1 / 58

CJPAC Presentation June 26, 2014

CJPAC Presentation June 26, 2014. Quick Facts. On average, Connecticut law enforcement agencies conduct approximately 700,000 traffic stops a year. Traffic stops are the most common encounter police have with the public.

vladimir-howe
Télécharger la présentation

CJPAC Presentation June 26, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CJPAC Presentation June 26, 2014

  2. Quick Facts • On average, Connecticut law enforcement agencies conduct approximately 700,000 traffic stops a year. Traffic stops are the most common encounter police have with the public. • On average, approximately 25 racial profiling complaints are investigated annually in Connecticut. • In 2012, only 27 law enforcement agencies were collecting and submitting traffic stop information to the African American Affairs Commission. • This project is currently funded through a $1.2 million federal grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

  3. Overview of Alvin W. Penn Law • 1999: Connecticut enacts The Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act (Public Act 99-198) that prohibits any law enforcement agency from stopping, detaining, or searching any motorist when the stop is motivated solely by considerations of the race, color, ethnicity, age, gender or sexual orientation (Connecticut General Statutes Sections 54-1l and 54-1m). • 2012: Responsibility for implementation changed to the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and established the Racial Profiling Prohibition Advisory Board. • 2013: The law was expanded to include all agencies with the power to conduct a motor vehicle stop and added new information to be collected. It also changed the reporting requirements.

  4. Connecticut racial profiling advisory board 31 Member Advisory Board William R. Dyson, Co-Chairman John DeCarlo, Co-Chairman Glenn Cassis, African American Affairs Commission Under Secretary Mike Lawlor, Office of Policy Management Chief Douglas Fuchs, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association Commissioner Dora Schriro, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Colonel Dan Stebbins, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Michael Gailor, Chief State’s Attorney Office Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, Office of theChief Public Defender Werner Oyanadel, Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission Tanya Hughes, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Tamara Lanier, Connecticut National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, CT Judicial Branch Sean Thakkar, Criminal Justice Information Systems MuiMuiHin-McCormick, Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission Chris Sedelmaier, University of New Haven Thomas Maziarz, Department of Transportation Stephen Cox, Central Connecticut State University Gabriel Cano, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Aaron Swanson, Department of Transportation Joseph Cristalli, Department of Transportation Andrew Clark, Central Connecticut State University Cheryl Sharp, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Representative Gary Holder-Winfield, Connecticut General Assembly Representative Joe Verrengia, Connecticut General Assembly Sandra Staub, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut Lynn Blackwell, Department of Motor Vehicle Chief Dean Esserman, New Haven Police Department Captain Nick Boulter, Simsbury Police Department Stephanie Johnson, Community Member Jeff Matchett, AFSCME Council 15 Stacey Manware, Judicial Branch

  5. Connecticut racial profiling advisory board • Meeting since March 2012 • 18 full advisory board meetings (open to the public and on CT-N) • 4 working groups were created • 45 working group meetings (open to the public and often on CT-N) • Consensus process

  6. Overview of CGS 54-1m On October 1, 2013 law enforcement agencies must: • adopt a written policy that prohibits using race, color, ethnicity, age, gender or sexual orientation as the motivation for a traffic stop. • Collect racial profiling information for each traffic stop conducted. • Electronically transmit information to CJIS on a monthly basis. • Distribute a notice to each motorist stopped informing them of their right to file a complaint if they think they were profiled.

  7. To Whom Does the Law Apply? 106 Agencies • Municipal Police Departments • The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (State Police) • State Capitol Police • Motor Vehicle Department Inspectors • University Police Departments • Department of Revenue Services Inspectors • DEEP Officers • MTA and Amtrak Police • Any other department with authority to conduct a traffic stop

  8. Traffic Stop Definition (For the Purpose of this law) A traffic stop is defined as any time an officer initiates contact with a vehicle resulting in the detention of an individual and/or vehicle. Stops made as part of a checkpoint or spot check enforcement are considered officer initiated if contact with the operator is extended for any purpose. A traffic stop does not include providing assistance to a motorist, traffic citations arising from traffic crashes, or in cases in which an officer stops a vehicle that has been linked to a specific incident, such as a vehicle wanted in connection with a robbery. Exception: By law, data must be recorded for all traffic stops, unless the police officer was required to leave the location of the stop in order to respond to an emergency or due to some other exigent circumstances within the scope of such police officer’s duties.

  9. Data Elements collected

  10. Data Elements collected

  11. Data Elements collected

  12. Data Elements collected

  13. Data Elements collected

  14. Data Elements collected

  15. Data Collection Methods • Law Enforcement Agencies were presented with 4 options for collecting traffic stop data: • CAD/RMS vendor (Over 15 vendors throughout the state) • Web-Based Application (CT-Chief) • DESPP COLLECT V2 System • Paper Form (department is still required to electronically submit data to CJIS in a CJIS approved format)

  16. Data collection methods • The CTRP3 project funded modifications to the following systems and offered them at no cost to all departments for data entry: • Web-Based Application (CT-Chief) • DESPP COLLECT V2 System • CAD/RMS vendor upgrades were the responsibility of individual departments.

  17. Data Submission • All information collected must be submitted to CJIS in an electronic format on a monthly basis. Many vendors opted for “real-time” submission of data. • In July 2013, CJIS worked with CCSU to develop a technical document with instructions and coding requirements for vendors to connect and submit traffic stop files. • Testing was conducted from August 2013 through October 2013. • The CJIS-Racial Profiling System went live in November 2013.

  18. Data available to the public • The project staff is working with the CT Data Collaborative to connect the racial profiling component of the CJIS system and upload raw files for public consumption. • CJIS has proposed developing a dashboard for police administrators and the public to view data tables in “real time.”

  19. Analysis of Information • Two types of analysis conducted: • Annual report. Analysisof data by OPM to be submitted to the Executive and Legislative Branches. The first full report will be completed in July 2014 and a follow-up report will be published in January 2015. • Real time, on-going analysis. An early warning system for police chiefs will be developed by CJIS to better understand and respond to traffic stop trends within their departments. The collection and analysis of traffic stop information in real time should allow law enforcement to respond more effectively to the communities they serve, enabling them to use the information as a powerful tool to enhance relationships between police agencies and their communities.

  20. What is Benchmarking? • Benchmarking is the process of developing a meaningful methodology for analyzing traffic stop data in the context of assessing whether or not specific police activities show any evidence of bias. • Historically, traffic stop information has been compared to a specific jurisdictions static census data. • An analysis that uses data on people stopped against demographic data on people living in a community is inherently limited. • The demographic makeup of those driving through a jurisdiction may differ significantly from those residing in a community.

  21. Benchmarking Approach • Data will be benchmarked using three indicators: • Estimated Driving Population • Peer groups or “basket” towns • State Average • If a law enforcement agency’s data suggest disparities from the benchmarks the agency will be selected for a more specific analysis of data using additional criteria. • Use of the “veil of darkness” theory • In-depth post-stop analysis

  22. Modified Census Data • An estimated driving population has been developed by modifying existing census data. • The estimate accounts for both the residents with access to a vehicle and non-residents traveling to work in the community in a motor vehicle. • An EDP has been developed for 169 cities and towns in CT. • The EDP is a better indicator of likely individuals driving in a community during the weekday/daytime.

  23. Peer-Group Benchmark • The Connecticut Economic Resource Council (CERC) developed peer-groups or “basket” towns for comparison. • Data from one community can be compared to their “basket” towns.

  24. State Police Benchmarking • Developing an estimated driving population for the state highway system is more difficult to calculate than for local roads. • Analysis will differentiate motor vehicle stops on interstates, state roads and municipal roads monitored by resident state troopers or local barracks. • Local stops made by resident troopers or local barracks will be analyzed using the estimate driving population. • Limited access highway stops will be analyzed using only the post-stop information.

  25. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014

  26. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014 303,863 reported traffic stops 43,409: Average monthly traffic stops

  27. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Total State Stops

  28. State Population

  29. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Total State Stops – 303,863

  30. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Total State Stops – 303,863

  31. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Time of Day

  32. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Residency Information

  33. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Disposition of Stop: Overall

  34. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Disposition of Stop: Overall

  35. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Disposition of Stop: Overall *Disposition as a percent of overall stops for each race/ethnicity

  36. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Nature of Stop: Overall

  37. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Nature of Stop: Overall

  38. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Nature of Stop: Overall *Nature of stop as a percent of overall stops for each race/ethnicity

  39. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Enforcement Method

  40. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Enforcement Method

  41. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Enforcement Method *Enforcement method as a percent of overall stop for each race/ethnicity

  42. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Duration of Stop

  43. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Duration of Stop

  44. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Duration of Stop *Duration of stop as a percent of overall stops for each race/ethnicity

  45. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Vehicle Tow

  46. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Vehicle Tow *Tow as a percent of overall stops for each race/ethnicity

  47. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Total State Searches

  48. October 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014Authority for Search *Other refers to all searches conducted due to probable cause, reasonable suspicion, plain view contraband, exigent circumstances

  49. Statutory Reason for StopRegistration Violation

  50. Statutory Reason for StopSpeeding Violation

More Related