By Stephen Koppel & Michael Rempel

Key Findings: Pedestrian Stops: Steep Decline in Stops Until 2022: From 2013 to 2021, the total number of stops fell by 92%. Then 2022 saw a 69% increase—the largest one-year increase in the past decade. Changing Borough Composition: Stops fell sharply in all boroughs since 2013. The decline was greatest in Queens and Brooklyn and smallest in the Bronx. From 2013 to 2022, the share of stops in Queens fell from 24% to 16%, but climbed from 13% to 30% in the Bronx, despite making up 17% of the City’s 2022 population. Widening Racial Disparities: Black and Hispanic people made up 88% of people stopped in 2022. Compared to white people, police stopped Black people at a rate 7.5 times higher in 2013, a disparity that grew to 11.8 times higher in 2022; and police stopped Hispanic people at a rate 3.5 times higher than white people in 2013, growing to 5.1 times higher in 2022. Increasing Arrest (“Hit”) Rates Until 2022: In 2013, just 8% of stops led to arrest. As police made fewer stops over the following years, the proportion that resulted in arrest rose: peaking at 38% in 2021, before falling to 33% in 2022. Stops led to an arrest for 32% of Hispanic and 33% of Black people in 2022 compared to 38% of white people. Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs): Rising DAT Issuance Since 2019: The DAT issuance rate declined in the years leading up to reform (from 29% in 2013 to 20% in 2019), before rising by 23 percentage points from 2019-2021. However, DAT issuance fell from 43% in 2021 to 29% in 2022, in part reflecting May 2022 rollbacks to reforms that initially went into effect in 2020. Declining Racial Disparities: In 2013, white people were 10 percentage points more likely to receive a DAT compared to Black people and 6 percentage points more likely compared to Hispanic people. By 2022, the Black-white gap narrowed to 6 percentage points, while the Hispanic-white gap was eliminated. Arrests: Fewer Arrests: From 2013 to 2022, the annual number of misdemeanor arrests fell by two-thirds (from 296,956 to 102,537). This included a sharp 75% drop from 2013 to 2020, followed by 13% and 23% respective increases in 2021 and 2022. Similar Racial Disparities: In 2022, Black people were 6.1 times more likely than white people to be arrested for a misdemeanor, while Hispanic people were 3.9 times more likely. These disparities are comparable to a decade ago. Decline in Youth Arrests but Rising Disparities: In 2022, youth under the age of 25 accounted for 18% of misdemeanor arrests, down from 34% in 2013. Racial disparities widened, with Black and Hispanic youth 8.3 and 4.7 times (respectively) more likely to be arrested on a misdemeanor than white youth in 2022. Prosecutions: Misdemeanor prosecutions mirrored misdemeanor arrest trends, declining by two-thirds from 2013 to 2022.

New York: Data Collaboration for Justice, 2024. 58p.

By Vittorio Nastasi

On any given day, approximately 514,000 people are held in local jails across the United States. Though defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, more than 80% of the jail population are awaiting trial and have yet to be convicted of a crime. Defendants accused of particularly serious violent crimes or who pose a credible threat to public safety may be detained in jail while awaiting trial. However, most defendants are entitled to pretrial release. Judges may impose conditions on a defendant’s release, such as electronic monitoring or supervision through a pretrial services agency. Monetary release conditions, commonly referred to as “cash bail” or “money bail,” are among the most common type of pretrial release conditions in the United States. Cash bail allows defendants to secure their release by depositing a specified amount of money with the court as collateral, providing a financial incentive for compliance during the pretrial phase. If a defendant appears as required through the disposition of their case, the bail  amount is returned to them. If a defendant fails to appear in court as required, the bail amount is forfeited, and the defendant may face additional criminal charges or penalties. Cash bail was historically intended to provide a financial incentive for defendants to show up at required court dates, but reforms adopted in the 1970s and 1980s allow judges to also consider potential risks to public safety when making bail decisions. Under the right circumstances, cash bail is an appropriate tool for ensuring that defendants cooperate throughout the pretrial period. However, many defendants are unable to afford the cost of bail and are consequently detained for no reason other than their inability to pay. Recent research suggests that bail decisions can result in defendants losing their jobs, coerce defendants into accepting plea bargains, and increase the probability that are defendants are convicted. Given the potential negative consequences of pretrial detention resulting from an inability to afford cash bail, reform advocates have suggested limiting the use of monetary release conditions. Reforms to pretrial policy require policymakers to balance several competing interests, many of which are difficult to quantify. For example, it is not possible to quantify the normative value of the presumption of innocence or American’s Constitutional right to reasonable bail. However, research evidence can shed some light on the efficacy of cash bail for ensuring compliance during the pretrial period. With some caveats, the studies included in this review collectively suggest that monetary release conditions like cash bail do not consistently improve court attendance and may not result in net crime reduction. 

Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, 2024.   40p.

By Trevor L. Brown and Carter M. Stewart

The murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by Derek Chauvin, a White Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer on May 25, 2020, sparked months-long protests about racism and policing across the country and around the globe, including Columbus, Ohio. Captured on video and spread quickly through social media, Floyd’s death galvanized Americans to take to the streets in the midst of a global health pandemic to voice their anger and frustration about the many Black Americans who had been killed by police. The fairness of policing practice as applied to communities of color, particularly Black communities, and more fundamentally, the existence of the police as a legally sanctioned public institution were the clear motivations for the protests. Law enforcement agencies across the country, including the Columbus Police Department, also mobilized to the streets. Their job was to create a space for citizens to peacefully exercise their right to free speech, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the community. In many protests, police are neutral actors managing the boundaries of the demonstration. In the protests of 2020, protestors saw the police as antagonists, and systematically racist; they were the object of the protest. When police are the focus of the protest, there is a significant increase in the likelihood of direct conflict between protestors and law enforcement personnel. Adhering to best practice in protest management and adapting to evolving protest dynamics become even more important to ensure free speech rights and community safety. This report provides the results of an

• More.....

  eight-month research study evaluating how the City of Columbus, Ohio, inclusive of elected officials and the Columbus Division of Police (CPD), managed the protests in Columbus from May 28 through July 19, 2020.   

Columbus, OH: John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, 2021. 111p.