10A - Paris Police Racial Profiling Report 2020

Home Browse Search

The chart shows that White drivers are stopped at rates slightly higherthan the percentage of Whites in the city population andlower than the percentage of Whites in the county population. Blackdrivers are stopped at rates higher than the percentage of Blacks found in the cityand county populations. Hispanic driversare stopped at rates lower than the percentage of Hispanics found in the city and county populations. Methodological Issues Upon examination of the data, itis important to notethat differences in overall stop rates of a particular racial or ethnic group,compared to that racial or ethnic group’s proportion of the population, cannot be used to make determinationsthat officers have or have not racially profiled any given individual motorist. Claims asserting racial profiling of an individual motorist from the aggregate data utilized in this report are erroneous. For example, concludingthat a particular driver of a specific race/ethnicity was racially profiled simply because members of that particular racial/ethnicgroup as a whole were stopped at a higher rate than their proportion of the population—are as erroneous as claims that a particular driver of a specific race/ethnicity could NOT have been racially profiled simply because the percentage of stops among members of a particularracial/ethnic group as a wholewere stopped at a lower frequency than that group’s proportion of the particular population base (e.g., city or county population). In short, aggregate data as required by law and presented in this report cannot be used to prove or disprove that a member of a particular racial/ethnic group was racially profiled. Next, we discuss the reasons why using aggregate data—as currently required by the state racial profiling law—are inappropriate to use in making claims that any individual motorist was racially profiled. Issue #1: Using Group-Level Data to Explain Individual Officer Decisions The law dictates that police agencies compile aggregate-level data regarding the ratesat which agencies collectivelystop motorists in terms of their race/ethnicity. These aggregated data are to be subsequently analyzed in order to determine whether or not individualofficers are “racially profiling" motorists. This methodological error, commonly referred to as the "ecological fallacy," defines the dangers involved in making assertions about individual officer decisions based on the examination of aggregate stop data. In short, one cannot provethat an individualofficer has racially profiled any individualmotorist based on the rate at which a department stops any given groupof motorists. In sum, aggregate level data cannot be used to assess individual officer decisions, but the state racial profiling law requires this assessment. Issue #2: Problems Associated with Population Base-Rates There has been considerable debate as to what the most appropriate population “base-rate” is in determining whether or not racial/ethnic disparities exist. The base-rate serves as the benchmark for comparison purposes. The outcome of analyses designed todetermine whether or not disparities exist is dependent onwhich base-rate is used. While this report utilized the most recent 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) as a population base-rate, this population measure can become quickly outdated, can be inaccurate,and may not keep pace with changes experienced in city and county population measures.