[House Report 106-517]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-517

======================================================================



 
               TRAFFIC STOPS STATISTICS STUDY ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

 March 13, 2000.--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. 1443]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1443) 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..............................................           1
Purpose and Summary........................................           3
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           3
Hearings...................................................           7
Committee Consideration....................................           7
Vote of the Committee......................................           7
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           7
Committee on Government Reform Findings....................           7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................           7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           7
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           9
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................           9
Agency Views...............................................          10
    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 2000''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY.

    (a) Study.--
            (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a 
        nationwide study of stops for traffic violations by law 
        enforcement officers.
            (2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform 
        an initial analysis of existing data, including complaints 
        alleging and other information concerning traffic stops 
        motivated by race and other bias.
            (3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial 
        analysis under paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall then 
        gather the following data on traffic stops from a nationwide 
        sample of jurisdictions, including jurisdictions identified in 
        the initial analysis:
                    (A) The traffic infraction alleged to have been 
                committed that led to the stop.
                    (B) Identifying characteristics of the driver 
                stopped, including the race, gender, ethnicity, and 
                approximate age of the driver.
                    (C) Whether immigration status was questioned, 
                immigration documents were requested, or an inquiry was 
                made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with 
                regard to any person in the vehicle.
                    (D) The number of individuals in the stopped 
                vehicle.
                    (E) Whether a search was instituted as a result of 
                the stop and whether consent was requested for the 
                search.
                    (F) Any alleged criminal behavior by the driver 
                that justified the search.
                    (G) Any items seized, including contraband or 
                money.
                    (H) Whether any warning or citation was issued as a 
                result of the stop.
                    (I) Whether an arrest was made as a result of 
                either the stop or the search and the justification for 
                the arrest.
                    (J) The duration of the stop.
    (b) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of its 
initial analysis to Congress, and make such report available to the 
public, and identify the jurisdictions for which the study is to be 
conducted. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Attorney General shall report the results of the data 
collected under this Act to Congress, a copy of which shall also be 
published in the Federal Register.

SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM.

    In order to complete the study described in section 2, the Attorney 
General may provide grants to law enforcement agencies to collect and 
submit the data described in section 2 to the appropriate agency as 
designated by the Attorney General.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF DATA.

    Information released pursuant to section 2 shall not reveal the 
identity of any individual who is stopped or any law enforcement 
officer involved in a traffic stop.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act:
            (1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
        agency'' means an agency of a State or political subdivision of 
        a State, authorized by law or by a Federal, State, or local 
        government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, 
        detection, or investigation of violations of criminal laws, or 
        a federally recognized Indian tribe.
            (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
        Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, 
        or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to 
        exist as an Indian tribe.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1443, the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 2000, 
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 perform 
an initial analysis, not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of the Act, of existing data, including complaints 
and other information concerning traffic stops motivated by 
race and other bias. In this initial analysis, the Attorney 
General will identify those jurisdictions which will 
participate as sites for the collection and submission of data 
for the traffic stop study. This initial analysis will be 
submitted to Congress and made available to the public. The 
Attorney General will conduct a 2-year study and provide the 
results of the findings of the study to Congress. In order to 
complete the study, the Attorney General is given authority to 
provided grants to those law enforcement agencies participating 
in the study for the collection and submission of the data.
    The 2-year study will include consideration of such factors 
as the race, gender, ethnicity and age of the individual 
stopped, the traffic infraction alleged to have been committed 
that led to the stop, whether immigration documents were 
requested or an inquiry was made to Immigration and 
Naturalization Service with regard to any person in the 
vehicle, the number of individuals in the stopped vehicle, 
whether the search was instituted as a result of the stop, was 
consent given for the search, whether there was any alleged 
criminal behavior by the driver that justified the search, 
whether any contraband or money was seized, 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 duration of the stop.
    The data acquired under this section may not reveal either 
the identity of any individual stopped or of any law 
enforcement officer involved in the stop.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Race-based traffic stops turn driving, one of our most 
ordinary and quintessentially American activities, into an 
experience fraught with danger and risk for people of color. 
The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``driving while black or brown'' 
is well-known to African-Americans and Hispanics 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 a pretextual 
traffic violation.\1\ Because traffic stops can happen anywhere 
and anytime, millions of African-Americans and Hispanics alter 
their driving habits in ways that would never occur to most 
white Americans. Some completely avoid places like all-white 
suburbs, where they fear police harassment for looking ``out of 
place.'' Some intentionally drive only bland cars or change the 
way they dress. Others who drive long distances even factor in 
extra time for the traffic stops that seem inevitable. H.R. 
1443 is intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the 
scope and magnitude of the racial profiling problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the catch phrase ``driving while black'' encapsulates 
the perception of the minority community, the definition and 
legal implications of racial profiling defy such 
simplification. The most sound definition of racial profiling 
embraces the widespread police practice of using race as a 
factor in deciding whom to target for law enforcement. Properly 
understood, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely 
use race as a negative signal that causes an officer to react 
with suspicion.
    Some commentators define racial profiling as occurring when 
a police officer stops, questions or arrests someone solely on 
the basis of race or ethnicity. This crude definition tells the 
reality of the exercise of power over one's liberty by bigoted 
law enforcement officers intent on harassment. To fulminate 
against police officers who engage in such tactics, however, 
requires no real confrontation with the complex intersection 
between race, crime and law enforcement, because few would 
defend police surveillance triggered solely by race. Moreover, 
our legal system stands ready to sanction officers who use race 
alone as a signal of suspicion. Such a definition, however, 
diverts attention from the more complex and problematical use 
of race as trigger for suspicion that captures a 
disproportionate number of innocent minorities.
    Media coverage of the phenomenon of racial profiling has 
produced an abundance of anecdotal evidence concerning abusive 
practices. Front-page stories, editorials and columns have 
appeared in every major national newspaper and countless local 
newspapers. The phrase ``driving while black,'' used with 
bitter familiarity for years in magazines and newspapers 
targeted for African-Americans, can now be found in the pages 
of national newspapers and featured as lead stories in 
television news commentary shows. While the media fascination 
with a social problem does not necessarily make it real, the 
dozens of stories in the press, combined with the lawsuits and 
recent State legislative actions, make a powerful argument that 
``driving while black'' is not just an occasional problem.
    The majority of white, as well as black Americans say that 
racial profiling is widespread in the United States today. In a 
1999 Gallup Poll Social Audit on Black/White Relations in the 
U.S., 59% of a sample of national adults aged 18 and older say 
that racial profiling is widespread. 81% of the American public 
say they disapprove of this practice.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Gallup News Service Poll, December 9, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statistical evidence gathered in the course of litigation 
shows a clear pattern of racially discriminatory traffic stops 
and searches. An ACLU analysis of Maryland State Police data 
showed that 73% of cars stopped and searched on Interstate 95 
between Baltimore and Delaware from January 1995 through 
September 1997 were those of African-Americans, despite the 
fact that only 14% of those driving along that stretch were 
black.\3\ Moreover, police found nothing in 70% of those 
searches.\4\ Similarly, in Florida, 70% of the persons stopped 
on I-95 were African-American, even though they made up less 
than 10% of the driving population.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Report of John Lamberth, PhD., ACLU Freedom Network, 
www.aclu.org.
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ David A. Harris, ``Driving While Black ans All Other Traffic 
Offenses: The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops,'' The Journal 
of Law and Criminology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (1997) at 544-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Data shows that Hispanics are similarly targeted for a 
disproportionate law enforcement focus. An ACLU analysis of 
Illinois State Police data found that, while Hispanics comprise 
less than 8 percent of the population and take fewer than 3 
percent of the personal vehicle trips, they comprise 
approximately 30 percent of the motorists stopped by State 
police drug interdiction officers for discretionary offenses, 
such as failure to signal a lane change or driving one to four 
miles over the speed limit.\6\ Further, the data revealed that 
State troopers singled out Hispanics motorists for searches of 
their vehicles, comprising 27 percent of all searches. 
Paradoxically, though troopers asked a higher percentage of 
Hispanic motorists than white motorists for consent to search 
their vehicles, they found contraband in a lower percentage of 
the vehicles driven by Hispanic motorists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ACLU Report, Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our 
Nation's Highways (1999) at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dramatic statistics have formed the basis for legal 
findings of racial profiling across the nation. Lawsuits 
alleging racial profiling have been filed in numerous States 
including Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, 
Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. For example, in Colorado a class 
action suit filed on behalf of 400 individuals asked the court 
to halt racially based stops by a sheriff's department highway 
drug interdiction unit. Traffic infractions were cited as the 
reason for stopping the motorists, but tickets were not issued. 
The court ruled that investigatory stops based solely on a 
motorist's match with specified drug courier indicators 
violated the fourth amendments's prohibition against 
unreasonable seizures.\7\ A settlement was reached that awarded 
damages to the plaintiffs and disbanded the drug unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Whitfield v. Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, 837 
F. Supp. 338 (D. Colo. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, in 1993, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
recognized racial profiling as a problem after reviewing the 
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.\8\ 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.\9\ Most recently, a study commissioned by the State 
of New Jersey found that minorities were five times more likely 
to be stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike than non-
minorities.\10\ Based upon these findings and the results of a 
Department of Justice investigation, New Jersey settled a 
racial profiling case brought by the Department under 42 
U.S.C.A. Sec. 14141 to remedy an alleged pattern or practice of 
racially discriminatory conduct by troopers employed by the New 
Jersey State Police. The consent decree in that action appoints 
an independent monitor, requires the State to collect traffic 
stop data and to create new citizen complaint, training and 
early warning procedures for the State police.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Washington v. Skystone-Eagle Lambert, 98 F. 3d 1181 (9th Cir. 
1996).
    \9\ Id. at * 42.
    \10\ Interim Report, New Jersey Attorney General's Office (1999).
    \11\ U.S. v. State of New Jersey et al., Civil No. 99-5970 (D. 
N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time that racial profiling practices by law 
enforcement have been expanding, the Supreme Court's 
sensitivity to fourth amendment rights has been contracting. In 
Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court declared that any 
traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal 
basis for a stop, regardless of the officer's subjective state 
of mind.\12\ In practice, the Whren decision has given the 
police virtually unlimited authority to stop and search any 
vehicle.\13\ Because State traffic codes identify so many 
different infractions, every driver probably violates some 
provision of the vehicle code at some time, during even a short 
drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Whren v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996).
    \13\ David Harris, The Open Road is Not so Free, The Legal Times, 
July 14, 1997 at S42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since Whren, the Court has extended police power to stop 
and search drivers and cars even further. In Ohio v. Robinette, 
the Court rejected the argument that officers seeking consent 
to search a car must tell the driver he is free to refuse 
permission and leave.\14\ The Court in Maryland v. Wilson gave 
police the power to order passengers out of stopped cars, 
whether or not there is any basis to suspect they are 
dangerous.\15\ Most recently, in Wyoming v. Houghton, the Court 
ruled that after the lawful arrest of the driver, the police 
can search the closed purse of a passenger even though she had 
nothing to do with the alleged traffic infraction and had done 
nothing to suggest involvement in criminal activity.\16\ As 
this line of cases have made traffic stops even harder to 
challenge, the controversy around racial profiling will 
continue to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ United States v. Robinette, 117 S.Ct. 417 (1996).
    \15\ 519 U.S. 408 (1997).
    \16\ 526 U.S. 295 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lack of comprehensive nationwide empirical data on racial 
profiling has led to the call for systematic data collection. 
In June 1999, the President issued a memorandum on fairness in 
law enforcement that addressed the issue of racial profiling. 
The memorandum directed the Departments of Justice, the 
Interior and the Treasury to design and implement a system for 
collecting and reporting statistics on the race, ethnicity and 
gender of individuals who are stopped or searched by law 
enforcement.\17\ Several States have introduced legislation 
that would require their State and/or local police departments 
to collect data on the race of the drivers pulled over for 
traffic stops. As of March of 2000, 20 State legislatures have 
data collection bills pending. Two States--North Carolina and 
Connecticut--have already passed comprehensive legislation 
requiring the collection and compilation of data on traffic 
stops. Over 100 police jurisdictions have begun collecting data 
on a voluntary basis including among others--the States of 
Michigan, Rhode Island and Florida, and the cities of Houston 
and San Francisco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ The three departments were tasked with developing data 
collection plans within 120 days and implementing field tests within 60 
days of finalizing the plans. After 1 year of field testing, the 
departments are to report on complaints received that allege bias in 
law enforcement activities, the process for investigating and resolving 
complaints and their outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    Widespread racial profiling practices deeply undermine the 
legitimacy--and, therefore, the effectiveness--of the criminal 
justice system, making police work that much more difficult and 
dangerous. Pretextual traffic stops fuel the belief that the 
police are unfair and biased. H.R. 1443 requires the gathering 
of solid, comprehensive information to determine the nature and 
extent of the problem of racial profiling.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the 106th Congress on H.R. 1443.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 1, 2000, the committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 1443 by a voice vote, 
a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes in the committee during the 
consideration of H.R. 1443

                      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 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.1443, 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 9, 2000.
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. 1443, the Traffic 
Stops Statistics Study Act of 2000.
    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 Theresa Gullo (for the state and local 
impact), who can be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
                Honorable John Conyers Jr.
                Ranking Democratic Member
H.R. 1443--Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 2000.
    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. 1443 contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.
    H.R. 1443 would require the Attorney General to conduct a 
nationwide study of stops of vehicles made by law enforcement 
officers for traffic violations. Under the bill's provisions, 
the Attorney General would collect and analyze data from a 
sample of law enforcement agencies and submit two reports to 
the Congress within two years of the bill's enactment. The 
Attorney General would be authorized to provide grants to 
states to provide data for this study; however, the agency 
anticipates cooperating with law enforcement agencies that 
already collect data required for this study. Consequently, we 
estimate the cost of state and local grants that could be 
provided under this bill would be minimal. Based on information 
from the Department of Justice, we estimate that implementing 
this legislation would cost less than $500,000 annually over 
the next two years, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts.
    H.R. 1443 would only have an impact on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments if those governments accept 
grant funds and choose 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 
Theresa Gullo (for the state and local impact), who can be 
reached at 225-3220. This estimate was approved by Robert A. 
Sunshine, 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 and Discussion

Section 1. Short Title
    The title of this Act is the ``Traffic Stops Statistics 
Study Act of 2000.''
Section 2. Attorney General to Conduct Study
    Section 2 of H. R. 1443 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 traffic 
infraction alleged to have been committed that led to the stop; 
the race, gender, ethnicity and age of the driver stopped; 
whether immigration status was questioned, immigration 
documents requested or an inquiry made to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service with regard to any person in the 
vehicle; the number of individuals in the stopped vehicle; 
whether there was a search conducted as a result of the stop 
and whether consent was requested for the search; whether any 
items including contraband or money were seized; 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 justification for the arrest; and the duration of the 
stop. This section gives the Attorney General no longer than 2 
years to complete the study and report the results of the study 
to Congress.
    This section also requires that within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall perform an 
initial analysis of the existing data concerning traffic stops 
motived by race and bias, report this to the Congress and 
identify the jurisdictions that will participate in the study.
Section 3. Grant Program.
    This section authorizes the Attorney General to provide 
grants to law enforcement agencies to assist them in the 
collection and submission of traffic stops data.
Section 4. Limitation on Use of Data
    The section provides that data acquired under this section 
may not reveal either the identity of any individual stopped or 
of any law enforcement officer.
Section 5. Definitions
    This section defines ``law enforcement agency'' and 
``Indian tribe'' for purposes of this Act.
Section 6. Authorization of Appropriations
    This section authorizes such sums as may be necessary to 
carry out this Act.

                              Agency Views

                        U.S. Department of Justice,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                     Washington, DC, June 23, 1999.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the views of the 
Department of Justice on H.R. 1443, the Traffic Stops 
Statistics Act of 1999. The Department supports the collection 
of data on traffic stops as envisioned in this legislation. We 
believe that a study as outlined in the legislation would 
provide valuable information.
    By studying data that reveal the race and ethnicity of 
motorists who are stopped, the reason they are stopped and the 
outcomes of the stops, we can begin to assess the extent of the 
profiling based on race or ethnicity. Gathering the facts about 
traffic stops is an important step in our work with law 
enforcement to develop possible solutions.
    Also, we are pleased that the current version of the bill 
authorizes funding for the study, including grants to law 
enforcement agencies to collect and submit traffic stop data 
that will be helpful to the Attorney General's analysis. I am 
sure you are aware that one obstacle to a study of this kind is 
the lack of resources at the local level for the collection of 
data.
    We have also considered how the legislation would be 
implemented if enacted. One method of obtaining nationwide 
information about traffic stops would be to collect data 
through the National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS), an 
annual survey of households across the country. Such data would 
not, however, provide data broken down by individual law 
enforcement agencies. Instead, data on individual agencies 
would have to be collected directly from those agencies. Thus, 
we would supplement the NCVS results with data obtained from 
those agencies that are now beginning to collect traffic stop 
data and from agencies receiving the grants contemplated by the 
legislation.
    Finally, we would suggest that three revisions be made to 
the legislation. First, we believe that the ``initial 
analysis'' called for in the bill would be more detailed if the 
Attorney General had 180 days to complete the analysis. Second, 
we recommend deleting the requirement that the Attorney General 
identify in the initial analysis those agencies from which the 
data for the study will be collected. The Justice Department 
will likely not know at that point which agencies will be 
applying for grants to collect traffic stop data. Third, we 
believe the Justice Department's ability to report statistics 
by individual agencies is dependent on the agencies' 
willingness to undertake data collection and then submit the 
results to the Department. Several organizations have urged 
that the data be used solely for research and statistical 
purposes, and that the agency reporting the data be given an 
opportunity to address any problems that the data identify. We 
recommend that appropriate language regarding the limitations 
on use of the data be added to address these concerns.
    The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program to the presentation of this report.
            Sincerely,
        Jon P. Jennings, Acting Assistant Attorney General.

                                  
