By Alex Chohlas-Wood, Marissa Gerchick, Sharad Goel, Aziz Z. Huq, Amy Shoemaker, Ravi Shroff, and Keniel Yao

 We describe and apply three empirical approaches to identify superfluous police activity, unjustified racially disparate impacts, and limits to regulatory interventions. First, using cost-benefit analysis, we show that traffic and pedestrian stops in Nashville and New York City disproportionately impacted communities of color without achieving their stated public safety goals. Second, we address a longstanding problem in discrimination research by presenting an empirical approach for identifying “similarly situated” individuals and, in so doing, quantify potentially unjustified disparities in stop policies in New York City and Chicago. Finally, taking a holistic view of police contact in Chicago and Philadelphia, we show that settlement agreements curbed pedestrian stops but that a concomitant rise in traffic stops maintained aggregate racial disparities, illustrating the challenges facing regulatory efforts. These case studies highlight the promise and value of viewing legal principles and policy goals through the lens of modern data analysis—both in police reform and in reform efforts more broadly.

The University of Chicago Law Review [89:2: Pages 441-475 March 2022  

By Scott Wolfe, Travis Carter and Jedidiah Knode

This report presents the results of an external benchmark analysis of Michigan State Police (MSP) traffic stops conducted during 2020. There are five primary sections to this report: Census benchmark, traffic-crash benchmark, veil-of-darkness (VOD) benchmark, post-stop outcome analyses, and Secure Cities Partnership analyses. The goal of these analyses is to understand the extent of racial and ethnic disparities in traffic stop behavior. Below we briefly describe the methodology used for each analysis and summarize the main findings. When reviewing the results, it is imperative to understand the difference between “disparity” and “discrimination.” Disparity is an observed difference in the proportion of traffic stops involving a specific group of people compared to that group’s representation in another source of data. Discrimination, on the other hand, involves a police officer intentionally targeting and stopping racial or ethnic minorities solely because of their group status (i.e., racially profiling people and engaging in biased stop behavior). In this way, discrimination involves intent, whereas observed disparity cannot speak to whether an officer acted with intent. This report and its findings can speak only to the extent of racial/ethnic disparity in MSP traffic stops. The data cannot ascertain whether racially discriminatory practices are occurring within MSP.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice, 2021. 101p.

By Chris Jones, Jane Kilpatrick, Yasha Maccanico

Attempts by the EU and its member states to step up identity controls by equipping police and immigration authorities with new biometric technologies are likely to see both ethnic minority citizens and non-citizens subjected to unwarranted intrusions into their everyday activities, argues a report published today by Statewatch. Building the biometric state: Police powers and discrimination looks at the gradual development and deployment of biometric technologies by EU institutions and member states over the last two decades. It finds that the EU has provided at least €290 million in public research funding to projects aiming to advance biometric techniques and technologies, and that policy development and implementation has been propelled by secretive police and policy networks that operate with little to no democratic scrutiny. It also provides case studies examining the deployment of biometric technologies in France, Italy and Spain, highlighting some of the issues that are likely to  arise as such technology becomes more widely used.

London: Statewatch, 2022. 34p.