Technology and Disparate Treatment

By: Carly Wasserman

Technology can make a police officer’s job much easier, but at what cost? According to a New York Times article, police officers in New York received special smartphones with the ability to access various arrest files, photos, motor vehicle databases, and even lists of nearby surveillance cameras as part of a pilot program begun quietly last summer. The program aims to increase law enforcement’s effectiveness by providing access to records once controlled by dispatchers or only available across various databases accessible via patrol car computers. With this information, police officers can quickly assess suspect situations and make informed decisions.

The pilot program provides officers with a wealth of information. For instance, officers involved in domestic dispute cases can see how many times police responded to complaints from the residence and the details of each visit. They can also check for any domestic violence reports, orders of protection, and gun registrations. Prior to the introduction of the program, officers often relied on dispatchers for information. When they radioed in names, they were often given minimum information, such as only being told if the individual had a warrant. Now, with smartphone technology, officers can quickly find out about all of the various offenses. Even if officers possessed access to patrol car computers, they had to search through numerous databases and often relied on unreliable internet connections. Smartphone technology bridges the gap that once existed between officers and personal records.

Advocates assert that the program aids law enforcement efforts, thus increasing public safety. However, various organizations express reservations. For instance, representatives from the New York Civil Liberties Union wonder if the smartphone technology will just become another tool to harass the people already disproportionately targeted by police. Various studies confirm a racial bias in law enforcement. A study by David Harris finds evidence that African Americans disproportionately face pretextual traffic stops by police, which can cause deep psychological and emotional scars, in addition to distorting their views of the legal system and social world. Furthermore, Gau and Brunson find citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice, hindered by racial profiling, influence their beliefs about police legitimacy, which plays a major role in determining if people will follow laws and cooperate with police. As such, we should be concerned with this new smartphone technology because it can be used to overpolice people already constantly watched and judged by the police, reinforcing racial and ethnic disparities that can harm the individuals victimized and even hinder policing efforts by eroding a sense of procedural justice and police legitimacy amongst the community necessary for police officers to effectively do their jobs. When police gain access to new technology, the benefits and concerns must be considered, because technological advances can have disparate impacts on various groups.

Racial Profiling in Schools

By: Tiffani Toy

According to a New York Times article, there is a rise in the use of school resource officers in response to the Newton shooting. However, this article states there is unclear evidence that police officers are effective at deterring crime and removing dangerous threats.Yet, school resource officers arrest or issue tickets to minors for nonviolent behavior; this pushes more children into the criminal system. One example made by the deputy director of Texas Appleseed, a legal advocacy center in Austin, is that school resource officers in Texas write more than 100,000 misdemeanor tickets each year. This article is significant because it confirms the reading by Kupchik that the use of school resource officers has a detrimental effect on the students, especially on those of minority and low-income.

This article also explains that in February, Texas Appleseed filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (the press release can be found here). According to this complaint, school resource officers from Bryan Independent School District issue criminal misdemeanor tickets at a higher rate to African American students; they receive citations at four times the rate of white students. This complaint demonstrates that the use of school resource officers brings racial profiling into the schools and leads to more oppression of minority and low income population. As mentioned in the reading by Kupchik, school resource officers are trained as police officers and not as mentors to students. Thus, school resource officers are more likely to use what Harris explains as rational discrimination to determine which students are most likely to cause trouble. This rational discrimination basically claims that “targeting blacks is the rational, sound policy choice” (294 Harris). Racial profiling of young children creates more oppression at an earlier stage of life for these students.

Placing officers in schools may seem like a reasonable response to school shootings but has the detrimental effect of racial profiling on young students. So, in a recent period of pure chaos and violence, how safe is considered “too” safe?

Spyware and Surveillance

By: Eric Walbridge   

        

There have been several advances in criminal monitoring that are put in to use by a country’s federal government. Due to the advancement of technology and the use of the internet, new developments are emerging as a way of monitoring and tracking criminals. In a recent article published by the New York Times, the use of Internet spyware by federal governments has overreached the initial purpose of the monitoring technology. A British technology company called Gamma Group was documented selling their spyware called FinSpy to at least twenty-five different federal governments around the world.  The Gamma Group was quoted in the article stating that their software is “solely for criminal investigations”. The problem with this is that governments that have a long history of human rights violations, such as Ethiopia and Serbia, are utilizing this spyware. Researchers at the University of Toronto’s school of Global Affairs and the University of California Berkeley have found that FinSpy can literally “grab images off your computer, record Skype chats, and turn on cameras and microphones”. This technology is being used by government officials to monitor political behavior rather than criminal behavior. As seen in Ethiopia, FinSpy is disguised as an email and sent to suspected anti-government citizens. Once the email is opened, the spyware is able to monitor all activity on the person’s computer.

            

The original design for this spyware was not to monitor citizen’s behavior, but rather to track criminals and potential crimes. But government officials seem to be extending this technology to gain a political advantage and also to invade the privacy of its citizens. This technology is extremely difficult to detect and nearly impossible to shut down completely. Researchers urge citizens of these counties to be mindful of the growing use of these types of spyware technologies and to speak out against the violations of privacy that are being implemented by their federal government. The use of FinSpy could definitely be used to prevent crime and investigate criminal behavior, but at the expense of the privacy of citizens. The growing use of technology in crime prevention can be a cover for a wide variety of uses that extend far beyond its original design. It is up to the citizens of these countries, included our own United States, to speak out against these egregious privacy violations. 

First Impressions

By: Kaya Vyas

Growing up in a relatively normal Orange County suburb my interaction with the police consisted of field trips to the stations, the D.A.R.E program and waving hello to Officer Wong who sat in his police car drinking coffee and eating donuts outside the elementary school. Stereotypes aside, I always perceived the police as pillars of the community who protected law-abiding citizens from criminals. Following the law and trusting law enforcement was not a conscious decision, but rather a social normative. I never thought to challenge this notion until coming to Berkeley, which is not at all surprising, and took my first Legal Studies course. I was introduced to ideas such as race wars, police brutality, raced-space, and discriminatory policing. Through this course we have discussed at length different policing styles and how they strive to effectively maintain power with legitimate authority.

In the reading, the negative perception of the police was said to have led to mistrust and a loss of credibility. The Oakland Police Department in particular has an extremely negative perception in the community due to issues of race, lack of communication and understanding and the perception of being brutal. While not from this area, in my four years I have met and heard many stories that aligned with this characterization. Working for the ACLU-NC furthered my knowledge as to why the OPD had such a negative image. In relation to our recent discussion on urban youth and juvenile rights I wondered if negative police perception proliferated to the younger generations. My parents explicitly told me that police officers were good and to call 911 if there was an emergency. Hearing in class that communities found the police to be more trouble than help was shocking. The below table and link show what 800 Oakland high school students thought of the police.

The ethnicities with the both the highest representation in the survey also had two of the highest negative perceptions of the Oakland Police. Unsurprisingly these are two of the most across the board marginalized yet most represented minority groups in the CA prison system today, African-Americans and Latinos. With further research I found this study done in 2009 in the Western Criminology Review. The article speaks at length about the importance of studying youth, race and police perception in order to create a better system of policing. Much like a child’s first introduction to learning or a new skill, this initial interaction shapes future perception. “Abusive incidents involving police officers and young people are grossly under-reported (Adams 1996). In interviews with mostly Latino and African American youths living in poor neighborhoods in Hartford, Connecticut, Borrero (2001) recorded hundreds of allegations of police misconduct against juveniles, including physical abuse, verbal harassment, threats, and violent attacks. Not surprisingly, the victims of excessive police force, who are disproportionately young minority males, have the most negative perceptions of the police (e.g., Ben-Ali 1992; Flanagan and Vaughn 1996).”

            

Perhaps a viable solution to creating better police relations and rid the perception in certain communities that law enforcement is innately racist and brutal is to start with the youth. I recognize how this may be entirely idealistic, but any great change begins with a certain amount of idealism. What was your first exposure to law enforcement and did that shape your adult perception of the police? What solutions do you propose to abetting a more positive image of the police in areas where they are thought of so negatively?

Choose Your Course of Action Wisely

By: Salena Tiet

            

In class recently, we have discussed how racial profiling is used within law enforcement agencies. Although public law enforcement officers cannot legally rely on race or ethnicity as a major factor to stop, question, or arrest an individual, statistics show that aggressive stop rates in cities such as New York are still disproportionately centered on African American and Latino young men. In theory, many agree racialized policing is unconstitutional and unfair to those being overpoliced, yet these practices still occur.

            

In large part, these practices are induced by the market forces, fear, politics, and bureaucratic forces Professor Musheno discussed in class. For example, politicians exploit fear of crime and drugs to generate support for practices, such as pretextual traffic stops and stop and frisk, which constitute institutionalized racism. In Whren v. US, the Supreme Court held that an officer can execute a stop as long as he or she has reasonable cause to stop the car because of a traffic violation. However, nothing prevents the police officer from using traffic stops as a mere pretext to obtain other evidence without probable cause. Amidst all societal preconceptions and stereotypes such as the welfare queen, foreign terrorist, and illegal immigrant, minority groups inevitably fear disproportionate policing and marginalization.

            

Consider this example. On Monday, April 15^th, two bombs, planted near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, exploded, killing three bystanders and injuring one hundred and seventy six other runners and spectators according to Fox News. USA Today reports that President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel immediately labeled this attack terrorism. Many anti-Muslim social media posts surfaced holding Muslims responsible for the bombing. A New York Post article even reported that the police detained a Saudi national, who appeared at a hospital after the bombing, and searched his apartment. Failing to find any evidence, the police released him. The article has since been pulled off the internet. Such tragic and highly publicized events unavoidably create hysteria and panic. There is immense pressure on law enforcement agencies to identify and apprehend the culprits responsible for such heinous crimes. However, public law enforcement officials cannot rely on global assumptions that a particular race is more likely to commit a crime. They must only use particularized information to narrow down a field of suspects and target investigations to uphold their legitimacy. I personally find racialized policing extremely interesting and would like to hear other opinions and thoughts regarding these practices. Does anyone particularly agree or disagree with these racialized justifications?

Apple’s Siri and Privacy

By: Michael Theofanopoulos

In the world we live in today technology has helped form our society by impacting and changing the way each individual goes about their daily life.  It is nearly impossible to walk down the street and not see someone on their cell phone or any other portable device.  What many overlook is that new technology can invade the privacy of its users.  Apple has become a major brand in the technological world by developing new and innovated features for its users.  As many know already one of Apples most hyped feature is an intelligent personal assistant and knowledge navigator, Siri.  The feature works great for those who need information quick.  However, the question many forget to ask is, what happens to the information that is shared with Siri? 

According to a CNN article, “All of those questions, messages, and stern commands that people have been whispering to Siri are stored on Apple servers for up to two years.” The question seems to be, what is considered private anymore?  Even something as the Siri feature that believed to be secure and trusted turned out not to be.  Most people are aware that the web may be monitored but most don’t realize that the personal information they are telling Siri to store into their phone is kept and saved.  As the CNN article states, “Transcripts of what you say to Siri could reveal sensitive things about you, your family, or business."  It’s quit a scary thing to think that this private information such as your family members birthdays is forwarded to the Apple data farm and kept for at least two years.  Information that no one else needs to know can virtually be accessed at any point within those years.

Nicole Ozer says she’d like to see Apple make a better effort in letting their customers know that this information is being stored before they buy an Apple product.  But is it really a surprise that Apple didn’t just come out and say they store the data?  There are so many things people do everyday that gets saved and surveilled without anyone knowing that this shouldn’t be a major shock.  However, I don’t think that it makes Apple right for withholding this info because people need to be more aware that what they think is private may not be.  Are we reaching a point in time were privacy is truly being invaded? Or then, what is considered breaking the privacy barrier?

Procedural Justice

By: Christine Sun

For the general public, allegations of police departmental corruption and racism compel us to assess the degree to which we view our law enforcement as legitimate in wielding the power assigned to law enforcement occupations. In a recent New York Times article, a long-time veteran officer of the New York Police Department was arrested for taking part in robberies of drug dealers while in uniform and for supplying his crew “with police uniforms, paraphernalia and police vehicles”. He was also charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs, commit robbery, and for the unlawful use of a firearm.

            

While the main focus in our class recently has centered on the effects of racial profiling in deconstructing police legitimacy in the eyes of the public, other violations of procedural justice and the lack of transparency within police departments lend to the kind of corruption evidenced in this article. When those who are supposed to safeguard the law ironically make transgressions of those laws, people begin viewing the police as less and less legitimate. The decrease in trust of law enforcement leads to less likely cooperation on the part of the public, and they subsequently are less likely to internalize the law as a moral obligation.  The offending officer, Jose Tejada, engaged in blatant misuse of police power to the point of using his status to demand access to the home of an innocent family of three, hold them at gunpoint, and search their home for the very drugs he planned on unlawfully distributing. What are these innocent civilians to do? Call the police when the police are the very offenders they seek to report? 

Gau and Brunson’s research into the citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice and the effects they may have on their belief of police legitimacy can thus be applied to this episode of police corruption. Episodes of racism as evidenced by tactics that implement and perpetuate racial profiling are not the only public harassment that can have negative implications for police legitimacy.

           

The steps taken in the “ongoing Internal Affairs Bureau investigation” that charged officer Tejada with the crimes discussed above demonstrate that police transgressions of the law will not be overlooked. This may go far in compensating for the legitimacy lost in officer Tejada’s actions. However, it does not change the fact that police can and do commit the very crimes they are supposed to stop, which furthers the seed of mistrust and doubt that is already growing in the heart of the public after delegitimizing affairs such as Rodney King and other incidences of police racism and corruption. When procedural justice is not carried out in a fair and transparent way, the negative implications it has on police legitimacy are consequential and arguably irreversible. 

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)

By: Dmitriy Starkov

Technology permeates every day of our lives. Everyone from college students and business professionals uses technology to further their efforts in studying, communicating with one another, and posting information on blogs. With advances in technology come the advances in ways that people can use technology in malicious ways. This requires the creation of certain protection measures to prevent people from getting harmed. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) aims to do just that. This act aims to make it easy for the U.S. government to investigate cyber threats and fight against cyber attacks. Sounds pretty good, right? We all want to be protected from cyber attacks, but this will come at a heavy cost. The bill would accomplish its anti-cyber terrorism mission by allowing the sharing of information between technology companies and the government.

Companies that support this bill include Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, and Apple, all giants in the technological world. This means that the government would have access to information that these technological giants handle. All information submitted to these corporations could potentially, and very easily, end up in government hands. In the excerpts we have read from Gilliom and Monahan, they explore the idea of the surveillant assemblage, a concept that urges us to think about surveillance as threading "through the many dimensions of our lives" as opposed to the Big Brother/Panopticon idea that there is a big entity watching us all the time. CISPA is very broadly written in that it does not specify exactly how your information may be used by the government. According to an informative write up on the issue by PCMAG, CISPA is broad enough to provide for the sharing of personal information such as text messages, e-mails, and information stored on a cloud device. Technology companies like Facebook have said that if it would help fight cyber terrorism, they would be glad to share information with the government creating the possibility that this information would be accessible to the military as well. With no measures of limiting this practice or any other control measures in sight, is it possible for our information society to move toward a Big Brother approach? While that is unlikely, it is important to think critically about what this type of legislation might mean.

In the schematic of the information society outlined by Gillom an Monahan, CISPA would greatly increase the surveillance capabilities of the government. We already knew from our studies in this class and previous blog posts that we are constantly being tracked by companies like Apple and Facebook. With CISPA it is possible that the government will be able to access all of this information which is a concern of privacy rights. US courts have already said that it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to access digital information if there is evidence of illegal activity. There is no way to know what kind of safeguards there are to prevent abuse of the system proposed by CISPA, which is part of the reason why so many people are opposed to it.

Further Reference: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/business/la-fi-cybersecurity-bill-20130413

Boston Marathon Bombing

By: Molly Ruiz

Many of the contexts in which we have discussed policing in general and surveillance in particular have raised negative concerns about misconduct and misuse of technology. The tragic bombing that took place on April 15th near the finish line of the Boston Marathon is an example of potentially positive applications of the surveillance architecture which our society has adopted for better or for worse.

As this disastrous and deeply saddening event has just taken place, there will hopefully be new information leading to potential suspects by the time this blog is posted, but the issue that I take up here is certainly relevant to our class. In searching for any possible lead, the FBI as of April 16th has "made a public appeal for any tips to help identify suspects." Specifically, efforts have been made to "scour the mass of photos and video already posted on Twitter, Facebook and other sites for clues. Authorities added their own call for help, hoping that in an era of ever-present smartphones, race fans might be holding evidence without even knowing it." Although we have talked in class about how general surveillance tactics such as closed circuit cameras do little to prevent crimes from happening, they can go a long way in aiding law enforcement's apprehension of the perpetrator, and this appeal for camera and video footage taken by marathon spectators makes use of thousands of witnesses who wouldn't otherwise be able to report seeing anything suspicious. In effect, smartphones themselves have become witnesses without carrying the burden of subjectivity and fallacy that the human brain does.

Utilizing information from cell phones in hopes of finding documentation of a bomber or any other suspicious activity puts to use the "volunteer army" (17) that Gilliom and Monihan describe in their opening chapter of SuperVision. In these two authors' account, not only are people inadvertently engaging in activities which are surveilled, but they are also purposely engaging in surveillance of their own. Often this participation involves taking mundane photographs of drunk friends, but as with all surveillance it can have unintended consequences which may be harmful or, in this case, potentially highly beneficial to a criminal investigation.

When I hear about surveillance, I (like probably many others in this class) have an immediately negative reaction that leads me to think about my rights, my desire to control personal information, etc. I tend to forget that the surveillant capacities of small devices such as cell phones can turn everyday citizens into valuable informants who may unknowingly hold clues to an investigation. Most likely, the FBI in this particular case will be able to apprehend the perpetrator(s) of this horrific bombing without relying extensively on pictures and video footage taken by marathon-spectators-turned-victims-turned-witnesses, but even if such data turns out to be entirely irrelevant, it serves as an effective reminder that surveillance has become part of our social architecture precisely for the reason that it is instrumental to the expansion of human capacity - for good as well as for bad.

Operation StingRay: The Penetration of Your Sphere

By:  Yevgeniy Rokhin

                

We currently live in information societies.  As Gilliom and Monahan put it, information societies rely on surveillance and surveillance is woven into the fabric of our lives.  We all are aware that surveillance is the idea of watching and monitoring individuals with the intent to channel their behavior.  However, we also live with the concept of privacy.  The social and legal concept of privacy revolves around the idea that we have the right to be left alone in certain spheres of our lives.  What would happen if these spheres of our lives were to be penetrated by agents belonging to the government?

                

In The Washington Post article, that very question raises concerns of privacy activists and judges.  According to Washington Post, Federal investigators used a device known as StingRay.  This device “simulates a cellphone tower and enables agents to collect the serial numbers of individual cell phones and then locate them.”  This very device can be used by FBI agents to penetrate the sphere of individual’s life without a warrant whether he is at home or at work.  As the article points out “‘No matter how the StingRay is used – to identify, locate or intercept – they always send signals through the walls of homes’ which should trigger a warrant requirement.”  This device, in addition, can pick up information on bystanders that are not under investigation.  Northern California Judges expressed concerns about the invasive nature of this technology since Agents requesting the warrants to use the StingRay device are usually unclear and do not make it explicit what the device does and the scope of usage.  Yet warrants were granted and the device was used in previous cases.

                

We are aware that with cell phone architecture and information societies we will be under scrutiny and surveillance at one point or another whether by government or by corporations.  Isn’t this use of StingRay devices an excessive use of surveillance where the warrant to invade our private spheres is almost not necessary?  Should there be a limit or restriction on the use of the StingRay devices?

Community Policing In Oakland

By: Adriana Regalado

In two recent March 19, 2013 Oakland Tribune articles, “Oakland begins overhauling police command structure” and “Oakland unveils new community policing strategy”, it is revealed that the Oakland Police Department will now be implementing a community policing strategy.  The first of the two articles states that the community policing strategy is a “new crime-fighting strategy,” but it actually came about in the 1990‘s as a response to professional policing.  As discussed in the Sklansky reading, the three elements to community policing are that police departments broaden their focus from crime control to a range of other goals, that they select and pursue those goals in consultation and cooperation with the public/community, and that authority within departments is decentralized.  These three elements are exactly what the Oakland PD now plans to implement.  Oakland PD Captain Steve Tull said "This is truly an opportunity to bond with the community, listen to their concerns, address their concerns and, more importantly, engage them in the decision-making process.”  Sklansky’s first two elements to community policing will be met by the police captains working directly with community advisory committees to get neighborhood input.  “Police leaders have again overhauled the department's command structure, this time scrapping Oakland's two massive policing zones in favor of five smaller districts that will each be run by a captain responsible for fighting crime and building rapport with residents.” Sklansky’s third element to community policing will be met by decentralizing Oakland policing forces into five different geographic districts, which will all be enforced by on captain who will be an expert at fighting crime in that local area.  

The necessity for community style policing was also urged by officers Figueroa and Joshi from the Oakland Police Department.  They explained that Oakland has kind of been forced to invoke the community policing strategy in order to establish legitimacy with the people of Oakland.  These relationships with those who live in high crime communities are extremely necessary in order to gain intelligence from the community, which in turn could reduce future crime.

One of the main opposing arguments that resulted in the push away from community policing following its implementation, were the added costs it placed upon police departments.  For this reason, it is extremely interesting that they are now implementing community policing in Oakland when funds and resources are now so scarce amidst all of the current California budget cuts.  Even Berkeley officer Eric Upson discussed how the Oakland police department is so understaffed that it only has about 600 officers, but is estimated to need 1200 officers.

Social Media Used As Investigation Tool

By: Kyle Porter

With the recent news of the bombings during the Boston Marathon flooding all major news outlets, I found an interesting video on the New York Times website that talks about how social media will be used to help with the investigation of this atrocity. This video is relevant to several topics we have discussed in class including surveillance, privacy, and community policing.

(Video comes from New York Times website, so it cannot be easily imbedded. See video here)

Before the technology of smart phones and social networking, police investigating acts of terrorism like the bombings that occurred yesterday in Boston would have been limited to the footage from a fixed angle surveillance camera of event. Thanks to the advanced technology of smart phones and social media, police can investigate thousands of hours of video footage of the event in hopes to find the people responsible for such appalling acts of terrorism. Boston police and investigators are urging anyone with pictures or video footage of the event to bring the information forward and assist in the investigation. In a case like this, anyone taking pictures or filming the event was essentially holding a surveillance camera that could contain key information for the investigation.

Police are also using social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook to assist in the investigation of the Boston bombings. Over the past several years, police have been increasing their use of social media to help with investigations. Social media like Twitter and Facebook can be utilized in several ways including to solicit tips from the public.  In 2012, nearly 60 percent of police agencies are now soliciting tips from the public via social media. This is a great example of modern day community policing, a topic we have discussed several times in class.

David Petty, interviewed in the video attached, is the Vice President of X1 Discovery, which is one company helping mine through social media outlets as part of the investigation of the Boston bombings. Petty says that social media can be used as a good investigation tool because investigators can search by geographical location, event name, keyword, or by individuals. He believes that social media will play a key role in the investigation of this event.

With lots of negativity directed toward social media and smarts phones as they are labeled as intrusive and a violation of people’s privacy, it is nice to see that they are being utilized positively to help catch the people responsible for the Boston bombings.

Advanced Policing in NYC

By: Melina Londos

The New York City police department recently announced its release of a new policing system that will combine making the city safer with a way to make money for the city to further future policing technologies. The program was developed in combination with Microsoft in a public-private partnership that uses advanced computer algorithms to enhance security. The public-private relationship is nothing new for the legal system, and much of the success of the program is attributed to the combination of the public needs and experience in combination with the funds and capabilities of the private industry. Just 6 months after the official announcement about the program, the police department already has a large number of potential buyers ranging from smaller municipalities to police chiefs of major cities throughout the country. Buyers of the program would have access to the software which can be customized to fit the needs of individual cities and groups at a cost of a least several million dollars. The revenue collected from the program will be directed to future counterterrorism and crime prevention programs. “The new program incorporates more than 3,500 cameras in public places, license-plate readers at every major Manhattan entry point, fixed and portable radiation detectors, real-time alerts transmitted from the 911 emergency system and a trove of Police Department data, including arrests and parking summons.”

The new system has already been used in numerous cases and has a high success rate. While the system has been deemed a “’transformative tool’ for law enforcement” there are also potential problems regarding privacy. The fact of the matter is that the very factors that make the system so effective and efficient with respect to crimes and policing (i.e the influx of cameras and other surveillance technology) are the very factors that invade ones privacy. As stated in the New York Times article, “ the system was so encompassing that even with built-in legal and technological constraints, it subjected the public to a potential invasion of privacy ‘much greater that anything we have seen so far.’” This same issue is being observed in many modern policing tactics, which becomes a difficult point for law makers trying to balance crime detection and prevention with citizens privacy rights. The line dividing the two factors is extremely blurred and varies a lot between individuals and the different areas the practice is being implemented in. Law makers and police officers are faced with determining a set distinction, but in the case of a known criminal or terrorist should exceptions be made? What if these exceptions infringe on the rights of other innocent citizens? Most of all, law makers are faced the big question: As technological advances in the policing industry continue, will privacy become a thing of the past?

Human Mapping and the Creation of Fear

By: Michaela Pluskovich

In the aftermath of September 11, the Demographic Unit within the NYPD's Intelligence Division initiated a program to secretly map and survey neighborhood sites in the city's Muslim communities. The program, exposed in a Pulitzer Prize winning investigation by the Associated Press in 2012, was referred to as “human mapping project” and detailed “locations of interest” that served as cultural hubs for Middle Eastern communities, which the police subsequently used to monitor and track these minorities for criminal and extremist behavior. As outlined in NYPD documents, some of the key indicators the police looked for included “extremist rhetoric,” such as café conversations, local newspapers, religious schools, local flyers, suspect charities, or criminal behavior, such as “untaxed cigarettes.” The results of the program, detailed in an article by The Atlantic Cities, shows that, besides its failure to detect any terrorists, the wide net cast on all Muslims resulted in a culture of paranoia and mistrust with respect to law enforcement. Indeed, the program unjustly targeted innocent citizens and legal permanent residents and has caused long-term damage to the reputation and trustworthiness of the NYPD within these communities.

The program was modeled after professional policing tactics relying on data to help identify “hot spots” of illicit activity, but by using “ancestries of interest” instead of actual criminality it unjustly targeted innocent persons and created an environment of fear and suspicion towards the police. Whereas the data driven methods of professional policing are intended to help law enforcement focus resources and time on troubled areas, the NYPD human mapping project relied on nationality, ethnicity, and religion to define potential risk. Similar to aggressive policing methods such as Stop-and-Frisk, those targeted were persons thought to be more likely to commit a crime, not necessarily those who were actual criminals. Since all persons of Middle Eastern background were put under surveillance, and police informants infiltrated Middle Eastern communities, the program in turn created an environment of fear and suspicion. The increased attention resulted in numerous ill effects that continue to be felt in minority communities in New York City today.

As a result of the NYPD’s human mapping project, “racial” profiling by the police led to basic violations of constitutional rights, and is directly responsible for police mistrust that continues today. The main impact of the surveillance program was a modification of behavior, manifested in the limitation of freedom of speech rights. As outlined in the The Atlantic Cities article, youths aware that they were being watched or that their communities were infiltrated by police informers no longer went to mosques or wrote with their friends on Facebook knowing that it could put them on the NYPD’s watch list. Similarly, restaurant and café owners modified their behavior to appear less “Middle Eastern,” for example by switching the channel from Al Jazeera to something more “American.” Since the police held all members of the targeted groups with equal suspicion, regardless of criminal behavior, a culture of mistrust developed between the local community and the police. Even though the program was shut down in 2011, people continue to live in fear and have a deeply ingrained sense of suspicion towards the police, which will take years or possibly generations to repair and counteract.

The true crime in the NYPD’s human mapper project is the department’s presumption that race, religion, or nationality constitutes a criminal risk. Racial profiling by law enforcement institutions and personnel is therefore not only used to target but also create fictionalized races that are based on nationalities and religion. While this should remind us that all races are socially constructed and connote to false presumptions and status symbols that influence individuals in analyzing and summarizing their environments, by turning these presumptions into policy the NYPD manifested them as a stigma that will be difficult to erase.

Interesting Article on New York City's Purchase of Virtual Terry Stop Technology

I strongly encourage you to take a moment to read about new technology that the NYPD may be employing in the near future.

Predictive Teaching

By: Joel Pititto

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with the Carnegie Corporation of New York and educational representatives from seven states, spent millions of dollars on constructing a single educational student database. They revealed the database, with an estimated monetary worth of 100 million dollars, which is said to have the personal information of millions of students ranging in age from kindergarten to high school. The informational source has been filled with personal information ranging from their homework completion rate to social security numbers. Along with the seven original states with cooperative school districts (Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Massachusetts), the client list will continue to grow to New York and Louisiana, who will pour all of their student information into the server. Access to database could be given to any company selling educational services, leading to the amassing information to levels of a surveillant assemblage. The “goal” is to use the information to develop more effective lesson plans for teachers, and lead to a more uniform level of competency, thus resulting in better standardize testing results.

However, it is not the people creating the tests, or curriculum, but the teachers who are held responsible for the student’s performance. This has led to the constant surveillance of teachers’ performance. The state narrative of schoolteachers is based upon their students maintaining high-test scores on standardized tests. This process has led to teachers beginning to internalize the gaze (the need to conform to state standards of teaching to meet the state’s goals) basing their curriculum around test taking practices or be in constant fear of being held accountable by the administration. The teachers are front line workers, who are loosing their ability to use discretion with their own students and begin conforming to the state-agent narrative to maximize results on standardized testing. In story 5.3 (Maynard-Moody and Musheno), a student, who has a learning disability, could be placed in an accelerated art class but the school lacks the resources to offer one. Students, such as these, will be labeled in the database as having a learning disability (or in teacher terms “spooky”) and forced to do poorly on standardize tests having further repercussions for a policy that already adversely affects him. In the classroom, the lessons are being halted weeks before the end of the school year to prepare students for the upcoming tests, wasting money and valuable classroom time. As we move towards a more predictive educational policy, when students are based more on numbers rather than the needs of the person, should the classroom have a certain level of insularity from the administration or state? 

Limitations on Drones

By: Nathan Phillip

The topic of surveillance is a very common one in our class. Especially with the recent introduction of the police drones. The constant threat of an unmanned surveillance system watching your every move is a very draining and intrusive thought. Generally the idea has been brought up about how intrusive this is on our privacy, but with examples from law enforcement/ officials justifying its use to counteract crime. However in a story published by CBS St. Louis on April 7^th lawmakers took a different stance. According to the article an Illinois senator Sen. Daniel Biss has introduced a peace of legislation that would limit the police use of drones for surveillance. This is to me not only very unique but much needed piece of legislator.

            

According to the article “Biss’ measure would require authorities to obtain a search warrant before using a drone to collect information. The bill includes exceptions, including when such surveillance is immediately needed to prevent a terrorist attack.” This is very important to me because it will help to prevent the targeting of certain individuals, as is the case in much police surveillance. There is no need for the police to be able to simply look into any law-abiding persons personal life as they would be able to without the passing of this legislation. To bring it back full circle to our class I feel like with the passing of such legislation it almost makes the police the ones being policed. In other words this would add a level of policing to the process of surveillance. The Police would not be able to just use these drones, first they must go through a court proves which in essence is policing their actions to ensure that they stay within the lines as well.

            

To build onto this it has been proven multiple times as we have pointed out in class that the constant threat of surveillance does not actually prevent crimes from taking place. In fact it only assist in the investigation. So with that being said there is really no need to have the immediate use of the drones for surveillance without a warrant except for certain cases. I also feel that this would be a good example of the police force has to adapt and change to the demands of both the community, and the law makers that they serve. In my eyes these laws are being written to prevent targeting of certain groups, and ensure fair treatment by the police. Even if they feel that this hinders their ability to police they will have to find a way to work with the laws to do their job.

Google Glass: Threat to Privacy?

By: Maria T. Perez

As the world awaits the newest technological advance by Google, many have concerns on whether or not it infringes on personal privacy.  According to an article by USA Today, Google will soon release a headset device, Google Glass, which will allow its users to search the internet, take pictures, video record, and send messages among the many other things it will be capable of. Google Glass, however is not getting the welcoming as planned.  Rather, the new device is said to spark up some undesired social reactions including the idea that there may be a threat to our privacy.  Through this device, Google will continue to monitor the behavior of its users as a means of surveillance. 

Google glass will contribute to what Gilliom and Monahan call a surveillance society.  In their book, Super Vision: An Introduction to the Surveillance Society, a surveillance society provides “systematic monitoring, gathering, and analysis of information in order to make decisions, minimize risk, sort populations, and exercise power” (2).  Here, Google Glass will make it that much easier to monitor people through the camera feature.  The headset device will not only capture the behavior of the user, but it will also monitor those that are being recorded.  To some this can be an intrusion of our personal lives which shapes who we are and what we value.  But, what makes Google Glass any different from the capabilities of a smart phone?  Smart phones have cameras too.  The difference may be that since Google Glass is a headset, video recording may be done inconspicuously, rather than someone actually recording with a camera that can clearly be seen.    

Gilliom and Monahan explain how surveillance is a form of power and governance woven into the fabric of our lives” (17).  Google glass is an example of a technological device that is a part of such surveillance.  However, not all surveillance is bad.  As Gilliom and Monahan state, surveillance could be used by rescue crews to help those in need as well as aid in catching dangerous criminals (4).  Here, Google Glass’ camera and GPS features can help in these types of situations. 

It seems that in order to enjoy such technological advances, one must trade privacy and personal information in exchange for convenience.  For example Google Glass will make life easier since it is a hands free device.  According to Gilliom and Monahan, such devices are polyvalent since they have multiple uses “open to multiple forms of observation and control and position us as agents who can monitor others” (26).  In other words, devices like these allow companies like Google to further monitor its users.

Ultimately, technology will trump any concerns of privacy the article has raised, being filmed in public, for example.  Just as society has engrained the use of social media in our everyday lives, with time this too will become the norm.  It will be interesting to see how this device will serve as both positive and negative surveillance in the years to come. 

Facial Recognition Unit

By: Laci Patiga

In a recent article, High-Tech NYPD Unit Tracks Criminals Through Facebook and Instagram Photos, the NYPD is making the most of social media to catch criminals. With a new advancement in technology, the NYPD’s Facial Recognition Unit has the ability to run faces found on Facebook, Instagram, or surveillance cameras and run it through a database of mug shots to see if they get a match. This new technology is ideal because a lot of cops hit dead ends; either there are no fingerprints left behind or the victim has an unclear description of the suspect. Facial recognition “zeroes in on features and extracts size and shape of eyes, noses, cheekbones and jaws to find a match—[and] is now revolutionizing investigations in ways not seen since fingerprint analysis was implemented generations ago.”

This Facial Recognition Unit has already hit the ground running. Its first encounter involved a woman’s jewelry stolen by a friend’s boyfriend. His name was unknown to her, but she identified him through Facebook photos and the police were able track him down. In other cases, police successfully arrested a man who was involved in numerous cab robberies and another man who robbed an elderly couple. All these apprehensions were possible because of the use of the Facial Recognition Unit. Not only can it help with recent crimes, but it can also aid in past crimes. If police come across similar descriptions from a past case, they can follow up and see if the suspect is involved in both charges.

This is a completely different side when viewing technology and surveillance. While there are those who believe surveillance is too prevalent in our society—welfare cases, businesses refusing us a job because of past Facebook photos from our younger and immature days, or surveillance cameras in shopping malls that act as a deterrence—there is a bright side to this. Instead of negatively using social media to target citizens, police are using it to find out criminal’s identities. If they get a hit, the name and age of the suspect pop up. One officer claimed “it saved a ton of time and potentially dangerous investigative legwork.” The whole police force doesn’t have to go out in the field and attempt to find that suspect; they just send in the photo and wait for a response. If they do get a hit, they can learn more about the suspect’s file and their criminal history. As a result, the police can act accordingly for when they do go in for an arrest. Policing styles are definitely keeping up with progressing societies. We are in a technological era, and police need to keep up their efficiency and replicate such changes.

The article does touch base on the fact that “facial recognition hits are not legally considered ‘probable cause’ for cops to make an arrest” and this technology “is not foolproof,” but it is a step in the right direction. It helps victims identify suspects, the police can do more investigations with a clearer direction of where they’re headed, and it saves time and resources.

Resisting Stop and Frisk as a State Agent

By: Ji Park

The efficacy of the stop-and-frisks has been a topic among law enforcements, and has recently been brought to the spotlight due to the recent lawsuit that challenged NYPD on their controversial technique. Pedro Serrano is a New York City officer retaliating against the racialized stop-and-frisk tactics. Abiding by his own moral belief, Serrano made fewer stop-and-frisk stops compared to his colleagues. His stance of the controversial technique of stop and frisk clashed with his bosses in NYPD who encouraged utilizing stop-and-frisk to meet the quotas. Serrano’s accounts reveal the firm belief of NYPD on the efficacy of stop-and-frisk. According to Serrano and another officer Adhyl Polanco, the stops entailed of racial profiling to target blacks and latinos. This racialized side of the New York trial brings the attention to the legitimacy and fairness of the stop-and-frisk tactic. NYPD denies the accusations of racial profiling, even though 87% of all those who were stopped were black and latino. The lawsuit is not demanding a complete stop to the stop and frisks, only that it is supervised with more oversight, to ensure “all stop-and-frisks be based on reasonable, articulable suspicion”.

The tactic of stop-and-frisk roots its origin from the broken windows theory, a theory of aggressive policing focused on crime reduction. Broken windows theory suggests that untended property encourages untended behavior; leading to the question on the efficacy of the broken window policy in the urban areas of the United States such as Los Angeles and New York. Perhaps it is time to shift from the tactic that stems from the broken windows policy, originally designed to have zero-tolerance and no-nonsense policing, to a more advanced tactic that is tailored to the urban neighborhoods of the US. With further continuation of the stop-and-frisk method, NYPD risks legitimacy among citizens. 

Near the end of the article, Nicholas Pert testifies on the stand to advocate his stance on being racially profiled as an innocent black man. His accounts were one of the examples in our Policing and Society class, depicting his negative experiences of being stopped and searched numerous times altering his overall behavior and demeanor. Nicholas Pert is a victim of the adverse effect of stop-and-frisk tactic: being unfairly targeted started to alter the way he conducted his life. According to the article, the plaintiffs also appeal their humiliation and fear they experienced while being searched. The validity and efficacy of the stop and frisk tactic must be reviewed. Zimring has already published his personal view against the tactic, but perhaps more extensive search is needed. It is disturbing to see that the officers who refuse to conduct the controversial tactic that has yet to be proven in efficacy is subjected to questions from the state agents, being accused of not doing their job properly.

Evident in the article is the issue of racial profiling. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is a supreme court decision that shifted the police’s powers to stop and search on “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion”. As the legitimacy in the tactic of stop-and-frisk grows, ACLU have filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia on Racial profiling among stop and frisk routines. In a precedent case against the LAPD in 2008, the police could search anyone with ‘suspicious activity’, now they are no longer allowed to search people committing minor infractions such as jaywalking or sleeping on the street. As Professor Musheno asserted in class, racialized policing is one of the major problems of police malfeasance. Bias and human error among stop and frisk policy is unavoidable. As the issue of stop-and-frisk gathers the media attention, demands for reform is growing. 

iPhone Tracking

By: Lissette Morales

While walking around the U.C. Berkeley campus, one cannot help but notice that an immensely large proportion of both the student and staff population own a remarkably ingenious device: the iPhone. Yet, despite the usefulness of such a device, indulging in the iPhone’s technologically advanced features comes at a cost.

     

In the article “Report: iPhones secretly track their users' locations”, the public is informed of the iPhone’s ability to secretly track and store every single location the iPhone’s owner has visited. When synched to a computer, every location visited by the owner as well as the time the owner was there, is stored on his/her computer and can be easily accessed by anybody who comes into contact with the computer. Even though there is no evidence that the information being collected through the iPhone is being transmitted to Apple, there remains the possibility that Apple will in fact use this stored information to create an app in the future that requires a history of previously visited locations. In response to this discovery, the researchers who discovered this storing of information decided to create a program called the iPhone tracker that allows iPhone owners to view a map of all of the movement that has been tracked by their iPhone. The iPhone tracker enables the public to grasp the magnitude of the iPhone’s location collecting capabilities.

    

Gilliom and Monahan attempt to demonstrate that we are all in one way or another being surveilled, because we live in an information society built around a social architecture that instills in us a social need to give out information about ourselves. Yet, in this case, we are NOT willingly granting permission for our information to be stored and made so easily accessible. As the author of the article points out, even though we are aware that all cellphones can track our location, this information is kept behind a firewall and is only made accessible with a court order. On the other hand, the location information tracked by an Iphone is available to anybody. Sadly, the tracking of location information could potentially be used to generate profits for Apple.

     

Professor Musheno makes a valid point when he states that market values are becoming more and more valuable. The potential profits made through apps seem to be more important than our right to not have our information compromised. As more possibilities for an expansion of technologies and profit are being created, the less our rights are taken into account. Fortunately, there are forms of counter-surveillance, such as the iPhone tracker that use surveillance to open the public’s eyes about the invasiveness of the surveillance tactics being used. Yet, I question whether the program will be successful at dissuading individuals from purchasing an iPhone. Some may just not care if their information is being stored and others may simply value the iPhone’s many other features too much to stop using it. I for one recently bought one and can’t imagine my constant “on-the-go” lifestyle without it, regardless if my information is being stored or not.

Effects of Aggressive Police Practices on Youths

By: Sehun Lee

Police officers in schools might be frowned upon but it may be argued that that their presence would more good than harm. Although many would argue that increased arrests, creation of criminal records for students as well as increased tasking of the justice system; their presence might avert serious crimes for example the columbine shooting(kupchik in reader). However the potential for racial oppression might increase. Having the police in schools is therefore more of a trade-off i.e. increased monitoring is good but it’s less likely that the police will prevent every possible crime that might occur, however it would seem that the pros outweigh the cons.

The police watch the mess halls, supervise students as they board their buses home, as well as general patrol. The patrols seek to remind the students of an existing force and help the schools manage the students. In addition to those roles, the police carry out investigations into minor offences around the school such as thefts, fights; follow up on cases and so on. It is important that the students be taught the law and inevitably the consequences of breaking laws, a role the police are most suited for. However counseling and teaching are not roles the police cherish. Most importantly, the police help in enforcing discipline within the school and the positive impact of these is that the students know that school rules are important. However there is an underside because the punishment meted for indiscipline might be too harsh (kupchik in reader)

Police presence benefits the administrators mostly because they can be advised on the seriousness of the crimes committed within the school. More importantly the police help to ensure that the schools’ safety initiatives are unquestionable, especially when parents are unpleased. Lastly the law enforcers help the administrators mitigate certain behaviors through appropriate harsh consequences’. Unfortunately, the police also create confusion within the school as to whose authority is greater; the administration or the police? Conflicts can arise if teachers feel that their roles are being undermined. The effect of this is that the teachers are continuously detached from their students as they just concentrate on teaching alone. The problem with this is that the police view the students as criminals, not as troubled teens being that they don’t know their backgrounds and that is the main cause of the strife between the police and the youth.

In the NYLS law review, growing up policed in the age of aggressive policing policies, the aggressive policing practices of the NYPD have been brought to light and their effect on the youth. The policies are based upon the broken windows theory; which maintains that surveillance and order in urban environments reduces crime.  Most important is the stop, question and frisk strategy which is based on reasonable suspicion and was supported in 1968 in Terry v Ohio. Terry is intended to enable the police carry out their work with ease, but its effect on the youth welfare cannot go unnoticed. The stop and frisk has had adverse effects to immigrant youth and those of color, and especially after the aftermath of 9/11.

The police stops target the youth more, in fact the NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk dataset for the years 2008 and 2009 showed that most of the stops involved kids in their teens, mostly in high school. The reason for this stops are inarticulate and are based on a hunch, such as suspicion, furtive movements and this begs the question as to whether the stops are based on race, gender or even sexual orientation. The police argue that the main reason for stop and frisk is to minimize contraband among the youth. The case of the Guyanese youth who pulled his gun on the police would certainly support this claim (kaieteur news, 2012)

The PFJ survey shows that most of the police contact was reported outside school, and some reported inside school. The increased police presence and the zero tolerance policy in the streets have also found its way in the schools as part of the school safety campaign. The NYCLU reported that in the fall of 2008, 5055 school safety agents were working in NYC’s public schools and another 191 armed NYPD officers were assigned to bring about change in those schools with the highest crime rates (and also schools largely populated with poor youth of color). It is evident that as much as the police presence might be applauded, it has more negative effects than positive. A better approach would be integrating the police with the community so that the force appears friendlier than foe.

Profits or Privacy?

By: Aaron Lee

In a recent BBC News article on technology, Google was criticized by EU privacy watchdogs for supposedly infringing its users' rights by failing to provide adequate information about the firm's scope of collection and potential usage of their personal data. According to CNIL, the French data privacy regulator that carried out the investigations, Google “might be in breach of several of the bloc's data protection principles” for providing "incomplete and approximate" details regarding their newly updated privacy policy. UK-based organization Big Brother Watch also supported these findings, asserting that citizens need to be aware of when and how their behavior is being monitored in order to make informed choices regarding their online activity. While Google adamantly claims that it has and will continue to abide by European law, their vague and incomplete responses to official inquiries calls into question whether or not the company is truly trying to be transparent and honest about its business practices.

To that end, CNIL has recommended that Google modify its policies in order to provide users with more direct control, such as 1) allowing its members to choose under what circumstances data about them was combined by asking them to click on dedicated buttons, 2) offering a centralized opt-out tool for users to decide which services can share their data, and 3) by differentiating the tools used for security and those used for advertising. These are all crucial improvements that need to be made in order for ordinary citizens to regain direct power over how and where their data is stored and shared. As mentioned in Gilliom and Monahan's book SuperVision, people are “vaguely aware” that their cellphone data, Google searches, and Facebook posts can be monitored, but many are completely ignorant about what they stand to lose when they click “Ok, got it” without knowing which shadowy individual now has access to the most intimate details of their lives.

In fact, while the suggestions made by CNIL are a decent first step in piercing the surface of our massive surveillance society, more needs to be done. Before users can even choose under “which circumstances” data can be shared, Google should offer them the choice of whether or not they even want to share any data at all. Furthermore, instead of just “streamlining” its privacy policy—which many people do not bother to read in full anyway—Google should integrate it into everyday tasks, actively notifying users about the potential risks each step of the way via mandatory checkpoints or text pop-ups. However, does Google also have rights to use the information that—as Gilliom and Monahan remind us—we knowingly and willingly provide in the first place? Is it unfair for Google, which specializes in information gathering, to not be able to use its key resource for profit? Or should our right to privacy and security completely override that incentive? What then would be the fate of corporations like Facebook and Twitter? Balancing both profits and privacy may be a tricky legal and social issue for years to come.

'Stop-And-Frisk' Quota

By: Tonny Leao

     

A nonjury trial involving a lawsuit from four men who argue the NYPD stops mostly black and Hispanic men without probable cause. This lawsuit seeks to reform and may even stop the stop-and-frisk which was made legal under a 1968 supreme court decision in terry v. In the nonjury trial, police officers were able to testify and made statements about the stop-and-frisk policy".

            

"Police officers testifying at a federal trial challenging New York City's stop-and-frisk policy say they were ordered to increase their number of arrests, summons and 250s — the code for stop, question and frisk". According to the article, police officers who fail meet the quota could be denied days off and overtime, and even be given a poor evaluation. Also it mentions that if they didn't meet the quotas they were sometimes forced to "drive their supervisors" who would make them give out to summons and make street stops, sometimes to people they didn't even observe.

            

Another police testify and said that "This is about quotas. At the end of the day, it's about quotas," he said. "That's why there is such an epidemic in these communities of people getting stopped and frisked — because the police are told to get numbers, and they are not interested in the numbers of radio runs or how they help. They are interested in arrests, summons and 250s." This article suggest that police officers in New York are too focus on meeting their quota. This system sacrifice quality over quantity. Many will argue that police who are cutting close to their quota deadline will probably stop and frisk someone without any probable cause.  Does pressure to boost statistics cause police to stop, question and frisk people, whether or not there's a real suspicion of a crime? Another testimony for this trial, three police department supervisors  all said no, "we are not a police department that wants to do numbers for number sake" said Heidi Grossman of the New York City Law Department.

            

What should we believe and what is the right thing to do? Should we modify stop-and-frisk or just remove it? Surely this type of policing have shown reduce crime rates with also combining it with other policing methods. I believe that police should not meet a quota but focus on making successful stops with probable cause. Police officers should not be pressure to make forced stops just to meet a number to satisfy their supervisor. I believe that the police who are not force to meet a quota and focus more on important issues in their city will create a more safe environment for their citizens. Hopefully this issue is resolved and that this will not diminish the safety of society.  

Diversity in the Department, but How?

By: Taylor Lawson

The struggle of diversity within police departments has increasingly become an issue for many departments around the nation today. As cities continue to become more and more diverse, many departments find themselves playing catch up trying to both mirror and respond to this diversity in their community. An honest desire to ensure that their city’s people feel legitimately represented by their police department, along with political pressures, make up a few of the reasons why diversity is becoming more of a priority in departments. Some reasons reflect a much higher level of seriousness, such as those that fueled the Frederick Police Department’s need to prioritize diversity. The Frederick PD, located in Frederick, Maryland, received a lawsuit condemning the reality of the department’s mainly white male demographic.  The Frederick News Post describes, “the allegation in the civil action was that the predominantly white police department had been routinely stopping and searching black residents without probable cause.”

             

With these real and immediate pressures, the issue then shifts to how departments can begin diversifying in a fair way. However, the question of how to go about solving this issue just leads to more problems. For example, in Frederick, the lawsuit reached a settlement that required the department to hire “at least one black applicant for every non-black hired, until 13% of the force’s officers were black”. A goal demanding enough on its own, it also brings more difficulties with the effect it has on other groups. One issue stemming from the action of Frederick to achieve a more diverse police force is the fact that now the department is forced to discriminate against all other minority groups when being compared to an African-American applicant. This does not seem fair to all other minority groups, especially those less visible to the public eye, as diversity consists of more than just ethnicity, but also one’s economic background, sexual preference, etc.

             

The Baton Rouge Police Department faces a similar problem, despite efforts to diversify. Jim Mustian, writer of the local Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate, shares that the past five years of hiring data suggests that African-American applicants are less likely to be hired than their white peers. However, police spokesman Lt. Don Kelly says there is no easy answer as to why the department does not have more diversity, defending fair hiring practices, and describing that it is a “disservice” to look past the individuals and include things such as race, as ignoring the best individuals for any reason simply lowers the standards.

             

Questioning how aggressive the department’s efforts are to diversify, Kwame Asanté, president of the Baton Rouge chapter of the NAACP, feels that there is not enough community outreach. Increasing a “community-based effort to recruit” qualified individuals of minority groups will increase minority applicants, making the hiring of minority groups more likely. While there are many factors to point to in describing why there is not more diversity, such as unfair standardized tests or a biased oral interview board, there does not seem to be any clear solution yet. For the recruiting officers in Baton Rouge, they have decided to take the community outreach approach, reaching out to minority groups through community appearances at churches, universities, and job fairs.