[House Report 105-435]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105-435
_______________________________________________________________________
TRAFFIC STOPS STATISTICS STUDY ACT OF 1998
_______
March 11, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 118]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 118) to provide for the collection of data on
traffic stops, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.............................................. 2
Purpose and Summary........................................ 2
Background and Need for Legislation........................ 3
Hearings................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.................................... 4
Vote of the Committee...................................... 4
Committee Oversight Findings............................... 5
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings...... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures.................. 5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate....................... 5
Constitutional Authority Statement......................... 6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion................. 6
Agency Views............................................... 7
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act
of 1998''.
SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COLLECT.
The Attorney General shall conduct a study of stops for routine
traffic violations by law enforcement officers. Such study shall
include collection and analysis of appropriate available data. The
study shall include consideration of the following factors, among
others:
(1) The number of individuals stopped for routine traffic
violations.
(2) Identifying characteristics of the individual stopped,
including the race and or ethnicity as well as the approximate
age of that individual.
(3) The traffic infraction alleged to have been committed
that led to the stop.
(4) Whether a search was instituted as a result of the
stop.
(5) How the search was instituted.
(6) The rationale for the search.
(7) Whether any contraband was discovered in the course of
the search.
(8) The nature of such contraband.
(9) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a result
of the stop.
(10) Whether an arrest was made as a result of either the
stop or the search.
(11) The benefit of traffic stops with regard to the
interdiction of drugs and the proceeds of drug trafficking,
including the approximate quantity of drugs and value of drug
proceeds seized on an annual basis as a result of routine
traffic stops.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA.
Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or
statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may
reveal the identity of any individual who is stopped or any law
enforcement officer. Data acquired under this section shall not be used
in any legal or administrative proceeding to establish an inference of
discrimination on the basis of particular identifying characteristics.
SEC. 4. RESULTS OF STUDY.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General shall report the results of the study conducted
under this Act to Congress.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 118, the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1998,
requires the Attorney General to conduct a study by acquiring
data from law enforcement agencies regarding the
characteristics of those stopped for alleged traffic violations
and the rationale for any subsequent searches resulting from
those violations. The Attorney General is directed to issue a
report to Congress in two years which would set forth the
findings of the study.
The study is to include consideration of such factors as
the race or ethnicity of the individual stopped, the traffic
infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop,
whether a search was instituted as a result of the stop, how
the search was instituted, the rationale for the search,
whether any contraband was discovered in the course of the
search, whether any warning or citation was issued as a result
of the stop, whether an arrest was made as a result of either
the stop or the search and the approximate quantity of drugs
and the value of drug proceeds seized on an annual basis as a
result of the routine traffic stop.
The data acquired under this section may only be used for
research or statistical purposes, may not reveal either the
identity of any individual stopped or of any law enforcement
officer and shall not be used in a judicial or administrative
proceeding to create an inference of discrimination on the
basis of particular characteristics of the individual.
Background and Need For Legislation
The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``driving while black'' is
well-known to African-Americans across the country. There are
virtually no African-American males--including Congressmen,
actors, athletes and office workers--who have not been stopped
at one time or another for an alleged traffic violation, namely
driving while black.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas Fields-Meyer, Maria Eftimiades, Hugh Bronstein, Ron
Arias, Shawn Lewis Ramirez, Gail Schiller and Glenn Garelik, Under
Suspicion, People, June 15, 1996 at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that the study is necessary because
the limited amount of data that is available indicates that
although African-Americans make up only 14% of the population,
they account for 72% of all routine traffic stops.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, C.A. No. CCB-93-468,
Memorandum on Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement of
Settlement Agreement and for Further Relief at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the problem
after considering the 1993 case of a Santa Monica police
officer who was found to have violated the rights of two black
men he stopped and arrested at gunpoint.\3\ The Court found
that the case was an example of how police routinely violate
the constitutional rights of minorities, particularly black
men, by stopping them without just cause.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Washington v. Skystone-Eagle Lambert, No. 94-56685, 1996 U.S.
App. LEXIS 27860 (9th Cir. 1996).
\4\ Id. at * 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits have not provided a solution. In November of 1996,
the American Civil Liberties Union sought a fine for contempt
of court against the Maryland State Police, arguing that police
were still conducting a disproportionate number of drug
searches of cars driven by African-Americans almost two years
after agreeing to stop as a result of a 1992 lawsuit. Despite
the agreement, state police statistics show that 73% of cars
subjected to stops and searches on Interstate I-95 between
Baltimore and Delaware since January of 1995 were cars driven
by African-Americans despite the fact that only 14% of those
driving along that stretch were black. Moreover, police found
nothing in 70% of those searches.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, C.A. No. CCB-93-468,
Memorandum on Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement of
Settlement Agreement and for Further Relief at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one wants to interfere with police drug interdiction
work, but the Fourth Amendment requires police to have
reasonable grounds to suspect illegal activity before
initiating a car search. Recent Supreme Court cases have made
car stops even harder to challenge. The Court recently expanded
police powers by holding that police need not inform
individuals stopped that they have a right not to consent to a
search of their vehicles.\6\ In another case, the Court held
that whenever an officer witnesses a traffic violation, the
officer has probable cause to stop the driver, even if the real
reason for the stop is not traffic enforcement. The real
motivation for the stop does not matter.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ United States v. Robinette, 117 S.Ct. 417 (1996).
\7\ Whren v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, the Supreme Court has held that police have
virtually unlimited discretion to stop any driver at any time
for any reason.\8\ Nonetheless, the color of the driver's skin
should never be the reason. If everybody is expected to abide
by the rules, then we must ensure that those rules are applied
equally to everybody, regardless of race.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Whren v. United States, 116 S.C. 1769 (1996); David Harris, the
Open Road is Not so Free, The Legal Times, July 14, 1997 at S42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act will discourage law
enforcement officers from using race as the primary factor in
making determinations as to whether to institute a car search
and will provide statistical data as to the nature and extent
of the problem of African-Americans being targeted for traffic
stops. The bill will also identify the benefits of traffic
stops to fight crime by including information on the type of
contraband seized, the quantity of drugs and the value of drug
proceeds seized pursuant to a routine traffic stop.
Hearings
No hearings were held in the 105th Congress on H.R. 118.
Committee Consideration
On March 4, 1998, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 118 as amended by an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a voice vote, a
quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
Mr. Conyers offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to call for a study of the issue. Mr. Canady offered
an amendment to Mr. Conyers amendment in the nature of a
substitute which would prohibit the use of data acquired by the
study in any legal or administrative proceeding to establish an
inference of discrimination on the basis of particular
identifying characteristics. This amendment was adopted by a
roll call vote of 19 ayes to 13 nays.
Rollcall No. 1
AYES NAYS
Mr. Hyde Mr. Conyers
Mr. Sensenbrenner Mr. Frank
Mr. McCollum Mr. Berman
Mr. Gekas Mr. Boucher
Mr. Coble Mr. Nadler
Mr. Smith (TX) Mr. Scott
Mr. Gallegly Mr. Watt
Mr. Canady Ms. Lofgren
Mr. Inglis Ms. Jackson-Lee
Mr. Goodlatte Mr. Meehan
Mr. Buyer Mr. Delahunt
Mr. Bryant Mr. Wexler
Mr. Chabot Mr. Rothman
Mr. Barr
Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Hutchinson
Mr. Cannon
Mr. Rogan
Mr. Graham (SC)
*Mr. Pease was absent on official business and announced at
a later time that he would have voted aye had he been present.
Mr. McCollum offered an amendment to Mr. Conyers amendment
in the nature of a substitute which would include in the study
statistics on the approximate quantity of drugs and the value
of drug proceeds seized on an annual basis as a result of the
traffic stops. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The
Conyers amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended by
the amendments offered by Mr. McCollum and Mr. Canady, was
adopted by a voice vote a quorum being present.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings
No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R.118, the following
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 118, the Traffic
Stops Statistics Study Act of 1998.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts for this
estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for federal costs), who can be
reached at 226-2860, and Leo Lex (for the state and local
impact), who can be reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
cc: Hon. John Conyers. Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
H.R. 118--Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1998
CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. The bill would not
affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply. H.R. 118 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
H.R. 118 would require the Attorney General to conduct a
study of stops for routine traffic violations by law
enforcement officers. Under the bill's provisions, the Attorney
General would collect and analyze data from a sample of law
enforcement agencies and submit a report to the Congress within
two years of the bill's enactment. Based on information from
the Department of Justice, we estimate that implementing this
legislation would cost less than $500,000, annually, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
H.R. 118 would only have an impact on the budgets of state,
local, or tribal governments if those governments chose to
provide information to the Attorney General in connection with
this study. In any event, the costs of providing this
information are not likely to be significant.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Leo
Lex (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at
225-3220. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine,
Deputy Assistant Director for budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title
The title of this Act is the ``Traffic Stops Statistics
Study Act of 1998.''
Section 2. Attorney General to Collect
Section 2 of H.R. 118 authorizes the Attorney General of
the Department of Justice to conduct a study of law enforcement
stops for traffic violations. The study shall include a
collection and analysis of information identifying the race or
ethnicity and age of the person stopped, the traffic infraction
alleged to have been committed that led to the stop, whether
there was a search conducted as a result of the stop, how the
search was instituted, the reasons for conducting the search,
whether any contraband was discovered in the course of the
search, whether any warning or citation was issued as a result
of the stop, whether an arrest was made as a result of either
the stop or the search, the approximate quantity of drugs and
the value of drug proceeds seized on an annual basis as a
result of the routine traffic stop.
Section 3. Limitation on Use of Data.
This section places limitations on the use of data acquired
for the study. The section provides that data acquired under
this section may only be used for research or statistical
purposes, may not reveal either the identity of any individual
stopped or of any law enforcement officer and cannot be used in
a judicial or administrative proceeding to create an inference
of discrimination on the basis of particular characteristics of
the individual.
Section 4. Results of the Study
This section gives the Attorney General no longer than 2
years to complete the study and report the results of the study
to Congress.
Agency Views
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, January 23, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of September
12, 1997, enclosing a proposed substitute to H.R. 118, the
Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1997. We apologize for the
delay in responding to you.
We were pleased to work with the staff of the Committee in
developing this substitute to the bill as introduced, and the
Department supports the substitute. A study could provide
valuable information to help the Department analyze whether
routine traffic stops by law enforcement officers result from
discrimination based on race or ethnicity in violation of
Federal law.
You asked that we comment on how the legislation would be
implemented if passed. At present, a specific set of methods
for conducting the proposed study has not been devised.
However, some of the probable requirements are described below.
The first step in the study would be to select an appropriate
sample of law enforcement agencies which would be queried with
a brief questionnaire to ascertain the extent to which they
maintain accessible records on traffic stops in an automated or
manual form. We would then ask each agency to supply a record
layout or data list specifying the kinds of information
maintained on each stop, the level of completeness of such
records, and methods for sharing such data electronically. The
responses by agencies to these items would help to clarify the
availability of the type of information specified in the bill.
As a part of this process, we would determine how police
departments could participate in the study. In order to carry
out these tasks, sufficient funding should be authorized in the
bill.
I hope this information is helpful to the Committee. Please
do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.
cc: Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member.