Racial Profiling
INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years, the use of race by law enforcement agencies in their policing activities has received considerable attention across the country. The controversy regarding "racial profiling" has centered on police departments' practices related to traffic stopsexamining whether police have targeted drivers based on their race or ethnicity. Significant anecdotal evidence has suggested that some departments may be treating drivers of some races or ethnicities differently than white drivers. Parties using multiple definitions have complicated the debate over racial profiling. Variation among these definitions means that interested parties are often discussing different types of police practices, behavior, and policies to implement into the law enforcement agencies. As such, proposals or senate bills to prohibit racial profiling would prevent a range of police activities depending on which definition was used. The fourth (unreasonable searches and seizures) and 14th (equal protection of the laws) amendments of the U.S. Constitution provide a framework for the protection of drivers from indiscriminately being targeted by the police in traffic stops. In moving to define and outlaw racial profiling practices, state legislatures have needed to consider whether they intend to (1) specifically ban police behavior, which is already unconstitutional under federal law, or (2) provide additional protections, which go beyond existing federal law.
The focus of this policy analysis project revolves around Georgia's Senate Bill 95 and other senate or house bills of that magnitude. Senate Bill 95 is a bill to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 1 of Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to require policies that prohibit law enforcement officers from impermissibly using race or ethnicity in determining whether to stop a motorist; to require annual
Over the past several years, the use of race by law enforcement agencies in their policing activities has received considerable attention across the country. The controversy regarding "racial profiling" has centered on police departments' practices related to traffic stopsexamining whether police have targeted drivers based on their race or ethnicity. Significant anecdotal evidence has suggested that some departments may be treating drivers of some races or ethnicities differently than white drivers. Parties using multiple definitions have complicated the debate over racial profiling. Variation among these definitions means that interested parties are often discussing different types of police practices, behavior, and policies to implement into the law enforcement agencies. As such, proposals or senate bills to prohibit racial profiling would prevent a range of police activities depending on which definition was used. The fourth (unreasonable searches and seizures) and 14th (equal protection of the laws) amendments of the U.S. Constitution provide a framework for the protection of drivers from indiscriminately being targeted by the police in traffic stops. In moving to define and outlaw racial profiling practices, state legislatures have needed to consider whether they intend to (1) specifically ban police behavior, which is already unconstitutional under federal law, or (2) provide additional protections, which go beyond existing federal law.
The focus of this policy analysis project revolves around Georgia's Senate Bill 95 and other senate or house bills of that magnitude. Senate Bill 95 is a bill to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 1 of Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to require policies that prohibit law enforcement officers from impermissibly using race or ethnicity in determining whether to stop a motorist; to require annual