BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 78|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 78
Author: Murray (D)
Amended: 9/7/99
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 4/20/99
AYES: Vasconcellos, Burton, Johnston, Polanco
NOES: McPherson, Rainey
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-4, 5/27/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Perata,
Vasconcellos
NOES: Johnson, Kelley, Leslie, Mountjoy
NOT VOTING: Karnette, McPherson
SENATE FLOOR : 29-0, 9/10/99
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Baca, Bowen, Burton, Chesbro,
Costa, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Haynes, Hughes,
Johannessen, Johnston, Kelley, Knight, Leslie, McPherson,
Mountjoy, Murray, Ortiz, Perata, Polanco, Schiff, Sher,
Solis, Speier, Vasconcellos
NOT VOTING: Brulte, Johnson, Karnette, Lewis, Monteith,
Morrow, O'Connell, Peace, Poochigian, Rainey, Wright
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 61-16, 9/10/99 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol:
annual report
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 78
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill requires the Commissioner of the
California Highway Patrol to gather specified data
regarding traffic stops conducted by Highway Patrol
officers and law enforcement agencies of specified
counties. Requires the Commissioner to present to the
Governor and the Legislature a report containing the
information.
Assembly Amendments require the annual report to be done by
the Commissioners of the California Highway Patrol rather
than the Department of Justice, and made related and
clarifying changes. Extend the sunset date from January 1,
2004 to January 1, 2005.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the Department of
Justice to collect crime data and present it in an annual
report to the Governor containing the criminal statistics.
These statistics include the amount and types of offenses,
the personal and social characteristics of criminals and
the administrative actions taken.
This bill:
1.Requires Highway Patrol officers to report to the
commissioner all of the following:
(a)The number of motor vehicle drivers stopped for all
traffic law enforcement purposes.
(b)Whether or not a citation or warning was issued in
each instance.
(c)The race or ethnicity of the individual stopped,
based on visual observation.
(d)Whether the stop was based on a violation of the
Vehicle Code, Penal Code, local ordinance, or the
vehicle or driver matched the description of a
vehicle or suspect involved in a crime.
(e)Whether a search of the vehicle took place as a
result of the stop.
(f)Whether any written citation, warning, or arrest was
SB 78
Page
3
made as a result of the search or stop.
2.Requires the commissioner to prepare an annual report
based on #1 above on July 1, 2000, July 1, 2001, July 1,
2002 and July 1, 2003.
3.Requires city and county law enforcement agencies within
the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, San Diego and San
Francisco on July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003 to report the
data described in #1 above for their respective agencies
to the commissioner.
4.Requires city and county law enforcement agencies not
listed in #3 above on July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2004 to
report the data described in #1 above for their
respective agencies to the commissioner.
5.Authorizes the commissioner to prescribe the manner in
which the data gathered by all participants must be
reported to the commissioner.
6.Limits the use of data gathered pursuant to this bill for
research or statistical purposes only, and the data
"shall not contain any information that may reveal the
identity of any individual who is stopped or any law
enforcement officer."
7.Requires the commissioner to present a report to the
Governor and the Legislature on or before July 1, 2002,
July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2004 for the previous year.
8.Requires the commissioner to perform the duties described
above "within existing budgetary resources."
9.Specifies that these sections shall remain in effect only
until January 1, 2005.
Similar Bill in Congress
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), re-introduced a bill
to fight racial profiling on Wednesday, April 14, 1999.
This bill would require the Justice Department to conduct a
study of racial profiling by acquiring data from law
SB 78
Page
4
enforcement agencies regarding the characteristics of
persons stopped for alleged traffic violations.
Voluntary Collection of Traffic Stop Data in California:
Two Examples
Currently, two cities in the state have chosen to
voluntarily collect traffic stop data:
City of San Jose
The San Jose Police Department has voluntarily chosen to
keep track of the race, gender, age and reason for pulling
over every motorist they stop to see whether officers are
basing enforcement on skin color or other characteristics.
The Department will take note of such information for
twelve months, and if a pattern of racial profiling or
other discrimination is uncovered, steps will be taken to
curb this practice.
City of San Diego
The City of San Diego will engage in similar data
collection to that of San Jose. San Diego police officers
will note the aforementioned information for several months
and then share the information with various community
groups.
Prior legislation
AB 1264 (Murray), 1998 Session, was vetoed by the Governor
as follows:
"This bill would require California law enforcement
officers to collect information, including race or
ethnicity and approximate age and gender, about all
motorists subject to traffic stops during a three year
reporting period. In addition, the Department of Justice
would be required to collect and report statistical
reports in its annual crime statistics report.
"AB 1264 is the product of a number of reports, both
anecdotal and statistical, which provide evidence that
African American and Hispanic citizens are subject to a
SB 78
Page
5
disproportionate number of traffic stops.
"Observers differ regarding whether these reports reflect
the propensity of officers to make legally justifiable
stops on a selective basis or whether some officers make
stops without justification.
"As our enforcement agencies become more ethnically
diverse, California's peace officers have internal, as
well as public, pressure to conduct their duties in a
fair, nondiscriminatory manner. Most comply out of
fundamental decency, others because of training or the
scrutiny of their peers. Law enforcement must strive to
be racially blind. It must be demanded, beginning at the
academy level.
"Nonetheless, some officers, like members of every
profession, may fail to fulfill their duties and indulge
in biases. This bill would seek to record such incidents
over a period of three years at a cost of tens of
millions of dollars. The bill, however, ensures that
neither officers or motorists would be identified by
name, only in the aggregate. Accordingly, it would be
possible to take meaningful corrective action.
"This bill offers no certain or useful conclusion,
assuredly nothing that would justify the major commitment
of time, money, and manpower that this bill requires.
The investment contemplated by AB 1264 could be more
immediately and productively employed by enhancing
officer training, encouraging dialogue between
enforcement agencies and racially diverse community
groups, and taking forceful action against those officers
who abuse the privilege of serving all of California's
citizens."
It passed the Senate 22-13, as follows:
AYES: Alpert, Ayala, Burton, Calderon, Costa, Dills,
Greene, Hayden, Hughes, Karnette, Kopp, Lockyer,
O'Connell, Peace, Polanco, Rosenthal, Schiff, Sher,
Solis, Thompson, Vasconcellos, Watson
NOES: Brulte, Haynes, Hurtt, Johannessen, Johnson, Kelley,
Knight, Leslie, Lewis, Monteith, Mountjoy, Rainey, Wright
SB 78
Page
6
NOT VOTING: Craven, Johnston, Maddy, McPherson
Assembly members who are new Senators votes:
AYES: Baca, Bowen, Escutia, Figueroa, Murray Ortiz,
Perata, Poochigian
NOES: Morrow
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee
analysis, significant annual General Fund costs,
potentially in excess of $8 million.
The Department of Justice estimates annual costs of about
$2.8 million to process and report this information. The
California Highway Patrol (CHP) indicates unknown,
significant costs, based on about 3.6 million traffic
stops. If each stop resulted in an average increase of
just three minutes, that would translate into 180,000 law
enforcement hours, the equivalent of about 90 officers, or
almost $5 million, in addition to one-time equipment and
programming costs.
Though local costs would not be state-reimbursable, they
would be similar in scope to the CHP's costs.
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/99)
ACLU
Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County
of Sacramento
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
Marin Law Center
City of San Diego, Office of the Chief of Police
San Jose NAACP
City of Berkeley
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Hundreds of letters from individuals
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/9/99)
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
SB 78
Page
7
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association
California Peace Officers' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
California State Sheriff's Association
California Police Chiefs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "SB 78
requires law enforcement to collect statistical information
on motorists pulled over for routine traffic violations and
provide the findings in an annual report to the Department
of Justice. Specifically, the bill would require annual
reports to include the following information:
--Identifying characteristics of the individual stopped,
including race or ethnicity, age and gender.
--The alleged traffic infraction and whether or not a
citation or warning was issued.
--If a search was conducted, the legal basis for why (e.g.
probable cause) and the methods used to search (e.g.
canine teams).
--What was discovered from the search and if any property
seized.
--Whether an arrest was made due to the stop or the search.
"Data collected for this report will be used for research
and statistical purposes only and will not contain
information that may reveal the identity of an individual
who is stopped.
"SB 78 seeks to provide a statistical basis to explain who
is stopped and why. Although anecdotal evidence across the
country suggests that police stop members of minority
groups for traffic enforcement purposes in numbers greatly
disproportionate to their presence in the driving
population, the research on this issue is limited. Limited
research and studies confirm what many know to be a common
occurrence. Although African-Americans comprise 14% of the
overall population; some studies indicate that
African-Americans account for upward of 73% of all routine
SB 78
Page
8
stops (Source: U.S. Justice Department and U.S. House
Judiciary Committee). More information must be gathered to
systematically track this trend in an effort to explain
this discrepancy.
"There is an experience that many people of color are all
too familiar with--being stopped for an alleged traffic
violation that has no apparent reason--commonly known as
"driving while black." While law enforcement has
historically used routine traffic stops as a pretext for
stopping people who they suspect are involved in criminal
activity for investigation, the reality of this practice
has led to disproportionate numbers of minority drivers
being pulled over and harassed, based solely on their race
or ethnicity. Many citizens, who have been stopped without
provocation and provided no explanation for the stop, have
filed complaints with local police departments, as well as
pursuing class-action lawsuits.
"In an effort to explain why such disparities exist, the
San Diego Police Department recently took a
precedent-setting step and voluntarily began collecting
data on race and ethnicity during routine traffic stops,
which include scenarios when police officers pull over
motorists and release them without action.
"Whether or not race plays a role in a police officer's
decision to pull someone over remains a question due to the
lack of formal research on the issue. SB 78 is necessary
to compile the tangible information that explains why this
is happening and how it can be solved so people can regain
trust in law enforcement."
The ACLU states, "this bill will fill an important gap in
detailed law enforcement data already collected and
reported on an annual basis by the California Department of
Justice. The data collected pursuant to SB 78 will provide
an important measure of effectiveness of certain law
enforcement practices and will help develop solutions to a
critical police-community relations problem.
"No other area of policing involves greater use of officer
discretion than enforcement of traffic laws. In this area,
officers pursue only a small percentage of the observed
SB 78
Page
9
violations. Obviously, police do not stop every vehicle
with overly worn tire tread or an inoperable license plate
light. Nor do they stop every driver not wearing a seat
belt or who signals a lane change slightly later than
legally required.
"These minor offenses must necessarily be enforced on a
selective basis. Unfortunately, the perception in many
communities of color is that police officers exercise their
discretion in determining whom to stop for these minor
violations in a racially biased manner.
"Law enforcement officials typically deny that they enforce
traffic laws in a racially discriminatory manner. Those
denials, while they may be well intentioned, do not fully
answer the question. The perception remains in communities
of color that "DWB -- Driving While Black or Brown" is an
unofficial crime. The perception may well reflect reality.
"As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed in
a 1996 opinion involving Santa Monica police officers, it
is "an all too familiar set of circumstances - an intrusive
law enforcement stop and seizure of innocent persons on the
basis of suspicions rooted principally in the race of the
'suspects'." ( Washington v. Lambert , 98 F.3d 1181, 1182.)
"Traffic stops is the only category of law enforcement
activity that is shielded from public scrutiny and data
collection. The time has come for that to change. SB 78
is an important first step in healing the relationship
between law enforcement and communities of color. The
reporting of data regarding traffic stops will allow us to
move away from accusations and denials, and toward the
development of constructive strategies for change and
better police-community relations."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the California
Peace Officers' Association and the California Police
Chiefs' Association, "California law enforcement officers
undergo extensive training and instruction directing that
they carry out their duties in a fair, nondiscriminatory
manner. The overwhelming majority of officers carry out
their responsibilities in a professionally and racially
blind fashion. To the extent officers do not meet those
SB 78
Page
10
standards, however, Senate Bill 78 will not enable agencies
to take corrective action, simply because the bill
prohibits the compilation of any information that could
identify the individual officer.
"Further, requiring officers to "look at race" in the
context of all traffic stops effectively reverses decades
of training and direction wherein officers were expressly
directed to be racially blind in the carrying out of their
duties. The "mixed message" that Senate Bill 78 sends,
when coupled with its effective prohibition on corrective
action with respect to individual officers suggests that
Senate Bill 78, it its present form is counterproductive."
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
"Motorists who have been stopped by police for no
reason other than the color of their skin or apparent
nationality may very well be the victims of
discriminatory practices of that law enforcement
agency. It is abhorrent and I do not condone such
practice.
"But this legislation does not provide the answer.
SB 78 does not outlaw the practice of racial
profiling, and it is questionable whether the
information gathered - at a potential cost of tens of
millions of dollars - would provide any more
meaningful information than is currently available.
And, while evidence points to a few specific areas
where this problem has occurred, there is no evidence
that this practice is taking place statewide
requiring sweeping legislation that mandates state
scrutiny of every local law enforcement agency in
California.
"I have great respect for the working men and women
in California law enforcement that risk their lives
each day. I do not believe it is appropriate for
state government to place additional burdens on law
enforcement officers during a traffic stop. I do,
however, call upon locally elected mayors, city
council members, and board of supervisors to urge
their local law enforcement agencies to voluntarily
SB 78
Page
11
cooperate.
"To date, more than 35 local law enforcement
jurisdictions have announced voluntary efforts to
gather the type of information requested in this
legislation, including San Jose, Alameda County, San
Diego, and San Francisco.
"In addition, I am directing the California Highway
Patrol to establish a 3-year program to record and
analyze data on all traffic stops by CHP officers
beginning January 1, 2000. This data will be made
available to the Legislature and the public on an
annual basis beginning January, 2001 with a final
report to be submitted no later than January 31,
2003.
"I am also directing the CHP to collect the data,
where possible, from any jurisdiction voluntarily
gathering this information to be analyzed and
included in their report to the Legislature. I
strongly encourage local mayors and county
supervisors to contribute data from their area of
jurisdiction to the CHP to assist in this process.
"Racial profiling is a practice that presents a great
danger to the fundamental principles of a democratic
society."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Battin, Bock, Brewer, Calderon,
Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa,
Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra, Firebaugh,
Florez, Floyd, Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund, Havice,
Hertzberg, Honda, Jackson, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Lempert,
Leonard, Longville, Lowenthal, Machado, Maldonado,
Margett, Mazzoni, Migden, Olberg, Robert Pacheco, Rod
Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti, Reyes, Romero, Scott, Shelley,
Soto, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Torlakson,
Vincent, Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman,
Wright, Villaraigosa
SB 78
Page
12
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Baldwin, Bates, Briggs,
Cox, House, Kaloogian, Maddox, McClintock, Oller, Runner,
Strickland, Thompson, Zettel
NOT VOTING: Baugh, Leach, Nakano
RJG:sl 1/5/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****