When blacks and hispanics across the U.S. read recent headlines about the practice of "racial profiling" by state troopers in New Jersey, it didn't strike them as an obscure practice in a far-off state. It sounded like their own experience. They have long believed it's no coincidence that so many of them have been stopped and frisked by police for no apparent reason. African Americans even coined a term for their supposed offense: dwb, for Driving While Black.

Last week their suspicions gained supporting evidence. A 43-page report released by the American Civil Liberties Union showed the problem to be of national scope. Citing police statistics, case studies from 23 states and media reports, the organization asserts that law-enforcement agencies have systematically targeted minority travelers for search--pedestrians, motorists and airline passengers--based on the belief that they are more likely than whites to commit crimes. Says David Harris, the University of Toledo law professor who wrote the A.C.L.U. study: "It affects blacks and Hispanics from every station in life and every geographic location."

The practice is often a contributing factor in tensions between minorities and police. Last week the Justice Department released a 12-city survey in which 24% of the blacks who were polled said they were unhappy with their local police. It was a smaller number than might be expected at a time of prominent police-brutality cases, including the trial of three New York City officers accused of assaulting Haitian immigrant Abner Louima. But it was a far higher number than the 10% of whites unhappy with police.

Most law-enforcement officials have steadfastly denied that their officers engage in racial profiling. And the practice has been difficult to prove because few police agencies record the race of the drivers they pull over. An important exception came in a study last month by the attorney general of New Jersey, who found that police brass unofficially encouraged state troopers to stop blacks and Hispanics in disproportionate numbers as part of a campaign to increase drug arrests. Two troopers were later suspended and indicted on charges of falsifying records to conceal racial profiling. (They pleaded not guilty.) A judge dismissed charges against 21 people whom the troopers had arrested.

Across the U.S. nonwhite travelers tell similar tales of police harassment. According to the A.C.L.U. report, the stretch of Interstate 95 from Florida to New York is especially notorious. On I-95 in Maryland, blacks made up 17% of motorists but 73% of those stopped and searched. Last year a class-action suit accused Maryland state troopers of targeting black drivers. In Illinois, where Hispanics are just 8% of the population, they represented 30% of the drivers stopped by police. "It's really deeply ingrained behavior that is going to be hard to change," says Reggie Shuford, an A.C.L.U. staff attorney.

The civil-liberties group wants federal legislation requiring all law-enforcement agencies to track racial data from traffic stops. Only a few police departments, including those in San Jose, Calif., and San Diego, now do so. The organization is also pushing for an end to so-called "pretext stops" as a crime-fighting tool and a ban on racial profiling in all federally funded drug-interdiction programs.

Ronald Neubauer, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, blasted the A.C.L.U. report for "using an extremely broad brush to portray all of law enforcement as individuals who practice racial profiling." He added that "we recognize a problem exists, but it is an extremely small number of officers conducting themselves illegally."

Still, when the A.C.L.U. placed ads in the black media asking victims of racial profiling to share their stories, the organization was flooded with thousands of complaints--and not just about traffic stops. The next battleground may be airports. Several recent lawsuits allege that U.S. Customs Service inspectors regularly strip-search minorities solely because of their race. Customs officials deny that they countenance racial profiling, but they have formed a commission to investigate the allegations.

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of law-enforcement officers to stop and search people whom they suspect of even minor infractions. But the courts do not consider race alone to be grounds for suspicion. "You don't have to resort to these techniques to reduce crime," says Hugh Price, president of the National Urban League. "Public safety and civil liberties are not either-or propositions."

Cover Date: June 14, 1999

• Doyenne of the Dollars: Can Beth Dozoretz bring Democrats the dough?
• Politicians call for an end to 'social promotion.' Will it hurt kids?
• Analysis: Getting up for Gore
• Gore's role in the peace plan: Deep in the details
• Why Milosevic blinked and why NATO isn't celebrating
• Racial profiling prevelant nationwide

ARCHIVES