I 108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 3847 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 26, 2004 Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Berman, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Watt, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Waters, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Linda T. Sánchez of California, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Acevedo-Vilá, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Ballance, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Clay, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Engel, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Majette, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Matsui, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Norton, Mr. Olver, Mr. Owens, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Sandlin, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Shays, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Solis, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Walsh, Ms. Watson, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Wynn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To prohibit racial profiling.

1.

Short title; table of contents

(a)

Short title

This Act may be cited as the &short-title1;. (b)

Table of contents

The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents Sec. 2. Findings and purposes Title I—Prohibition of Racial profiling Sec. 101. Prohibition Sec. 102. Enforcement Title II—Programs to eliminate Racial profiling by Federal law enforcement agencies Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling Title III—Programs to eliminate Racial profiling by State and local law enforcement agencies Sec. 301. Policies required for grants Sec. 302. Best practices development grants Title IV—Department of Justice reports on Racial profiling in the United States Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue reports on racial profiling in the United States Sec. 402. Limitation on use of data Title V—Definitions and miscellaneous provisions Sec. 501. Definitions Sec. 502. Severability Sec. 503. Savings clause

2.

Findings and purposes

(a)

Findings

Congress finds the following: (1)Federal, State, and local law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias. (2)The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is improper. (3)In his address to a Joint Session of Congress on February 27, 2001, President George W. Bush declared that racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America. He directed the Attorney General to implement this policy. (4)In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued a Policy Guidance regarding racial profiling by Federal law enforcement agencies which stated: Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society. (5)The Department of Justice Guidance is a useful first step, but does not achieve the President’s stated goal of ending racial profiling in America: it does not apply to State and local law enforcement agencies, does not contain a meaningful enforcement mechanism, does not require data collection, and contains an overbroad exception for immigration and national security matters. (6)Current efforts by State and local governments to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while also laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this national problem. Therefore, Federal legislation is needed. (7)Statistical evidence from across the country demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and measurable phenomenon. (8)As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had 14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice investigations involving allegations of racial profiling, and had filed 5 pattern and practice lawsuits involving allegations of racial profiling, with 4 of those cases resolved through consent decrees. (9)A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin are found to be law abiding and therefore racial profiling is not an effective means to uncover criminal activity. (10)A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police contacts in 1999 found that, although African-Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, they were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On average, searches and seizures of African-American drivers yielded evidence only 8 percent of the time, searches and seizures of Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent of the time, and searches and seizures of white drivers yielded evidence 17 percent of the time. (11)A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal year 1998 found that— (A)black women who were United States citizens were 9 times more likely than white women who were United States citizens to be x-rayed after being frisked or patted down; (B)black women who were United States citizens were less than half as likely as white women who were United States citizens to be found carrying contraband; and (C)in general, the patterns used to select passengers for more intrusive searches resulted in women and minorities being selected at rates that were not consistent with the rates of finding contraband. (12)In some jurisdictions, local law enforcement practices such as ticket and arrest quotas, and similar management practices, may have the unintended effect of encouraging law enforcement agents to engage in racial profiling. (13)Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate and intrastate commerce. (14)Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the criminal law. (15)In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, many Arabs, Muslims, Central and South Asians, and Sikhs, as well as other immigrants and Americans of foreign descent, were treated with generalized suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon religion and national origin, without trustworthy information linking specific individuals to criminal conduct. Such profiling has failed to produce tangible benefits, yet has created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies in these communities. (16)Racial profiling violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Using race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the constitutional requirement that police and other government officials accord to all citizens the equal protection of the law. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977). (17)Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through suppression motions in criminal cases for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does not warrant the suppression of evidence. Second, since most stops do not result in the discovery of contraband, there is no criminal prosecution and no evidence to suppress. (18)A comprehensive national solution is needed to address racial profiling at the Federal, State, and local levels. Federal support is needed to combat racial profiling through specialized training of law enforcement agents, improved management systems, and the acquisition of technology such as in-car video cameras. (b)

Purposes

The purposes of this Act are— (1)to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment and section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; (2)to enforce the constitutional right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; (3)to enforce the constitutional right to interstate travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States; and (4)to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States.