Assembly Bill A1676A

                                BILL NUMBER:A1676A

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the executive law, in relation to ethnic
or racial profiling

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:  The proposed legislation prohibits law
enforcement officers from using racial and ethnic profiling, establishes
a  collection  of  data  on  traffic stops and creates a cause of action
based on racial or ethnic profiling.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:  Section 1 - amends the executive law by
creating a new section 837-r;

Subdivision 1 contains definitions.

Subdivision 2 prohibits law  enforcement  agencies  and*law  enforcement
officers from engaging in racial or ethnic profiling.

Subdivision  3  requires  every law enforcement agency to promulgate and
adopt procedures for reviewing complaints of racial or ethnic  profiling
and  taking  corrective measures. A copy of each complaint and a written
summary of the disposition must be forwarded to the division of criminal
justice services.

Subdivision 4 requires each law enforcement agency to collect and  main-
tain data with respect to traffic stops and persons patted down, frisked
              

and searched.

Subdivision  5 requires every law enforcement agency to compile the data
collected and forward an annual  report  to  the  division  of  criminal
justice services by March 1st of each year.

Subdivision  6  requires  the  division  of criminal justice services in
consultation with the Attorney General to promulgate necessary forms.

Subdivision 7 requires every law enforcement agency  to  make  documents
required by this bill available to the Attorney General within 5 days of
a demand.

Subdivision  8 requires every law enforcement agency to provide all data
collected from  traffic  stops  to  the  division  of  criminal  justice
services.  The  division  shall implement a computerized data system for
public viewing of such data and shall publish an annual  report  on  law
enforcement traffic stops without revealing the identity of any individ-
uals.

Subdivision  9  states  that  an action for injunctive relief and/or for
damages may be brought by the Attorney General on behalf of  the  people
against  a  law  enforcement agency that has engaged in racial or ethnic
profiling. A court may award casts and reasonable  attorney  fees  to  a
prevailing plaintiff.

Subdivision  10  states  that an action for injunctive relief and/or for
damages may be brought by an individual that has  been  the  subject  of
racial  profiling  against  a law enforcement agency that has engaged in
racial or ethnic profiling. A  court  may  award  costs  and  reasonable
attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

Subdivision 11 provides that section 837-r does not diminish or abrogate
any  other  right, remedy or cause of action which an individual who has
been the subject of racial profiling may have.

Section 2 - contains the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION:  As a part of the national "war on drugs" local  enforce-
ment  agencies around the country have developed profiles of people they
think are most likely to be involved in drug trafficking.  The  arguably
unconstitutional  use  of race or ethnicity as a criteria has become the
focus of many civil and human rights groups. The  practice  is  commonly
known  as  "racial  profiling." Many people of color including prominent
athletes, members of Congress, actors, lawyers, law enforcement officers
and business leaders have experienced the humiliation of  being  stopped
on the nations roads as a result of this practice. Almost every minority
can  tell  a  story  about  being  stopped by the police for no apparent
reason other than the color of their skin. In recent years,  the  number
of  "traffic  stops"  where  the  only  apparent reason for stopping the
person was their race or ethnicity, has become  so  prevalent  that  the
minority  community  has  derisively  termed  it "Driving While Black or
Brown" (DNB).

Blacks, Hispanics and other minority groups have long  been  victims  of
biased  and unjustified traffic stops by law enforcement officers.  This
consequently has had a corrosive effect on the relations between  police
and  the  minority  communities.  As  a result of racial profiling, many
innocent Black drivers can end up parked on  a  highway,  questioned  by
law-enforcement,  while their vehicles and belongings are searched. In a
sense, the U.S. Supreme Court established an  open  season  on  minority
motorists  in  1956 when it ruled in Whren v. U.S., 571 U.S. 896 (1996),
that police could use any traffic offense as a reason to stop  a  motor-
ist.  Minority motorists can be and are pulled over and detained for the
most trivial of traffic offenses which  are  contained  in  many  cities
vehicle  codes.    These offenses range from violations of tire depth to
the distance in which a motorist must signal  before  turning.  Many  of
these  stops  are  made  upon  a selective basis where there is a lot of
police discretion. This roadside detention may be used as a pretext  for
searching  the  car  and  its occupants. This practice deprives minority
motorists of their Fourth Amendment right to be free  from  unreasonable
searches  and  seizures, and their right to be free from discriminations
based on race guaranteed under the fourteenth Amendment  to  the  United
States Constitution:

Cases  of  racial  profiling have steadily increased as the war on drugs
has intensified. The all-out battle to keep drug traffickers from trans-
porting illegal substances has  unfairly  legitimized  the  practice  of

racial  profiling  and  the  notion of many police officers that Blacks,
Hispanics, and other minorities are more likely to possess drugs. Racial
profiling has created a system that unfairly infringes on the rights  of
innocent  black and minority motorists. Some of these traffic stops lead
to arrests for drug possession or other  crimes;  however;  the  concern
arises  in  the  number of law-abiding minorities who are stopped on our
roads every day so that a few guilty people can be found.

The issue of racial profiling has gained national attention as charge of
racial profiling have been disclosed to the public. The recent  suit  of
racial  profiling  filed against the State of New Jersey (1999), further
pushed the issue to the forefront.  The  complaint  filed  in  the  U.S.
District  Court  (United  States of America v. State of New Jersey & the
Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and  Public
Safety:  Civil  4 99-5970 MLC) against the State of New Jersey alleged a
pattern or practice of conduct by troopers  of  the  State  Police  that
deprived  persons  of  rights,  privileges,  or  immunities  secured  or
protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, includ-
ing the Fourteenth Amendment and the  Omnibus  Crime  Control  and  Safe
Streets  Act.  Furthermore, the complainant alleged that this pattern or
practice of conduct had been made possible by the  failure  of  the  New
Jersey  State  Police to adopt and implement proper management practices
and procedures. There has been no  systematic  effort  to  either  track
statistics  or  establish  policy that deals directly with the issues of
racial profiling in New York State. In light of these circumstances  and
as  incidences  of  Racial  Profiling  continue to occur within thin the
State of New York, it has become paramount for New York to  address  the
issue  of  racial profiling before it further continues to undermine the
collaborative relationship between communities of color and New York law
enforcement officers. This legislation aims to resolve  the  problem  by
prohibiting  police  officers from using racial and ethnic profiling, by
establishing policies and procedures  to  collect  data  on  racial  and
ethnic  profiling  and  by  establishing  a  statewide  public data base
containing the collected data which will promote law enforcement  integ-
rity  as  well  as  to  promote community support, particularly minority
communities, for law enforcement officers.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:  2009 A. 1676 Passed  Assembly  2007  A.  627
Passed Assembly 2005-06 A. 2456A Passed Assembly 2003-04 A. 11542 Passed
Assembly

FISCAL  IMPLICATIONS:  Related  to  the promulgation of regulations, the
collection of data, the publishing of an annual report  and  the  estab-
lishment of the public data base.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This act shall take effect within 30 days