driving age population, but at a slightly higher rate than the percentage of white persons causing collisions.

The comparison of contacts with driving age population with collision rates appears to reflect a fair and equitable distribution of total contacts.

|Race |Contacts |Driving Age Population |Causing Collisions |

|White |283,468 |(83.7%) |3,746,946 |(85.0%) |10,930 |(81.8%) |

|Non-white |55,417 |(16.3%) |661,694 |(15.0%) |2,436 |(18.2%) |

|Total |338,885 |(100%) |4,408,640 |(100%) |13,366 |(100%) |

Table 2: Comparison of white and non-white contacts with two standards.

Arrests

Table 3 below displays officer-initiated contact data comparing white persons arrested vs. non-white persons arrested.

|Race |Arrests |Warning |Total |

|White |107,230 |(37.8%) |176,238 |(62.2%) |283,468 |

|Non-White |26,203 |(47.3% ) |29,214 |(52.7%) |55,417 |

Table 3: Arrests and warnings by race.

The 9.4 percent white/non-white difference in citation rates suggests careful review of the underlying causes is needed.

With respect to age, younger (under 30) drivers are more likely to be cited than older (over 30) drivers. Regardless of race, 44.5 percent of younger drivers are arrested, while 33.5 percent of older drivers are arrested. The Washington State Traffic Safety Commission’s October 2000 report regarding graduated licensing indicates much higher collision rates for under 30 drivers, and much higher fatal collision rates for under 20 drivers. Specifically, teen drivers were involved in more than twice as many fatal collisions as would be expected by their proportion of all licensed drivers.

This report further indicates inexperience and risk-taking are main reasons for the higher collision rates of younger drivers, especially teenage drivers. Clearly, the driving behavior of younger individuals presents added risks to themselves and others, and warrants focused attention. Enforcement is one reasonable component of WSP efforts designed to minimize this risk to public safety.

[7]

Given the general age difference in arrest rates, further analysis was conducted to see if age is more specifically a factor in the arrest rate differences between white drivers and non-white drivers. OFM state population estimates indicate that a large percentage of non-white drivers are disproportionately young, compared to white drivers. In fact, 38.8 percent of driving age non-white people are 15-29 years old, while only 23.4 percent of driving age white people are 15-29. The graph below indicates this demographic carries through to traffic stops and arrests for white and non-white drivers.

Younger drivers of any race are arrested more often than older drivers. However, a higher proportion of non-white drivers (51.2%) than white drivers (41.3%) are subject to the higher arrest rates apportioned to all young drivers. Thus, part of the higher arrest rates for non-white drivers involves the relatively high proportion of young non-white drivers.

Regarding gender, the citation rate difference between males and females is 3.8 percent (males 40.5 percent, females 36.7 percent). Gender differences appear to be a less significant factor in enforcement action than age.[8]

|Gender |Arrests |Warning |

|Male |96,818 |40.5% |142,325 |59.5% |

|Female |36,615 |36.7% |63,127 |63.3% |

Table 4: Arrests and warnings by gender.

Searches

As indicated in Table 5 below, an analysis of searches conducted indicates that two percent of white persons stopped by officers were searched, compared to 3.7 percent of non-white persons. The rate of contraband found in officer-initiated searches is 32.6 percent for white persons, and 21.5 percent for non-white persons. Further analysis is needed to explain these differences.[9]

| |No search |Search |Contraband Found |

|White |277,376 |98.0% |5,688 |2.0% |1,855 |32.6% |

|Non-white |53,179 |96.3% |2,039 |3.7% |438 |21.5% |

Table 5: Searches and contraband found by race.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on analysis to date, it appears reasonable to conclude that, on a statewide basis, State Patrol officers are not engaged in any practice or pattern of initiating traffic stops based on the race of drivers. Clearly, the data suggests further research is necessary with regard to arrest and search/contraband found rates for racial minority groups. In particular, more detailed analysis will be conducted to identify types of violations significantly involved in arrest and search/contraband found rate differences for racial groups.

It is the State Patrol’s intention to continue to engage members of the academic, civic, and criminal justice community to ensure that relevant data is analyzed, using appropriate methods to continue providing useful internal and external review of our public safety practices.

To further augment objective data collection and analysis, it would be of added benefit to make enhancements to technology related to our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Mobile Computer Network (MCN) and video taping of traffic stops. This will not only provide greater measures of officer safety and service to citizens, it will lead to further capabilities to collect and analyze accurate, reliable and verifiable data. Also, the State Patrol will begin developing training for its officers regarding traffic enforcement and race, incorporating findings reported above, and suggestions from the broader community.

While data collection and analysis is not a panacea for solving difficult issues of police integrity and community relations, it begins to provide the foundation by which meaningful discussion can be initiated and thoughtful analysis developed. We are committed to fully exploring these complex issues and welcome this opportunity to demonstrate that we conduct ourselves in a professional and impartial manner in the pursuit of effective public safety strategies.

This page left blank intentionally

19.00.010 TRAFFIC RESPONSIBILITIES

Life throughout this state is heavily dependent upon the free movement of people and vehicles. The department has a major share of the responsibility for achieving and maintaining that degree of order necessary to make this free movement possible. Implicit in the objective of facilitating the movement of people is a concern for their safety.

The department must enforce traffic laws, investigate traffic collisions, and direct traffic to facilitate the safe and expeditious movement of vehicles and pedestrians. To obtain compliance with traffic laws and to develop driver awareness of the causes of traffic collisions, the department appropriately warns, issues infraction notices, cites, or arrests traffic violators. Once a violator is identified, the officer's function is to initiate appropriate enforcement action. Appropriate action is the minimum degree of enforcement necessary consistent with the traffic mission of the department. In cases where the officer is the "victim" of a violation, appropriate action would normally be a warning.

( ( (

1.00.110 SEARCHES

The U.S. Constitution protects an individual's rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Officers are responsible for preserving these rights while still accomplishing their enforcement mission. Guidelines for conducting searches are intended to protect the dignity and privacy of the individual being searched, and to ensure the safety of the officer.

All searches shall be conducted in a lawful manner and according to departmental training. Officers shall maintain custody of personal items removed from arrested persons until returned or released to jail custodians. Evidence shall be processed according to department procedures.

For specific information on laws or procedures concerning searches, contact the local prosecutor, Labor and Risk Management, or the Assistant Attorney General assigned to the department.

This page left blank intentionally

[pic]

| | | | |

|TIME AND ACTIVITY SYSTEM (TAS) | | | |

|FIELD OPERATIONS QUICK REFERENCE | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|REACTIVE |PROACTIVE |ADMINISTRATIVE TIME |LEAVE CODES |

| | | |1701.00 Annual Leave |

|3110.00 Calls for Service (CFS) |3140.00 Patrol |2100.00 General Management |1703.00 Civil Leave Taken |

| | |2110.00 Field Supervision |1704.00 Compensatory Time Taken |

|Record all time from the time the call is received |Record activities related to patrolling highways. This|2211.00 Training Given |1705.00 Shift Exchange Time Taken |

|by the responding unit, until all aspects (including|includes patrolling for visibility, looking for self |2212.00 Training Received |1706.00 Holiday Credit Taken |

|reports) of the CFS are concluded. This includes |initiated contacts, conducting highway interval checks |Field 1 Location |1707.00 Legal/Designated Holiday |

|CFS the trooper responds to but is unable to locate.|and being available for self-initiated/reactive |A Academy |1708.00 Leave Without Pay |

| |activities. Record lunch and breaks to this activity. |O Other |1708.01 Child Care Leave Without Pay |

| | | |1708.02 Educational Leave Without Pay |

| | |2220.00 Trooper Observation/Counseling |1708.03 Military Leave Without Pay |

| | | |1708.04 Suspended Without Pay |

| | |Field 1 Activity Type |1709.00 Military Leave With Pay |

| | | |1710.00 Personal Holiday Taken |

| | |1 Observation/Riding |1711.00 Scheduled Day Off |

| | |2 Observation/Collision | |

| | |3 Observation/Court |Sick Leave Codes |

| | |4 Trooper Counseling | |

| | | |1712.01 Employee Illness |

| | |Field 2 Trooper's badge number |1712.02 Job Incurred Injury Leave |

| | | |1712.03 Employee Exposure to Contagious |

| | | |Disease |

| | | |1712.04 Maternity/Paternity Leave |

| | | |1712.05 Employee's Medical/Dental |

| | | |Appointment |

| | | |1712.06 Family Illness (Spouse, Child) |

| | | |1712.07 Bereavement Leave |

|3120.00 Collisions |3150.00 Daily Statistics | | |

| | | | |

|Record all time from response time, until all |Field 1 Number of Verbal Assists | | |

|aspects (include reports) of the investigation are |Field 2 Number of FIRs | | |

|concluded. This includes collisions the trooper | | | |

|responds to but is unable to locate. | | | |

|3130.00 Self-Initiated Contacts (SIC) |3510.00 POPS/Community Outreach | | |

| | | | |

|Record all time relating to policing the highway and|Record all time giving formal presentations to public | | |

|assisting the public that is initiated by the |and private groups to promote issues related to safe | | |

|officer. This includes verbal and written warnings,|driving, transportation, and | | |

|notices of infractions/ citations, traffic emphasis |traffic safety. | | |

|activities, and commercial vehicle inspections by |Record the number of attendees in the | | |

|troopers. |>NBRS’ column of the TAR. | | |

|2602.00 Contract Mileage |Field 1 C Community Group |2700.00 Court | |

| |D Driver Education |All activities relating to court attendance. This | |

|Record mileage chargeable to billable contracts in |S K - 12 |includes federal, superior, district and juvenile | |

|the >NBRS’ column of the TAR form. |O Other Groups |court, 242 hearings, phone hearings, | |

|Record the TAR Code for the billable contract in the| |prosecutor/attorney contacts, and travel time | |

|>TAR CODE/PROJECT NUMBER’ column of the TAR. |******** |associated with court, unless returning to duty from | |

| | |court. | |

| |Record time spent preparing the TAR to each activity | | |

| |performed during the shift. |When attending court in an overtime status, a copy of | |

| | |the subpoena requiring the trooper’s attendance must be| |

| | |attached to the TAR. | |

| | | | |

|OVERTIME TYPE |PAY CODES |WORK SCHEDULE | |

| |C Comptime | | |

|CO Call-Out |H Holiday Credit Hours |1 - Mon/Fri 8 hrs 6 - Sat/Wed 8 hrs 11 - | |

|EX Shift Extension |P Pay |Thurs/Sun 10 hrs | |

|HW Holiday Worked |ACTING PAY CODES |2 - Tue/Sat 8 hrs 7 - Sun/Thurs 8 hrs 12 - | |

|SA Shift/Schedule Adjustment |S Sergeant |Fri/Mon 10 hrs | |

| |L Lieutenant |3 - Wed/Sun 8 hrs 8 - Mon/Thurs 10 hrs 13 - Sat/Tue| |

| |F Field Training Officer |10 hrs | |

| | |4 - Thurs/Mon 8 hrs 9 - Tue/Fri 10 hrs 14 - Sun/Wed| |

| | |10 hrs | |

| | |5 - Fri/Tue 8 hrs 10 - Wed/Sat 10 hrs 99 - Use| |

| | |only if 1 thru 14 N/A | |

| | | | |

| |Contact Type |States |Counties |

| | | | |

|Violation Codes |1 Self-Initiated Contact | | |

| |2 Calls for Services | | |

| |3 Weighing Operations | | |

| |4 Collision | | |

| |5 Collision Enforcement - | | |

| |Follow-up | | |

| |6 Other Enf - Follow-up (DWLS, | | |

| |Drugs, etc.) | | |

| |7 Aggressive Driving | | |

| |8 Road Rage | | |

| |11 Inspections | | |

| |12 Self-Initiated Physical Assist | | |

| |Enforcement Codes | | |

| |1 Arrest Citation | | |

| |2 Written Warning | | |

| |3 Verbal Warning | | |

| | | | |

| |Highway Type | | |

| |I Interstate | | |

| |S State Route | | |

| |C County Road | | |

| |P State Park | | |

| |W Weigh Stations | | |

|01 DUI--With Test |103 DUI-Under Age W/Test | | | | |

|02 DUI—W/O Test |104 DUI-Under Age W/O Test | |Alabama AL |New Hampshire NH |01 Adams 21 Lewis |

|03 Neg Driving-1st Degree |149 Out Of State Veh Lic. | |Alaska AK |New Jersey NJ |02 Asotin 22 Lincoln |

|04 Speed |150 Oper Lic - C | |Arizona AZ |New Mexico NM |03 Benton 23 Mason |

|05 Speed--Aircraft |151 Veh. Lic (tabs/plates) | |Arkansas AR |New York NY |04 Chelan 24 Okanogan |

|06 Speed--Radar |152 Veh. Registn (paper) | |California CA |North Carolina NC |05 Clallam 25 Pacific |

|07 Speed--Too Fast |153 Debris - Thrown | |Colorado CO |North Dakota ND |06 Clark 26 Pend Oreille |

|08 Impeding Traffic |154 Debris - Lighted | |Connecticut CT |Ohio OH |07 Columbia 27 Pierce |

|09 Follow Close |155 Over Lgl Gross | |Delaware DE |Oklahoma OK |08 Cowlitz 28 San Juan |

|10 Right of Way |156 Over Axle | |Dist. Of Columbia DC |Oregon OR |09 Douglas 29 Skagit |

|11 Centerline |157 Over Tires | |Florida FL |Pennsylvania PA |10 Ferry 30 Skamania |

|12 Lane Travel |158 Over Lic Capacity | |Georgia GA |Rhode Island RI |11 Franklin 31 Snohomish |

|13 Shoulder |Valid Tonnage | |Hawaii HI |South Carolina SC |12 Garfield 32 Spokane |

|14 Divider/Barrier |160 Over Length | |Idaho ID |South Dakota SD |13 Grant 33 Stevens |

|15 Passing |161 Over Width | |Illinois IL |Tennessee TN |14 Grays Harbor 34 Thurston |

|16 Signal |162 Over Height | |Indiana IN |Texas TX |15 Island 35 Wahkiakum |

|17 Turning |163 Use Fuel | |Iowa IA |* U.S.A. US |16 Jefferson 36 Walla Walla |

|18 Stop Sign |164 Prmt, Spec-None | |Kansas KS |Utah UT |17 King 37 Whatcom |

|19 Traffic Light |165 Prmt, Spec-Size | |Kentucky KY |Vermont VT |18 Kitsap 38 Whitman |

|20 Restrictive Sign |166 Prmt, Spec-Wght | |Louisiana LA |Virginia VA |19 Kittitas 39 Yakima |

|21 Headlights Dim |167 Over Axle Spcng | |Maine ME |Washington WA |20 Klickitat |

|22 Light Violations |168 Over Lgl & Pmt AT | |Maryland MD |West Virginia WV |Others |

|23 Headlights – None |169 Over Lgl & Pmt LT | |Massachusetts MA |Wisconsin WI | |

|24 Log Bk-Prv Carr |170 Prmt, Forest | |Michigan MI |Wyoming WY |Alberta AB |

|25 Secure Load |171 Prmt, Comn Carr | |Minnesota MN | |British Columbia BC |

|26 Brakes |173 Child Restraint | |Mississippi MS |* Includes US Govt. |Manitoba MB |

|27 Steering |174 Safety Belt | |Missouri MO |or Military Licenses. |Quebec PQ |

|28 Tires |175 HOV Violations | |Montana MT | |Saskatchewan SK |

|29 Exhaust |176 Parking/Campus | |Nebraska NE |** Record the State for |Indian Nations YY |

|30 Excessive Smoke |177 Trip Permit-None | |Nevada NV |temporary licenses. Do not | |

|31 Other Def Equip |178 License Susp/Rev | | |record >Temp’. | |

|32 Parking Viol |180 Medical Certif | | | | |

|33 Pedestrian Viol |181 Oper Lic - I | | | | |

|34 Bicycle Violations |182 Insurance – None | | | | |

|35 Hitchhiking |183 M/C Helmet | | | | |

|36 RR Crossing |198 Other Non-Hazd/I | | | | |

|37 Lane Change |199 Other Non-Hazd/C | | | | |

|38 Backing |200 Business Inspections | | | | |

|39 Log Bk-Reg Carr |Vehicle Dealer | | | | |

|40 Wheels |Aircraft Regstrn | | | | |

|41 Frame |897 Redeem Impound | | | | |

|42 Coupling |900 Open Container | | | | |

|43 Warning Device |901 Minor Liquor Possn | | | | |

|44 Debris - Escape |902 Liquor to Minor | | | | |

|45 Uncovered Load |903 Vehicle Theft | | | | |

|46 Reckless Driving |904 Drugs - Felony | | | | |

|47 Hit and Run |905 Felony Flight - Elude | | | | |

|48 Vehicle Homicide |906 Misdemeanor Wrt | | | | |

|49 Vehicular Asslt |907 Felony Warrant | | | | |

|51 Hazmat Violations |908 Drugs – Misdmnr | | | | |

|53 Neg Driving-2nd Degree |909 Stolen Veh. Recovered | | | | |

|98 Other Violations – I |997 Non-Trf Vltn/I | | | | |

|99 Other Violations – C |998 Non-Trf Vltn/C | | | | |

|101 DUI_Drugs W/Test |999 Non -Trf Vltn/F | | | | |

|102 DUI-Drugs W/O Test | | | | | |

| | | UCR Codes |UCR Statistics |

| | |500 Record Statistics for Violator Contacts Where Other UCRs Do Not Apply | |

| | |501 DUI With Test |Field 1 1 - Male |

| | |502 DUI Without Test |2 - Female |

| | |511 Assaults, Other - Simple Not Aggravated |Field 2 Age |

| | |522 Drugs, Possession of Opium or Cocaine, Morphine, Heroin, Codeine |Field 3* 1 - White |

| | |523 Drugs, Possession of Marijuana |2 - African American |

| | |524 Drugs, Possession Synthetic/Manufactured Narcotics (Demerol, Methadone) |3 - Native American |

| | |525 Drugs, Possession of Other Non-Narcotic Drugs(Barbiturates, Benzedrine) |4 - Asian |

| | |540 Liquor Laws |5 - Pacific Islander |

| | |562 Stolen Property; Buying, Receiving, Possessing |6 - East Indian |

| | |572 Weapons; Carrying, Possessing, etc. |7 - Hispanic |

| | |593 Motor Vehicle Theft, Autos; Stolen Report Originally Taken by WSP |8 - Other |

| | |For additional UCR Codes, refer to the TAR Manual, pages B-13 to B-22 |* See page B-11, 12 for definitions. |

| | | |Field 4 N – No Search |

| | | |S – Search (No Contraband Located) |

| | | |C – Search (Contraband Located) |

| | |Contact Statistic Codes Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 |

| | |1 Self-Initiated Contact Veh Lic # State Speed Zone 1 – Truck, 2 - Bus, (-) - Other |

| | |2 Calls for Service Veh Lic # State |

| | |3 Weighing Operations Veh Lic # State Scalehouse Number |

| | |4 Collision Veh Lic # State -NR, 2-PD, 3-Inj, 4-Fatal |

| | |5 Collision Follow-up Veh Lic # State |

| | |7 Aggressive Driving Veh Lic # State Speed Zone 1 – Truck, 2 - Bus, (-) - Other |

| | |8 Road Rage Veh Lic # State Speed Zone 1 – Truck, 2 - Bus, (-) - Other |

| | |11 Inspections Veh Lic # State Inspection Type |

| | |12 Self Initiated Physical Assist Veh Lic # State |

This page left blank intentionally

For the purposes of providing a broad perspective of the data collected, the table below provides the data in a format for comparison of white with non-white persons.

|Race |Individuals |Age: % |Gender |Arrested |Search |Contraband|Nature of Alleged Violation |

| |Stopped |under 30| | |Conducted |Found | |

| | | |Male |Female | | | |Speed |Vehicle |Defective |Lane Travel|Other |

| | | | | | | | | |License |Lighting | | |

|W |283,468 |41.3 |196,992 |86,476 |107,230 |5,688 |1,855 |56.5% |5.9% |8.2% |7.9% |21.5% |

|NW |55,417 |51.2 |42,151 |13,266 |26,203 |2,039 |438 |50.4% |5.0% |7.7% |11.6% |25.3% |

|Total |338,885 |42.9 |239,143 |99,742 |133,433 |7,727 |2,293 |-- |-- |-- |-- |-- |

Race by Gender for Officer-Initiated Contacts

| |Gender |Total |

|RACE | | |

| |Male |Female | |

| |White |Count |196,992 |86.476 |283,468 |

| | |% within RACE |69.5% |30.5% |100% |

| |Black |Count |9,317 |3,138 |12,455 |

| | |% within RACE |74.8% |25.2% |100% |

| |Native American |Count |1,513 |943 |2,456 |

| | |% within RACE |61.6% |38.4% |100% |

| |Asian |Count |8,181 |3,317 |11,498 |

| | |% within RACE |71.2% |28.8% |100% |

| |Pacific Islander |Count |866 |379 |1,245 |

| | |% within RACE |69.6% |30.4% |100% |

| |East Indian |Count |2,217 |351 |2,568 |

| | |% within RACE |86.3% |13.7% |100% |

| |Hispanic |Count |16,834 |3,880 |20,714 |

| | |% within RACE |81.3% |18.7% |100% |

| |Other |Count |3,223 |1,258 |4,481 |

| | |% within RACE |71.9% |28.1% |100% |

|TOTAL | |Count |239,143 |99,742 |338,885 |

| | |% within RACE |70.6% |29.4% |100% |

Race by Enforcement Type for Officer-Initiated Contacts

| |Enforcement |Total |

|RACE | | |

| |Arrest |Non-Arrest | |

| |White |Count |107,230 |176,238 |283,468 |

| | |% within RACE |37.8% |62.2% |100.0% |

| |Black |Count |5,764 |6,691 |12,455 |

| | |% within RACE |46.3% |53.7% |100.0% |

| |Native American |Count |1,112 |1,344 |2,456 |

| | |% within RACE |45.3% |54.7% |100.0% |

| |Asian |Count |5,237 |6,261 |11,498 |

| | |% within RACE |45.5% |54.5% |100.0% |

| |Pacific Islander |Count |500 |745 |1,245 |

| | |% within RACE |40.2% |59.8% |100.0% |

| |East Indian |Count |1,120 |1,448 |2,568 |

| | |% within RACE |43.6% |56.4% |100.0% |

| |Hispanic |Count |10,181 |10,533 |20,714 |

| | |% within RACE |49.2% |50.8% |100.0% |

| |Other |Count |2,289 |2,192 |4,481 |

| | |% within RACE |51.1% |48.9% |100.0% |

|TOTAL | |Count |133,433 |205,452 |338,885 |

| | |% within RACE |39.4% |60.6% |100.0% |

Searches and Contraband Found by Race for Officer-Initiated Contacts

| |Search |Total |

| | | |

|RACE | | |

| |Search |No Search |Search No contraband | |

| |Contraband Found | |found | |

| |White |Count |1,855 |277,376 |3,833 |283,064 |

| | |% within RACE |.7% |98.0% |1.4% |100% |

| |Black |Count |134 |11,875 |408 |12,417 |

| | |% within RACE |1.1% |95.6% |3.3% |100% |

| |Native American |Count |73 |2,206 |155 |2,434 |

| | |% within RACE |3.0% |90.6% |6.4% |100% |

| |Asian |Count |22 |11,278 |150 |11,450 |

| | |% within RACE |.2% |98.5% |1.3% |100% |

| |Pacific Islander |Count |9 |1,197 |31 |1,237 |

| | |% within RACE |.7% |96.8% |2.5% |100% |

| |East Indian |Count |4 |2,538 |18 |2,560 |

| | |% within RACE |.2% |99.1% |.7% |100% |

| |Hispanic |Count |183 |19,664 |801 |20,648 |

| | |% within RACE |.9% |95.2% |3.9% |100% |

| |Other |Count |13 |4,421 |38 |4,472 |

| | |% within RACE |.3% |98.9% |.8% |100% |

|TOTAL | |Count |2,293 |330,555 |5,434 |338,282[10] |

| | |% within RACE |.7% |97.7% |1.6% |100% |

-----------------------

[1] Routine traffic enforcement, as defined and recorded by Washington State Patrol officers, includes all enforcement contacts initiated by officers.

[2] Arrest, as defined and recorded by Washington State Patrol officers, includes all persons issued a Notice of Infraction/Notice of Criminal Citation, and/or physically taken into custody.

[3] Search, as defined and recorded by Washington State Patrol officers, includes search warrants, search incident to arrest, consent search, and Terry stops.

[4] The Washington State Patrol was granted an extension for submitting the report to the legislature.

[5] Appendix A: Washington State Patrol Regulations 19.00.010 – Traffic Responsibilities and 1.00.110 – Searches

[6] Appendix B: Field Operations Reference Guide and an example of records completed by officers.

[7] The total number of contacts describing ages of violators differs slightly from total officer-initiated contacts due to recording errors in early stages of the data collection.

[8] Appendix C: Distribution of Gender by Race for Self-Initiated Contacts.

[9] Appendix C: Distribution of Search and Contraband Found by Race.

[10] The total number of searches differs slightly from total officer-initiated contacts due to recording errors in the early stages of data collection.

-----------------------

[pic]

White Non-white

Percent of stopped white and non-white driving age population who are under 30 and arrested.

White Non-white

Percent of stopped white and non-white driving age population who are under 30.

White Non-white

Percent of white and non-white driving age population who are under 30.

[pic]

7

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Report to the Legislature on Routine Traffic Stop Data Page 6

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download