BILL ANALYSIS
SB 66
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 20, 2000
Counsel: Angelo Butler
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Carl Washington, Chair
SB 66 (Murray) - As Amended: May 15, 2000
SUMMARY : Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in
racial profiling. Requires that a law enforcement officer
provide his or her business card to any person detained in a
traffic stop, and requires that every officer participate in
expanded Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) training on racial profiling. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that "racial profiling" is the practice of detaining a
suspect based on a broad set of criteria which casts suspicion
on an entire class of people without any individualized
suspicion of the particular person being stopped.
2)Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial
profiling.
3)Requires that a law enforcement officer provide, without being
asked, his or her business card to any person detained in a
traffic stop without citing or arresting that person. The
business card shall include identifying information about the
officer and a phone number to report any comments regarding
the contact.
4)Requires that POST create an expanded curriculum on racial
profiling in consultation with the Tools for Tolerance for Law
Enforcement Professionals program and a five-person community
advisory panel appointed by the governor.
5)Requires that every law enforcement officer participate in
expanded POST training on racial profiling.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that POST may develop and implement programs to
increase the effectiveness of law enforcement. (Penal Code
SB 66
Page 2
Section 13503(e).)
2)Requires POST to develop courses of instruction that stress
understanding and respect for racial and cultural differences,
and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying
out law enforcement duties in a racially and culturally
diverse environment. (Penal Code Section 13519.4(a).)
3)Provides that the POST basic training course for law
enforcement officers include adequate instruction on racial
and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and
cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial
and cultural groups. (Penal Code Section 13519.4(b).)
4)Defines "culturally diverse" and "cultural diversity" to
include, but are not limited to, gender and sexual orientation
issues. (Penal Code Section 13519.4(c).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The strength of
SB 66 is that it goes beyond simple data collection by
explicitly confirming the depth of the problem and offering
significant solutions.
"First, the bill confirms that Racial Profiling is a great
danger to the fundamental principals of our society.
"Second, SB 66 not only outlaws Racial Profiling; it provides a
legal definition. It was only recently that courts have held
Racial Profiling to be discriminatory. Historically,
minorities have not been able to completely rely on the
Constitution or the courts for protection. It took the Voting
Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act along with similar
statutes in California to protect minorities rights. We need
a statute on Racial Profiling.
"California will be the only state in America to have a specific
cause of action for Racial Profiling. This further creates a
bright line differentiating acceptable and unacceptable
behavior for police officers.
"Third, SB 66 makes it significantly easier for community
SB 66
Page 3
members to complaint of egregious behavior. The bill mandates
that a police officer must provide a complaint card - without
being asked - to each person who has been detained in a
traffic stop and not cited or arrested.
"The card will contain the officer's identifying information and
a phone number to call to register a complaint. Complaints
can then be tracked not just against departments, but also
against specific problem officers.
"This seems deceptively simple, but it completely changes the
power dynamic of the traffic stop. Never again will a
motorist be burdened with gathering information necessary to
make a complaint.
"Finally, the bill provides for re-training of every officer in
this state on the patterns, practices and protocols that lead
to Racial Profiling, and how to prevent them.
"Approximately 70 agencies are voluntarily collecting data,
including most major urban centers. With those who have
announced plans to collect data, such as Sacramento City and
Los Angeles County, data will be collected on roughly 60-70%
of the traffic stops in the State.
"I continue to fully support efforts to collect raw race data in
traffic stops as proposed by the American Civil Liberties
Union and others. There is room in this serious issue for a
multi-pronged attack.
"Data collection should also be pursued at the local and federal
levels. It is, after all, local pressure that has been most
effective in getting cities like Sacramento, San Jose, San
Diego and Los Angeles County to comply with data collection.
"SB 66 will provide significant immediate relief and progress on
a statewide basis. This bill goes past asking the question of
whether or not Racial Profiling exists, and provides for
solutions now. It will provide for immediate behavioral
changes in police officers.
"With SB 66, people of color get progress now. Justice delayed
is justice denied."
2)Traffic Stops, Race, And the Fourth Amendment : The Fourth
SB 66
Page 4
Amendment of the United States Constitution "applies to all
seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a
brief detention short of traditional arrest." ( United States
v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) 422 U.S. 873, 878.) Accordingly, the
Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure of a person be
reasonable. An investigatory stop by the police may be made
only if the officer in question has a "reasonable suspicion
supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be
afoot." ( Terry v. Ohio (1967) 292 U.S. 1, 30.) "This demand
for specificity in the information upon which police action is
predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence." ( Terry v. Ohio , id. at p. 21,
n.18.)
There has been significant changes in the use of race and
ethnicity as a criterion in government decision-making. In
invalidating the use of racial classifications used to remedy
past discrimination, the Supreme Court states that "our
Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens." ( J.A. Croson v. City of Richmond
(1989) 488 U.S. 469, 521.) "Classifications based on race
carry a danger of stigmatic harm. Unless they are strictly
reserved for remedial settings, they may in fact promote
notions of racial inferiority and lead to politics of racial
hostility." ( Croson , id. at p. 493.) The harm that the Court
feared in Croson , is the type that exists in the context of
police stops in which race or ethnic appearance is a factor.
3)The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Federal Statutes
Prohibit Discriminatory Behavior by Law Enforcement Officers :
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging
in discriminatory behavior on the basis of an individual's
race, ethnicity, or national origin. The Fifth Amendment
protects against discrimination by federal law enforcement
officers, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects against discrimination by state and local
law enforcement officers.
Two federal statutes also prohibit discrimination by law
enforcement agencies that receive federal financial
assistance. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
color, or national origin by all recipients of federal
financial assistance. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
SB 66
Page 5
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3789d(c)) prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, or religion by law enforcement agencies that receive
federal funds pursuant to that statute. In addition, a 1994
statute (42 U.S.C. 14141) grants the Attorney General the
authority to seek injunctive relief when a state or local law
enforcement agency engages in a pattern or practice of conduct
that violates the Constitution or federal law, regardless of
whether the agency is a recipient of financial assistance.
4)Tools For Tolerance For Law Enforcement Professionals Program :
This bill provides that POST create an expanded curriculum on
racial profiling in consultation with the Tools for Tolerance
for Law Enforcement Professionals program. This program,
administered by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, provides
diversity training for law enforcement professionals.
5)Arguments In Support :
a)POST states, "We agree that additional training in the area
of human relations and cultural diversity plays an
important part in enhancing the effectiveness of peace
officers to better serve the public."
b)The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives (NOBLE) states, "NOBLE believes that this
legislation represents a necessary step in eliminating
discriminatory practices by law enforcement officers.
"Because of your efforts and proposed legislation, the issue
of racial profiling has been discussed by law enforcement
executives throughout the state and debated at public
venues ranging from political campaigns to community
meetings. Although your revised legislation does not
mandate data collection, your efforts in this area have
increased the level of problem awareness and acceptance
within law enforcement and state government.
"It is time to move past the debate of mandatory data
collection and start the process of developing solutions."
c)The Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, Inc.
states, "While we certainly laud the call for increased
diversity training for law enforcement and requiring
officers to hand out their business cards to people who are
SB 66
Page 6
stopped, we believe that the best method to determine the
extent and specifics of racial profiling is the collection
of data and other statistical information on these stops.
It is clear that we must have this data to effectively
address and combat racial profiling. Accordingly, we will
continue to work with our respective organizations to reach
this goal. To the extent that SB 66 is a beginning towards
this effort, we support the legislation in hopes that it
represents a cognizable start in this critical direction."
d)The California Black Chamber of Commerce states, "It is
critical that all persons and state agencies be held
accountable for their actions. The Chamber will monitor
this process closely to insure that it achieves the results
we seek that of fair and equitable treatment by all law
enforcement officials throughout the state of California."
6)Arguments In Opposition :
a)The American Civil Liberties Union states, "We oppose SB 66
unless it is amended to include mandatory data collection.
" Data Collection is Essential . Racial profiling cannot be
solved without basic data that allows communities to
determine whether discrimination exists and what form it
takes. For years, the New Jersey State Police denied that
its officers engaged in racial profiling until, finally,
their officers were required to collect data. The data
showed that although African Americans constituted less
than 17% of the drivers on the road, they were more than
70% of the drivers who were stopped and searched.
" Racial Profiling Is Already Illegal . The bill defines
racial profiling as 'detaining a suspect?without any
individualized suspicion.' That has been the law for more
than 200 years. It is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The problem has
never been if racial profiling is legal, the problem has
been that racial profiling is impossible to identify, track
or prove without data.
" Diversity Training Is Useless Without Data . How can a
meaningful training program to address racial profiling be
created without information that shows whether racial
SB 66
Page 7
profiling is occurring and what form it takes in a
particular department?
" The Business Cards Will Not Increase Accountability . Few
would claim that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
has solved the problem of racial profiling, yet the bill
requires all law enforcement agencies to conform to LAPD
practice. To make matters worse, the bill does not require
the business cards to 'include a number for reporting
complaints,' as previously indicated by the proponents."
b)The Beverly Hills Bar Association states, "We are writing
to express our opposition to racial profiling by law
enforcement, and our unwavering support for mandatory data
collection as currently required by SB 1389. The solution
to racial profiling starts with the collection of this
basic data. Data collection as a method of identifying,
tracking, proving, and preventing discrimination is nothing
new. Federal and state governments routinely require the
collection of data in other contexts, such as employment,
housing, voting, education, and public contracting,
precisely because discrimination would be impossible to
identify or prove without relevant data. Why should law
enforcement be exempt? Why should communities of color be
denied the opportunity to identify, prove, and prevent
discrimination by the police through the collection of this
data?"
c)The Paul Robeson Chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California states, "SB 66 is worse than
no racial profiling bill at all. It gives the illusion of
addressing the problem, while leaving communities powerless
to identify, track and prove discrimination by the police.
We oppose SB 66 unless it is amended to include mandatory
data collection."
7)Suggested Amendments : Several organizations have stated their
support of the bill if amended. Those organizations include
the California Association of Urban League Executives, the San
Diego Urban League, the Los Angeles Urban League, the Peace
Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), and the
California State Sheriff's Association. The suggested
amendments include:
a)Language that specifies that a police officer's business
SB 66
Page 8
card will reflect that officer's employee number and a
specific number to which motorists can direct complaints.
b)That law enforcement agencies will be required to establish
a specific person or office to handle such calls and to
provide complainants information on the department's
procedure for following up on them.
c)That in departments managed by police commissions, or with
existing police complaint mechanisms, that those bodies
would be designated the entities to receive calls, instead
of the police departments themselves.
d)That the bill include provisions for a statewide media
campaign, with emphasis on participation by existing
television and radio broadcast media and print media
specializing in coverage of ethnic minority communities as
well as community based organizations, to inform state
residents of the "driving while Black" complaint system and
how to successfully access it.
e)Reimbursement to local law enforcement for the cost of
printing and reprinting business cards. An estimate of the
statewide cost is $1,750,000. An amendment is requested by
the California State Sheriffs to either establish a
reimbursement fund or to create an ongoing appropriation in
the General Fund.
The May 15, 2000 amendments to this bill partially addressed
the concerns of those organizations offering conditional
support by stating that the business card provided by the
officer shall, among other things, include the officer's badge
or identification number and a telephone number that may be
used to report any comments regarding the traffic stop.
8)Data On Traffic Stops And Racial Profiling : A March 2000
report by the United States General Accounting Office,
addressed efforts by the San Diego, San Jose, Alameda, and
Piedmont police departments to collect data on traffic stops.
All four police departments planned to collect data on five
data elements: race or ethnicity, age, and gender of the
driver; the reason for the traffic stop; and whether the stop
resulted in a warning, citation, or an arrest. These
departments had either begun or planned to begin to
voluntarily collect traffic stop data. Some of the officials
SB 66
Page 9
stated that their departments were interested in collecting
traffic stop data because they wanted to address community
concerns about racial profiling. San Jose began collecting
data in June 1999, Alameda and Piedmont began collecting data
in October 1999, and San Diego began collecting data in
January 2000.
Three of the four police departments indicated that they expect
to analyze their traffic stop data. A preliminary report,
issued in December 1999 and providing analysis results on data
collected between July and September 1999 in San Jose,
indicated some racial disparity in traffic stops. The San
Jose Police Chief stated that more data was needed, along with
the cooperation of the community to analyze what the data
means.
9)Prior Legislation : AB 1264 (Murray) of the 1997-98
Legislation Session required the Department of Justice, in its
annual report on criminal justice statistics, to include
specified statistics regarding all motorists stopped by law
enforcement officers. AB 1264 was vetoed.
10)Similar Legislation : SB 78 (Murray) required the
Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol to gather
specified data regarding traffic stops, whether or not a
citation or warning issued. SB 78 was vetoed.
SB 1389 (Murray), held under submission in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, requires: (a) state and local law
enforcement officers to collect information regarding traffic
stops, (b) law enforcement agencies to report information on
traffic stops to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and (c)
CHP shall report to the Legislature.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
African American Unity Center
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Baptist Pastors/Ministers Conference of Los Angeles &
Surrounding Areas
Black Agenda
Black American Political Association of California
Black United Fund, Inc.
SB 66
Page 10
Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, Inc.
Brotherhood Crusade
California Association of Black Lawyers
California Association of Urban League Executives
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
California State Sheriffs' Association
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles
First African Methodist Episcopal Church, Rev. Chip Murray
Greater Sacramento Urban League
John M. Langston Bar Association
Leimert Park Merchants Association
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Lee Baca
Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches
Los Angeles Urban League
Miracle Center Apostolic Community Church
Mother-In-Action
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
Ninth Episcopal District, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Rev. Carolyn Taylor Guidry, Elder for Western Region, 5th
Episcopal Church District
Ron Brown Democratic Club
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Lou Blanas
San Diego Urban League
SEIU, Local 434-B
Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance
South Central Multi-Purpose Senior Citizens Center
Stop the Violence Increase the Peace Foundation
The College Fund/UNCF
West Angeles Church of God in Christ, Bishop Charles E. Blake
3 private citizens
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
Andre Jones, Executive Director, Hearts and Minds
Angela Sanbrano, Executive Director, Central American Resource
Center
Angelica Salas, Executive Directoru, Coalition for Humane
Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Sharon Blackburn, Executive
SB 66
Page 11
Director, South Central Prevention Coialition
Asian American Bar Association of The Greater Bay Area
Beverly Hills Bar Association
Brad Seligmen, Executive Director, The Impact Fund
California for Justice Education Fund
Californians for Justice
Cati A. Okorie, Client Advocate, Bayview-Hunter's Point
Community Defender
Cheryl Brownlee, President, Black Advocates In State Service
Chinese for Affirmative Action
CoAction Communication and Diversity
Community Coalition
Democratic/Latino Caucus
Dolores Huerta, Founder, United Farmworkers
Donya Fernandez, Language Rights Attorney, Employment Law Center
Eva Paterson, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights
Eva Royal, Regional Director, United Farmworkers
Faye Kennedy, Chair, Sacramento Area Black Caucus
Frank Tse, Interim Executive Director, Asian Law Caucus
Holly Fujie, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
Institute for MultiRacial Justice
Joe Affeldt, Managing Attorney, Public Advocates, Inc.
Joe Franko, Regional Director, American Friends Service
Committee
Karega Hart, President, Amalfamated Transit Union Local 1574
Lori Santos, President, National Coalition for Better Education
Marcos Contreras, President, League of United Latin American
Citizens
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Michelle Alexander, Racial Project Director, American Civil
Liberties Union
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Nancy Zamora, President, California Women Lawyers
National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Legal Defense Fund
Nora Ramos, Outreach Coordinator, Asian Pacific American Legal
Center
Norris Hollie, Medical Director, Normed Medical Group
Paul Gerowitz, Director of Legislation & Public Affairs,
Protection and Advocacy
Paul Robeson Chapter, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California
Ramon Gomez, Council Member, City of Watsonville
SB 66
Page 12
Rev. James Lawson, Holman United Methodist Church (Retired)
Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.; President/Founder, Rainbow/PUSH
Coalitlion
Rev. Thomas C. Hill, Pastor, Venice United Methodist Church
Riverside Sheriff's Association
Sheila Thomas, Director of Litigation, Equal Rights Advocates
Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement
Staajabu, Founder and Sister In Charge, Straight Out Scribes
Stephanie Choy, Executive Director, Public Interest
Clearinghouse
Tracy K. Rice, Los Angeles Bureau Chief, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Tracy Salkowitz, Regional Director, American Jewish Congress
Walter Wilson, Legislative Director, California NAACP
Wanda Remmers, Executive Director, Housing Rights, Inc.
4 private citizens
Analysis Prepared by : Angelo Butler / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744