[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.

                                    
