THREAT ANDHUMILIATIONcial Profiling,Domestic Security,and Human Rights - PDF document

THREAT ANDHUMILIATIONcial Profiling,Domestic Security,and Human Rights in the United StatesU.S.Domestic Human Rights Program Amnesty International is a worldwide human rights activist movement with more than 1.8 million members inmore than 150 countries and territories,including nearly 350,000 members in the United States.Amnesty InternationalÕs vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.Amnesty International undertakes research and action focused onpreventing and ending grave abuses of theights to physical and mental integrity,freedom of conscience and expression,and freedom from discrimination,within the context of its work to promote all human rights.Amnesty International is independent of any government,political ideology,or religious creed.It does not supportor oppose any government or political system.It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.Amnesty International is funded largely by its worldwide membership and by donations from the public.econd printing (October 2004)irst published in September 2004 byAmnesty International USA5 Penn Plazaw York,NY 10001www.amnestyusa.org© Copyright Amnesty International USA Publications 2004ISBN:1-887204-43-1Original language:Englishinted by:One Teaneck RoadRidgefield Park,NJ 07660All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted,inany form or by any means,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording and/or otherwise without the prior Definition of Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ixknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xivThe Human Impact of Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . .1ho Is Subjected to Racial Profiling . . . . . . . .1mber of Americans at Risk . . . . . . . . .2here Racial Profiling Commonly Occurs(as Described by Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3hile Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3hile Walking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6hile Traveling Through Airports . . . . .8hile Shopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9hile at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10hile Traveling to and from PlacesofWorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12acial Profiling of Immigrant Communities . .13 Day Laborers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13eet Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14electively Chosen Deportees andTheir Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15LessonsÑPast and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Distressed Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Disenfranchised Communities . . . . . . . . . . . .22Domestic Security Impact ofer-Generalized Suspicion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Ending Racial Profiling in the United States . . . . . . .28tate Laws on Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Recent Federal Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30A Good Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Another President Fails toThrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30A Resolute Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31eakened Constitutional GuaranteesAgainst Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31International Human Rights Treatiesohibiting Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Recommendations to the U.S.Government . . .35ake Affirmative Steps to Endacial Profiling and Related Formsof Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35vide Resources and TechnicalAssistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35vide Information and Educationon New Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35atify and Comply with Internationaltandards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Recommendations to State and LocalGovernments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36ass Comprehensive Anti-Racialofiling Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Recommendations to Federal,State,and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Initiate and Support PublicCampaigns Against Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Respond to Racist Attacks andublicize the Results of DisciplinaryHearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36lice Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37to Monitor Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Implement Effective DiversityRecruitment Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Review Policies and Practicesfor Possible Discriminatory Impact . . . . . . . . . .37vide Required Funding . . . . . . . . . . .37ithhold Funding from RogueDepartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Recommendations to Federal,State,and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Enforce Existing Anti-Racialofiling Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38ain Law Enforcement Officersdequately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38et Effective Standards forMistreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Collect,Keep Data and Report Abuses . .38Monitor,Investigate and Punisholice Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Ensure Fair Treatment ofImmigrants and Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39ey of Racial Profiling Lawsby State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Estimated Racial Profilingctim Totals by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Scope and Sources of Research . . . . . . .50Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Amnesty International USA defines racial profiling as the targeting of individuals andgroups by law enforcement officials,even partially,on the basis of race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,or religion,except where there is trustworthy information,relevant to the locality andtimeframe,that links persons belonging to one of the aforementioned groups to anidentified criminal incident or scheme. acial profiling is a serious human rights problemaffecting millions of people in the United States inen the most routine aspects of their daily lives.ARights Program of Amnesty International USAfoundthat the unlawful use of race in police,immi-gration,and airport security procedures has expandedsince theterrorist attacks of September 11,2001.Thestudy further found that state laws provide insuf-ficient and inconsistent protection against profiling.Despite promises by President George W.Bushshortly after his taking office to end racial profiling,the number ofAmerican ethnic,racial,and religiousgroups whosemembers are at high risk of beingsubjected tothis scourge has increased substantially. address this growing national problem,AmnestyInternational USA (AIUSA) urges the White Houseand Congress to prioritize and enact the End Racialofiling Act of2004 and allocate sufficient funds forits vigorous enforcement.om July 2003 to August 2004,AIUSAÕs DomesticHuman Rights Program studied the current state ofracial profiling by law enforcement agencies in theUnited States.The process began with the consulta-tion of a wide range of community organizations(seeAcknowledgements) and the organizing of aseries of public hearings across the United Statesthroughout the fall of 2003 (San Francisco/Oaklandon September 9,Tulsa on September 30,New YorkCity on October 2,Chicago on October 18 and 20,and Dallas on November 15).At the hearings,victims,human rights advocates,experts and lawenforcement officials testified about their experienceswith racial profiling.The hearings were followedbyan intensive period of research that includedanalyzing:state laws concerning racial profiling;theupreme CourtÕs interpretation of relevantprotections guaranteed by the U.S.Constitution;pertinent federal policies;international treaties,covenants,and laws;recent national public opinionpolls;current U.S.census data;and a wide range ofliterature on the subject.The major findings of thisstudy may be summarized as follows:A staggering number of people in the United Statesare subjected to racial profiling:Approximately thirty-two million Americans,aeport they have already been victims of racialprofiling.Approximately eighty-seven million Americans areat a high risk of being subjected to future racial pro-filing during their lifetime.acial profiling directly affects Native Americans,Asian Americans,Hispanic Americans,AfricanAmericans,Arab Americans,Persian Americans,American Muslims,many immigrants and visitors,and,under certain circumstances,white Americans.acial profiling happens to both women and men,affects all age groups,is used against people from allsocio-economic backgrounds,and occurs in rural,suburban,and urban areas.acial profiling of citizens and visitors of MiddleEastern and South Asian descent,and others whoappear to be from these areas or members of theMuslim and Sikh faiths,has substantially increasedsince September 11,2001.As the testimony cited in this report shows,racialprofiling occurs in almost every context of peopleÕs lives:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY hile driving:A young African-American school-teacher reports being routinely pulled over in hissuburban neighborhood in San Carlos,California,where only five other African-American families live(page 3).Native Americans in Oklahoma report beingoutinely stopped by police because of the tribal tagsdisplayed on their cars (page 4).In Texas,a Muslimstudent of South Asian ancestry is pulled over andasked by police if he is carrying any dead bodies orIn Seattle,Washington,a group ofAsian-American youths are detained on a street cornerby police for 45 minutes on an allegation of jaywalking.hile asergeant ultimately ordered the officer inquestion to release them,the young people say theysaw whites repeatedly crossing the same street in anillegal manner without being stopped (page 7).hile traveling through airports:Muslim boy from Tulsa,Oklahoma was reportedlyseparated from his family while airport securityofficials searched him and dismantled his Boy Scoutpinewood derby car.He is now routinely stopped andsearched at airports (page 8).In New York City,an African-American woman shopping for holiday presents wasstopped by security at a major department store.Sheshowed the guards her receipts.Nonetheless,she wastaken to a holding cell in the building where every othersuspect she saw was a person of color.She was sub-jected to threats and a body search.She was allowedto leave without being charged three hours later,butwas not allowed to take her purchases (page9).A Latino family in a Chicago suburbwas reportedly awoken at 4:50 a.m.on the day afteratherÕs Day by nine building inspectors and policeofficers who prohibited the family from getting dressedor moving about.The authorities reportedly proceededto search the entire house to find evidence of over-crowding.Enforcement of the zoning ordinance,whichwas used to justify the search,was reportedly targetedat the rapidly-growing Latino population (page 10).hile traveling to and from places ofworship:Muslim imam from the Dallas area reports beingstopped and arrested by police upon leaving a mosqueafter an outreach event.Officers stopped him,searched his vehicle,arrested him for expired vehicletags,and confiscated his computer (page 12).Despite the prevalence and serious nature of theproblemÑincluding the devastating effect that itoften has on victims,their families,and their com-unitiesÑno jurisdiction in the U.S.has addressedthe problem in a way that is both effective andcomprehensive.While as of the writing of this report29 states have passed laws concerning racial profiling,state and federal protections against this problemcontinue to be grossly insufficient:y-six states do not ban racial profiling based oneligion or religious appearance.Thirty-five states do not ban racial profiling ofpedestrians (and the majority of the fifteen states thatdo,use a definition of racial profiling that makes theban virtually unenforceable in most circumstances).The scope of TennesseeÕs current racial profilinglawis so limited that it pertains to the conditionsunder which fingerprint records are obtained.In June 2003,the Department of Justice issued itsuidance Regarding the Use ofRace by Federal LawEnforcement Agenciesforbidding racial profiling byfederal law enforcement officials.Yet,the guidancedoes not cover profiling based on religion,religiousappearance,or national origin;does not apply to stateor local law enforcement agencies;does not includeany enforcement mechanisms;does not specifypunishment for violating officers/agencies;andcontains a blanket exception for Ònational securityÓand Òborder integrityÓcases.The advisory,and hence is not legally binding.On February 27,2001,President Bush said,Òracialprofiling is wrongÓand promised to Òend it in America.Óet,almost four years later he has failed to supportany federal legislative effort to eliminate racialprofiling in the United States.hen law enforcement officials focus on whatpeople look like,what religion they follow,or whatthey wear,it puts us all at risk.Several incidents inhistory illustrate this risk:In 1901,President McKinleyÕs assassin,a whiteman born in Michigan,was able to conceal theAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION rder weapon in a bandage wrapped around hisarm,pass through security,and go undetected until heshot the president because secret service agents haddecided to focus their attention on a Òdark complexionedman with a moustache.ÓIn 1995,after bombing the Alfred P.Murrah federalbuilding in Oklahoma City,Timothy McVeigh,awhite male assailant later convicted of delivering thebomb alone,was able to flee while officers operatedon the initial theory that ÔArab terroristsÕhad com-mitted the attacks.In 2002,two African-American male snipers wereable to evade police and continue terrorizing residentsof the nationÕs capital and nearby areas.Police,relyingon racially-based profiles of serial killers,were search-KEY RECOMMENDATIONSAmnesty International USA calls on U.S.federal,state,and local governments and law enforcementagencies to eliminate this extremely prevalent humanights problem.Major recommendations contained inthis report include:The federal government should enact the Endacial Profiling Act of 2004,or similarly compre-hensive and effective anti-racial profiling legislation.tions under international treaties including the UnitedationsÕInternational Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights (ICCPR) and International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(CERD),and make it more difficult for law enforce-ment officers to violate AmericansÕrights under theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment to the U.S.Constitution,aswell as the FourthAmendmentÕs guarantee to protection from unreason-able searches.tate and local governments should enact laws thateffectively ban racial profiling.Each existing state lawshould be amended so that it includes the basic com-ponents necessary for such a law to be an effectivetool for combating this problem.These componentsinclude (for a full list of recommended state lawcomponents see ÒWhat a Good Law Would LookLikeÓon page 29):banning the targeting of individuals and groups bylaw enforcement,even partially,on the basis of race,ethnicity,national origin,or religion,except wherethere is trustworthy information,relevant to thelocality and timeframe,that links persons belonging toone of the aforementioned groups to an identifiedcriminal incident or schemeproscribing mandatory data collection for all stopsand for all searches of pedestrians and motoristscriminalizing violations of the ban on racialprofiling and specifying penalties for officers whoepeatedly engage in racial profilingAll law enforcement agencies should fully enforceexisting local,state,and national anti-racial profilingAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION By the Hon. Timothy K. LewisChair,AIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profilingrmer Judge,United States Court ofAppeals for theThird Circuitrmer U.S.Attorney for Western District ofPennsylvaniaCounsel to the Law Firm ofSchnader Harrison Segal&LeUnder the United States Constitution,every indi-vidual has the fundamental right to equal protectionunder the law regardless of race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,or religion.Racial profiling occurs when lawenforcement officialsÑin the absence of a suspect-specific descriptionÑselectively consider these char-acteristics in deciding whom to investigate,arrestandprosecute.It is a practice that strikes at the rootofour national principles of fairness and violates thehuman dignity of those victimized.The attacks ofeptember 11,2001 neither justify nor excuse it.As a former state and federal prosecutor and aformer federal judge,as the chair of AIUSAÕs nationalhearings on racial profiling,and as a proud citizenofthis country who has personally experienced theindignity of racial profiling,I am only too aware ofthe urgent need for a comprehensive piece of federalanti-racial profiling legislation that would ban thepractice,provide specific measures for data collection,and define procedures for bringing all law enforcementnational principles of fairness and nondiscrimination.ocusing on race,ethnicity,national origin,oreligion as a proxy for criminal behavior has alwaysfailed as a means to protect society from criminalactivity.In 1901,the Secret Service allowed an armedwhite assassin to pass through their security point atthe Pan-American Exposition in New York Statewithout being searched,focusing instead upon anAfrican-American former constable standing in linebehind the assassin.The white assassin shot and killedesident McKinley.The retired African-Americanuntil Secret Service agents were able to take him intocustody.More recently,Washington,DC police ChiefCharles RamseyÕs frank admission after the arrest ofserial snipers John Allen Muhammad and John LeeMalvo is also worth remembering:ÒWe were lookingfor a white van with white people,and we ended upwith a blue car with black people.ÓIn the context of the current War on Terror,weneed to understand that any system of racial profilingby law enforcement officers is likely to give membersof the public a false sense of security while making iteasier for would-be assailants to disguise their efforts.The arrests of John Walker Lindh (a white,middle-lass male),Jose Padilla (an alleged Chicano gangmember),and Richard Reid (a British citizen of WestIndian and European ancestry) suggest that Al Qaedamay already have been successful in recruiting adiversity of sympathizers capable of eluding such Judge Timothy K.Lewis at the AIUSA National Hearings on Racial practices.The post-9/11 increase in profiling peoplewho are of Arab,Muslim,South Asian,or MiddleEastern descent will not make us safer.In 2003,I volunteered to chair a series of hearingson racial profiling for the Domestic Human Rightsogram of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA).The hearings were held in San Francisco (September9),Oakland (September 9),Tulsa (September 30),w York City (October 2),Chicago (October 18 and20) and Dallas (November 15).The hearing panelsheard testimony from law enforcement officers andacademic experts,as well as community members whohad been victims of racial profiling.Interestingly,some of the law enforcement officers had not onlyengaged in racial profiling but were themselvesvictims of racial profiling.Together,they outlined aoss economic andreligiousboundaries,affects virtually every community of colorin this nation,and ultimately puts all of us at risk.The victims of racial profilingÑwho often waitedhours to testifyÑdescribed incidents of harassment,degradation,and apparent use of excessive force thatare driving a dangerous wedge between law enforce-ment agencies and the communities that they serve,protect and depend upon for cooperation.The storiescontained in this report from Amnesty InternationalUSA are not just isolated anecdotes.They are con-crete examples of the futility of racial profiling andtheharm it is doing to our nation.There have been times in our countryÕs historywhen visionaries have offered us much-neededeminders of our basic values,even as they stood withboth feet planted squarely in an urgent fight for free-dom and justice:American revolutionary ThomasJefferson,in declaring that Òall men are created equal,Óset in motion our potential for greatness as a nationand goodness as a people;Abraham Lincoln furtheredthat ideal at Gettysburg as he implored us,in thewake of unparalleled slaughter,to hold true to ourfoundersÕprinciples;Martin Luther King told us ofhis dream even as our country was being torn asunderby racism and bigotry. are faced with yet another galvanizing momentin our nationÕs history.The attacks of September 11,2001 require us to revisit the depth of our countryÕsegard for our basic freedoms.Racial profiling poses acontradiction to our fundamental values of equality,fairness and decency.Passing a federal law to eradicatethe practice of racial profiling,such as the End Racialofiling Act of 2004,would go a long way towardpreserving human rights and ensuring the security ofthis great nation.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION The U.S.Domestic Human Rights Program(USDHR) of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA)is indebted to several groups and individuals formaking this report possible.First and foremost,we aregrateful to the men,women,and children who bravelyame forward to discuss their experiences with racialprofiling.These included both victims who oftenfeared reprisal and law enforcement agents,some ofwhom said they feared possible political fallout. are also greatly indebted to the Hon.TimothyK.Lewis of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis.Judgewis,a former prosecutor and federal judge appointedby President George H.W.Bush to serve on the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,traveled aller the United States to chair the hearings,and hisknowledge,grace,and devotion to justice werepriceless assets to this research endeavor. are similarly appreciative to the organizationsthat provided advice and information during theesearch process.Many of these groups played a moreactive role by designating individuals to serve as panel-ists and providing witnesses and expert testimony.On the national level these organizations include:Arab American Institute (AAI);American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC);American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU);Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR);Mexican American LegalDefense and Educational Fund (MALDEF);ational Association for the Advancement of Coloredeople (NAACP);National Asian Pacific Americanegal Consortium (NAPALC);and SikhMediawatch and Resource Task Force (SMART).The Domestic Human Rights Program is alsograteful to local-level organizations who put effort inensuring community participation and representationat the events.These organizations include:New York City: American-Arab Anti-DiscriminationCommittee NY (ADC-NY);Amsterdam News;ArabAmerican Family Support Center (AAFSC);AsianAmerican Legal Defense and Education Fund(AALDEF);Audre Lord Project;Brennan CenterforJustice;Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR);Conextions Inc.;Desi Rising Up and Moving(DRUM);Drug Policy Alliance;Families foreedom;Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA);Judson Memorial Church;Latino Workers Center;esbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force;ational Coalition for Amnesty and Dignity forUndocumented Immigrants;New York Area MuslimBar Association;New York City Commission onHuman Rights;New York Civil Liberties Union(NYCLU);New York Street Vendors United Coali-tion (CAAAV,Street Vendors Project and DomestickersÕInitiative of the Urban Justice Center,Esperanza del Barrio,New York Immigration Coali-tion,Latin American Workers Project);October 22Coalition to Stop Police Brutality;Office of theAttorney General of New York;Office of the New City Commissioner on Human Rights;Publicolicy and Community Outreach;Repression and theCriminalization of a Generation;RestaurantOpportunities Center of NY (ROC-NY);Sista IIista;Solidarity Action for Human Rights (SAHR);outh Asian Workers Project for Human Rights.American Civil Liberties Union of Dallas(ACLU-Dallas);Arab American Heritage Society;Bill of Rights Committee of Greater Dallas;CatholicCharities and Community Relations Commission ofGreater Dallas;Council on American-Islamic Rela-tions DFW (CAIR-DFW);Dallas Police Depart-ment;El Centro College;League of Women Voters;Muslim Legal Fund of America;SMU Dedman School of Law.American Civil LibertiesUnion of Chicago (ACLU-Chicago);Americaniends Service Committee;American MuslimCouncil;Applied Research Center (ARC);Blackwork in ChildrenÕs Emotional Health;ArabAmerican Action Network;Blocks Together;BosnianHerzegovinian American Community Center;Cambodian Association of Illinois;Campaign toEndthe Death Penalty;Casa Aztlan;Center forImpact Research;Centro Romero;Centro Sinonteras;Chicago Commission for Human Rights;Chicago Commission on Human Relations;ChicagoCommittee to Defend the Bill of Rights;ChineseAmerican Service League;Chinese Mutual AidAssociation;Civil Rights Bureau of the Office of theAttorney General;Coalition of African,Asian,Euro-pean and Latino Immigrants of Illinois (CAAELLI);Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago;Crossroads Fund;Cry for Justice;Eighth Day Centerfor Justice;Erie Neighborhood House;EthiopianCommunity Association of Chicago;First Defenseegal Aid;Haitian American Community Associa-tion;Heartland Alliance/Ed Centro de Educacion yCutura;HOPE Fair Housing Center;Illinois Coali-tion for Immigrant and Refugee Rights;IndoAmericanCenter;Inner City Muslim Action Network;Institutede Progreso Latino;Institute for Teacher Develop-ment and Research-DePaul University,School ofEducation;Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice -kerÕs Rights Center;Japanese American ServiceCenter;Jewish Council on Urban Affairs;JusticeCoalition of Greater Chicago;Korean AmericanCommunity Services;Korean American Resource andCultural Center;Korean American Senior Center;ao American Community Services;LatinoOrganization of the Southwest;Midwest AsianAmerican Center;Midwest Immigrant and HumanRights Center;Multicultural Youth Project;MuslimCivil Rights Center;National Association for thedvancement of Colored People (NAACP-Southide);New Covenant Baptist Church;Nationalawyers Guild;Rainbow Push Coalition;Sikh Mediaatch and Resource Task Force;Southwest Organ-izing Project;Students for Social Justice;UniversityofChicago-Human Rights Department;VideoMachete;Vietnamese Association of Illinois.American Civil Liberties Union of Tulsa (ACLU-ulsa);Community Services Council of Greaterulsa;Family/Children Services;Islamic SocietyofTulsa;National Association for the Advancementof Colored People of Tulsa (NAACP-Tulsa);NativeAmerican Times;North Tulsa Community Council;The Ebony Tribune;Tulsa Indian Coalition Againstcism (TICAR);Police Executive Research Forum(PERF);Tulsa Community College;Tulsa HumanRights Commission;Center for Racial Justice;AsianAmerican Community Services.Akhlaghi & Associates;American-ArabAnti-Discrimination Committee,San Francisco(ADC-SF);American Civil Liberties Union ofthern California (ACLU of Northern California);Applied Research Center (ARC);Asian Law Caucus;Bay Area Immigrants Rights Coalition;Bay AreaHate Crimes Investigators Coalition;Bay Area Policeatch;CLINIC of San Francisco;CommunityUnited Against Violence;Department of Ethnictudies,University of California at Berkeley;EllaBaker Human Rights Center;Goldman School ofublic Policy,University of California at Berkeley;Human Rights Advocates;Independent Press Associ-ation (IPA);La Raza Centro Legal;Lawyers Com-mittee for Civil Rights;National Asian PacificAmerican WomenÕs Leadership Institute;NationalawyersÕGuild;New California Media (NCM);Oakland Police Department;Racial Justice Con-sortium;San Francisco Bay View Newspaper;Sanancisco Office of the Attorney General;Sanancisco Police Department;Siegel & Yee Lawimmons & Unger Law Offices;Refuse andResist;San Francisco Human Rights Commission;Department of Education Office for CivilRights;WomenÕs Institute of Leadership Develop- would also like to thank all of the USDHRogram interns who have put in countless hoursofresearch for this project:Alex Anurca,HeidiCurtis,Conrad Erb,Ann Ferrari,Nima Kulkarni,Jeremy Louise,Darija Morozovo,Rondi Mosteller,Robert Mugisha,Ajmel Quereshi,Lauree Richardson,wati Sawant,Demitrius Thomas,Teresa Torgoff,Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Marko Turk,Anne Venhuizen,and Erica Williams. especially appreciate the dogged legal researchprovided by University of the District of Columbialaw student Damien Bernache and the analysisprovided by Amnesty AIUSA board memberFarahBrelthermore,the USDHR Program is indebtedtoour colleagues working on racial profiling at thenational and legislative offices of the American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU) and the racial profilingworking group at the Leadership Conference on CivilRights (LCCR) for their partnership in working tofind an effective solution to this grave problem.inally,we would like to express gratitude to ourcolleagues at AIUSA and the International Secre-tariat,who never hesitated to provide their guidanceand knowledge throughout this project.Benjamin Todd JealousNiaz Kasravi,Ph.D.DirectorResearcherAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION issue.While some may view it as merely a publicrelationsproblem,a political issue or an administrative challenge,inthe final analysis,racially biased policing is antithetical todemocratic policing.ÓÒWe were looking for a white van with white people,and we endedÑWashington DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey on ending the search for theÒWashington Area SnipersÓacial profilingis a deep-rooted problem in theUnited States.Despite evidence that it is ineffectiveand often makes us less safe,many law enforcementofficials continue to rely on this blunt race-basedtactic in hopes of apprehending more offenders.Thisthe attacks of September 11,2001.ccording to the most recent opinion polls andcensus data,there are as many racial profiling victimsin the United States as there are people in Canada.Atleast 32 million (one out of nine) people in theUnited States report having been racially profiled.dditionally,on any day of the week,at least 87 mil-lion (almost one in three) people in this country areathigh risk of being victimized in this way becausethey belong to a racial,ethnic,or religious groupwhose members are commonly targeted by policeforunlawful stops and searches.acial profiling is a human rights violationcanaffect Americans in virtually every sphere of theirdailylives and often has an impact that goes far beyondthe initial incident.As the testimonies summarized inthis report reveal,this seemingly ubiquitous humanights violation leaves its victims feeling humiliated,depressed,helpless,and angry.Furthermore,racialprofiling reinforces residential segregation,creates fearand mistrust,and engenders reluctance in reportingcrimes and cooperating with police officers.In thesetimes of domestic insecurity,our nation simply cannotafford to tolerate practices and policies that buildwalls between individuals or communities and thosewho are charged with the duty of protecting all of us.om a domestic security perspective,the bottomline is that nobody knows what the next terrorist,serial killer,or smuggler will look like.In Washingtonofthe U.S.Domestic Human Rights Program ofAIUSA,the staff and thousands of other innocentarea residents were forced to live in fear for severaldays as two snipers randomly killed local residents.The police,apparently operating on the standardprofile of a serial killer,told the public to be on thelook out for an antisocial white male,probablytraveling alone.Later they suggested this individualwas possibly driving a white van.arresting,and ultimately convicting,two African-American males in a blue car.Later in 2003,while thestaff was reviewing multiple complaints from Araband South Asian Americans about being profiled atairports,news stories appeared about a white collegestudent from Maryland who was able to sneak boxcutters,knives,and a substance resembling plasticexplosives onto six airplanes without being detectedby airport security officials.Then,as the report wasbeing drafted and more than a year after native-bornBritish citizen Richard Reid had been arrested for try-ing to ignite a shoe bomb on a trans-Atlantic airline,ame reports that Federal officials were searching forEuropean-lookingÓAl Qaeda operatives.Unfortu-nately,a virtually simultaneous announcement that the FBI was closely monitoring thousands of Muslimsin the U.S.,as well as related complaints that continueto be received by several civil rights organizations,suggest that federal authorities continue to targetpeople of Middle Eastern and South Asian descentfor scrutiny in airports and other contexts.this ineffective and unfair targeting may give sometheillusion of safety,it actually makes us all less safe.The people of the United States of America con-tinue to pay a price for the failure of their leadershipand law enforcement agencies to fully learn the lessonthat judgments made essentially on the basis of skincolor,hair texture,gender,nation of origin,faith arean unreliable basis for determining which individualsto monitor,search,or question.Similarly,historicalexamplesÑfrom the assassination of PresidentMcKinley to the ongoing ÒWar on TerrorÓÑsuggestthat racial profiling diverts law enforcementÕs atten-tion away from criminal behavior in ways that ulti-mately put the welfare of the nation,its citizens,andits leadership at risk.thermore,the United States federal and stategovernments have each failed to pass comprehensiveenforceable legislation to effectively address theproblem of racial profiling.Moreover,the SupremeCourt has made it easier for police officers to engagein some forms of the practice.These are the conclusions of a year-long study byAmnesty International USA (AIUSA) on racialprofiling by law enforcement in the United States.The study included holding hearings on individualases,local trends,and suggested remedies in eachegion of the country:an Francisco and Oakland,California(September 9,2003)Chicago,Illinois (October 18 and 20,2003)w York City,New York (October 2,2003)ulsa,Oklahoma (September 30,2003) andDallas,TX (November 15,2003)This project also entailed an examination of:allexisting state-level racial profiling legislation passed asof August 1,2004;a review of reports on profiling byprivate and public agencies;cross-referencing of publicopinion data and U.S.Census information;and moni-toring of reports in ethnic and mainstream media.ogether,the data suggest racial profiling is asystemic problem that targets millions of innocentAmericans in an overwhelming array of contexts andhas undermined U.S.federal,state,and local lawenforcement agenciesÕability to detect actual domesticsecurity threats and apprehend serial killers,assassins,and other purveyors of terror.tunately,our nationÕs history of successfully over-coming many manifestations of discrimination alsosuggests that racial profiling is a problem we cansolve. idell,Lorie,et al.,ÒRacially Biased Policing:A PrincipledResponse,Óolice Executive Research Forum,2001,p.x.Availableathttp://policeforum.mn-8.net/default.asp?link=.Craig Whitlock and Josh White,ÒPolice Checked SuspectÕslates at Least 10 Times,Óashington Post,Oct.26,2002.Amnesty International USA defines racial profiling as thetargeting of individuals and groups by law enforcement evenpartially on the basis of race,ethnicity,national origin,oreligion,except where there is trustworthy information,relevanttothe locality and timeframe,that links persons belonging tooneof the aforementioned groups to an identified criminal inci-dent or scheme.Estimated totals were derived by cross-referencing currentpopulation estimates and opinion poll data.Population estimatesare based on 2000 U.S.Census figures adjusted to reflectHispanicpopulation as separate group.Estimate provided bytheSocial Science Data Analysis Network through their websitewww.censusscope.org.Racial profiling victimization rates arebased on the most recent available national polling data for eachracial/ethnic category.Black,Hispanic,and White victimizationrates are from ÒRacial Profiling in America:Racially Biasedolicing:Determinants of Citizen Perceptions,ÓGeorgeashington University,Department of Sociology,Washington2004 (survey conducted in Dec.2002).Asian and multi-racial victimization rates are from ÒRace and Ethnicity in 2001:Attitudes,Perceptions,and Experiences.ÓThe Washington Post,aiser Family Foundation,and Harvard University.(August2001).No national data was available for Native American orative Hawaiian victimization rates.Estimates are based on 2000 U.S.Census totals for racial andethnic groups frequently targeted by racial profiling.or a detailed discussion of Constitutional guarantees andinternational standards and treaties on racial profiling please seeEd Vulliamy,ÒPolice Let SniperÕs Car Go 10 Times DuringSpree,ÓThe Observer,Oct.27,2002.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION ed Brown,ÒNeither TSA Nor Stunt Can Ensure Safety,ÓDenver Post,Final Edition,Oct.26,2003.hannon McCaffrey,ÒU.S.Issues Alert for 7 Terror Suspects,ÓStar Telegram,May 27,2004,available at:http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/ nation/8772571.htmhannon McCaffrey,ÒNew FBI Sweeps for Terror Cluesorries Muslims,ÓDetroit Free Press,May 27,2004.y v.Ohio,392 U.S.1,27 (1968),the Supreme Courtlowered the standard of constitutional protection allowing policeofficer to more easily detain and search individuals,leading to morepolice discretion and an increased likelihood of race-based stops.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION As I have said to my Muslim and Arab friends ...ÔWelcome to the frontline.ÕÓÑRev.Charles Stovall,Southern Christian Leadership Conference,commentingonthe historical experience between law enforcement and African Americans inDallas,Texas and the expansion of racial profiling practices after the attacks ofSeptember 11,2001Approximately 32 million people in the U.S.Ñumber equivalent to the entire population ofCanadaÑreport having been victims of racial pro-filing (see Table 1).Furthermore,the scope of racialprofiling has dramatically expanded since the attacksof September 11,2001 (9/11).ior to 9/11,racial profiling typically entailedrace-based stops of African-American,Latino,Asian-American,and Native-American motorists andpedestrians.Reports show that these pre-9/11 typesofprofiling have continued.In one instance twoplain-clothed Chicago,Illinois police officers stoppedMr.Donald Boyd,a sixty-two-year-old African-American professional and former corrections officer,as he walked down the street.They asked him whathe had been sold in the public housing developmenthe had just passed.He responded that he had notbeen sold anything,at which point the officers askedto search him.When Mr.Boyd refused,he was cuffedand searched anyway.Even though nothing wasfound,he was told that he was being charged withpossession of a controlled substance,was arrested,andforced to spend a night in jail.ince the 9/11 attacks,the number of groupsfrequently targeted by racial profiling has expanded.Itis increasingly used to target Arabs,Muslims,SouthAsians,and people of Middle-Eastern descent orappearance in a variety of ways.or example,Mr.Mohammed Ali of Denton,Texas,was pulled over bypolice officers because one of his car lights wasbrighter than the other.Officers reportedly proceededto repeatedly ask Mr.Ali if he had any dead bodies orbombs in his car.When Mr.Ali replied that he didnot have any dead bodies or bombs in his car,thepolice searched his vehicle without consent,found asmall pocketknife in the pocket of his passenger-sidedoor and arrested him.As the testimonies presented in this chapter andnumbers presented in Table 1 illustrate,these storiesare not uncommon or merely anecdotal.ing 2003 and 2004,AIUSA received reports ofracial profiling primarily being used against:African Americansative Americans Hispanic/Latino AmericansThe Human Impact ofRacial Profiling able 1 National Estimate of Racial Profiling Victims (U.S.)RaceTotal Pop.RP RateVictim Pop.Black (Non-Hisp.)3447%16 Hispanic3523%8Asian (Non-Hisp.)1011%1Multiracial (Non-Hisp.)519%1White (Non-Hisp.)1953%6 Estimated total racial profiling victims (in millions)32Sources:Population estimates:All numbers rounded to nearest million.Based on 2000 U.S.Census figures adjusted to reflect Hispanic population as separate group.Estimate providedbythe Social Science Data Analysis Network through the website www.censusscope.org.RacialProfiling Victimization Rates:The most recent aforeach category.Black,Hispanic,and White victimization rates are from ÒRacial Profiling inAmerica:Racially Biased Policing:Determinants of Citizen Perceptions,George WashingtonUniversity,Dept.of Sociology,Washington DC,2004 (survey conducted in Dec.2002).Asianandmultiracial victimization rates are from ÒRace and Ethnicity in 2001:Attitudes,Perceptions,The Washington Post,Kaiser Family Foundation,and Harvard University(August 2001).No national data was available for Native American or Native Hawaiian victimiza- Arab Americans anian AmericansAsian Americans,including South AsiansMuslim Americans ikh Americansimmigrants and visitors from Africa,Asia,SouthAmerica,Mexico,Central America,and the CaribbeanAIUSA also received a small number of reportsfrom and about white Americans (who did not belongto one of the ethnic or religious groups listed above)who had been unfairly targeted because of their racialappearance.These reports included incidents that hadoccurred in the context of non-suspect-specific policesearches for drug customers in majority-minorityneighborhoods and for serial killers.ictims mentioned in the reports include both menand women;span all age groups (from toddlers to seniorcitizens);and range from day workers to professionals.Individuals complained of being selected onthe basisof their physical characteristics,religious appearance,last name,or a combination of these characteristics.Incidents occurred in both urban and rural settings.AIUSA estimates that almost one in three people in theUnited StatesÑapproximately 87 million individualsin a total population of approximately 281 millionÑisat high risk of being subjected to some form ofracial profiling.AIUSA believes this figure to be conservativebecause it is based solely on the number of those U.S.citizens,permanent residents,and other long-termvisitors who are racially categorized by the 2000 U.S.Census as belonging to one of the frequently profiledgroups listed above.These include those counted bythe U.S.Census as being African American,AsianAmerican,Native American,Native Hawaiian,Multiracial,or Other,as well as those Latino,Arab,and Persian Americans (approximately 17 million,million,and 300 thousand respectively) who areategorized by the U.S.Census as ÒWhite.ÓThus,these figures do not include other whites who aretargeted by racial profiling for other reasons.Nordothese figures account for the widely reporteddisproportionate undercounting by U.S.Censusofficials in various communities of color.WHERE RACIAL PROFILING COMMONLYJust as it is inaccurate to talk about racial profiling inthe context of the ÒWar on DrugsÓas simply ÒDrivinghile Black or Brown,Óit is wrong to characterizeracial profiling committed in the name of the ÒWaronTerrorÓas simply ÒFlying While Arab.ÓIndeed,it seems we are now faced with a problemthat can be more accurately characterized as ÒDriving,ing,Walking,Worshipping,Shopping,or Stayingat Home While Black,Brown,Red,Yellow,Muslimor of Middle Eastern Appearance.ÓAccording toeports received by AIUSA in 2003 and 2004,racialprofiling continues to be a frequent problem for manyAmericans traveling on highways or through airports.However,it also commonly occurs while people aredoing much more mundane activities (such as shop-ping,walking down the street,or sleeping in theirwn bed).Although the form of racial profilingemployed by state and local police often vary fromegion to region,members of practically every raciallyprofiled group appear to have been subjected to vir-tually every type of racial profiling (i.e.,Native Amer-icans complain of having been racially profiled atairports;Arab Americans report being wrongfullystopped while driving).Moreover,in relatively rarecircumstances,such as searches for serial killers inwhich no suspect has been identified,racial profilingIn order to understand the depth of the problem ofracial profiling in the United States,it is necessary toecognize that this problem is centuries older thaneither the ÒWar on TerrorÓor the ÒWar on Drugs.Óative Americans,even those who quickly adoptedEuropean ways,have frequently been subject to dis-parate treatment by law enforcement officials sincethe earliest days of the American colonies.inAmerican racism and nativism,many immigrantgroupsÑsuch as Irish,Italian,and Chinese com-unitiesÑhave complained of being systematicallyabused by law enforcement agencies for periods wellAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION beyond their emergence on the continent.The racialprofiling of African Americans has its roots in sucharcane practices as the enforcement of fugitive slavelaws and the infamous Black Codes that were latercreated to control the movement of AfricanAmericans after the Civil War.Moreover,the federalgovernment has responded to virtually every majordomestic security crisis in this nationÕs history withforms of racial and ethnic profiling that were laterdeemed xenophobic and irrational abuses ofindividualsÕhuman rights.ing the previous decade,mainstream mediahighlighted racial profiling as an issue that predomi-nantly impacts African-American and Latino motor-ists.Driving this coverage were numerous studiesÑmany of which had been mandated by judges respond-ing to civil rights litigation brought by the Depart-ment of Justice and national civil rights and civilliberties organizations concerned about widespreaddiscrimination in the prosecution of the ÒWar onugs.ÓTogether these studies revealed AfricanAmericans and Latinos were stopped on highwaysand streets much more frequently than whites (evenwhen disparate rates of road use were accounted for).or example,a 1994 study of the New Jersey Turnpikeby Lamberth Consulting revealed that between 1988and 1991,African Americans comprised 13.5% ofoad users but 73.2% of those stopped,even thoughAfrican-American drivers did not commit moretraffic violations than their white counterparts.Again,in 1999,a report by the New Jersey state policefound that Òminority motorists have been treated dif-ferently than non-minority motorists during thecourse of traffic stops on the New Jersey Turnpike....ÓThe state police have conceded Òthat the problem ofdisparate treatment is real;not imagined.Ófor various Native-Americanand Asian-Americancommunities showed similar trends.Nonetheless,asimplied by the popular shorthand for racial profil-ingÑDWB or ÒDriving While Black or BrownÓÑitsimpact beyond African-American and Latino com-unities has often been minimized in the populardiscourse about this problem.As illustrated by theeports summarized below,racial profiling in theUnited States is and always has been a problem whosebreadth and complexity cannot be contained in athree-letter acronym.THE CASE OF MILTON REYNOLDSAIUSA has received multiple reports indicating thativing While Black or BrownÓcontinues to be usedas a basis for criminal suspicion.Consider the case ofMilton Reynolds,an African-American schoolteacher.Mr.Reynolds says he is routinely pulled over in hisneighborhood in San Carlos,California,where appar-ently only five other African-American families live.He describes an incident in which he was stopped inhis own driveway.When he inquired why he had beenstopped,the officer gave what appeared to be Òa fabri-ated answerÓand gave him a citation.Mr.Reynoldsdescribes what happened after he informed the officerthat he would challenge the matter in court,I said,see you in court....And so ...severalweeks that ensued between that time and the court date,ad law enforcement officers park in front ofmy house,ad lights into my apartment.My neighbors had begunto ask me,ÒWhatÕs going on? Why are the cops there?ÓThe court dismissed the case against him.More recently,Mr.Reynolds was pulled over byundercover narcotics agents.He began to have aconversation with the officers about whether they hadpulled him over because of his race.He recounts theofficersÕreply,e do,in fact,profile here around drugs.How do youow do you14Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION A Big Problem in the Bay StateIn May 2004,a study by Northeastern University revealed thatengage in racial profiling.The study stated that 249 of the 340police departments analyzed have Òsubstantial [racial] dispari-ties in [at least] one of the four categories of analysis used...ÓThe report has prompted a mandatory six-month period of dataSource:Northeastern University,Institute on Race and Justice, May 4,2004. AIUSA is concerned that following a stop that is evenpartially based on race,individuals are more likely tobe physically abused,verbally abused,and otherwisemistreated.The testimony of Leonard Mitchel,anAfrican-American man,at our hearing in Dallasillustrates such an instance.Mr.Mitchel was pulled over by police on his way towork.When asked for his driverÕs license,Mr.Mitchelinquired as to why he was pulled over.Upon receivingno response from the officers,Mr.Mitchel protestedabout being asked to hand over his I.D.After thepolice threatened to spray him with mace,he relin-quished his driverÕs license.They immediately arrestedhim for an outstanding seatbelt violation.The policeplaced Mr.Mitchel,a 500-pound man,in two setsofhandcuffs and ordered him to get into the backseatof the police car.He was charged with resistingarrest because he claimed he would not fit due tohisweight.After calling for backup and attemptingtophysically force Mr.Mitchel into the backseat,theofficers finally placed him in the front seat.Hedescribes his experience,They holler at the car,nÑ [N word] get your aÑ[obscenity] in the car....So they c...threwon the hood,said,youÕre going to get in this back seat.Isaid,sir,I donÕt care about going to jail but I canÕt fitMr.Mitchel spent two days in jail and was told hewas being charged with resisting arrest and failure toprovide identification.THE CASE OF DONATO GARCIAacial profiling can occur not only while driving,butalso while one is merely sitting in a car.Consider thease of Donato Garcia,a Latino man from our hear-ings in Dallas.ccording to Mr.Garcia,he was targeted as heandhis six-year-old son and eight-year-old daughterwaited in the car for his wife.He was approached by apolice officer who requested his identification.Whenhe questioned the need to show his I.D.,the officerbecame angry,cursed at him,and threatened to sprayhim with pepper spray.Mr.Garcia attempted tocomply with the officerÕs orders,but as he reached forhis wallet,the officer sprayed him with mace,draggedhim from his truck,struck him,and then arrestedhim.He describes the experience as traumatizing forboth himself and his children,who watched in fearfrom the truck as the abuse took place.The long-termeffects of the trauma still linger for his children.Mr.Garcia says,,]here was an incident [where the police came to thebut when the police arrived it notably affectedmy daughter who burst into tears ears continues to happen and it continues to affect me today....Furthermore,witnessing their fatherÕs harassmenthas caused his children to lack trust in law enforce-ment officials.According to Mr.Garcia,ThatÕs not right,in part because my children who shouldknow that they can go to the police ....[T]his is something I still agonize over and ...still feel today.wing this incident,criminal charges werebrought against Mr.Garcia for assaulting a policeofficer.A jury took only eleven minutes to acquit himof the charges.THE CASE OF LOUIS GRAYIn addition to physical appearance,tribal tags dis-played on the vehicles of many Native Americanshave allegedly been used by police officers in Tulsa totarget them for traffic stops.Louis Gray,editor of theative American Timesaddressed this problem.Mr.Gray was routinely pulled over when his cardisplayed a tribal tag.Since he removed the tag,hehas not been pulled over.He says that he has receivedmany reports about others in his and neighboringcommunities being subjected to racial profiling,om my position,the threat and humiliation ofracialprofiling appears to be an everyday experience for theLife for Native Americans is builton institutionalized racism.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION estimony from the Tulsa hearings also reportedthe use of roadblocks to profile attendees of the Boleyodeo,an annual event held on Memorial Day in oneof OklahomaÕs historic African-American communi-ties.Witnesses testified that after meetings betweenthe NAACP and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol,officers ceased setting up checkpoints in the corporateareas surrounding the rodeo,but continued to usethem on state highways and roads leading to the eventlocation.Michael Camfield,a white man and anattorney with the ACLU of Oklahoma,attended theBoley rodeo to conduct research on the situation.Hetestified about his experience.Mr.Camfield describeswhat he observed upon returning from the Boleyodeo on local state highways, the junction ofHighway 48 and Highway 62,I observedat least seven Highway Patrol cars operating a checkpointin this location a few miles from Boley.I found it curious,to say the least,that I was waved through the checkpointwithout so much as a look at my license or insurance veri-fication,while African-American drivers were obviouslybeing stopped.THE CASE OF MOHAMMED ALIAIUSA has also received reports indicating thattraffic stops of Arabs,Muslims,South Asians andothers who appear Middle Eastern have increasedsince September 11,2001.Muslim resident of Denton,Texas,Mohammed Aliatour hearings in Texas is an example of such pro-Mr.Ali was pulled over on his way home from thevideo store in Sanger.The officers told him they hadstopped him because one of his lights was brighterthan the other.They asked him to step out of the carand Mr.Ali complied.The officers then began to askvehicle,to which he responded no.They continuedsearch the vehicle.Mr.Ali protested the search.Hedescribes the encounter,I just stepped out ofthe car and [the officer asked] ÒWell,we were wondering ifyou had any dead bodies or bombsin there,in your car,Mr.Ali?Ó...[They] walked aroundthe car,looking in the windows,and asked me ifthey coulddo a search ofthe car.And my answer was no,I donÕt haveany dead bodies or bombs in the there,and youÕre not goingto look.Then they asked me again,same question,and Iproceeded to say no again.They asked me a third time,andI said no again ...And searched the car anywayUnable to find what they were looking for,theofficers arrested Mr.Ali for possessing a small pocket-knife that was located in the pocket of his passenger-side door.Mr.AliÕs case was later dropped in court,but he did not file a complaint against the Sangerolice Department,fearing further harassment.THE CASE OF ÔMOHAMMEDÕIn Chicago we heard from Ammol Chaddha whotestified on behalf of his friend,ÒMohammed,Óaakistani man,who was fearful of coming forthhimself.His testimony illustrates recent attemptsbythe federal government to require local police toenforce immigration laws.Mohammed has been a taxi driver in the city ofChicago since the early 1990Õs.Because his work permithad been granted,Mohammed failed tofollow up onhis pending asylum application.In August of 2002,while visiting a friend in Bensenville,Illinois,he parkedhis car on the side of the street that was marked forstreet cleaning that day.Mohammed went outside afew minutes after the designated street cleaning timeand saw a police officer writing him aparking ticket.Upon handing him the ticket,the officer got in his carand drove away.Before reaching the end of the streethowever,the officer put his car in reverse and droveback to Mohammed.According to Mr.Chaddha, started asking him,ÒWhere were you born? Where are youfrom? When did you come here? How did you come here?Ónd Mohammed answered all the questions truthfully.At that point the officer called the Immigration andaturalization Service (INS) and Mohammed was firsttaken to the police station and then transferred to twodifferent immigration detention facilities.He spentAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION three months in detention before being allowed topost bail.Mr.Chaddha says,Since 9/11,the South Asian community has been grippedin fear because ofthese policies.And just like the Africanericans and Latinos that have been racially profiledbylaw enforcement,since 9/11 our community has beencially profiled against as well.While Walkingacial profiling also occurs on the streets when policeofficers Òstop and friskÓpedestrians.In 1968,in orderto allow officers more leeway in apprehending criminals,the Supreme Court lowered the standards for police tomore freely engage in these procedures.In y v.Ohiothe Court ruled that officers could temporarily detainand search people if they had Òreasonable suspicionÓÑnot the higher standard of Òprobable causeÓÑthat theindividual may be involved in criminal activity.decision allows for great police discretion andsubjectivity,increasing the potential for race-basedstops by permitting officers to act preemptively.THE CASE OF DONALD BOYD enormous discretionary power leaves room forabuse and opens the door for race-based pedestrianConsider the case of Donald Boyd of Chicago,a former corrections officer and current RegionalicePresident for the U.S.Department of Housingand Development.Mr.Boyd says he has been profiled in his neighbor-hood over a dozen times.In one instance two plain-lothed officers stopped Mr.Boyd,a sixty two-year-oldAfrican American,as he walked down the street.Theying development he had just passed.He respondedAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Protecting the Public: Racial Profiling Bans that Protect Motorists and Pedestrians States that prohibit racial profiling of both motoristsand pedestriansStates that prohibit racial profiling ofmotorists (not pedestrians) See Appendix One for more specific details on state laws.* Tennessee only bans racial profiling as itSee Appendix One for details. that he had not been sold anything,at which pointtheofficers attempted to search him.When Mr.Boydefused,he was cuffed and searched.Though nothingwas found on his body,he was told he was beingcharged with possession of a controlled substance.Mr.Boyd was apparently swept up in a neighborhoodoundup.He spent the night in jail and the next dayappeared at a bond hearing where he was told hewould have to post $5,000 bail.Ultimately foundinnocent,Mr.Boyd told Amnesty International USA,They loaded 45 people into a van that was supposed tohold 32.They were all almost black or Latino....Theyshouted obscenities at us through the hole....Several including myself,were assaulted by deputies for supposedlynot complying with what they said....I live in a nity that has been destroyed with crime and drugsam a citizen and I deserve my rights ...They did not giveme a Miranda.They did not tell me I had rights.THE CASE OF ANDREW CHO AND HIS STUDENTSAIUSA also received written testimony based on aconversation from the National Asian PacificAmerican Legal Consortium (NAPALC) describingan encounter Mr.Andrew Cho had with lawenforcement officers in Seattle.Mr.Cho was a leadership program counselor for agroup of about 30 high school students.The groupwas composed of individuals from Japanese,Chinese,Korean,Filipino and Vietnamese ancestry.In thesummer of 2001,as the group walked from theirlunch break to an artistsÕevent in the Chinatown-International district,they were confronted by police.As half of the group waited for a green pedestrianlight to join the rest of their party,a police officeryelled through the loudspeaker,Do you know how to cross the street? Do you know how toThe last question was repeated four or five times.hen one student answered,ÒYes,we speak English,Óthe officer reportedly searched her in an attempt tofind weapons.Another girl from the group spokeupsaying,This would not have happened to us ifwe had blond hairand blue eyes.The officer forcefully grabbed her wrist and citedher for jaywalking.When he tried to comfort thegroup,Mr.Cho was told by police to ÒBack off.ÓThegroup was allowed to leave after the police sergeantarrived.The incident lasted forty-five minutes.After-wards,the group reportedly saw a white individualcrossing the street on a red light.The officers did notstop that pedestrian.THE CASE OF SANTIAGO VILLANUEVAacial profiling can sometimes have deadly conse-quences.Consider the testimony of Ms.Nina Paulinoof the Santiago Villanueva Justice Committee at thehearings in New York City.Ms.Paulino told us the story of her friend Santiagolanueva.Mr.Villanueva was from the DominicanRepublic,did not speak English,and had dreadlocks;he also had epilepsy.He was in Bloomfield,New Jerseywhen he experienced an epileptic seizure.Whenpolice arrived on the scene they saw an African-American man with dreads seizing on the groundandassumed he was on drugs.Officers harassedMr.Villanueva and insisted that he speak English.They threw him on the ground and one officer puthisknee on Mr.VillanuevaÕs neck while anotherplaced a knee on his back.Mr.Villanueva stoppedbreathing and was given oxygen.He reportedly gainedconsciousness for a short while and was handcuffedintheambulance the entire way to the hospital wherehedied.Ms.Paulino says,,]he police came and saw him and automatically saidthis man is on drugs,although they had over ten witnessessaying no,heÕs epileptic,heÕs having a seizure them put a knee on his neck,another on his back,hand-cuffed him,and took the last breath out ofhis lungs.The officers were indicted for second-degreemanslaughter.However,a judge dismissed the chargesbecause no witness could identify which of the officersplaced his knee on Mr.VillanuevaÕs back,which wasdetermined as the cause of his death.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION While Traveling Through AirportsTHE CASES OF SANDRA AND OMAR RANAnce September 11,2001 there has been a widelyeported increase in racial profiling at airports,par-ticularly as it applies to people who appear to beMuslim or of South Asian or Middle-EasternIn Tulsa,Dr.Sandra Rana,a member of theulsa Police Community Race Relations Committeetold us about her familyÕs experience at the airport.ana described how airport officials targetedher family,pulling her eight-year-old son from theline and taking apart the Boy Scout pinewood derbyar he had built.Her son,Omar,is now routinelytargeted at airports.Dr.Rana explained,Imagine how I felt when my eight-year-old son waspulled from the line because ofhis name and I could notwith him.Imagine how he felt when they started toake apart his Boy Scout pinewood derby car in the BoyScout box....It is now routine for my son,for Omarana,to get extra security checks at the airport.He knowsitÕs going to happen,and he expects itell my ...son that itÕs okay? He is now ten.He islearning about civil liberties and civil rights.Whatmeaning do they have for him...?Upon advice from law enforcement officials,Dr.Ranahas stopped wearing her to the airport (the traditional Muslim head covering for women),ItÕs not just the scarf.I tell my kids,donÕt speak Urdu.ItÕsthe Pakistani language.DonÕt speak it when youÕre on theplane.DonÕt take the Quran.officials,do not carry any book thatÕs in Arabic....DonÕtdo anything that will cause attention to yourself.Indeed,even long-time airport employees have beentargeted while traveling on family vacations.Considerthe testimony of Mahmoud El Rosoul,a MuslimAmerican citizen,from the hearings in Dallas.Mr.El Rosoul has been working as an engineerfora major airline company for 22 years.In March2003,on their way back from a vacation in Hawaii,Mr.El Rosoul and his family were stopped at thecheckpoint because their tickets were marked byAmerican Airlines.They were pulled out of line andery one of them,including his nine-year-old,eight-year-old and four-year-old children,were thoroughlysearched.The lengthy search caused them to misstheir flight,and they were forced to spend the night inthe airport at Los Angeles.Mr.El Rosoul is disheart-ened especially because he has spent 22 years buildingairplane engines for the airline that treated him sopoorly.He says,They think September 11 is our fault.We have to takeesponsibility for it ...They think America is going to bea better country without us.THE CASE OF HERB BOYDme people report being profiled because of multi-ple personal characteristics.At the hearings in New City we heard from Mr.Herb Boyd,a reportermsterdam News,whose testimony illustrateshow the intersectionality of race and religious orethnic appearance can often make individualsdoubly suspiciousÓ:Mr.Boyd often wears Islamic garments.Hedescribes his experience at airports after the attacksofSeptember 11,2001,ing a flight to Detroit in December 2001,Inoticedthat my ticket had a red dot on it.I didnÕtpayanyattention to that until I discovered I wasstanding with several others,all ofthem identifiablyabs or [of] Arab descent.We were all virtuallystrippedbefore entering the plane.Two of[them] ...toldme they had endured such searches every flighttheytook.What I was to learn in successive flights isthata black man carrying a Kufi or Arabic garmentswas doublysuspicious.So any perverse satisfaction Ihavemomentarily derived from not being the mainarget ofracial profiling in [post-September 11,2001]ica gradually vanished.However,it is not just Arabs,Muslims,and peopleofMiddle-Eastern descent or appearance whoareprofiled and scrutinized at airports since theAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION eptember 11,2001 attacks.Other minoritygroupscomplain about being subjected to racialprofiling in airports.In Tulsa,we heard from GerriMcClelland,a Native American,about her experienceat an airport.Ms.McClelland,a member of the Seneca tribe,was carrying ceremonial turtle shells with her as shetraveled to the Seneca reservation in Canada.Securityofficials insisted that she either take apart hercere-monial objects or check them into baggage wheretheycould be damaged.After a long discussion,theofficials finally allowed Ms.McClelland to board.However,being upset,tired,and worried that thesame problem may occur on the connecting or returnflight,Ms.McClelland chose to forgo thetrip andeturned home.She describes her encounter,They pulled me aside wanted to know what was in....I said,you can see it.It was turtle shellswithrocks in them,laced to a piece ofleatherareceremonial pieces that we use....And then I gotharassed.They thought that I was going to do somethingthey were going to bust my turtles to find out whatwas inside ofthem.Those are ceremonial things that you...I even shook the turtles...to show them that theywere rocks.ace is sometimes misused by security guards totarget individuals for possible theft at shopping malls.Although security guards are not technically policeofficers,they are often seen as Òpeace officersÓwith theability to detain and question individuals.They arealso often afforded wide discretion,which sometimesleads to racial profiling.As a reporter with an African-American newspaperbased in Harlem,Herb Boyd has covered cases ofprofiling at shopping centers.He testified about onesuch case at our hearing in New York City.Mr.Boyd says that in the few months prior to thehearings,he reported on several stories of AfricanAmericans and Latinos who,upon entering stores,were quickly followed by security guards and oftenfalsely arrested,subjected to abuse and embarrass-ment,and finally banned from the store.This practice,he says,is merely another form of a Ôstop and friskÕsearch,such as those routinely employed in manycities against African-American and Latino youth.Mr.Boyd shared the case of Sharon Simmons-Thomas,an African-American woman,Last December...[Ms.] Simmons stopped in ...[amajordepartment store] to do a little quick shopping.hen leaving the store,she was apprehended by twoplainclothes security guards.ÒThey wouldnÕt say whotheywere,but they accused me ofshoplifting,Óshe said.The guards refused to look at the receipts Simons hadwaved in their face.She was handcuffed,paraded infrontofother customers,and then escorted to the storeÕsdetention cells,which are just atrocious.ÒIÕve never beensoembarrassed in my life,Óshe continued.In the detentioncells were several other customers being held as suspectshoplifters,all ofthem people ofcolor.ÒThey ran a back-ound check on me and discovered I didnÕt have acriminal record,Óshe said.Three hours later,after beinghumiliated by a body search,threatened with physicalforceand attempts to coerce a false confession,she wasfreedbut without her [purchases].Ms.Simons has filed a lawsuit against the depart-ment storeÕs parent company.When this report wentto press it was awaiting trial.THE CASE OF KIMBERLY ÔASMAÕ AL-HAMSIAfter the attacks of September 11,2001,Arabs,Muslims,and others who are perceived to be ofMiddle-Eastern or Muslim descent have also beentargets at shopping malls.Consider the testimonyofMs.Kimberly ÒAsmaÓAl-Hamsi from our hearingsin Dallas.Ms.Al-Hamsi,a white American Muslim ofGerman descent,wears a hijab,has multiple sclerosisand walks with a crutch.Ms.Al-Hamsi was at themall with her son,who is deaf and has cerebral palsy.hile waiting for her friend,she was accosted byman and two women who began yelling at her togoback home because she did not belong here.AsMs.Al-Hamsi was telling the group to leave herAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION alone,shenoticed a group of men observing her.Oneof the men approached her and began askingwhere she lived and demanding to see her driverÕslicense.Since he was not in uniform,Ms.Al-Hamsiefused,at which point the plain-clothed officergrabbed her from behind and told her she was beingcharged with terrorism,hate crimes,and disorderlyconduct.FBI agents were called in and began toquestion her about the validity of her I.D.,about herethnic descent,and her views on the war with Iraq.he describes the encounter,There were more than 20 people surrounding me.[TheFBI agent] asked meÑfirst question from his mouth afterI gave him my license,he says,ÒWhere did you get thisfalse I.D.?Ó...He says,ÒYou Arabs donÕt have thingslike this.ÓI said,IÕm not an Arab.And he said,ÒYou arenot Muslim then?ÓI said,yes IÕm Muslim,I am German[H]e says,ÒWhatÕs your view on the warinIraq?ÓThe agents then separated her from her disabledson for over an hour as they took her to her car andsearched the vehicle.Although nothing was found shelaims that she is now routinely followed and harassedby federal officials.THE TESTIMONY OF FLORENTINA RENDO ANDYDIATAYLORIndividuals,families,and communities can becometargets of racial profiling even when they stay home.This type of profiling can range from law enforcementofficials engaging in apparently speculative raids ofpublic housing developmentsÕsocial events,to thetargeting of minority immigrant communities forenforcement of restrictive zoning regulations thatwere specifically created in response to recent popu-lation demographic shifts.Consider the followingtestimony presented by Ms.Florentina Rendo andMs.Lydia Taylor in Chicago.Ms.Rendo,an outreach coordinator for HopeairHousing Center,reports that overly restrictivefederal ordinances,such as ones prohibiting house-holds from utilizing family rooms,dens,livingoms,lofts,attics,or basements as sleeping quarters,were passed after census data indicated an increaseofLatinos moving into the suburbs of West Chicago.City officials have used these ordinances to dispro-portionately target Latino families in hopes of findingidence of overcrowding.Latino households haveeportedly been the target ofrepeated warrant-lesssurveillance and sometimes raided by cityofficials andpolice.Ms.Rendo described one such raid where anercrowding ordinance was used to raid the homeofa Latino family in the city of West Chicago themorning after FatherÕs Day in June2002.At 4:50 a.m.,nine building inspectors andpolice officers awoketheentire family and their guests who had stayed overafter the FatherÕs Day celebrations.They prohibitedthe family and their houseguests from getting dressedor moving about and then proceeded to search theentire house to find evidence of overcrowding.Theraid was reportedly a result of 16 monthsof harand surveillance.The family has since lost their home.ccording to Ms.Rendo,The police and inspectors took...pictures ofthe occupantsÕbank statements,telephone bills,the kidsÕgrade schooleport cards and their birth certificates.And all ofthiswassolely done on the basis of[a] general administrativesearch warrant which authorized only that thestructure and the property be inspected to determine ifthepremises is in compliance with the ordinance ofthe....They were ordered not to have any visitorsevenduring the day,including their parents or anyotherfamilymembers,and they were prohibited fromusing the rear entrance.A federal lawsuit has been filed against the cityforharassment of Latino families,who comprise themajority of households subjected to home raids.Ms.Rendo also noted that the majority of over-crowding actions taken by the city against Latinofamilies were found to be groundless.She also addedthat the number of complaints their office receivesfrom residents in West Chicago has dramaticallyincreased since September 11,2001.Ms.Taylor of the Justice Coalition of GreaterChicago described a raid on Stateway GardensAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION publichousing development in February 2001.Morethan 40 police officers reportedly descendedona popular annual basketball tournament in thedevelopmentÕs gymnasium.After the game ended,they ordered everyone to line up near the outerdoorsand submit to searches of their bodies and theirbelongings.According to Ms.Taylor,this was donewithout a search warrant or any identifiable evidenceof a police emergency at hand.Ms.Taylor highlightstwo particular instances during this raid,wo citizens in particular I want to tell you about.OneisBrenda Williams.Ms.Williams was forced toputher one-year-old daughter down on the floor ...tofacilitate the inspection....And after she submitted tothesearch the police proceeded to search her one-year-olddaughter.Anthony Jackson was...to play in the secondame,and the police began searching his gym bag andtheycarelessly threw his belongings on the floor ....hen] police demanded that his two young sons submitto searches,Mr.Jackson objected a lot more vigorously,ofcourse.He was handcuffed and arrested for disorderly....It has a demoralizing effect on all ofthepeople present.This large-scale operation in which over 250 peoplewere profiled resulted in a lawsuit against the city.The plaintiffs in illiams v.Brownwere able to securea $500,000 settlement.However,the city admittednowrongdoing.AIUSA also heard from the Native-Americancommunity in Tulsa about their experiences withhome raids.Ms.Lori Penner described an incidentwhere increasing traffic stops of her and her family,eportedly due to the tribal tags displayed on theirars,finally led to a horrific raid on their home.Ms.Penner,a member of the Cheyenne tribe ofwestern Oklahoma,has been stopped by police manytimes and yet she has rarely received a traffic citation.Members of her family have also experienced thesestops.Eventually,the traffic stops got more frequentand the police began to come to their home.WhenMs.Penner and others who visited her home werestopped,they were asked whether they had any drugsin the house or if they were selling drugs,drinking,orpartying.The situation escalated in a final raid of herhome.She describes the incident,[M]y door was broken down.I had eight people come intomy home.They pointed their guns at us.They told ustoet on the floor...My six-year-old grandson was inthere....I ...inquired,why are you doing this? Noone wouldanswer us.My fifteen-year-old daughter was jerked outofthe shower naked,made to stand in frontofthree policeofficers....No search warrant was ever shown to usMy daughter was handcuffed....My six-year-old grand-son was made to sit there with us.We were all searched.My house was ransacked....Nodrugs were one was taken to jail.Thepolice laughed.Theythey cusseddaughter she cleaned up very nicely,she looked very goodfor her age.It was all because we areIndian.THE TESTIMONY OF JESS GHANNAMThe attacks of September 11,2001 and the ensuingpolitical and social climate also affect Arab,Muslim,and Middle-Eastern communities in their homes.AIUSA has received several reports of families beingvisited at home by federal agents.At the Oaklandhearings,Dr.Jess Ghannam,President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee ofSan Francisco,testified that people from his community no longerhave faith in the American government and justicesystem as a result of mistreatment by governmentofficials since September 11,2001.He says that manyofthem came to the U.S.to escape persecution intheir home countries.And yet,the very country inwhich they sought protection has not only turned itsback on them,but has started to assault their civilliberties.According to Dr.Ghannam,Ghannam,]he breadth and depth ofdepression that IÕm seeing inthe community is staggering.We have families...who havekept their kids inside the home since September 11th,fusing to let their kids out because theyÕre worried theyÕreoing to be harassed or picked up.ThatÕs an unacceptableway to live in this country,itÕs an unacceptable way tolive in any countryAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION While Traveling to and from PlacesofWorshipTHE CASE OF IMAM NABIL ELIBIARYAIUSA has received complaints from Muslims andikhs whose communities have experienced an increasein racial profiling at their places of worship inthe pastthree years,as well as Native Americans who havedealt with similar problems for a long time.In Dallas,AIUSA heard from Imam Nabil Elibiary.Mr.Elibiary is an imam for the Muslim communityin the City of Carrollton,Texas.On September 11,2002,he was attending an outreach event at a mosque inthe Islamic Institution of Richardson.Upon entering themosque,Imam Elibiary noticed police cars parked infront of the building and assumed they were there forprotection.When Imam Elibiary left the building theofficers followed and stopped him because his vehicleegistration tags had expired eleven days earlier.Thepolice officers called for back up and began to searchMr.ElibiaryÕs car.Mr.Elibiary was arrested and hiscomputer and camcorder were confiscated.He wastaken to the police department where he was questionedabout his university degrees,the ethnic background ofhis wife,and his financial and employment status.thermore,officers asked for Imam ElibiaryÕs pass-word to search through his personal computer.Whenhe refused the police asked whether he had somethingto hide.Mr.Elibiary describes the encounter,I said no,ifI have a choice I donÕt want anybody to see mypersonal items.[Finally] I was released after three anda halfhours.And they fingerprinted me.I [had] topay ...[bond] on my credit card so that they [could] let meout.The police kept his computer and camcorder over-night.Once the media and his attorneys began callingAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Protecting the Faithful: Racial Profiling Bans that Protect Religious Minorities See Appendix One for more specific details on state laws. * Tennessee only bans racial profiling as itSee Appendix One for details. about his case,the police department offered toexpunge his records if he accepted the charges for theexpired tags.He was also told not to contact themedia regarding his case.Imam Elibiary believes,I was not the spiritual leader ofthe community,Iwouldnot be out ofjail.And ifI was not contacted bythemedia[they would not have expunged] my records...I THE CASE OF MARY CULLEYolice in Tulsa,Oklahoma,reportedly profile religiouslyactive Native Americans coming and going fromgrounds where traditional ceremonies are scheduled.Mary Culley came forth in Tulsa to talk about herexperience with racial profiling.Ms.Culley,a member of the Creek Seminole tribe,testified about being regularly harassed by police atoadblocks set up around tribal lands when ceremoniesare scheduled.She says,,]hen the ceremonial ground was having or our green corn ceremony,which is celebrating the harvestofthe new year for us,[the police] were setting up roadblocks.nd it was the local police department who was clearly outoftheir jurisdiction setting up roadblocks on a county road....[They were] flat out telling Indian people ...weÕrestopping you because we know you people are dancing thisweekend and we know you canÕt afford insurance,so weknow you wonÕt have any insurance cards on you.Despite several attempts,Ms.Culley says she hasfound it extremely difficult to work toward a solution tothis systematic harassment with her local public officials.As the zoning enforcement cases cited in section 1.2.5illustrate,when police decide to target immigrants andimmigrant communities for racial profiling,their actionsoften appear to be intentionally designed to encouragetargeted immigrant communities to leave.three years since the September 11,2001 attacks inthe United States,old patterns of harassment havecontinued,and new problems have emerged.In someinstances,the new problems have been the product ofmisguided homeland security policies;in otherinstances they appear to be the result of an increase ingeneral xenophobia among some law enforcementofficers.We begin with a discussion of a long-standing problem in the U.S.Ñthe harassment ofatino immigrant day workers.CASES OF RACIAL PROFILING IN DAY LABORERAIUSA has received reports from representatives ofthe immigrant day laborer communities who experi-ence racial profiling while waiting for potentialemployers to drive by and pick them up.In Sanancisco,Renee Saucedo of La Raza Centro Legaldiscussed this general problem and brought someegregious cases to our attention.Ms.Saucedo described the day laborer community inan Francisco as Òoverwhelmingly Latino migrants.ÓShelaborers in the city,with approximately 500 to800standing on the street looking for employment on anygiven day.She says that ÒwhiteÓmerchants or neighborspically make general complaints to local police becausethey do not want day laborers standing on public side-walks facing their businesses or homes.Other times,they have specific complaints such as people litteringor urinating in front of their property.She explains,[B]ut most ofthe time our experience has been that daylaborers are not committing any crimeimedo not investigate particular allegations.They donÕtinterview individuals who are suspected ofcommittingillegalities[P]olice sweep entire groups ofLatinoimmigrant workers offofthe cityÕs sidewalkstimes what happens is that,without neighbors ormerchants complaining,police officers will park vans orcars on certain street corners where day laborers congre-and they will remove any man who looks like a daylaborer offthe sidewalk.Ms.Saucedo also described a number of egregiousases in which day laborers were profiled and harassed.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION The following incident turned violent when fivepolice officers first racially profiled a day laborer,thenproceeded to beat him with clubs.Ms.Saucedo says,[O]ne day laborer was walking down the sidewalk at thewrong place,at the wrong time[O]n the street cornerclose to him there had just broken out a physical fightbetween two Latino individuals.Do we know ifthesewo other Latino individuals were day laborers or not?bsolutely not....[Thad something to do with the incident.They pushed himto the ground,without even asking him any questions,handcuffed him and proceeded to beat him with their....They also pepper sprayed him unnecessarily...according to witnessesthreat to the police.By the way,there were five policeofficers doing all ofthis to him.ccording to Ms.Saucedo,day laborers oftencomplain to her organization that they are treatedlikecriminals.THE DALLAS ÔSHEETROCKÕ CASEThe immigration status of many Latino day laborersoften compounds their vulnerability to abuse by lawenforcement officials,making them susceptible notonly to harassment,but gross miscarriages of justice.These vulnerabilities have recently been spotlightedby the revelations surrounding DallasÕs biggest policemisconduct scandal.In 2002,evidence revealed thattwo undercover narcotics officers and a paidinformant used powdered gypsum,a substance foundin sheetrock,to frame a large number of innocentpeople,all of them Hispanic,many of them daylaborers,and many not fluent in English.informant located innocent individuals within theHispanic community as targets.The officers thenplaced cocaine mixed with large amounts of gypsumpowder in plastic bags and planted them on thosethey arrested.According to the Dallas Observer,targeted individuals,Òwere undocumented or recentimmigrants who had no criminal record,no money,noEnglish proficiency,and whose fears of deportationmight make them less likely to protest too loudly.ÓMany experts and former law enforcement officialslargely attribute this scandal to the constant intensepressure placed on narcotics officers to produce arrests.In fact,roughly half of the cocaine seized by Dallaspolice in 2001 was later discovered to be powderizedsheetrock. Harrell of the ACLU ofTexas shedsome light on this larger problem within the Dallasolice department.According to Mr.Harrell,l,The] Dallas Police department has shown to be dispro-portionately policing people [of] color,particularlyispanics,and the sheetrock story bears witness to that.eported indicate a much moresystematic problem than just what you read and haveheard about the Dallas sheetrock story. far,over 80 sheetrock cases have been dismissed.In November 2003,a federal jury acquitted MarkDeLaPaz,the supervising officer responsible for thescandal,of violating the civil rights of the defendantsin the dismissed cases.Street VendorsStreet vending has a long and proud tradition in NewUnfortunately,police abuse and brutality,wrongful arrests and confiscation ofmerchandise,arbi-ary tickets and fines,racial profiling,and criminaliza-tion are daily parts oftheir experience as vendors.estimony of Julia Villegas,staff attorney at Esperanza de Barrio,withNew York CityStreet Vendors Coalition; New York City,October2,2003ccording to testimony presented at the New YorkCity hearings,police harassment and profiling of localimmigrant and minority street vendors has intensifiedsince September 11,2001.The Street Vendors UnitedCoalition in New York City reports that there areapproximately 10,000 street vendors in the city;theycome from a range of different backgrounds includingAfrican Americans,Latinos and immigrants fromChina,Bangladesh,Senegal,Malaysia,Somalia,Egypt,and Russia.Members of virtually all of thesegroups have reported increased problems with thepolice since the 9/11 attacks on the World TradeCenter.Street vendors and advocates say that thetreatment after the attacks of 9/11 has been particu-larly racist in nature and does not appear to be partAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION ofa general crackdown on street vendors as occurredin New York in the mid to late 1990s.As VeronicaGarcia,a Latina street vendor,said,the targetingofminority street vendors has Òincreased aftereptember 11,2001....The police see us and becauseof the way we look,they donÕt even ask us anything,they assume we are doing something illegal.ÓMukarhida,a former street vendor who now worksforthe Street Vendors Project,testified that,Ò[The]eason I stopped vending [was] because aftereptember 11th [things were] getting...worse.ÓTHE CASE OF VERONICA GARCIAThe following testimony illustrates the hostileelations with local police that many street vendorshave faced in New York City since that date.nica Garcia,a Latina street vendor in Harlem,has reportedly been arrested twice for selling food onthe street.In her last encounter,police threw away herutensils and did not list them in their police report.Despite the fact that Veronica is a minor,she was notallowed to see her mother until her attorney arrived atthe police precinct.She describes the situation,Most ofthe street vendors in the barrio,we are women,we are immigrants,and we are mothers,and we arevictims ofabuse and harassment on behalfofthe police.The police mistreat us physically and verbally.They tell usthat we are illegal,that we have to go back to Mexico,andthat we donÕt have any rights.They also threaten ...toake our children away.Other vendors have reported thatthey have their pockets searched without justification,theyhave used excessive force,that they throw away their foodand merchandise.THE CASE OF MOHAMMED ANWAR HUSSAINand a U.S.citizen of Bangladeshi descent.Mr.Hussainhas sold hot dogs and pretzels on the corner of Broad-way and Canal Street for several years.Although hisstand is on a legal location and he has been in thatlocation for the past 12 years,he did not begin toeceive tickets from police officers in any significantnumbers until after September 11,2001.He haseceived more than 50 tickets in the last year alone.All but six of the tickets have been thrown out.Hedescribes a typical encounter with the police,oday,I was vending in my spot and [the] police officercame by and give me [a] ticket.And when I told himon the legal spot,he said ÒGo back to your country,make a legal spot over there.ÓThey kept saying that to meand to other Bangladeshi vendors....They have said to me,ÒDonÕt sell this sÑ [obscenity] here.ÓBut myproducts are not sÑ [obscenity],they are always absolutelyood food.llowing the attacks of September 11,2001,theGovernment immediately enacted policies andtook actions directed at Arabs,Muslims,and peopleof Middle-Eastern and South-Asian descent.ThesepracticesÑoften carried out through selective enforce-ment of immigration lawsÑhave led to the deportationof thousands of men and boys from these communi-ties,the disruption of family and community life,andthe economic devastation of thousands of otherwiselaw-abiding citizens and immigrants.In the immediate aftermath of the attacks,immi-gration and law enforcement officials targeted immi-grants from predominantly Arab and Muslim countriesfor selective enforcement of immigration laws as partof a nationwide attempt to find possible terrorismsuspects.More than 1,200 non-U.S.nationals weredetained as a result.ne have been publiclycharged with terrorism.In June 2003,a reporteleased by the Department of JusticeÕs Office of theInspector General (hereafter OIG report),confirmedAmnesty InternationalÕs prior reports that hundredsof men detained in the roundup were deprived ofmany of their rights and experienced physical andmental abuse at the hands of prison guards in thedetention center.In 2002,the introduction of the National SecurityEntry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS orÒSpecial RegistrationÓ) for visiting males ages 16 ander from 24 predominantly Muslim countries (andNorth Korea)literally spurred thousands of long-term visitors to the United States to seek asylum inAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Canada and other nations.The program,which calledfor visitors already in the U.S.to be registered andinterrogated,appeared to use nationality as a proxyfortheir religion and ethnicity.hile we are nolonger faced with the visible spectacle of thousandsofterrified men and boys lining up at immigrationoffices around the country trying to meet their groupÕsl-in date,the program continues to have a powerfulimpact on the communities and families of the morethan 13,000 men and boys who have been alreadydeported or are still in deportation proceedings due tohaving been discriminatorily chosen for enforcementof immigration laws.minor immigration violations had applications pend-ing to regularize their status,but were stuck in longbacklogs with the U.S.immigration service.More-er,while initially Department of Justice officialssaid that this program would be extended tovisitorsfrom every country,it was canceled once visitors fromthese 25 countries had been called in.hortly after NSEERS was enacted,affected com-unities around the U.S.lost large portions of theirmale population,resulting in the rapid impoverish-ment and destabilization of many families.To avoidÒSpecial RegistrationÓand the possibility of itsensuingnegative consequences,many individualsfromtargeted immigrant communities fled with theirfamilies to the Canadian border.According to SuhailMuzaffar,president of the Federation of Associationsof Pakistani Americans,new immigration policiescreated a panic within Pakistani-American communi-ties,causing some to close their businesses and flee toCanada to seek refuge from what they believed to beMr.Muzaffar also said thatmany Pakistanis were depressed,confused and didnotshow up to register.In addition to disrupting immigrantsÕlives,NSEERSpolicy targeted many law-abiding and productivemembers of U.S.society and,in some cases,causedthem to leave the country.Nabil K.has a MastersinBusiness Administration from an Ivy League uni-versity and worked on New YorkÕs Wall Street for overfive years.After the NSEERS policy was announced,abil moved back to Karachi,Pakistan Òfor the sakeof dignity.ÓNSEERS and other post-9/11 immigration policieshave indeed had a negative impact on the U.S.economy.ecretary of State Colin Powell and head of theDepartment of Homeland Security Tom Ridge bothhave recently admitted that post-September 11,2001immigration policies have hurt the economy by lead-ing to a 30 percent decline in overseas visits to thedditionally,the number of foreign students inuniversities is also down,as are visits by businessmen,scientists,and other scholars.THE CASE OF NAVILA ALIictims of the NSEERS policy came forth in every citywhere our hearings were held to testify about theirexperience with ÒSpecial RegistrationÓ.We heardnumerous accounts detailing how families,homes,andcommunities were torn apart as a result ofNSEERS.Consider the testimony of Navila Ali in New York City.Eighteen-year-old Navila is the eldest of threechildren in her family.She has been in the countrysince childhood and both of her younger siblings areAmerican citizens.She describes how her father hasbeen detained since April when he went to register atthe local INS office.She and her family are undergreat financial and emotional stress because the onlybreadwinner of the household can no longer providefor them.Fighting her tears,she told us,she told us,....[S]he doesnÕtspeak any English so I have to do all the running around.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION vila Ali testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings on Racialofiling in New York City,Oct.2,2003. [M]y Dad was the breadwinner ofour house.Not havinghim,itÕs a very,very difficult task....We donÕt have anyother family members here so itÕs very hard for me to copewith this.And (pause) I just want my Dad back home.avila goes on to describe the frustration she feelsbecause she considers herself an American,yet aftereptember 11 and her fatherÕs arrest she questions thenature of American values.She says,r September 11th after my dad was detained,was afraid to walk on the streets.I felt am I not ...ican ...like the other people around me? Growingup here,America is ...my country.I like the culture here.I believe this is my culture....I like my freedom here....Now everything is kind ofdifferent.THE CASE OF NAVEED NAZARIn Chicago,we heard from Najma Haq who testifiedon behalf of Naveed Nazar.Mr.Nazar,came to the United States seekingpolitical asylum,but because he missed his asylumhearing he was later detained through the SpecialRegistration program.To abide by the new require-ments of NSEERS,Mr.Nazar reported to his localINS office,but never returned home.His wife and sixchildren who were all born in the U.S.were left inconfusion and panic until Mr.Nazar made a collectphone call from the detention center.Even though heis a kidney patient,Mr.Nazar was denied medicalter three months in detention Mr.Nazar wasdeported back to Pakistan,Mr.Haq told us about theimpact of this situation on Mr.NazarÕs family,The nine-year-old he says,ÒI want to commit suicide.ÓThe teacher called [his] mother,and the mother was[also] depressed,she wanted to go back home along with....They are in a very desperate situation.THE TESTIMONY OF BANAFSHEH AKHLAGHIBanafsheh Akhlaghi,an Iranian-American attorneybased in San Francisco and a former constitutionallaw professor also testified about NSEERS.Ms.Akhlaghi challenged the Department ofJusticeÕs initial claims that male immigrants to thefrom all countries would eventually be requiredto register pursuant to NSEERS and that Muslimcountries were simply the first ones prioritized.Infact,the specific NSEERS requirements were sus-pended in 2003 after men from Afghanistan,Algeria,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Egypt,Eritrea,Indonesia,Iran,aq,Jordan,Kuwait,Lebanon,Libya,Morocco,th Korea,Oman,Pakistan,Qatar,Saudi Arabia,malia,Sudan,Syria,Tunisia,United Arab Emirates,and Yemen had registered.Ms.Akhlaghi says,,ohn Ashcroft originally] said that every individual,every non-immigrant whoÕs in the United States will begistered until the year 2005.April of[2003],registra-tion was halted after the last Muslim Middle-Easterncountry was named and all the men from those countrieswere registered.ItÕs a very big question[:] ...Why?weÕre not racially profiling,then why did we stopgistration? Ifit was wrong to register these indi-viduals from these named targeted countries,then whydidwe have them implemented to begin with back ined to begin with back inMs.Akhlaghi also described the hardship experi-enced by some of her clients who were targeted by theNSEERS policy.Nineteen-year-old Hassan andeighteen-year-old Ahmad Amin are brothers whomoved to the U.S.from Pakistan in their early teens.Both brothers,who had pending green card applica-tions and were in the process of legalization,wereequired to show up for call-in registration underNSEERS.Upon reporting to their local INS office,Hassan was detained and taken to Yuba CountyDetention Center for a day and a half.Ahmad,whowas 17 at the time,was released on his own recog-nizance.Ms.Akhlaghi describes a conversation shehad with Ahmad two days before he turned 18,I said,ÒCongratulations.YouÕre turning 18.ÓAnd he said,This is the most horrible day ofmy life.I donÕt want toturn 18.ÓÒWhy? Every kid in America wants to turn 18.ItÕs liberation.What do you mean you donÕt want to turn18?ÓAnd he said,ÒI just keep praying they donÕt come andake me because,now that IÕm 18,can they take me toprison? I donÕt want to turn 18.ÓAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION The Amin brothers,who were scheduled to testifyat the hearings in San Francisco,were unable to do sodue to the severe heart palpitations their mother wasexperiencing.She has reportedly been experiencinghigh blood pressure triggered by the fear of her sonsbeing deported back to Pakistan.Ms.Akhlaghi also described the way that thediscriminatory registration dehumanizes immigrants,I have a client that said to me,ÒIfthey deport me back toan,I will commit suicide.Ónd I said,ÒWhy would you do that?Ónd he said,ÒBetter to die here than to go there and betortured and then killed.ÓThatÕs what we are doing inAmerica. Unpatriotic Acts:The Status ofMuslim Civil Rights in theUnited States:2004,Council on American-Islamic Relations,2004.Also see Report on Hate Crimes & Discrimination Againstab Americans:The Post-September 11 Backlash 2001Ð2002,ADCResearch Institute,2003.Also see ong Then,Wrong Now:Racialofiling Before & After September 11,2001,Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund,2003.ee section 1.2.2 for Mr.BoydÕs story.Although these groups were targets of racial profiling prior tothe attacks of 9/11,the targeting of Arabs,Muslims,SouthAsians,and people of Middle-Eastern descent and appearance hasdrastically increased since.ee section 1.2.1 for more details on Mr.AliÕs story.ee testimony of Gerri McClelland in section 1.2.3 andEdmund Morgan,erican Slavery,American Freedom,W.W.on & Company:New York,1975,p.232Ð234.David Cole,Enemy Aliens:Double Standards and Constitutionaleedoms in the War on Terrorism,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.90.iving While Black:What to Do ifYou Areictim ofRacial Profiling,Broadway Books:New York,2000,David Cole and James X.Dempsey,orism and the Consti-tution:Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name ofNational Security,The New York Press:New York,2002,p.150Ð151.John Lamberth,ÒRevised Statistical Analysis of the Incidenceof Police Stops and Arrests of Black Drivers/Travelers on the NewJersey Turnpike Between Interchanges 1 and 3 from the Years1988 through 1991,ÓNov.11,1994.eter Verniero and Paul Zoubek,Interim Report of the Stateolice Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling,w Jersey Attorney GeneralÕs Office,April 20,1999,p.4.m Robertson,ÒBemidji Police Officials Dispute Racialofiling Study,ÓMinnesota Public Radio,Oct.23,2003.Thestudy revealed that police stopped and searched American Indiandrivers at a rate that was three times higher than white drivers.Howard Chua-Eoan,ÒProfiles in Outrage,ÓMagazine,ept.25,2000,citing Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence,survey taken in Sept.2000.Available at:http://lib-proxy.calvin.edu:2053/images/WSPL/wsppdf1 /HTML/00360/P06VI/7SU.HTM.Milton Reynolds testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in San Francisco,CA on Sept.9,2003.onard Mitchel testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.Donato Garcia testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.ouis Gray testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Tulsa,OK on Sept.30,2003.Michael Camfield testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Tulsa,OK on Sept.30,2003.veral other sources have also reported an increase in racialprofiling of motorists who are or appear to be Arab,Muslim,orofMiddle-Eastern descent.See Report on Hate Crimes &Discrimination Against Arab Americans:The Post-September 11ADC Research Institute,2003,p.43Ð46.ong Then,Wrong Now:Racial Profiling Before & AfterSeptember11,2001,eadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund,2003,p.22 for more information on ÒDrivinghile Arab.ÓMohammed Ali testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.The Clear Law Enforcement and Alien Removal Act of 2003(CLEAR Act) encourages police officers to enforce civilianimmigration laws.It may result in increased racial and ethnicprofiling and is likely to further disenfranchise already vulnerableimmigrants.For a list of AIUSA concerns regarding this actplease visit:http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/action/Ammol Chaddha testifying on behalf of Mohammed at theAIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling in Chicago,IL onOct.18,2003.y v.Ohio,392 U.S.1,27 (1968).David A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2002,p.45Ð46.On Sept.18,2003 a historic settlement was reached on afederal class-action lawsuit which charged the NYPD withengaging in racial profiling during stop and frisk procedures.TheAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION settlement includes a ban on racial profiling,as well as enhancedeporting and monitoring of stop and frisk encounters with thepolice.For more information visit http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/eports/report.asp? ObjID= vhg VPn94 km&Content=292Donald Boyd testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Chicago,IL on Oct.18,2003.estimony of Andrew Cho was submitted to AIUSA by theational Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.ina Paulino testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003.estimony of Monica Tarazi,New York Director for theAmerican-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC) at theracial profiling hearings in New York City,Oct.2,2003.State-ment of Dr.Jess Ghannam,President of the American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee,San Francisco chapter (ADC-SF) atthe racial profiling hearings in Oakland,CA on Sept.9,2003.estimony of Mr.Ali Khan,executive president of the AmericanMuslim Council in Chicago at the racial profiling hearings inChicago,IL,Oct.20,2003.For further evidence see Injustice:Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work,w York:The New Press,2003,p.139 -144.In addition,in June 2004,theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit againstfour major airlines challenging the removal of five Òbrown menÓfrom their flights,which lends further support to the claim thatthis type of racial profiling has increased since the attacks of9/11/01.See http://www.aclu.org/Racial Equality/RacialEquality.Quranis the Muslim holy book.andra Rana testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Tulsa,OK on Sept.30,2003.Mahmoud El Rosoul testifying at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.Herb Boyd testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003.Gerrie McClelland testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Tulsa,OK on Sept.30,2003.iving While Black:What To Do IfYou Areictim ofRacial Profiling,Broadway Books:New York,2000,Herb Boyd testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003.Kimberly ÒAsmaÓAl-Hamsi testifying at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.orentina Rendo testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Chicago,IL on Oct.20,2003.The lawsuit claims that the raid was directly related to theCityÕs discriminatory policy of selectively enforcing overcrowdingules against Hispanics in response to demographic shifts.Further-more,between 2001 and 2002,virtually all of the overcrowdingactions taken by the city were against Hispanic families,despitethe fact that over half of the single-family home owners in WestChicago are not Hispanic.See ÒNFHAOÑ8 HispanicHomeowners File Civil Rights Case Against the City of WestChicago after a Pre-Dawn Raid to Check for Overcrowding,ational Fair Housing AdvocateÓOnline,Feb.27,2003,availableat:http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm ?method= page.display&pagename=releases _hope02-27-03dia Taylor testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Chicago,IL on Oct.20,2003.eter Schuler,Law Professors Successfully Argue Case to ProtectLocal CitizensÕConstitutional Right,The University of ChicagoChronicle,Jan.22,2004,vol.23,no.8.Jesse Ghannam testifying at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in Oakland,CA on Sept.9,2003.Imam Nabil Elibiary testifying at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.Mary Culley testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Tulsa,OK on Sept.30,2003.orentina Rendo from Hope Fair Housing Center in Chicagosaid at the hearings that the new restrictive housing ordinanceswere,Ò[Just] another way of trying to keep away minorities fromthe western suburbs ...[and make the community safe by] in myopinion ...getting rid of the minorities in this particular town.ÓAIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling at Chicago,IL,onOct.20,2003.Renee Saucedo testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in San Francisco,CA on Sept.9,2003.Mark Donald,ÒDirty or Duped? WhoÕs to Blame for Fake-ug Scandal Rocking Dallas Police? Virtually Everyone,ÓObserver,May 2,2002.bid.ests Show Fake Drugs Seized in Dallas Made of Sheetrock,psum,ÓAssociated Press State and Local Wire,Jan.6,2002. Harrell testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003.Editorial,ÒDallas Incident Creates Problems for Police,ÓSanntonio Express-News,March 3,2002.CBS11,ÒFake Drug Scandal Leads to More Indictments,ÓApr.16,2004.Available at http://cbs11tv.com/ localstories/local_story_107124150.html.nica Garcia testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY,on Oct.2,2003.Judi Mukarhida testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY,on Oct.2,2003.nica Garcia testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY,on Oct.2,2003.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Mr.Hussain shares his vending spot with his wife and hismother.AIUSA contacted Mr.Hussain in April 2004 and heeported that he and his family had received 50 tickets betweenApril 2003Ð2004.Muhammad Anwar Hussain testifying at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003.Amnesty International,United States ofAmerica:AmnestyInternationalÕs Concerns Regarding Post-September 11 Detentions inMarch 2002.AI Index:AMR 51/044/2002.The American Civil Liberties Union,anctioned Bias:Racialofiling Since September 11,2001,2004,p.5.Available at:http:/www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15102&c=207.United States Department of Justice Office of the InspectorGeneral,Report on Treatment ofAliens Held on Immigration Chargesin Connection with the Investigation on the September 11 TerroristAttaashington D.C.,June 2,2003.sitors from the following countries were called in for ÒSpecialRegistrationÓ:Afghanistan,Algeria,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Egypt,Eritrea,Indonesia,Iran,Iraq,Jordan,Kuwait,Libya,Lebanon,Morocco,North Korea,Oman,Pakistan,Qatar,Somalia,SaudiArabia,Sudan,Syria,Tunisia,United Arab Emirates,and Yemen.Although the Department of Justice initially claimed that thispolicy would eventually expand to all visitors to the U.S.,theirposition has now been reversed.hel L.Swarns,ÒThousands of Arabs and Muslims CouldBe Deported,Officials Say,Ów York Times,June 7,2003.Michael Powell,ÒGroups Decry Immigration Rule,Óashington Post,12,2003.wais Ibrahim,ÒRegistration Fears Closes Businesses,ÓGlobalws Wire,Jan.18,2003.Confusion about the NSEERS policy and its requirements wasprevalent in all affected communities due to failure on the part of theGovernment to efficiently and effectively reach out totargeted groups and inform them about Special Registrationequirements.Hassan Zaidi,ÒPakistan:Hostile Mentor,ÓIndia Today,24,2003.Associated Press,ÒOfficials Say U.S.Entry Rules DiscourageLos Angeles Times,Apr.22,2004.avila Ali testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003.ajma Haq testifying on behalf of Naveed Nazar at theAIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling in Chicago,IL onOct.18,2003.Banafsheh Akhlaghi testifying at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in San Francisco,CA on Sept.9,Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Racial profiling ...is one of the most ineffectiveand I call it nothing less than lazy,sloppy police work.ItÕsbasically saying you donÕt want to learn about your community,youdonÕt want to learn about peopleÕs behavior,you donÕt want to doyour job,and donÕt want to investigate,you just want to stop a lot of....ÓÑTestimony of Captain Ron Davis,Oakland Police Department,NationalOrganization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE),Oakland,CA,Sept.9,2003ÒA black sniper? That was the last thing I was thinking.ÓÑFormer FBI Agent Candace DeLong on the Washington DC-area sniper suspectsotecting individualsÕhuman rights is about respect-ing the ideals of universal human freedom and dignity.It is also about creating and maintaining an environ-ment in which good government,including effectivelaw enforcement,is possible.Thus,when analyzingthe cost of any human rights abuse,it is not onlyimportant to explore its impact on the affected indi-vidual,but also its effect on their community and theThe social cost of racial profiling can be generallygrouped into three broad categories:distressed individualsdisconnected communitiesdiminished domestic security capabilitiesAs many of the cases reported to AIUSA illustrate,there is a significant amount of empirical datasuggesting a strong correlation between racialprofiling and excessive use of force.However,evenwhen excessive force is not involved,incidents ofracial profiling often have a long-lasting impactontheir victims.Individuals who reported suchincidents to AIUSA during the last 12 monthsfrequently cited:feelings of humiliation,depression,helplessness,anger,and feardiminished trust in law enforcementeluctance to turn to law enforcement for helpeople who witnessed such incidents,especiallythose that involved excessive force,frequently saidthey had been affected in similar ways.whose young daughter witnessed him being peppersprayed by a police officer during a profiling incident,LessonsÑPast and Present Margarita Rosari ofthe New York Committee ofthe October 22ndCoalition to Stop Police Brutality,and founder ofParents Againstolice Brutality testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings on Racialofiling in New York City,Oct.2,2003.Ms.Rosario testified aboutthe lasting impact ofpolice misconduct and police brutality on her andher family. said that she now frequently cries when she sees apolice officer.Indeed,the social costs of racial profiling ultimatelyaffect entire communities.The community-level costsof racial profiling include:ear and mistrust of police,leading to a lack of coop-In New York City,Monami Maulik ofDesiRising Up and Moving (DRUM) discussedthewidespread fear among affected communities.Inparticular,after the attacks of 9/11,Ms.Mauliksays that Arab,Muslim,South Asian,and Middle-Eastern youth stopped by police are often askedabouttheircountry of origin and immigration status.This has reportedly produced widespread fear withinunities.She says,Ò[There is fear] ...detention or deportation for peopleaffected by that,butto do tothe emergency room or calling 911 or calling thefire department....Ó .Jesse Ghannam,President of the Sanancisco American-Arab Anti-DiscriminationCommittee (ADC-SF) testified,Ò...the communitythat I speak to every day is so fearful right now whenthey see the badge,when they see the blue uniform[S]o when youÕre asking me,is there room for anydialogue...with the law enforcement community,IÕdhave to say the time is not right.Ólorentina Rendo of HopeairHousing Center highlighted the city of WestChicagoÕs recent passage of restrictive housing ordi-nances.Once passed,these ordinances are reportedlyarried out in a discriminatory fashion against Latinoimmigrants with the help of the police.She said,ThatÕs just another way of trying to keep awayminorities from western suburbs.ÓJohn Burris,a nationally known civil rightsattorney and author testified about the impact ofracialprofiling on victims.He says,Ò...the pain was as greatfor those people who had been beaten asit was forthose who had been stopped [based onrace]....ÓCapitan Ron Davis of the Oakland Police Depart-ment,racial profiling is Ò...one of the most ineffectivestrategies,and I call it nothing less than lazy,sloppypolice work.ÓBecause all communities depend uponthe police for their safety and security,any policestrategy that undermines their performance under-mines the quality of life for local residents.(see Table 2 below).The disproportion-ately large increase in incarceration rates for AfricanAmericans and Latinos has been tied to the use ofracial profiling in the ÒWar on Drugs.ÓIn one instance,in the small town of Tulia,Texas,nearly 10percentofthe African-American population wasarrested andconvicted on trumped up drug charges in 1999,Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION able 2 Drug Use v.Drug Arrests CRACK COCAINEPOWDER COCAINERacePercent of UsersPercent of ArrestsPercent of UsersPercent of ArrestsWhites71.30%5.70%81.00%18.20%Blacks17.70%84.20%7.70%30.30% Hispanics7.90%9.00%8.50%50.50%Sources:Statistics on drug use are from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration,2000).Statistics on arrests for drug possession arefrom the Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (U.S.Sentencing Commission,2000). sentences Òranging up to 341years.ÓIn 2003,thecourt found that the convictions were secured basedsolely on the testimony of a corrupt police officer witha shady history of police work and the defendantswere subsequently released.ug WarÓracial profiling,at its core,appearstobe a self-fulfilling prophecy by law enforcementofficers and agencies who ultimately fail to fullyacknowledge the complex nature of the drug problemin America.In 1999,defending racial profiling tactics,Carl Williams,the then superintendent of theJersey state police said,ÒThe drug problem ismostly cocaine and marijuana.It is most likely aminority group thatÕs involved with that.ÓMr.Williams was fired for his remarks,severalstudieshave suggested that racially biased policing isstemic problem in the nationÕs battle to stop thedrug trade.Indeed,as visible in Table 2,the dis-parate treatment of racial minorities in this contextbecomes apparent when one merely cross-referencesarrest statistics and self-report data for national druguse.For example,according to federal surveys fromthe year 2000,whites were 71.3 percent of crack usersin America,yet they only comprised 5.7 percent ofthose arrested for crack possession.African Americanshowever,were 17.7 percent of crack users,but 84.2percent of those arrested.At the heart of the phenomena,civil rights lawyerssay,are federal policies and state programs that increaselocal agenciesÕfunds based on the number of drug-elated arrests and convictions.Such programs andpolicies have effectively provided an incentive to makethe historical phenomenon of racial profiling worse.eople from impoverished ethnic communities areboth less likely to hire private lawyers and more likelyto be viewed as inherently suspect by judges and jurors.Thus,they become the primary targets for oppor-tunistic officers because they are easier to convict.After reviewing reports such as those highlightedinChapter One,it is easy for many Americans tounderstand how racial profiling may negativelyimpacttargeted individuals,their communities,andthe relationship between those communities and thepolice.Similarly,many can see that when communi-ties become estranged from their police forces,itbecomes easier for crime to go unreported in thosecommunities and criminal activity to flourish in waysthat may ultimately harm the quality of life forneighboring communities as well.What is oftenharder for people to appreciate is the way in whichracial profiling directly threatens the security of theDOMESTIC SECURITY IMPACT OFacial profiling is a liability in the effort to make ournation safer.Race-based policing practices havefrequently distracted law enforcement officials andmade them blind to dangerous behaviors and realthreats.Moreover,this is a lesson that law enforce-ment should have internalized a long time ago.Tohelp illustrate the grave cost of racial profiling as anintended guard against acts of international anddomestic terror,we offer two historical examples.Thefirst is from the opening of the twentieth century;thesecond is from the opening of the twenty-first:President McKinleyÕs Assassination:In September1901,President McKinley was murdered by LeonCzolgosz,an American-born native of Michigan,who concealed a pistol in a bandage that was wrappedaround his arm and hand so it looked like it covered awound or broken bone.ecret Service agent Georgeoster was assigned to search individuals coming tothe area where President McKinley would be greetingmembers of the public.He later admitted to havingchosen not to search Czolgosz because he was focusedon a Òdark complexioned man with a black moustacheÓwho was behind Czolgosz in the line of people comingthrough FosterÕs checkpoint.Agent Forester tried toexplain his actions by telling investigators that thecolored manÓmade him feel suspicious.When askedy?Óhe replied,ÒI didnÕt like his general appear-ance.ÓIronically,it was later revealed that the manwhose complexion had so captivated the agentÕsattention was the same person who saved PresidentMcKinley from a third bullet and apprehended theassassinÑJim Parker,an African-American formerAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION constable who attended the event as a spectator.Mr.ParkerÕs act of heroism was widely credited withextending the PresidentÕs life for several days.esult of reliance on racial stereotypes,the agent onduty overlooked Czolgosz,who despite his foreign-sounding last nameÑnot to mention his avowedallegiance to the anarchist causeÑlooked like Òamechanic out for the day to the Exposition.Ó2002 sniper attacks in the DC area,police officerswere looking for a disaffected white man acting aloneor with a single accomplice (the standard profile ofserial killer).After several subsequent reports,theyfocused their search on white males driving whitevans.Police officers conducting surveillance andsearches throughout the metropolitan areaÑincludingthose at each of the multiple roadblocks that werequickly put up after most of the shootingsÑused thisgeneral description of the suspect and the suspectÕsvehicle.At one point,due to mistaken leads aboutMiddle-Eastern terrorists,the FBI began planningtoquestion Al-Qaeda prisoners held at GuantanamoBay,Cuba for possible information on the snipers.Meanwhile,police came in contact with the African-American man and boyÑwho were ultimately accused,tried,and convicted for the crimesÑat least ten timesand did not apprehend thembecause,according to homicide detective Tony Patterson,ÒeverybodyThe suspectsÕblue ChevroletCaprice was spotted near one of the shooting scenes,and was stopped several times by police,snipers were able to escape every time with the allegedrder weapons in their possession.Officials were sofocused on race that they failed to notice that one ofthe snipers,John Allen Muhammad,possessed manyof the other characteristics often associated with serialkillers (i.e.,military background,angry,divorced,lostcustody of children,etc.).Candace DeLong put it,ÒA black sniper? That wasthe last thing I was thinking.ÓIn each case,the United States paid a clear pricefor law enforcement officers thinking that they knewwhat an otherwise unidentified threat looked like.Inthe first instance,the U.S.president was assassinated,in part,because his Secret Service agents were appar-ently relying on stereotypes of what an ÒinternationalanarchistÓlooked like.In the second,millions of resi-dents of the Washington,DC metropolitan area wereterrorized for several days as the serial killers repeat-edly evaded police,in part because officers were relyingupon scientifically-supported profiles that speculatedthe assailants were white.As DC Police Chief Charlesamsey pointed out,ÒWe were looking for a whitevan with white people,and we ended up with a bluear with black people.ÓIn each instance,officersÕability to focus on and detect dangerous behaviors (athrough a Secret Service checkpoint;a rifle in thetrunk of the car of two African-American males whoepeatedly came in contact with police engaged in thesearch for a serial sniper) was apparently compromisedby the distraction of the assailantsÕrace.These are not the only available examples of suchfailures.Throughout the last century,reliance onracialprofiling has repeatedly led to national securitytragedies:Japanese Internment During World War II:esident Roosevelt in February 1942,ExecutiveOrder 9066 called for the removal of Japanese andAmericans of Japanese ancestry from Western coastalegions to guarded internment camps.Located acrossthe U.S.,these permanent detention camps lasteduntil 1946,imprisoning over 110,000 people.Through-out the entire course of the war,10 people were con-victed of spying for Japan;none of them were ofJapanese or even Asian descent.After bombing theAlfred P.Murrah federal building in Oklahoma Cityin April 1995,the white male assailant,TimothyMcVeigh,was able to flee while law enforcementofficers reportedly operated on the initial theory thatab terroristsÕhad committed the attack.2003,Nathaniel Heatwole,a white college studentfrom North Carolina,was charged with a felony forAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION smuggling knives,box cutters,bleach,and items withthe same consistency as plastic explosives onto sixouthwest AirlinesÕflights.These items were notdiscovered for over a month,despite the fact thatMr.Heatwole sent numerous e-mail messages to theansportation and Security Administration inform-ing them of his actions.After they were discovered ontwo planes,Heatwole told authorities he had actuallysuccessfully smuggled such items onto those two andfour more.Heatwole claimed that this was an actofcivil disobedience intended to improve securitymeasures for airline travelers.He was released onbail and is awaiting trial;the charges against Heatwolehave since been reduced to a misdemeanor.tunately,our nationÕs history also shows that lawenforcement officials are capable of learning about theineffectiveness of profiling based on inherent physicaltraits and changing their behavior accordingly.In the1970Õs,the U.S.Secret Service relied upon a presidentialassassin profile that said assailants would be males.After the arrest of Sara Jane Moore for taking ashotat President Ford,the gender limitation was removedfrom the profile.The value of changing the profilewas verified in 1992 when a young woman was arrestedfor threatening to kill President George H.W.Bushafter bringing a rifle to a rally where he was scheduledHowever,the implications of this lesson seem tohave been largely ignored with regard to race-basedprofiling.As summarized earlier in the report,severalof the United StatesÕdomestic ÒWar on TerrorÓstrategies (such as the post-9/11 attack round upsofMuslim and Arab men in New York City andtheNational Security Entry/Exit Registrationogram) appear to have been conceived withoutappreciation for past mistakes.Moreover,incidentsdescribed earlier in this report suggest a generalfailureof many American law enforcement agenciesand officers tolearn sufficiently from our countryÕshistorical mistakes.They also suggest a failure tointernalize the complexity of our nationÕs currentdomestic security situation.While a wide range ofpost-September 11,2001Ópolicies and practices seemto be informed by the fact that all of the 19 hijackerson the day of the attacks were Middle-Eastern males,law enforcement seems often to have acted inways that ignore the facts that:(a) the overwhelmingmajority of people who belong to Arab-American,Muslim-American,and South-Asian-Americancommunities are innocent and law abiding,and (b)many of the Al Qaeda sympathizers detained sincehave come from a wide range of other ethnic groupsand nationalities (such as Chicano American Joseadilla,white American Taliban combatant Johnalker Lindh,and the British Òshoe-bomberÓhat is more,the decision to focus,even partially,on racial characteristics instead of on behaviors runscounter to a significant lesson learned from one of themost relevant changes in U.S.airport security policyin the last ten years.In the 1990s,spurred by discrimi-nation lawsuits,the U.S.Customs Service eliminatedthe use of race in deciding which individuals to stopand search and instead began relying on a list ofsuspect behaviors.According to a study of U.S.Customs by Lamberth Consulting,the policy shifttocolor-blind profiling techniques increased therateof productive searchesÑsearches that led todiscovery of illegal contraband or activityÑby morethan 300 percent.If history is any judge,the impact of this failure toforgo the distraction of race-based strategies meansthat all Americans will continue to be at risk ofattacks by individuals whose physical appearance orethnicity defies popular stereotypes about terroristconspirators.Meanwhile,law enforcement resourceswill continue to be squandered on over-scrutinizingmillions of American citizens and visitors,ultimatelybecause of how they look,where they or theirancestors are from,or what they wear. Jeffrey Gettleman,ÒThe Hunt for a Sniper:The Profiling:Aenzy of Speculation Was Wide of the Mark,Ów York Times,Oct.25,2003.estimony of Renee Saucedo at the AIUSA National Hear-ings on Racial Profiling in San Francisco,CA on Sept.9,2003about harassment of day laborers;Testimony of Nina Paulinoatthe AIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling in Newrk City,NY on Oct.2,2003 on behalf of Santiago also sup-ports this claim.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION estimony of Susie McAllister at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in San Francisco,CA on Sept.9,2003 supports this claim;testimony of Margarita Rosario at theAIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003 also supports this claim.Also see Jessica L.Hart.Ph.D.,et al.,ÒRacial Profiling at What Price?ÓJournal ofensic Psychology Practice,ol.3(2) 2003,p.79-88.Also seeDavid A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial Profiling CannotWork,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.91Ð98.estimony of Dr.Jesse Ghannam,President of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee,San Francisco chapter(ADC-SF) at AIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling inOakland,CA on Sept.9,2003 about his communityÕs currentlackof trust and unwillingness to cooperate with law enforcement;testimony of Deborah Forge at the AIUSA National HearingsonRacial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003 also supportsthis claim.Also see Jessica L.Hart.Ph.D.,et al.,ÒRacial Profilingat What Price?ÓJournal ofForensic Psychology Practice,ol.3(2)2003,p.79Ð88.Also see David A.Harris,acial Profiling Cannot Workw York Press:New York,2003,p.107Ð114.estimony of Omar Mohamedi,a civil rights attorney,at theAIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003 about people who are afraid to report crimesbecause they fear that they might be targeted by law enforcement.He testified about a family who died as a result of a fire that theywere afraid to report;testimony of Monica Tarazi,Director of theAmerican-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,NY chapter(ADC-NY) at the AIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profilingin New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003 also supports this claim.estimony of Steve Yip,Yuanita Young,and Margarita Rosarioof the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality at theAIUSA National Hearings on Racial Profiling in New York City,NY on Nov.2,2003.estimony of Donato Garcia at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Dallas,TX on Nov.15,2003;TestimonyofJohn Burris,a civil rights attorney at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in Oakland,CA on Sept.9,2003.ccording to John Burris,ÒThe greatest psychological impact ...is [on] ...the children ...[it] may erode their ability to beespectful [of] the police for years to come.ÓDavid A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.126Ð128Monami Maulik testifying at the AIUSA National HearingsonRacial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003.Thetestimony of Oscar Paredes at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in New York City,NY on Oct.2,2003 also sup-ports this claim.David A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.231.Jesse Ghannam testifying at the AIUSA National Hear-ings on Racial Profiling in Oakland,CA on Sept.9,2003.Thetestimony of Monica Tarazi,Director of the New York American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC-NY) at the AIUSAational Hearings on Racial Profiling,New York City,NY onOct.2,2003 also supports this claim.David A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.102Ð106.orentina Rendo testifying at the AIUSA National Hearingson Racial Profiling in Chicago,IL on Oct.20,2003.David A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.94Ð99.John Burris testifying at the AIUSA National Hearings onacial Profiling in Oakland,CA on Sept.9,2003.David A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.106Ð107.estimony of Captain Ron Davis at the AIUSA NationalHearings on Racial Profiling in Oakland,CA on Sept.9,2003.David A.Harris,ofiles in Injustice:Why Racial ProfilingCannot Work,The New York Press:New York,2003,p.124Ð126.CP Legal Defense and Education Fund,Bad Times Inulia:An African American Community In Texas Is Victimized intheÒWar on Drugs,Ó2003.Available at http://www.naacpldf.org/whatsnew/wn_doc_ ldf_ badtimes_tulia.html.CP Legal Defense and Education Fund,ÒFormer TuliaDefendants Celebrate Pardons;Civil Rights Law Suit FiledAgainst Drug Sting Officials,ÓAug.22,2003.Available at http://www.naacpldf.org/whatsnew/wn_doc _ ldf_ tulia_ celebrate_ee Hockstader,ÒTexas to Toss Drug Convictions Against 38eople:Prosecutor Concedes ÔTravesty of Justice,ÕÓApr.2,2003.Joe Donohue,ÒTrooper Boss:Race Plays a Role in DrugCrimes,Ówark Star-Ledger,28,1999.Michael Coyle,ÒRace and Class Penalties in Crack Cocaineentencing,ÓThe Sentencing Project,2002,available at:http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/5077.pdf.Also see:oesthe Punishment Fit the Crime? Drug Users and Drunkivers,Questions of Race and Class,ÓThe Sentencing Project,1993,available at:http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/9040smy.pdf.The statistics for drug use were obtained from the NationalHousehold Survey on Drug Abuse,2000 by Substance AbuseandMental Health Services Administration at:http://www.samhsa.gov.The numbers for drug arrest were obtained fromtheU.S.Sentencing Commission 2000 Sourcebookon Federalentencing statistics at:http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2000/SBTOC00.htm.tatement of Vanita Gupta of the NAACP Legal Defense andEducation Fund at presentation,ÒTulia,Texas:The LawyersÕerspective,ÓFeb.26,2004,Washington D.C.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION Eric Rauchway,Murdering McKinley:The Making ofTheodoreRooseveltÕs America,Hill and Wang:New York,2003,p.3,18.Eric Rauchway.bid.,im B.Parker,or ÒBig JimÓ,became a hero overnight.How-er,he was to find that racism still prevailed in the North,justasit did in the South.Agent Foster later reversed his positionanddenied ParkerÕs role in the incident,claiming that an Irish-American soldier,Private Francis OÕBrien,was the first to subdueCzolgosz.Another agent who had initially reported on ParkerÕsheroism did not testify at CzolgoszÕs trial.See Eric Rauchway,bid.The international network of anarchists were among the mostfeared terrorists of the time who openly proclaimed their supportfor terrorist activity and claimed to be determined to wage war onmodern civilization.Moreover,in the decade preceding PresidentMcKinleyÕs assassination,they had succeeded in assassinatingnumerous European officials and heads of state.Eric Rauchway,bid.,p.16.Ken Dermota,ÒSniper Hunt Targets Al Qaeda,ÓTelegrOct.19,2002.Ed Vulliamy,ÒPolice Let SniperÕs Car Go 10 Times DuringSpree,ÓThe Observer,Oct.27,2002.Kevin Mrida,ÒAfter The Van:One Lesson From the Sniperobe:What You See Determines What You Get,Ó24,2002.Ed Vulliamy,ÒPolice Let SniperÕs Car Go 10 Times DuringSpree,ÓThe Observer,Oct.27,2002.Mary Leonard,ÒArrest in Sniper Case:Sniper Suspect Defiesofile,ÓOct.27,2002.Jeffrey Gettleman,ÒThe Hunt for a Sniper:The Profiling:Aenzy of Speculation Was Wide of the Mark,Ów York Times,Oct.25,2002.Craig Whitlock and Josh White,ÒPolice Checked SuspectÕslates at Least 10 Times,Óashington Post,Oct.26,2002.The Hon.Robert Matsui of California,ÒRedress for JapaneseInternment,Óremarks to the 99th Congress,Jan.3,1985.131Cong.Rec.E 54.Mary Abowd,ÒArab-Americans Suffer Hatred After Bombing,ÓChicago Sun Times,May 13,1995.Mike Brooks,Carla Crosswhite,Kevin Bohn,ÒStudentCharged in Airline Box Cutter Scare,ÓCNN.com/Law Center,Oct.21,2002.Available at http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/20/airline.scare/.Associated Press,ÒCharges Reduced Against Student WhoHid Box Cutters on Planes,ÓUSA Today,April 13,2004.Availableat http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-04-12-boxcutter-case_x.htm.Gender and race are often linked in profiling by law enforce-ment.As with racial profiling,gender profiling wrongfully relieson immutable characteristics rather than on behavior.Bill Dedham,ÒFighting Terror/Words of Caution on Airportecurity:Memo Warns Against Use of Profiling as a Defense,ÓOct.12,2001.amberth Consulting,ÒRacial Profiling DoesnÕt Work.ÓAvail-able at http://lamberthconsulting.com/ research_work.asp.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION IÕm an American citizen and IÕm not going to restrictAmerican citizen and IÕm not going to restrictajob in another state,am I goingto think,ÔOh,is it safe to movetothis ...state?ÕÓÑTarek Elyadi discussing racial profiling in the U.S.Mr.Elyadi talked about profilingand harassment of Muslims after September 11,2001.San Francisco,California,Sept.9,2003There is a pressing need for a comprehensive federalanti-racial profiling statute.Such a law would helpuphold the promise the U.S.has made to its ownpeople,as well as the international community,that itwill ensure all people in thiscountry are not mistreatedbecause of their religiousbeliefs,race,national origin,or ethnicity.To this day,nostate law has dealt effectivelywith racial profiling by lawenforcement officers,andmore than half of the states do this common human rights violation.Moreover,theupreme Court has failedfrom such abuseÑguaranteed to AmericanÕs by theourth and Fourteenth Amendmentsto tion,as well as by international human rights treatiesthat the U.S.has ratified.Such federal legislation mustnot only ban racial profiling at all levelsof law enforce-ment,it must also provide mechanisms by which tomeasure whether agencies and officers areengaginginthe practice,and contain effective provisions to dealSTATE LAWS ON RACIAL PROFILINGThe state of current anti-racial profiling laws providesno reason for anyone of color,nor anyone of Muslimor Sikh faiths to drive or fly with confidence that theirourth Amendment right to protection against un-easonable searches and seizures or their FourteenthAmendment right to equal protection under the lawwill be respected.A thorough review of all existing state anti-racial pro-filing laws by AIUSA found each of them to be deficientin significant ways.When taken together they offer littleeason for Americans or visitors to expect that theirhuman and civil rights will be similarly protectedwherever they go in the U.S.Common flaws include:laws whose definitions are so restrictive as to make themvirtually unenforceable;acts that are irrelevant to com-mon forms of racial profiling;statues that are silent onthe problem of religious discrimination by law enforce-ment officers;and enacted legislationpermanent ongoing monitoring of the problem.As of August 2004,bills addressing racial profilinghad been introduced in 41 states and passed in 29statesÑwith only 23 of these states actually banningthe practice.While these laws collectively contain allthis problem,each individual stateÕs law falls short insignificant ways.Consider the following facts aboutthe current status of state racial profiling laws:27 states have no law explicitly prohibiting racialprofiling.Only 11 (of the 23 states with bans) use a definitionof racial profiling that can be effectively enforced.The12 other states only prohibit racial profiling ÒsolelyÓbased on race.Thus,they may allow officers to userace in conjunction with other criteria such as locationor style of dress.46 states do not explicitly ban racial profiling basedon religion or religious appearance.35 states have no laws explicitly banning the useofprofiling during pedestrian stops.In urban areas,Ending Racial Profilingin the United States racial profiling of pedestrians is often as significantasthat of motorists.Only 6 of the 15 states that ban racial profiling ofpedestrians use a definition of racial profiling that canbe effectively enforced.Only 2 states ban the use of pretextual traffic stops.failure to utilize a seat belt) as the official reason tostop a driver whose car they intend to search for illegalitems on an otherwise unsubstantiated hunch.Only 2 states criminalize violation of their racialprofiling ban.Only 2 states enable individuals to seek court ordersto stop individual departments from continuing toengage in racial profiling.At bottom,virtually every stateÕs racial profiling lawis so flawed as to make it irrelevant for many groupsof racial profiling victims and thus in urgent need ofeform.For example,consider the cases of Utah andUtahÕs racial profiling law has been praised because:It requires data to be collected and recorded byery state and local officer in every stop,includingpedestrian stops.The data is recorded by the Department of Motorehicles (DMV) and is subsequently reviewed by theCommission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.The race and gender of the officer is recorded aswell as an identification number for use in analyzingthe rates at which particular officers stop minorities.However,the law is based on a definition that onlycovers cases of profiling based on race,and itdoes not provide a means for aggrieved individualstoseek relief from the courts or an independent com-mission.Thus it does not impact the great majority ofracial profiling cases in which race was used as one ofa group of factors to determine which individuals totarget (such as race,gender,age,and location).More-er,it does not provide an efficient avenue for racialprofiling victims to seek reform.ennesseeÕs existing racial profiling law also hasseveral positive characteristics,including at least one thatUtahÕs law lacks.Specifically,TennesseeÕs current law:contains a provision for data collection (while it wasvoluntary and expired in 2001,many state laws haveno data collection provision at all)allows aggrieved individuals to seek relief in the courtsHowever,the law applies to fingerprintsobtained for the purpose of racial profiling.Óogether,these two laws provide a powerful exampleof the flawed nature of existing state laws and theneed for uniform anti-racial profiling laws across thestates.They also reveal that existing laws are generallyunlikely to bring the United States into compliancewith the international human rights treaties againstracism that the country has ratified.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION hat a Good Law Would Look Likeaddressing racial profiling (as of June 1,2004),AIUSA deter-Includegroups by law enforcement agencies even partially on the basisof race,ethnicity,national origin,or religion,except when thereis trustworthy information,relevant to the locality and time-frame,that links persons belonging to one of the aforemen-minor/common traffic violations to inquire about drugs,guns,orpenalties for officers who repeatedly engage in racial profilingmandatory data collection for all stops and alland warnings given).Such data would include perceived race,perceived gender,perceived age and whether immigrationan independent commission to review and respondracial profiling investigationsdepartments from continuing to engage in racial profilingProvide RECENT FEDERAL EFFORTSAIUSA,together with a diverse coalition of lawenforcement,civil rights,human rights,and religiousorganizations,fully supports the newly introducedEnd Racial Profiling Act of 2004 (ERPA),whichbans racial profiling at all levels of government andprovides systematic monitoring and enforcementmechanisms for law enforcement agencies.Onebruary 26,2004,Congressmen John Conyers,Jr.(D-MI) and Christopher Shays (R-CT),with theexpressed support of 107 of their fellow U.S.Repre-sentatives,introduced ERPA.Senator Russell Feingoldand 14 colleagues simultaneously introduced an iden-tical bill in the U.S.Senate.Specifically ERPA would:define and ban all forms of racial profiling based onrace,religion,national origin,or ethnicityfinancially penalize any state that refuses to complywith ERPA,which includes:implementing policiesthat ban racial profiling;collecting data on the per-ceived race of all individuals stopped by local,state,and federal police;implementing procedures foreceiving,investigating and responding to complaints;and employing procedures to discipline law enforce-allow for courts to respond to individual complaintsby ordering specific police departments to stop engagingin racial profilingprovide funding for training and new technologyfor data collection,such as in-car cameras,portablecomputer systems,and early warning systems is the only piece of proposed federallegislation introduced in either the U.S.House orenate as of the publishing of this report that offerseal opportunity for ending racial profiling in theUnited States.Another President Fails to Follow ThroughDespite repeated promises by President Bush andAttorney General John Ashcroft to do so,the Bushadministration has failed to enactÑor even explicitlysupportÑfederal legislation that would comprehensivelyaddress the issue of racial profiling in the United States. a law would close the gaps in existing state andlocal laws against racial profiling,protect AmericansÕbasic constitutional rights to equal protection andpersonal security,and bring the nation in to greatercompliance with international human rights standards.It would also help the President keep a promise to theAmerican people that has gone unfulfilled for almostOn February 27,2001,while addressing a jointsession of Congress,President George W.Bushpromised to end racial profiling in America.Hismessage was straightforward,Earlier today I asked John Ashcroft,the Attorney General,to develop specific recommendations to end racial profiling.ItÕs wrong,and we will end it in America.He repeated the promise later that year during hisappearance at the annual convention of the NationalAssociation for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP),Finally,my agenda is based on the principle ofequalopportunity and equal justice.Yet,for too long,too manyan-Americans have been subjected to the unfairnessofracial profiling.ThatÕs why,earlier this year,I askedttorney General John Ashcroft to develop specific recom-mendations to end racial profiling.ItÕs wrong,and itmustbe ended in America.The PresidentÕs message was extremely welleceived by Americans who had grown impatientwithformer President Bill ClintonÕs reluctance totakedefinitive action to end the problem.less,it took more than two years for the Bush admin-istration to take new action against racial profiling.On June 17,2003 the Department of Justice issueduidance Regarding the Use ofRace by Federal LawEnforcement Agencieslearly statedthat it was intended to fulfill the PresidentÕs promise.modeled after one endorsed by human and civil rightsorganizations,including Amnesty International USA,the guidance fell short of the PresidentÕs goal ofAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION ending racial profiling in America in a number ofways.Specifically,the guidance:does not cover profiling based on religion,religiousappearance,or national origindoes not apply to state or local law enforcementdoes not include any enforcement mechanism (e.g.,private right of action,or cutting of funds) does not require data collectiondoes not specify any punishment for federal officerswho disregard itcontains a blanket exception for cases of Òthreat tonational security and other catastrophic eventsÓandin enforcing laws protecting the integrity of theationÕs bordersÓesident BushÕs apparent reluctance to supportthe general state of public opinion about racial pro-filing.With the exception of a momentary shift inthewake of the September 11,2001 attacks,publicopinion on this issue has been relatively constant formore than a decade.In 2001,when President Bushinitially promised to end racial profiling in America,81% of the public opposed racial profiling.oday,public opinion against racial profiling is as strong aser.According to the most recent poll available,73%of whites,91% of African Americans,and77%of Hispanics oppose the use of race-based policepractices.What is more,the level of consensus againstracial profiling does not appear to be significantlyaffected by whether a person lives in the North ortheSouth.On its face,the United States Constitution guaranteesprotection against racial profiling.The text of boththe Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment would seemto ban the practice.The Fourth Amendment of the United StatesConstitution says that:The right ofthe people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches andseizures,shall not be violated,and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable causeHowever,the U.S.Supreme Court has lowered thatthreshold.In its place the court has established asliding scale that weighs the depravation of an indi-vidualÕs liberty against the basis of the police inquiry.olice,for example,are permitted to stop,questionand sometimes frisk a person based solely on Òreason-able suspicionÓÑa standard which requires signifi-antly less than a preponderance of the evidence thatning to commit the offense.This reasonable sus-picion threshold is not nearly as stringent as theobable causeÓstandard required for an arrest which,in simple terms,requires at least a 50 percent proba-bility that a crime has been or is about to be committedand a 50 percent probability that the person to bearrested committed or is about to commit that crime.This lower threshold makes a Fourth Amendmentchallenge to a race-based stop by law enforcementextremely difficult,as it allows more leeway for anunscrupulous officer to abuse his or her power.Andonce a stop has been made the law allows officers tomake an arrest for even the most minor offense.thermore,an officer making a stop can search thepassenger compartment of the targeted driverÕs vehicle.The discretion of a police officer acting on reasonablesuspicion may go largely unchecked under the FourthAmendmentÑsometimes permitting the leewaynecessary for an officer to effectively enforce the law,but often allowing systematic racial profiling to passuster under the weakened Fourth Amendment.The Supreme Court has set further barriers to thelegal fight against racial profiling in response to aourth Amendment challenge of a stop.In Whren v.the Court ruled that while selective law enforce-tion,the appropriate constitutional basis for objectingAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION to such discriminatory practices is the Equal ProtectionClause of the Fourteenth,not the Fourth Amendment.inding little solace in the Fourth Amendment,victims of racial profiling are left with the FourteenthAmendment on which to base a claim.The Equalotection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution states that:[No] state shall deny to any person within its juris-diction the equal protection ofthe laws.However,to establish a violation of the Equalotection Clause based on discriminatory lawenforcement,the plaintiff must show either inten-tional discriminationor an adverse effect driven bysome form of discriminatory animuson the part oflaw enforcement officials.In other words,the plaintiffwould have to show that the police conduct took placenot in spite ofÓbut ÒbecauseauseeffectÓon the target.Given the difficulty in estab-lishing intentional motives in individual cases,thisegregious acts of racial profiling.Hence,while there are Constitutional protectionsagainst racial profiling,there remain many significantbarriers to launching a successful legal challengeagainst this widespread practice.INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIESltimately,by failing to effectively address the problemof racial profiling,the United States is violating itsobligations under several international human rightsagreements to which the nation is a party.Of the major international human rights treaties,covenants,and declarations that the United States hasratified,the United Nations Charter,Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR),national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR),and the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(CERD),all explicitly prohibit racial discrimination.The texts of ICCPR and CERD,both of which havebeen ratified by the U.S.,most directly apply to thepractice of racial profiling by law enforcement officers.Article 1 of CERD defines Òracial discriminationÓas:[A]ny distinction,exclusion,restriction,or preference basedon race,colour,descent,or national or ethnic origin whichhas the purpose or effectofnullifying or impairing theecognition,enjoyment or exercise,on an equal footing,ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,economic,social,cultural,or any other field ofpublic life.Article 2 of the same Convention goes on todeclare that,States Parties condemn racial discrimination and under-ake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delaya policy ofeliminating racial discrimination in all itsforms and promoting understanding among all racesThe ICCPR also places emphasis on the non-discrimination obligations for all states parties.Evenduring times of emergency,where states may derogatefrom certain other rights specified in the Covenant,the prohibition on discrimination remains intact.Article 4 of this Covenant goes further to declare,In time ofpublic emergency which threatens the life ofthenation and the existence ofwhich is officially proclaimed,the States Parties to the present Covenant may takemeasures derogating from their obligations under thepresent Covenant to the extent strictly required by theexigencies ofthe situation,provided that such measuresare not inconsistent with their other obligations underinternational law and do not involve discriminationsolely on the grounds ofrace,colour,sex,language,ligion,and social origin.As a party to both of these agreements,the Unitedtates is obliged to adhere to the aforementionedstandards.However,the U.S.has often done all it canto avoid the obligations under such treaties.Forexample,during the respective ratification processesthe U.S.attached a non-self-executing provision toboth documents.This provision effectively seeks todeny citizens the right to use these treaties as a legalbasis for seeking protection in U.S.courts of rightsAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION enumerated in these documents.Regardless,the U.S.has acknowledged that the non-self-executing natureof the treaties does not change the countryÕsobligation to protect its citizens from incursionagainst the rights provided in these treaties.netheless,there is virtually no way for that tohappen without passage of domestic laws providingthe same protection (or Supreme Court decisions thathave a similar effect).In fact,in its initial report to the United NationsCommittee on CERD in 2001,the U.S.acknowledgedthe persistence of racial discrimination in the country.At a press conference Harold Koh,then Assistantecretary of State for Democracy,Human Rights,andLabor stated,ÒAs our report chronicles,theAmerican struggle to secure racial equality remainsincomplete....ÓThe U.N.Committee on CERDfurther acknowledged the continuing problem ofracial discrimination in the U.S.by noting that Òthepersistence of discriminatory effects of the legacy ofthe practice of slavery and segregation,and destructivepolicies with regard to Native Americans,Ótion in that country.In summary,until comprehensive anti-profilinglegislation is in effect in every state,many Americanswill continue to worry that their fundamental right tolive without fear of racial,ethnic,or religious discrimi-nation may be violated at any time by the very peoplewho are charged to protect them.Given the discus-sion earlier in this chapter about the nature of existingstate anti-racial profiling laws,it would seem that onlynational legislation could bring this about. 23 states explicitly ban racial profiling:AK,AR,CA,CO,CT,FL,IL,KY,MD,MA,MN,MO,MT,NE,NV,NJ,OK,RI,TN,TX,UT,WA,WV.12 states whose definition of racial profiling is far too restrictiveto be effective include:CO,CT,FL,IL,KY,MD,MT,NE,OK,X,UT.It is important to note that the criteria that areallowed under these laws do not need to be related to an actualincident or report of a crime.Furthermore,the Police ExecutiveResearch Forum (PERF) also rejects the restrictive definition(i.e.,the use of race) of racial profiling.See:Fridell,Lorie,etal.cially Biased Policing:A Principled Response,Executive Research Forum,2001,p.3,available at http://policeforum.mn-8.net/default.asp?link=.4 states that ban racial profiling based on religion or religiousappearance include:AK,AR,CA,MA.15 States that extend their ban to pedestrian stops include:AR,CA,CO,CT,FL,KY,MA,MT,NE,NJ,OK,RI,TX,UT,WA.6 states that ban pedestrian stops and define racial profiling in away that is effective for enforcement (i.e.a non-suspect-specificprofile that may include race as one of several factors) include:AR,CA,MA,NJ,RI,WA.2 states that ban the use of pretextual stops include:MO,WV.2 states that criminalize the violation of the racial profiling ban,include:NJ,OK .2 states whose laws enable individuals to seek court orders tostop individual departments from continuing to engage in racialprofiling include:RI,TN.The United States Congress,Office of the Press Secretary,ddress of the President to the Joint Session of Congress,Ó27,2001.Available at:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/The White House,Office of the Press Secretary,ÒVideotapedRemarks of the President to NAACP National Convention,ÓJuly9,2001.Available at:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/Despite encouragement by members of his administration tooutlaw racial profiling,Bill Clinton called only for data collectionmeasures.See David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima,Ò13 Ways ofoking at Al Gore and Race,Óashington Post,April 23,2000.Only in his last week in office did President Clinton recommendthat Congress take measures to outlaw racial profiling.See StevenA.Holmes,ÒIn His Final Week,Clinton Issues Proposal onace,Ów York Times,Jan.15,2001.vailable at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/guidance_on_race.htm These exceptions have caused domestic civil rights organiza-tions to fear that such language will be used to continue wide-spread racial profiling against Arab,South-Asian and LatinoAmericans and immigrants in the U.S.See ÒRacial Profilinguidance ÔUseful First StepÕon the Road to Enacting Com-prehensive Federal Legislation;Concerns about Broad Loop-holes:Urges Congress to Act,ÓJune 18,2003,available at:http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=13990.Alsosee ÒNew Justice Department Racial Profiling Policy Does NotGo Far Enough to End the Practice Says MALDEF,ÓMexicanAmerican Legal Defense and Educational Fund,June 18,2003,available at:http://www.maldef.org/ news/press.cfm?ID=165.Also see ÒStatement of Raul Yzaguirre on the Department ofJustice Racial Profiling Guidance,ÓNational Council of La Raza,June 19,2003,available at:http://www.nclr.org/content/news/Conversation with Professor of Sociology Ronald Weitzer,George Washington University,Mar.2,2004.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION vailable at http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news12000/dwb-poll.html/.The poll did not indicate differences in opinionbetween racial minority groups.Ronald Weitzer and Steven Tuch,cially Biased Policing:Determinants ofCitizen Perceptions,George Washington Uni-versity,Department of Sociology,Washington DC,2004.Constitution,4th Amend.y v.Ohio,392,U.S.1,27 (1968)..S.v.Sokolow,490 U.S.1 (1989).ong Sun v.U.S.,431 U.S.174 (1963).Anthony Thompson,ÒStopping the Usual Suspects:Race andthe Fourth Amendment,Ó74 N.Y.U.L.Rev.956,973 (1999).water v.City ofLago Vista,532 U.S.318 (2001).w York v.Belton,453 U.S.454,460 (1981).en v.U.S.,806,813 (1969).Constitution,14th Amend.Brown v.Oneonta,221 F.3d 329,337 (2d Cir.1999) (citingick Wo v.Hopkins,118 U.S.356,373Ð74 (1886)).Brown v.Oneonta,221 F.3d 329,337 (2d Cir.1999) (citingill.OfArlington Heights v.Metro.Hous.Dev.Corp.,429 U.S.252,Johnson v.Wing,178 F.3d 611,615 (2d Cir.1999).(Emphasisin original.).N.Charter,art.1,para.3.Universal Declaration of Human Rights,G.A.Res.217 A(III),U.N.GAOR,3d Sess.,U.N.Doc.A/810 (1984),art.2.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,adoptedby the General Assembly Dec.19,1966,entered into forceMar.23,1976,ratified by the United States in 1992,art.2(1),999U.N.T.S.171.International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofacial Discrimination,adopted by the General Assembly Dec.21,1965,entered into force Jan.4,1969,ratified by the United Statesin 1994 art.2,660 U.N.T.S.195 (1966).The United States ratified the ICCPR in 1992 and CERD in1994 as a non-self-executing treaty to prevent domestic lawsuitsby private parties.ee Human Rights Committee,General Comment 29,State ofEmergency(Article 4),U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11(2001).In this document,the Human Rights Committee empha-sizes that Òelements...of the right to non-discrimination ...cannotbe derogated from in any circumstances.ÓInitial Reports of State Parties due in 1993:United States ofAmerica,U.N.GAOR,Hum.Rts.Comm.,para.4,U.N.Doc.CPR/C/81/Add.4 (1994).David Pitts,ÒKoh Discusses U.S.Report to the UN on Dis-crimination,Óavailable at:http://japan.usembassy.gov /e/p/ÒCommittee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination AdoptsConclusions of Report on the United States,ÓAug.13,2001,available at:http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION The scope of racial profiling in the United States hasexpanded since September 11,2001.While some lawenforcement officers apparently believe that it is effectivefor apprehending criminals,recent and historical exam-ples suggest the practice actually makes usless safe.Amnesty International USA is also concerned aboutthe damaging impact of racial profiling on individuals,families and communities throughout the country.Thiseport highlights the breadth and depth of racial pro-filing,the devastation experienced by victims of racialprofiling,and the lack of comprehensive legislation tocombat the problem at all levels of government.effectively eliminate the practice.At the very least,suchlegislation must include a clear definition of racial pro-filing,specific means of determining the existence anddepth of the practice in all law enforcement agencies,and provide measures to bring abusive officers andagencies into greater compliance with the law.Amnesty International USA urges the U.S.government to end racial profiling and abide by theprinciple of nondiscrimination,which is enshrined inthe U.S.Constitution and numerous internationaltreaties that the country has ratified.AIUSA alsomakes the following recommendations,whichepresent the minimum guarantees to ensure fairtreatment and basic human rights to all citizens,esidents,and visitors to the United States.RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE U.S.The U.S.federal government should pass the Endacial Profiling Act of 2004.The U.S.federal government should ensure thatnational laws prohibit all forms of discrimination andprovide effective protection against racism.Provide Resources and TechnicalThe federal government should provide resourcesand technical assistance to state and local law enforce-ment agencies to improve their complaint procedures,internal discipline,and training programs.Provide Information and Education onNew PoliciesThe government should provide information to andeducate affected communities about new domesticsecurity policies.The U.S.government should withdraw reservationsto already ratified international human rights treaties,including the International Convention on the Elimi-nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,andcooperate fully with relevant international monitoringbodies on the implementation of measures takenagainst racism.The U.S.government should withdraw its reserva-tions to the International Covenant on Civil andolitical Rights and the Convention Against Torture,in particular those that restrict the implementation ofArticles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights and Articles 1,3 and 16 ofthe Convention Against Torture.It should also with-draw reservations that restrict the USAÕs fulfillmentofinternational obligations in its domestic law. The U.S.government should ratify,without reserva-tions,human rights treaties that it has not yet ratified,in particular the Convention on the Rights of theChild,the Convention on the Elimination of Allms of Discrimination Against Women,the Inter-national Covenant on Economic,Social and CulturalRights,the Convention relating to the status ofefugees,the American Convention on Human rightsand other Inter-American human rights treaties.The U.S.government should provide effectiveprotection against racial profiling and other forms ofdiscrimination and recognize the competence of theInter-American Court of Human Rights.The U.S.government should ratify the (first)Optional Protocol to the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights (allowing the right of indi-ecognize the competence of the Committee againstture to receive and act on individual cases.RECOMMENDATIONS TO STATE AND LOCALederal,state,and local governments should enactnew legislation or amend existing legislation toeffectively ban racial profiling.Such a law should:a)ban the targeting of individuals and groups by lawenforcement,even partially,on the basis of race,ethnicity,national origin,or religion,except wherethere is trustworthy information,relevant to thelocality and timeframe,that links persons belongingtoone of the aforementioned groups to an identifiedcriminal incident or scheme;b) ban pretextual stopsofpedestrians and motorists;c) criminalize violationsof the ban on racial profiling and specify penalties forofficers who engage in racial profiling;d) proscribemandatory data collection for all stops and all searchesof pedestrians and motorists;e) require analysis andpublication of the data collected;f) create an inde-pendent commission to review and respond to com-plaints of racial profiling and regularly publish resultsof racial profiling investigations;g) allow for indi-viduals to seek court orders to stop individual depart-ments from continuing to engage in racial profiling;i)provide funds for periodically retraining officersandinstalling in-car video cameras for monitoringRECOMMENDATIONS TO FEDERAL,STATEAND LOCAL GOVERNMENTSederal,state and local authorities should initiateand support campaigns aimed at mobilizing nationalpublic opinion against racism through effectiveprograms in the mass media,publishing activities andesearch projects.Curricula and teaching methodsshould be reviewed in order to eliminate prejudicesand racist attitudes,and negative stereotyping.ederal,state and local authorities should initiateprograms to celebrate and promote cultural andracialdiversity.the Results of Disciplinary Hearingsederal,state and local authorities should offerprotection against racist attacks and practices insociety,such as by ensuring that law enforcementagencies act promptly and decisively to prevent andespond to all forms of racist attacks,and by bringinganyone responsible for racist abuses to justice.Allegations of racist abuses by law enforcementofficials should be effectively investigated,the com-plainants given protection against any form of intimi-dation,and any perpetrator brought to justice.Victimsshould receive full reparation.The outcome of criminal,disciplinary,and admin-istrative investigations into alleged police ill treat-ment,disputed killings and deaths in custody shouldbe made public promptly after completion of aninvestigation,unless doing so would jeopardize anyongoing criminal proceedings.Governments should undertake strong disciplinarymeasures and where appropriate,criminal prosecutionsAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION for the abusive use of force and firearms should befollowed in accordance with international standards.Governments should ensure that abuses,includingtorture,brutality,and other excessive force by policeofficers will not be tolerated;that officers will be heldaccountable for their action;and that those responsiblefor abuses will be brought to justice.Record and Maintain Data on PoliceGovernments should collect data about the incidentsof police abuse at the federal,state,and local levels,monitor patterns for the purpose of directing federalesources toward redressing these patterns of abuse.Law Enforcement ederal,state and local authorities should establishindependent and effective oversight bodies for theirespective police agencies.In particular,these bodiesshould:have the authority to investigate or reviewcomplaints by the public of human rights violationsbythe public against the police;be able to conductegular audits of the police internal complaints anddisciplinary process and,where necessary,conducttheir own investigations;have the power to requirewitnesses to appear and to insist on cooperation frompolice departments and individual officers;requirepolice agencies to provide information on action takenin individual cases,with reason for inaction;have theauthority to review and make recommendations onpolicy and training;provide detailed public reports,atleast annually,giving relevant data,including the typeplainant and the accused officer;publicize the com-plaints procedure within the community and ensurethat it is accessible to the public;information aboutcomplaints procedures should be prominently dis-played in all police stations.Recruitment PoliciesThe federal,state and local authorities shouldintroduce recruitment policies and practices of stateagencies that aim to reflect the diversity of theirsocieties at all organizational levels.ederal,state and local government authoritiestionalized racism that is racism,which resides overtlyor covertly in policies,procedures,practices andculture of private or public institutions.Review Policies and Practices forossible Discriminatory Impactolicing operations at federal,state and local levelsshould be reviewed to ensure that they are nottargeted in a discriminatory fashion.ederal,state and local government authoritiesshould ensure that justice is equally available to allthose living within their national borders irrespectiveof their ethnic origin or the remoteness of the areas inwhich they live.Provide Required FundingThe Administration should seek,and Congressprovide,adequate funding to allow the JusticeDepartment to fulfill its mandate under the Policeccountability Act provisions of the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 tocompile,publish,and regularly analyze national dataon police use of excessive force (including all fatalshootings and deaths in custody).Adequate resourcesshould also be provided to allow the Justice Depart-ment to continue to pursue Òpattern and practiceÓlawsuits against police department engaging inwidespread or systematic abuses.Governments should use the federal spendingpower to insist on adequate accountability proceduresat the state and local level to ensure compliance withthe ICCPR.These procedures should include thecreation of Òearly warning systemsÓto identify abusivepolice officers and provide them with the properdiscipline and training;the existence of adequatecivilian complaint procedures and internal disciplinesystems;adequate training programs;and the col-lection of data concerning civilian complaints andAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION unding should be provided to enable U.S.Attorneysin jurisdictions throughout the USA to increase inves-tigation and prosecutions of police officers suspectedof violating federal criminal civil rights violations.which engage in discriminatory practices,takingeffective steps to eliminate them.RECOMMENDATIONS TO FEDERAL,STATEAND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENTAll law enforcement agencies should fully enforceexisting local,state,and national anti-racial profilingrain the Law Enforcement OfficersAll police departments should ensure that trainingon human rights is a permanent component of policetraining programs provided to all ranks and thatcommitment to human rights training is reflected inpecial instruction and training should be providedto public officials to recognize the specific protectionneeds of indigenous peoples.Authorities at all levelsshould ensure that any private bodies,such as commer-cial enterprises and international corporations,fullyespect the rights of indigenous peoples,in particular byensuring that they are not victims of discrimination.ograms for the selection,training and monitoringof justice officials involved in the administration ofjustice should include specific measures to ensure thatin the performance of their duties their conduct is notin any way racist or discriminatory,either directly orindirectly.For this purpose cross-cultural awarenessand anti-racism programs should be essential elementsin the training of justice officials.olice departments and other law enforcementagencies should encourage contact between policeofficers and the communities they serve.International human rights standards on the use offorce and firearms,and on the prohibition of tortureand ill treatment and discriminatory treatment,shouldbe fully incorporated into police codes of conduct andtraining and strictly enforced.lice leadership and other responsible authoritiesshould make it clear that torture and other cruel,in-human or degrading treatment will not be toleratedand that their own guidelines on use of force as well asinternational standards must be adhered to in all cases.Anti-racial profiling laws should define racialprofiling as the targeting of individuals and groupsbylaw enforcement even partiallyon the basis of race,ethnicity,national origin,or religion,except wherethere is trustworthy information,relevant to thelocality and timeframe,that links persons belongingtoone of the aforementioned groups to an identifiedcriminal incident or scheme.Such laws should notdefine racial profiling as being on race (orany of the other aforementioned group types) becausein most documented racial profiling scenarios theprofile has also included gender,age,or other basichuman characteristics.Collect,Keep Data and Report Abusesolice officers,immigration officials,and other lawenforcement officials should be required to collectdata on the perceived race/ethnicity,national origin,eligion,and gender of all motor vehicle and pedestrianstoops,regardless of the outcome of the stop.Datacollection must include recording of data on designatedforms,compilation of data into computerized data-bases,and periodic expert analysis of data collected.City and county authorities should be required toforward information on civil lawsuits alleging policemisconduct to the police department and to relevantersight bodies.They should regularly make publicinformation on the number of lawsuits filed,andolice departments should issue clear guidelinesequiring officers to report abuses,and officers withchain-of-command control should be held responsibleAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION for enforcing those guidelines and strictly enforcingpenalties for failing to report,or covering up,abuses.olice departments should be required to keepdetailed records on the use of force and to reportpublicly at regular intervals,providing statistical dataon shooting and other use of force,in custody deathsand injuries.They should also provide data on thenumber and type of complaints filed,and on theirideo cameras should be installed in all police carsand interrogation rooms.olice departments and other law enforcementagencies should eliminate the quota system thatprovides incentives to officers based on arrest rates.The quality,not quantity,of law enforcement activitiesand arrests should be rewarded.Monitor,Investigate and Punish PoliceAll police departments should have effective earlywarning systems to identify and deal with officersinvolved in human rights violations or other abuses.They should establish clear reporting systems andkeep detailed records in order to identify and takeemedial action in respect of any patterns of abuse,including racial bias or discriminatory treatment.All allegations of human rights violations and otherpolice misconduct should be fully and impartiallyinvestigated,in line with best practice for such investi-gations.All offices responsible for abuse should be ade-quately disciplined,and,where appropriate,prosecuted.There should be greater transparency in the investi-gation of complaints of racial profiling and other humanights violations,in order to ensure public account-ability and confidence in the process.Complaintsshould be kept of the progress of these investigations.olice departments should provide information onthe internal disciplinary process by publishing regularstatistical data on the type and outcome of complaintsand disciplinary action.They should also publish regularstatistics on the number of people shot and killed orinjured by police officers and other deaths in custody.Ensure Fair Treatment of ImmigrantsandVisitorsAll law enforcement officials must treat all individuals,egardless of their immigration status,the same.IndividualsÕcitizenship status should be protectedfrom the police and other local emergency officers.ng the course of all law enforcement proceed-ings,professional interpreters must be provided forAmnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION ogether the following spreadsheets summarize theesults of a survey of existing laws that deal with racialprofiling.They are each current as of August 1,2004.The first spreadsheet summarizes state laws (orelated groups thereof) banning at least one form ofracial profiling.The second summarizes other statelaws that deal with racial profiling but do not ban thepractice.Each is divided into the following sixsections and subsections,including:1.State/Action:bill number (if the action is still pending or has notbeen chaptered)2.Definition:the terminology used by the state todetermine whether an action can be classified as racialprofilingEffective Definition:a ÔYesÕin this categorymeansthat the law bans profiling that is even partiallybased on race,ethnicity,or national origin;a ÔNoÕinthis column means that the law only bans profilingthat is solely based on such practices and thus poten-tially allows racial profiling so long as the profileincludes other characteristics such as gender,age orgeneral locationCovers Religion:a ÔYesÕin this column means thelaw extends to profiling based on religion as well3.Contexts Covered:the types of common racial pro-filing scenarios addressed by the lawa ÒYesÓin this column means thatthe law covers racial profiling of motoristsedestrian Stops:a ÒYesÓin this column meansthat the law covers racial profiling of people on footininner cities,such stops comprise a large portion of4.Data Collection:whether the law includes data col-lection along with any restrictions placed on collection(such as limiting it to certain agencies or types of stops)ypes and ContextsRequired forÓin thiscolumn means that the law makes provision fordatacollection;other notes in this column refer tospecifications that affect how or in what circum-stances data is collectedExpirationwhen the data collection mechanismexpires,if at all5.Accountability:whether there are measures in placeComplaint Review:a ÒYesÓin this column meanscomplaints of racial profiling are reviewed by a desig-Complaint Disclosure:a ÒYesÓin this columnmeans that statistics on complaints are made availableCriminalized:a ÒYesÓin this column meansviolation of the ban on racial profiling is either aCivil PCA:a ÒYesÓin this column means that theizens to seek court to stop agencies from engaging in racial profilingIn-car Video:a ÒYesÓon this column meansthelaw provides for in-car video cameras to record6.Other:unique or significant specifications tostateÕs particular racial profiling statutes that arenotincluded in the preceding headings/subheadingsSurvey ofRacial Profiling Laws by State DEFINITIONCONTEXTS COVEREDDATA COLLECTION EffectiveBansTraffic StopsPedestrianCriminalizedCivil PCAIn-car Video YesYesYesNo NoNoNoNoNo YesYesYesYesNoneNo NoNoNoNo YesYesYesYesVoluntary, CHPNoNoNoNoNo No NoYesYesRequired forNoNoNoNoNo NoNoYesYesRequired for allNoNoNo NoNoYesYesRequired forNoNoYes— NoNoYesNoRequired for allNoNoNoNo No NoYesYesRequired forNoNoNoNo No NoYesNoRequired forNoNoNoNo NoNone Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATIONState Laws Banning at Least One Form of Racial Profiling Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION DEFINITIONCONTEXTS COVEREDDATA COLLECTION EffectiveBansTraffic StopsPedestrianCriminalizedCivil PCAIn-car Video YesYesYesYesRequired for allNoNoNo YesNoYesNoRequired forNoNoNoYes—Provides YesNoYesNoRequired for allNoNoNoYes—If they NoNoYesYesNone NoNoNoNoNo NoNoYesYesRequired for allNoNoNoNoCreated the YesNoYesNoRequired forNoNo NoInquiry of YesNoYesYesNone NoNoYes—FelonyNoNo NoNoYesYesNone Yes—FiledNoNo YesNoYesYesRequired for allNoYes—Only toNoData is not evidence State Laws Banning at Least One Form of Racial Profiling (continued) Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION NoNoNoNoCompletelyNoNoNoYes—AppliesNoProfiling NoNoYesYesRequired forNoNoYes—Agencies NoNoYesYesRequired for allNoNoNoNo YesNoYesYesRequired forNoNoNoNo YesNoYesNoRequired for allNoNoNoNoProhibition of traffic stops Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION DEFINITIONCONTEXTS COVEREDDATA COLLECTION EffectiveBansTraffic StopsPedestrianCriminalizedCivil PCAIn-car Video NoNoYesNo Required whenNoNoNoNo NoNoNoNoNoneNoNoNoNoRequires NoNoYesNoRequired forNoNoNoNo NoNoNoNoNoneNoNoNoNoNoLaw NoNoYesYesNoneNoNoNoNoNoOfficer must NoNoNoNoNoneNoNoNoNoNoRequires trainingNo Other State Laws Dealing with Racial Profiling The following spreadsheet contains estimates of thenumber of racial profiling victims in each state.Bytheir nature,these estimates are neither definitive norprecise.Based on a combination of national opinionpoll data and US Census information,these estimatesare intended only to provide advocates,public servants,and the general public with an approximation of thenumber of people in their state who have been directlyimpacted by this problem at any point in their life-time.Moreover,these estimates have at least twosignificant structural limitations.First,nationalopinion polls tend to treat Hispanics essentially as aracial category,while the U.S.Census classifies themas an ethnic group whose members can belong to anyrace.Second,the charts in this appendix contain nonational statistic for the rate at which Native Ameri-ans experience racial profiling,because no suchstatistic is available.Finally,it should also be notedthat these charts do include an estimate for the rela-tively small percentage of white Americans who believethey have been targeted by law enforcement at leastonce during their lifetime because of their race.The estimates in this appendix for racial profilingvictims have been derived by cross-referencingnational opinion poll results about the rates at whichdifferent racial and ethnic groups report being raciallyprofiled with state population estimates based on the2000 U.S.Census.The most recent available nationalpolling data was used for each category.Black,Hispanic,and White victimization rates are fromacially Biased Policing:Determinants of Citizenceptions,Óby Ronald Weitzer and Steven Tuch,George Washington University,Washington DC,2004 (survey conducted December 2002).BecausetheWeitzer and Tuch study only contained the afore-mentioned three social categories,Asian and Multi-Estimated Racial Profilingictim Totals by Stateacial victimization rates are taken from the nextmost recent study:ÒRace and Ethnicity in 2001:Attitudes,Perceptions,and Experiences,Óby ashington Post,aiser Family Foundation,andHarvard University,2001 (survey conducted March2001).The general margin of sampling error for eachpoll was +/Ð2 and +/Ð5 respectively.The margin oferror for individual racial categories in the Weitzerand Tuch study was +/Ð4;the margin of error forindividual racial categories in The Washington Poststudy went as high as +/Ð9.These racial profilingrateswere similar to those identified by previous polls,including one by Gallup in 1999,and tended not tobe statistically impacted by whether a person lives innorthern or southern state.hile statistics about the experiences of peoplebelonging to the social categories listed in the attachedcharts (Black,Asian,Hispanic,Multiracial,and White)are commonly compared and contrasted,such com-parisons are inherently more problematic than is usu-ally acknowledged in the mainstream national discourseon social issues.National opinion polls commonly in-lude statistics for Hispanics alongside those for groupslike Whites,Blacks,and Asians.However,as definedby the U.S.Census,Hispanics are a social groupwhose members may include people of any race.Tobridge this gap,the group population estimates thatappear in this chart are based on adjusted U.S.Censusdata that is intended to allow totals for Hispanic andfor non-Hispanic White,Black,Asian,and Multi-racial people in the U.S.to be run side by side andcompared.These group population estimates wereprovided by the Social Science Data Analysis Net-work through their website www.censusscope.org.Unfortunately,no national data was available forative American or Native Hawaiian victimization Black*1,150,07647%540,536Hispanic75,83023%17,441Multiracial*39,08619%7,426Asian*30,98911%3,409White*3,125,8193%93,775Black*21,07347%9,904Hispanic25,85223%5,946Multiracial*30,45419%5,786Asian*24,74111%2,722White* 423,7883%12,714 StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.Victimsrates.Based on reports received at our hearing in Tulsa,klahoma and related research on issues of discrimi-nation facing these communities,it is likely that thisdeficit in the national research on racial profiling hasgenerally depressed the national estimate in Table 1.Moreover,it is likely to have had an especially sig-nificant impact on the estimates in this appendix forindividual states such as Alaska,Hawaii,and Utahwhere Native Americans or Native Hawaiians makeup a sizeable portion of the non-white population.inally,we have chosen to include the racial pro-filing statistic for white Americans because as discussedin the report,while relatively rare,it does happen.Gen-erally speaking,the racial profiling of white Americansan be divided into two categories.The first are theexperiences of ethnic whites who are(or appear tosome law enforcement officers to be)members offrequently profiled ethnic or religious minorities,suchas Arab and Persian Americans,and American Muslimand Sikh converts.The second are the experiencesofethnic and non-ethnic white Americans who areprofiled when the police are attempting to generatesuspect for a crime that criminal profilers tend toassociate with whites.This second type is often mostvisible during hunts for a serial killer in which nosuspect has been formally identified.However,reportssuggest this type of profiling most frequently occurswhen police are looking to arrest drug and prostitu-tion customers and decide to target whites driving inmajority minority urban neighborhoods.Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.VictimsBlack*149,94147%70,472Hispanic1,295,61723%297,992Multiracial*76,37219%14,511Asian*89,31511%9,825White*3,274,2583%98,228Black*416,61547%195,809Hispanic86,86623%19,979Multiracial*30,36419%5,769Asian*19,89211%2,188White*2,100,1353%63,004Black*2,181,92647%1,025,505Hispanic10,966,55623%2,522,308Multiracial*903,11519%171,592Asian*178,98411%19,688White*15,816,7903%474,504Black*158,44347%74,468Hispanic735,60123%169,188Multiracial*72,72119%13,817Asian*93,27711%10,260White*3,202,8803%96,086Black*295,57147%138,918Hispanic320,32323%73,674Multiracial*52,89619%10,050Asian*81,56411%8,972White*2,638,8453%79,165DELAWAREBlack*148,43547%69,764Hispanic37,27723%8,574Multiracial*10,22219%1,942Asian*16,11011%1,772White* 567,9733%17,039Black*340,08847%159,841Hispanic44,95323%10,339Multiracial*9,58419%1,821Asian*15,03911%1,654White*159,1783%4,775 FLORIDABlack*2,264,26847%1,064,206Hispanic2,682,71523%617,024Multiracial*236,95419%45,021Asian*261,69311%28,786White*10,458,5093%313,755Black*2,331,46547%1,095,789Hispanic435,22723%100,102Multiracial*87,36419%16,599Asian*171,51311%18,866White*5,128,6613%153,860HAWAIIBlack*20,82947%9,790Hispanic87,69923%20,171Multiracial*218,70019%41,553Asian*108,44111%11,929White*277,0913%8,313Black*1,856,15247%872,391Hispanic1,530,26223%351,960Multiracial*153,99619%29,259Asian*419,91611%46,191White*8,424,1403%252,724IDAHOBlack*4,88947%2,298Hispanic101,69023%23,389Multiracial*18,26119%3,470Asian*11,64111%1,281White*1,139,2913%34,179Black*505,46247%237,567Hispanic214,53623%49,343Multiracial*61,11519%11,612Asian*58,42411%6,427White*5,219,3733%156,581IOWABlack*60,74447%28,550Hispanic82,47323%18,969Multiracial*25,47219%4,840Asian*36,34511%3,998White*2,710,3443%81,310Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.Victims StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.VictimsBlack*151,40747%71,161Hispanic188,25223%43,298Multiracial*42,50819%8,077Asian*46,30111%5,093White*2,233,9973%67,020Black*293,63947%138,010Hispanic59,93923%13,786Multiracial*37,75019%7,173Asian*29,36811%3,230White* 3,608,0133%108,240Black*1,443,39047%678,393Hispanic107,73823%24,780Multiracial*39,26019%7,459Asian*54,25611%5,968White*2,794,3913%83,832Black*6,44047%3,027Hispanic9,36023%2,153Multiracial*11,73119%2,229Asian*9,01411%992White*1,230,2973%36,909MARYLANDBlack*1,464,73547%688,425Hispanic227,91623%52,421Multiracial*82,94619%15,760Asian*209,73811%23,071White*3,286,5473%98,596Black*318,32947%149,615Hispanic428,72923%98,608Multiracial*110,33819%20,964Asian*236,78611%26,046White*5,198,3593%155,951Black*1,402,04747%658,962Hispanic323,87723%74,492Multiracial*163,48719%31,063Asian*175,31111%19,284White*7,806,6913%234,201 MINNESOTABlack*168,81347%79,342Hispanic143,38223%32,978Multiracial*70,30419%13,358Asian*141,08311%15,519White*4,337,1433%130,114Black*1,028,47347%483,382Hispanic39,56923%9,101Multiracial*17,27219%3,282Asian*18,34911%2,018White*1,727,9083%51,837Black*625,66747%294,063Hispanic118,59223%27,276Multiracial*71,90519%13,662Asian*61,04111%6,715White*4,686,4743%140,594MONTANABlack*2,53447%1,191Hispanic18,08123%4,159Multiracial*13,76819%2,616Asian*4,56911%503White*807,8233%24,235Black*67,53747%31,742Hispanic94,42523%21,718Multiracial*17,69619%3,362Asian*21,67711%2,384White*1,494,4943%44,835NEVADABlack*131,50947%61,809Hispanic393,97023%90,613Multiracial*49,23119%9,354Asian*88,59311%9,745White*1,303,0013%39,090Black*8,35447%3,926Hispanic20,48923%4,712Multiracial*11,60619%2,205Asian*15,80311%1,738White*1,175,2523%35,258Black*1,096,17147%515,200Hispanic1,117,19123%256,954Multiracial*133,68919%25,401Asian*477,01211%52,471White*5,557,2093%166,716Black*30,65447%14,407Hispanic765,38623%176,039Multiracial*25,79319%4,901Asian*18,25711%2,008White*813,4953%24,405NEW YORKBlack*2,812,62347%1,321,933Hispanic2,867,58323%659,544Multiracial*366,11619%69,562Asian*1,035,92611%113,952White*11,760,9813%352,829NORTH CAROLINABlack*1,723,30147%809,951Hispanic378,96323%87,161Multiracial*79,96519%15,193Asian*112,41611%12,366White*5,647,1553%169,415NORTH DAKOTABlack*3,76147%1,768Hispanic7,78623%1,791Multiracial*6,66619%1,267Asian*3,56611%392White*589,1493%17,674Black*1,290,66247%606,611Hispanic217,12323%49,938Multiracial*137,77019%26,176Asian*131,67011%14,484White*9,538,1113%286,143Black*257,98147%121,251Hispanic179,30423%41,240White*2,556,3683%76,691Asian*46,17211%5,079Multiracial*140,24919%26,647Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.Victims StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.Victims Black*53,32547%25,063Hispanic275,31423%63,322Multiracial*82,73319%15,719Asian*100,33311%11,037White*2,857,6163%85,728PENNSYLVANIABlack*1,202,43747%565,145Hispanic394,08823%90,640Multiracial*113,09719%21,488Asian*218,29611%24,013White*10,322,4553%309,674Estimated total racial profiling victims1,010,960Black*41,92247%19,703Hispanic90,82023%20,889Multiracial*20,81619%3,955Asian*23,41611%2,576White*858,4333%25,753SOUTH CAROLINABlack*1,178,48647%553,888Hispanic95,07623%21,867Multiracial*33,29019%6,325Asian*35,56811%3,912White*2,652,2913%79,569SOUTH DAKOTABlack*4,56347%2,145Hispanic10,90323%2,508Multiracial*8,96019%1,702Asian*4,31611%475White*664,5853%19,938Black*928,20447%436,256Hispanic123,83823%28,483Multiracial*54,82419%10,417Asian*56,07711%6,168White*4,505,9303%135,178Black*2,364,25547%1,111,200Hispanic6,669,66623%1,534,023Multiracial*230,56719%43,808Asian*554,44511%60,989White*10,933,313 3%135,178UTAHBlack*16,13747%7,584Hispanic201,55923%46,359Multiracial*31,30819%5,949Asian*36,48311%4,013White*1,904,2653%57,128Black*2,92147%1,373Hispanic5,50423%1,266Multiracial*6,80919%1,294Asian*5,16011%568White*585,4313%17,563Black*1,376,37847%646,898Hispanic329,54023%75,794Multiracial*114,02219%21,664Asian*259,27711%28,520White*4,965,6373%148,969Black*184,63147%86,777Hispanic319,40123%73,462Multiracial*175,92619%33,426Asian*319,40111%35,134White*4,652,4903%139,575Black*56,82547%26,708Hispanic12,27923%2,824Multiracial*14,98319%2,847Asian*9,35611%1,029White*1,709,9663%51,299Black*300,24547%141,115Hispanic192,92123%44,371Multiracial*51,92119%9,864Asian*87,99511%9,679White*4,681,6303%140,448WYOMINGBlack*3,50447%1,646Hispanic31,66923%7,283Multiracial*6,16419%1,171Asian*2,67011%293White*438,7993%13,163Amnesty International USATHREAT AND HUMILIATION StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.Victims StatePopulationNatÕl RateEst.Victims or twelve months,from September 2003 to August2004,the Domestic Human Rights Program of AmnestyInternational USA studied racial profiling asit is prac-ticed by federal,state and local law enforcement agenciesin the United States and experienced by a wide range ofcommunities throughout the country.At the heart of thisprocess were a series of public hearings held in six citiesacross the country,including:Tulsa,New York City,Chicago,San Francisco,Oakland,and Dallas.Held forthe purpose of determining the depth and breadth ofracial profiling by law enforcement and soliciting possiblesolutions,each hearing was chaired by the Hon.TimothyK.LewisÑa former prosecutor and federal judge whomformer President George H.W.Bush nominated to serveon the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.In each city,Judge Lewis was joined by a panel oflocal and national experts that included retired lawenforcement officials,victim advocates,academics andpolicy makers.Together,they received oral and writtentestimony from a range of victims,advocates,academicexperts,and law enforcement agents.Altogether,morethan 100 people testified during the hearings.Victimwitnesses included:African Americans,Native Amer-icans,Hispanic Americans,Arab Americans,SouthAsian Americans,Asian Americans,Iranian Ameri-ans,Muslim Americans,and other Americans andvisitors who believed that they had been unfairlytargeted because of their racial appearance.Because law enforcement is at the center of thisissue,AIUSA took special care to ensure that theirepresentatives were invited to testify at each event.Ineach location,invitations were sent to the majorfederal,state,and local law enforcement agencies ineach city at least several weeks before the hearing.itten invitations were followed up by telephonels.Law enforcement agencies who accepted theinvitation include:San Francisco Police Department(Chief Alex Fagan);New York State Attorney Gen-eralÕs Office (Dennis Parker,Bureau Chief for CivilRights);U.S.AttorneyÕs Office,Northern District ofCalifornia (First Assistant U.S.Attorney Don Clay);Oakland Police Department (Captain Ronald Davis).hile many of those law enforcement agenciesthat declined to testify cited scheduling conflicts,it isworth noting that after initially accepting the invita-tion,several Federal Bureau of Investigation regionaloffices sent letters of regret stating that they could nolonger confirm their participation and referring AIUSAstaff to a staff person in the FBIÕs Office of the Gen-eral Counsel.While the staff person in this office saidshe would provide one representative to testify,sheultimately failed to do so and stopped returning calls.imilarly,the Tulsa police department refused toappear and reportedly told local media that they werefollowing the advice of their legal department.In addition to conducting hearings,AIUSA solicitedincident reports through our website and regionaloffices;reviewed studies by government agencies,advocacy groups,and academics;cataloged andanalyzed all related federal and state laws;analyzedpublic opinion surveys;monitored media coverage inmainstream and ethnic media;and reviewed the mostecent census data for the groups identified as frequenttargets of racial profiling and the nation as a whole.acial profiling is explicitly connected to othermanifestations of racially biased policing,such as raciallymotivated verbal harassment,excessive use of force,and racially disparate incarceration rates.While thoseissues are mentioned in this report,they are beyondthe scope of this project,and our exploration of themis limited to the discussion of specific racial profilingeports in which they were mentioned as a factor.Scope and Sources ofResearch