Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Do your numbers not contemplate the existence of probable cause to initiate a search at those traffic stops? You assume race is at the top of the list. Yet you do that without any evidence of that. Just a bunch of assumption.
|
I had my numbers wrong, here's a quote on the article based on the 2008 report
Quote:
In response to complaints about racial profiling by police, law enforcement agencies in Illinois have been required to report on traffic stops since 2004. Every year, the report has found that minority drivers are asked to consent to unwarranted searches at a higher rate than whites, but that police are actually more likely to find contraband in consent searches with white drivers than minorities. The 2008 Traffic Stop Study annual report, released earlier this month, is no different.
The study found that minority drivers were 13% more likely to be stopped than whites, with blacks slightly more likely than Hispanics to be stopped. Blacks were three times more likely to be asked to consent to a search than whites; for Hispanics, that figure was 2.4 times. But contraband was found in only 15.4% of searches of minority-driven vehicles, compared to 24.7% of those with white drivers.
|
Here's the IDoT
website
So the other answer is that minorities "look guiltier" but are more innocent. Which means the cops have a skewed idea of what "looking guilty" means, and it drives down racial lines in some way or another.
Illinois officers have to report the race of everyone they stop and the result of the stop, verbal warning, written warning, ticket, etc. Even after they get the numbers back every year, there doesn't appear to be much of a change in them.
Threaded Mode
