10A - Paris Police Racial Profiling Report 2020
PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
2020
RACIAL PROFILING ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY:
Eric J. Fritsch, Ph.D.
Chad R. Trulson, Ph.D.
Justice Research Consultants, LLC
Executive Summary
Article 2.132-2.134 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) requires the annual reporting
to the local governing body of data collected on motor vehicle stops in which a ticket, citation, or
warning was issued and to arrests made as a result of thosestops, in addition to data collection and
reporting requirements. Article 2.134 of the CCP directs that “a comparative analysis of the
information compiled under 2.133” be conducted, with specific attention to the below areas:
1.evaluate and compare the number of motor vehicle stops, within the applicable
jurisdiction, of persons who are recognized as racial or ethnic minorities and persons
who are not recognized as racial or ethnic minorities;
2.examine the disposition of motor vehicle stops made by officers employed by the
agency, categorized according to the race or ethnicity of affected persons, as
appropriate, including any searches resulting from stops within the applicable
jurisdiction;
3.evaluate and compare the number of searches resulting from motor vehicle stops within
the applicable jurisdiction and whether contraband or other evidence was discovered in
the course of those searches; and
4.information relating to each complaint filed with the agency alleging that a peace
officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling.
The analysis of material and data from the ParisPolice Department revealed the following:
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT’S B IAS B ASED
P ROFILING POLICY SHOWS THAT THE P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT IS FULLY IN
A RTICLE 2.132 OF THE T EXAS C ODE OF C RIMINAL P ROCEDURE.
COMPLIANCE WITH
A REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
REVEALS THAT THE P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH T EXAS
.
LAW ON TRAINING AND EDUCATION REGARDING RACIAL PROFILING
A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH PRINT
AND ELECTRONIC FORM REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE
T EXAS LAW ON THE RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT PROCESS AND
WITH APPLICABLE
PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
A NALYSIS OF THE DATA REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE
T EXAS LAW ON THE COLLECTION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA.
WITH APPLICABLE
T HE P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE T EXAS
TCOLE.
LAW CONCERNING THE REPORTING OF INFORMATION TO
T HE P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE T EXAS
LAW REGARDING CCP ARTICLES 2.132-2.134.
Introduction
This report details an analysis of the Paris Police Department’s policies, training, and statistical
information on racial profiling for the year 2020. This report has been prepared to specifically
comply with Article 2.132, 2.133, and 2.134 of the Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure (CCP)
regarding the compilation and analysis of traffic stop data. Specifically, the analysis will address
Articles 2.131 –2.134 of the CCP and make a determination of the level of compliance with those
articles by the Paris Police Department in 2020. The full copies of theapplicable lawspertaining
to this report are contained in Appendix A.
This report is divided into six sections: (1) Paris Police Department’s policy on racial profiling;
(2) Paris Police Department’s training and education on racial profiling; (3) Paris Police
Department’s complaint process and public education on racial profiling; (4) analysis of Paris
Police Department’s traffic stop data; (5) additional traffic stop data to be reported to TCOLE; and
(6) Paris Police Department’s compliance with applicable laws on racial profiling.
For the purposes of this report and analysis, the following definition of racial profiling is used:
racial profiling means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual'srace, ethnicity,
or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the
individual as having engaged in criminal activity (Texas CCP Article 3.05).
ParisPolice Department Policy on Racial Profiling
A review of ParisPolice Department’s “Bias Based Profiling” policyrevealed that the department
has adopted policies in compliance with Article 2.132 of the Texas CCP(see Appendix B). There
are seven specific requirements mandated by Article 2.132 that a law enforcement agency must
address. All seven are clearly covered inParisPolice Department’sbias based profiling policy.
ParisPolice Departmentpoliciesprovide clear direction that any form of racial profiling is
prohibited and that officers found engaging in inappropriate profiling may be disciplined in
accordance with Chapter 2.02 of the Paris Police Department Policies and Procedures pertaining
to receipt, processing, investigation, and adjudication of complaints.The policiesalso provide a
very clear statement of the agency’s philosophy regarding equal treatment of all persons regardless
of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Appendix Clists the applicable statute andcorresponding
ParisPolice Departmentregulation.
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWOF P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT’S B IAS B ASED P ROFILING P OLICY
P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH A RTICLE 2.132 OF
SHOWS THAT THE
THE T EXAS C ODE OF C RIMINAL P ROCEDURE.
ParisPolice Department Training and Education on Racial Profiling
Texas Occupation Code § 1701.253 and § 1701.402 require that curriculum be established and
training certificates issued on racial profiling for all Texas peace officers. Documentation provided
byParisPolice Departmentreveals that all Paris Police Department officers were required to
complete a course on Racial and Bias Profiling (TCOLE Certified)in 2020. Moreover, the
department conducts a new employee orientation with each employee hiredby the department,
and this orientation includes policy training on the department’s bias based profiling policy.
A REVIEW OF THE INFORMATIONPRESENTED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION REVEALS THAT
THE P ARIS P OLICE D EPARTMENT ISFULLY IN COMPLIANCEWITH T EXAS LAW ON TRAINING AND
EDUCATION REGARDING RACIAL PROFILING.
ParisPolice Department Complaint Process and Public Education on Racial
Profiling
Article 2.132 §(b)3-4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that law enforcement
agencies implement a complaint process on racial profiling and that the agency provide public
education on the complaint process.ParisPolice Department’s Bias Based Profiling Policy Section
4 covers this requirement.The City of Paris PoliceDepartment has also taken the following
actions to ensure that the information relating to the policy disallowing racial profiling has been
made known to the public:
1) Published racial profiling policy and complaint information on the City of Paris
Website, under Police Department, “Your Feedback” tab:
(https://www.paristexas.gov/120/Your-Feedback);
2) Created complaint forms which are available at any time from any officer or at any
time from the lobby of the police station; and
3) Officers of the department have been instructed on the racial profiling law and are
available to, and have answered requests about, the law and complaint procedure.
A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT REVEALS THAT THE
T EXAS LAW ON THE RACIAL PROFILING
DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
COMPLAINT PROCESSAND PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
ParisPolice Department Statistical Data on Racial Profiling
Article 2.132(b) 6 and Article 2.133 requires that law enforcement agenciescollect statistical
information on motor vehicle stops in which a ticket, citation, or warning was issued and to arrests
made as a result of those stops, in addition to other information noted previously. Paris Police
Department submitted statistical information on all motor vehicle stops in 2020and accompanying
information on the race/ethnicity of the person stopped. Accompanying this data was the relevant
information required to be collected and reported by law.
A NALYSIS OF THE DATA REVEALS THAT THEDEPARTMENT ISFULLYIN COMPLIANCE WITH
T EXAS LAW ON THE COLLECTION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA.
APPLICABLE
Analysis of the Data
Comparative Analysis #1:
Evaluate and compare the number of motor vehicle stops, within the applicable jurisdiction, of
persons who are recognized as racial or ethnic minorities and persons who are not recognized as
racial or ethnic minorities.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.134(c)(1)(A)
The first chart depicts the percentages of people stoppedby race/ethnicityamong the total 3,167
motor vehicle stops in which a ticket, citation, or warning was issued, including arrests made,in
1
2020.
Chart 1: Percentage of Motor Vehicle Stops in Comparison to Benchmarks
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
WhiteBlackHispanic
% City Population
63.90%20.80%9.40%
% County Population
74.40%12.70%7.90%
% Stops
64.41%28.20%6.82%
White driversconstituted 64.41percent of all drivers stopped, whereas Whites constitute 63.90
2
percent of the city population and 74.40percent of the county population.
Blackdriversconstituted 28.20percent of all drivers stopped, whereas Blacks constitute 20.80
percent of the city population and 12.70percent of the county population.
Hispanic driversconstituted 6.82percent of all drivers stopped, whereas Hispanics constitute 9.40
percent of the city population and 7.90percent of the county population.
1
There were 12motor vehicle stops of drivers considered Asian/Pacific Islander and 6stops of drivers considered
Alaska Native/American Indian. These motor vehicle stops were not charted in the first figure of this report due to
the small number of cases relative to the population and the total number of motor vehicle stops among all drivers
(3,167).
2
City and County populations were derived from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS)of the U.S. Census
Bureau.
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.
In addition, the validity of the benchmark base-rate becomes even more problematic if analyses
fail to distinguish between residents and non-residents who arestopped.This is because the
existence of significant proportions of non-resident stops will lead to invalid conclusions if
racial/ethnic comparisons are made exclusively to resident population figures. In sum, a valid
measure of the driving population does not exist. As a proxy, census data is used which is
problematic as an indicator of the driving population. In addition, stopped motorists who are
not residents of the city or county where the motor vehicle stop occurred are not included in the
benchmark base-rate.
Issue #3: Officers Do Not Know the Race/Ethnicity of the Motorist Prior to the Stop
As illustrated in Table 4 near the end of this report, of the 3,167motorvehicle stops in 2020, the
officer knew the race/ethnicity of the motorist prior to the stop in 7.23% of the stops (229/3,167).
This percentage is consistent across law enforcement agencies throughout Texas. An analysis of
all annual racial profiling reports submitted to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, as
required by the Texas racial profiling law,found that in 2.9% of the traffic stops in Texas, the
3
officer knew the race/ethnicity of the motorist prior to the stop.The analysis included 1,186
Texas law enforcement agencies and more than 3.25 million traffic stops.
As noted, the legal definition of racial profiling in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
3.05 is “a law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or national
origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as
having engaged in criminal activity.”
Almost always, ParisPD officers do not know the race/ethnicity of the motorist prior to the stop.
This factor further invalidates any conclusions drawn from the stop data presented in Chart 1. If
an officer does not know the race/ethnicity of the motorist prior to the stop, then the officer cannot,
by legal definition, be racial profiling. Racial profiling is a law-enforcement action based on the
race/ethnicity of an individual. If the officer does not know the person’s race/ethnicitybefore the
action (in this case, stopping a vehicle), then racial profiling cannot occur.
Based on this factor, post-stop outcomes are more relevant for a racial profiling assessment, as
presented later inthis report, in comparison to initial motor vehicle stop data disaggregated by
race/ethnicity. Once the officer has contacted the motorist after the stop, the officer has identified
the person’s race/ethnicity and all subsequent actions are more relevant to a racial profiling
assessment than the initial stop data.
In short, the methodological problems outlined above point to the limited utility of using aggregate
level comparisonsof the rates at which different racial/ethnic groups are stoppedin order to
determine whether or not racial profiling exists within a given jurisdiction.
Table 1reports the summaries for the total number of motor vehicle stops in which a ticket,
citation, or warning was issued, and to arrests made as a result of those stops, by the Paris Police
Department in 2020.Table 1and associated analyses are utilized to satisfy the comparative
analyses as required by Texas law, and in specific, Article 2.134 of the CCP.
3
Winkler, Jordan M. (2016). Racial Disparity in Traffic Stops: An Analysis of Racial Profiling Data in Texas.
Master’s Thesis. University of North Texas.
Comparative Analysis #2:
Examine the disposition of motor vehicle stops made by officers employed by the agency,
categorized according to the race or ethnicity of affected persons, as appropriate, including any
searches resulting from stops within the applicable jurisdiction.Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure Article 2.134(c)(1)(B)
Table 1: Traffic Stops and Outcomes by Race/Ethnicity
AsianAlaska Native
Stop Outcomes by African-Hispanic
White/Pacific /American Total
Race/EthnicityAmerican/Latino
IslanderIndian
Number of Stops2,0408932161263,167
Result of Stop
Verbal Warning2741243311433
Written Warning1,28753191941,922
Citation4011798620668
Written Warning and
332010054
Arrest
Citation and Arrest342920166
Arrest111030024
Search Conducted
Yes1811001601298
No1,8597932001252,869
As shown in Table 1, there were a total of 3,167motor vehicle stops in 2020in which a ticket,
citation, or warning was issued. The table also shows arrests made as a result of those stops.
Roughly14percent of stops resulted in a verbal warning(433/3,167), roughly61percent of stops
resulted in a written warning,and roughly 21percent resulted in a citation. As shown,arrests were
relatively rare, and accounted for roughly 5percent of all stopoutcomes\[144total arrests including
Written Warning and Arrest(54), Citation and Arrest(66), and sole Arrest(24)\].
Specific to actions that occurred within each racial/ethnic group, White motorists received a verbal
warning in roughly 13percent of stops involving White motorists (274/2,040), Blackmotorists
received a verbal warning in roughly 14percent of stopsof Blackmotorists,andHispanic motorists
received a verbal warning in roughly 15percent of stopsof Hispanic motorists.
Specific to written warnings,White motorists received a written warning in roughly 63percent
of stops involving White motorists (1,287/2,040), Blackmotorists received a written warning in
roughly 59percent of stopsof Blackmotorists,and Hispanic motorists received a written warning
in roughly 42percent of stopsof Hispanic motorists.
White motorists received a citationin roughly 20percent of stops involving White motorists
(401/2,040), Blackmotorists received a citation in roughly 20percent of stopsof Blackmotorists,
and Hispanic motorists received a citation in roughly 40percent of stopsof Hispanic motorists.
Finally, specific to any form of arrest(Written Warning and Arrest, Citation and Arrest, and
Arrest), White motorists were arrestedin roughly 4percent of stopsinvolving White motorists
(Written Warning and Arrest + Citation and Arrest + Arrest = 78/2,040), Blackmotorists were
arrested in roughly 7percent of stops involving Blackmotorists,andHispanics were arrested in
roughly 3percent of stops involving Hispanic motorists. Most commonly, arrests were due to an
outstanding warrant(58.33%; 84/144) or aviolation of the penal code(37.5%; 54/144).
Comparative Analysis #3:
Evaluate and compare the number of searches resulting from motor vehicle stops within the
applicable jurisdiction and whether contraband or other evidence was discovered in the course of
those searches.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.134(c)(1)(C)
In 2020, a total of 298searchesof motorists were conducted, or roughly 9percent of all stops
resulted in a search(298/3,167). Among searches within each racial/ethnic group, White motorists
were searched in roughly 9percent of all stops of White motorists (181/2,040), Blackmotorists
were searched in roughly 11percent of all stops of Blackmotorists, and Hispanic motorists were
searched in roughly 7percent of all stops of Hispanic motorists.
Regarding searches, it should be further noted that 134out of 298searches(see Table 3), or
roughly 45percent of all searches, were based on consent, which are regarded as discretionary as
opposed to non-discretionary searches. Relative to the total number of stops (3,167), discretionary
consent searchesoccurred in roughly 4percent of stops.
Of the searches that occurred in 2020, and as shown in Table 3,contrabandwas discovered in
160or roughly 54percent of all searches (160/298total searches). Among the searches in which
4
contraband was discovered (160), 52percent of the time the contraband discovered was drugs.
Comparative Analysis #4:
Information relating to each complaint filed with the agency alleging that a peace officer employed
by the agency has engaged in racial profiling. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.134
(c)(2)
In 2020, internal records indicate that the Paris Police Department received 1complaint alleging
that a peace officer employed by the agency engaged in racial profiling.Upon internal
investigation, the complaint was not sustained and did not result in any disciplinary action.
4
Note in the tables that the number of searches in which contraband was found was 160, but the count on the
“Description of Contraband”equals 168. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that more than one form of
contraband can be discovered in a single search.
Additional Analysis:
Statistical analysis of motor vehicle stops relative to the gender population of the agency’s
reporting area. This analysis is presented in the report based on a December 2020 email sent from
TCOLE to law enforcement executives in Texas.
In 2020, 3,167motor vehicle stops were made by the Paris Police Department. Of these stops,
1,325or roughly 42percent were female drivers (1,325/3,167), and roughly 58percent were male
drivers (see Table 3 below).
According to 2019 American Community Survey (ACS)city and county population estimates of
the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Paris was composed of 54.6percent females and 45.4percent
males. County population 2020ACS estimates indicate that females accounted for 52.1percent of
the county population and males accounted for 47.9percent of the county population.
Overall, in 2020, males were stopped at rates higher than their proportion of the city and county
populations.
Additional Information Required to be Reported to TCOLE
Tables 2-4provide additional information relative to motor vehicle stops in 2020by the Paris
Police Department. These data are required to be collected by the Paris Police Department under
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.133.
Table 2: Data on Traffic Stops and Arrests
Stop TableFrequency
Number of Stops3,167
Reason for Stop
Violation of Law190
Preexisting Knowledge20
Moving Traffic Violation1,906
Vehicle Traffic Violation1,051
Result of Stop
Verbal Warning433
Written Warning1,922
Citation668
Written Warning and Arrest54
Citation and Arrest66
Arrest24
Arrest Based On
Violation of Penal Code54
Violation of Traffic Law6
Violation of City Ordinance0
Outstanding Warrant84
Table 3: Data on Searches Pursuant to Traffic Stops
Search TableFrequency
Search Conducted
Yes298
No2,869
Reason for Search
Consent134
Contraband in Plain View6
Probable Cause123
Inventory20
Incident to Arrest15
Was Contraband Discovered
Yes160
No138
Description of Contraband
Drugs83
Currency0
Weapons2
Alcohol41
Stolen Property0
Other42
Table 4: Additional Data on Traffic Stops
Additional InformationFrequency
Gender
Female1,325
Male1,842
Race/EthnicityKnown Prior to
Stop
Yes229
No2,938
Was Physical Force Resulting in
Bodily Injury Used During Stop
Yes2
No3,165
Approximate Location of Stop
City Street2,847
US Highway266
County Road10
State Highway29
Private Property/Other15
Analysis of Racial Profiling Compliance by ParisPolice Department
The foregoing analysis shows that the ParisPolice Departmentis fully in compliance withall
relevant Texas laws concerning racial profiling, including the existence of a formal policy
prohibiting racial profiling by its officers, officer training and educational programs, a formalized
complaint process, and the collection of data in compliance with the law.
In addition to providing summary reports and analysis of the data collected by the ParisPolice
Departmentin 2020, this report also included an extensive presentation of someof the limitations
involved in the level of data collection currently required by law and the methodological problems
associated with analyzing such data for the ParisPolice Department as well aspolice agencies
across Texas.
Appendix A
Racial Profiling Statutes and Laws
Texas Racial Profling Statutes
Art. 3.05. RACIAL PROFILING.
In this code, "racial profiling" means a law enforcement-
initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or
national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on
information identifying the individual as having engaged in
criminal activity.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Art. 2.131. RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED.
A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Art. 2.132. LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON RACIAL PROFILING.
(a)In this article:
(1)"Law enforcement agency" means an agency of the
state, or of a county, municipality, or other
political subdivision of the state, that employs peace
officers who make motor vehicle stops in the routine
performance of the officers' official duties.
(2)"Motor vehicle stop" means an occasion in which a
peace officer stops a motor vehicle for an alleged
violation of a law or ordinance.
(3)"Race or ethnicity" means the following
categories:
(A)Alaska native or American Indian;
(B)Asian or Pacific Islander;
(C)black;
(D)white; and
(E)Hispanic or Latino.
(b)Each law enforcement agency in this state shall adopt
a detailed written policy on racial profiling. The policy
must:
(1)clearly define acts constituting racial
profiling;
(2)strictly prohibit peace officers employed by the
agency from engaging in racial profiling;
(3) implement a process by which an individual may
file a complaint with the agency if the individual
believes that a peace officer employed by the agency
has engaged in racial profiling with respect to the
individual;
(4) provide public education relating to the agency's
compliment and complaint process, including providing
the telephone number, mailing address, and e-mail
address to make a compliment or complaint with respect
to each ticket, citation, or warning issued by a peace
officer;
(5) require appropriate corrective action to be taken
against a peace officer employed by the agency who,
after an investigation, is shown to have engaged in
racial profiling in violation of the agency's policy
adopted under this article;
(6) require collection of information relating to
motor vehicle stops in which a ticket, citation, or
warning is issued and to arrests made as a result of
those stops, including information relating to:
(A) the race or ethnicity of the individual
detained;
(B) whether a search was conducted and, if so,
whether the individual detained consented to the
search;
(C) whether the peace officer knew the race or
ethnicity of the individual detained before
detaining that individual;
(D) whether the peace officer used physical
force that resulted in bodily injury, as that
term is defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code,
during the stop;
(E) the location of the stop; and
(F) the reason for the stop; and
(7) require the chief administrator of the agency,
regardless of whether the administrator is elected,
employed, or appointed, to submit an annual report of
the information collected under Subdivision (6) to:
(A) the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; and
(B) the governing body of each county or
municipality served by the agency, if the agency
is an agency of a county, municipality, or other
political subdivision of the state.
(c) The data collected as a result of the reporting
requirements of this article shall not constitute prima
facie evidence of racial profiling.
(d) On adoption of a policy under Subsection (b), a law
enforcement agency shall examine the feasibility of
installing video camera and transmitter-activated equipment
in each agency law enforcement motor vehicle regularly used
to make motor vehicle stops and transmitter-activated
equipment in each agency law enforcement motorcycle
regularly used to make motor vehicle stops. The agency
also shall examine the feasibility of equipping each peace
officer who regularly detains or stops motor vehicles with
a body worn camera, as that term is defined by Section
1701.651, Occupations Code. If a law enforcement agency
installs video or audio equipment or equips peace officers
with body worn cameras as provided by this subsection, the
policy adopted by the agency under Subsection (b) must
include standards for reviewing video and audio
documentation.
(e) A report required under Subsection (b)(7) may not
include identifying information about a peace officer who
makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is
stopped or arrested by a peace officer. This subsection
does not affect the collection of information as required
by a policy under Subsection (b)(6).
(f) On the commencement of an investigation by a law
enforcement agency of a complaint described by Subsection
(b)(3) in which a video or audio recording of the
occurrence on which the complaint is based was made, the
agency shall promptly provide a copy of the recording to
the peace officer who is the subject of the complaint on
written request by the officer.
(g) On a finding by the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement that the chief administrator of a law
enforcement agency intentionally failed to submit a report
required under Subsection (b)(7), the commission shall
begin disciplinary procedures against the chief
administrator.
(h) A law enforcement agency shall review the data
collected under Subsection (b)(6) to identify any
improvements the agency could make in its practices and
policies regarding motor vehicle stops.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172 (H.B. 3389), Sec. 25,
eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 93 (S.B. 686), Sec. 2.05,
eff. May 18, 2013.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 173 (H.B. 3051), Sec. 1,
eff. September 1, 2017.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (S.B. 1849), Sec. 5.01,
eff. September 1, 2017.
Art. 2.133. REPORTS REQUIRED FOR MOTOR VEHICLE STOPS.
(a) In this article, "race or ethnicity" has the meaning
assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for an
alleged violation of a law or ordinance shall report to the
law enforcement agency that employs the officer information
relating to the stop, including:
(1) a physical description of any person operating
the motor vehicle who is detained as a result of the
stop, including:
(A) the person's gender; and
(B) the person's race or ethnicity, as stated by
the person or, if the person does not state the
person's race or ethnicity, as determined by the
officer to the best of the officer's ability;
(2) the initial reason for the stop;
(3) whether the officer conducted a search as a
result of the stop and, if so, whether the person
detained consented to the search;
(4) whether any contraband or other evidence was
discovered in the course of the search and a
description of the contraband or evidence;
(5) the reason for the search, including whether:
(A) any contraband or other evidence was in
plain view;
(B) any probable cause or reasonable suspicion
existed to perform the search; or
(C) the search was performed as a result of the
towing of the motor vehicle or the arrest of any
person in the motor vehicle;
(6) whether the officer made an arrest as a result of
the stop or the search, including a statement of
whether the arrest was based on a violation of the
Penal Code, a violation of a traffic law or ordinance,
or an outstanding warrant and a statement of the
offense charged;
(7) the street address or approximate location of the
stop;
(8) whether the officer issued a verbal or written
warning or a ticket or citation as a result of the
stop; and
(9) whether the officer used physical force that
resulted in bodily injury, as that term is defined by
Section 1.07, Penal Code, during the stop.
(c) The chief administrator of a law enforcement agency,
regardless of whether the administrator is elected,
employed, or appointed, is responsible for auditing reports
under Subsection (b) to ensure that the race or ethnicity
of the person operating the motor vehicle is being
reported.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172 (H.B. 3389), Sec. 26,
eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (S.B. 1849), Sec. 5.02,
eff. September 1, 2017.
Art. 2.134. COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION
COLLECTED.
(a) In this article:
(1) "Motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by
Article 2.132(a).
(2) "Race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by
Article 2.132(a).
(b) A law enforcement agency shall compile and analyze the
information contained in each report received by the agency
under Article 2.133. Not later than March 1 of each year,
each law enforcement agency shall submit a report
containing the incident-based data compiled during the
previous calendar year to the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement and, if the law enforcement agency is a local
law enforcement agency, to the governing body of each
county or municipality served by the agency.
(c) A report required under Subsection (b) must be
submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement
agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected,
employed, or appointed, and must include:
(1) a comparative analysis of the information
compiled under Article 2.133 to:
(A) evaluate and compare the number of motor
vehicle stops, within the applicable
jurisdiction, of persons who are recognized as
racial or ethnic minorities and persons who are
not recognized as racial or ethnic minorities;
(B) examine the disposition of motor vehicle
stops made by officers employed by the agency,
categorized according to the race or ethnicity of
the affected persons, as appropriate, including
any searches resulting from stops within the
applicable jurisdiction; and
(C) evaluate and compare the number of searches
resulting from motor vehicle stops within the
applicable jurisdiction and whether contraband or
other evidence was discovered in the course of
those searches; and
(2) information relating to each complaint filed with
the agency alleging that a peace officer employed by
the agency has engaged in racial profiling.
(d) A report required under Subsection (b) may not include
identifying information about a peace officer who makes a
motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is stopped or
arrested by a peace officer. This subsection does not
affect the reporting of information required under Article
2.133(b)(1).
(e) The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, in accordance
with Section 1701.162, Occupations Code, shall develop
guidelines for compiling and reporting information as
required by this article.
(f) The data collected as a result of the reporting
requirements of this article shall not constitute prima
facie evidence of racial profiling.
(g) On a finding by the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement that the chief administrator of a law
enforcement agency intentionally failed to submit a report
required under Subsection (b), the commission shall begin
disciplinary procedures against the chief administrator.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172 (H.B. 3389), Sec. 27,
eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 93 (S.B. 686), Sec. 2.06,
eff. May 18, 2013.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (S.B. 1849), Sec. 5.03,
eff. September 1, 2017.
Art. 2.136. LIABILITY.
A peace officer is not liable for damages arising from an act
relating to the collection or reporting of information as
required by Article 2.133 or under a policy adopted under
Article 2.132.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Art. 2.137. PROVISION OF FUNDING OR EQUIPMENT.
(a) The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules for
providing funds or video and audio equipment to law
enforcement agencies for the purpose of installing video
and audio equipment in law enforcement motor vehicles and
motorcycles or equipping peace officers with body worn
cameras, including specifying criteria to prioritize
funding or equipment provided to law enforcement agencies.
The criteria may include consideration of tax effort,
financial hardship, available revenue, and budget
surpluses. The criteria must give priority to:
(1) law enforcement agencies that employ peace
officers whose primary duty is traffic enforcement;
(2) smaller jurisdictions; and
(3) municipal and county law enforcement agencies.
(b) The Department of Public Safety shall collaborate with
an institution of higher education to identify law
enforcement agencies that need funds or video and audio
equipment for the purpose of installing video and audio
equipment in law enforcement motor vehicles and motorcycles
or equipping peace officers with body worn cameras. The
collaboration may include the use of a survey to assist in
developing criteria to prioritize funding or equipment
provided to law enforcement agencies.
(c) To receive funds or video and audio equipment from the
state for the purpose of installing video and audio
equipment in law enforcement motor vehicles and motorcycles
or equipping peace officers with body worn cameras, the
governing body of a county or municipality, in conjunction
with the law enforcement agency serving the county or
municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public
Safety that the law enforcement agency needs funds or video
and audio equipment for that purpose.
(d) On receipt of funds or video and audio equipment from
the state for the purpose of installing video and audio
equipment in law enforcement motor vehicles and motorcycles
or equipping peace officers with body worn cameras, the
governing body of a county or municipality, in conjunction
with the law enforcement agency serving the county or
municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public
Safety that the law enforcement agency has taken the
necessary actions to use and is using video and audio
equipment and body worn cameras for those purposes.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (S.B. 1849), Sec. 5.04,
eff. September 1, 2017.
Art. 2.138. RULES.
The Department of Public Safety may adopt rules to implement
Articles 2.131-2.137.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
Art. 2.1385. CIVIL PENALTY.
(a) If the chief administrator of a local law enforcement
agency intentionally fails to submit the incident-based
data as required by Article 2.134, the agency is liable to
the state for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$5,000 for each violation. The attorney general may sue to
collect a civil penalty under this subsection.
(b) From money appropriated to the agency for the
administration of the agency, the executive director of a
state law enforcement agency that intentionally fails to
submit the incident-based data as required by Article 2.134
shall remit to the comptroller the amount of $1,000 for
each violation.
(c) Money collected under this article shall be deposited
in the state treasury to the credit of the general revenue
fund.
Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172 (H.B. 3389), Sec.
29, eff. September 1, 2009.
Amended by:
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (S.B. 1849), Sec. 5.05,
eff. September 1, 2017.
Appendix B
Paris Police Department
Racial Profiling Policy
PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Subject: Policy Number:
Bias Based Profiling
2.01.01
Effective Date:Distribution:AmendedDate:
01/31/2010 All Police Officers 01/01/2018
Review Date: TPCA BPRP Number: Page:
Annually 2.01 1 of 5
SECTION 1POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the Paris Police Department to give equal treatment under the
law to all people, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, politics, national origin,
lifestyle, age, economic status or similar characteristics. The officers of the Paris
Police Department will only stop or detain citizens when reasonable suspicion to
believe they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a violation
of the law, or for other lawful purposes. Officers of the Paris Police Department
are strictlyprohibited from initiating any action that constitutes racial or biased-
based profiling.
SECTION 2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this policyis to give practical meaning by establishing procedures
to ensure that racial profiling, or other bias-based profiling, is not found in the
practices of the Department.
SECTION 3DEFINITIONS
Race or Ethnicity–Of a particular decent, including Caucasian, African,
Hispanic, Asian,Middle Eastern or Native American.
Bias-based Profiling–The detention, interdiction, search or seizure of any
person based solely upon the person’s age, gender, sexual orientation, race,
color, creed, ethnicity, national origin, or similar personal characteristic.
Racial Profiling–A law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual’s
race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual’s behavior or on
information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity.
Reasonable Suspicion–Specific facts and circumstances, and reasonable
inferences from those facts and circumstances, that would lead a person of
reasonable prudence to believethat some type of criminal activity is afoot, and
the detainee(s) are somehow involved.
Motor VehicleStop occurs when a peace officer stops a vehicle for an alleged
violation of a law, investigative stop or ordinance regulating trafficand includes
any stop regardless of a citation being issued, an arrest being made or a written
PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Subject: Policy Number:
Bias Based Profiling
2.01.01
Effective Date:Distribution:AmendedDate:
01/31/2010 All Police Officers 01/01/2018
Review Date: TPCA BPRP Number: Page:
Annually 2.01 2 of 5
or verbal warning.
Detention–any restriction upon a person's liberty imposed by a peace officer.
Seizure–any taking of property from an individual without the individual's
consent or any restriction of an individual's liberty without the individual's
consent. A detention will be considered a seizure, as will an arrest.
Acts Constituting Racial Profiling–Acts initiating law enforcement action,
such as a motor vehicle stop, a detention, a search, issuance of a citation, or an
arrest based solely upon an individual’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or on
the basisof racial or ethnic stereotypes, rather than upon the individual’s
behavior.
Racial Profiling Data Collection-The statute requires collection of information
relating to motor vehicle stops in which a ticket, citation, or warning is issued and
to arrests made as a result of those stops, including information relating to:
(1) a physical description of any person operating the motor vehicle who
is detained as a result of the stop, including:
(A) the person's gender; and
(B) the person's race or ethnicity, as stated by the person or, if the
person does not state the person's race or ethnicity, as determined
by the officer to the best of the officer's ability;
(2) the initial reason for the stop;
(3) whether the officer conducted a search as a result of the stop and, if
so, whether the person detained consented to the search;
(4) whether any contraband or other evidence was discovered in the
course of the search and a description of the contraband or evidence;
(5) the reason for the search, including whether:
(A) any contraband or other evidence was in plain view;
(B) any probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed to perform
the search; or
(C) the search was performed as a result of the towing of the motor
vehicle or the arrest of any person in the motor vehicle;
(6) whether the officer made an arrest as a result of the stop or the
search, including a statement of whether the arrest was based on a
PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Subject: Policy Number:
Bias Based Profiling
2.01.01
Effective Date:Distribution:AmendedDate:
01/31/2010 All Police Officers 01/01/2018
Review Date: TPCA BPRP Number: Page:
Annually 2.01 3 of 5
violation of the Penal Code, a violation of a traffic law or ordinance, or an
outstanding warrant and a statement of the offense charged;
(7) the street address or approximate location of the stop; \[and\]
(8) whether the officer issued a verbal or written warning or a ticket or
citation as a result of the stop; and
(9) whether the officer used physical force that resulted in bodily injury, as
that term is defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, during the stop.
SECTION 4 PROCEDURES
1.Public Information -The statute provides the officer provide the stopped
individual public education relating to the agency's compliment and
complaint process, including providing the telephone number, mailing
address, and email address to make a compliment or complaint with
respect to each ticket, citation, or warning issued by a peace officer.
2.TheDepartment will inform the public of its policy against racial profiling
and the process by which a citizen may make a complaint against a
department employeevia the Paris Police Department web page site,in
the lobby of the police department and at the Paris Public Library.
3.Stops / Detentions -In the absence of a specific credible report
containing a physical description, a person’s gender, sexual orientation,
race, color, creed, ethnicity, national origin, or similar personal
characteristic, or any combination of thesemay be a contributing factor
but shall not be the solefactor in determining probable cause for an arrest
or reasonable suspicion for a stop.
4.Oversight and Review -Traffic enforcement will be accompanied by
consistent, ongoing supervisory oversight to ensure that officers do not go
beyond the parameters of reasonableness in conducting such activities.
A.Supervisors shall ensure compliance with this and other applicable
directives.
B.Aminimum of fivetraffic stopswill be reviewed by the patrol shift
supervisor each month including both patrol car video and body
worn video.
PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Subject: Policy Number:
Bias Based Profiling
2.01.01
Effective Date:Distribution:AmendedDate:
01/31/2010 All Police Officers 01/01/2018
Review Date: TPCA BPRP Number: Page:
Annually 2.01 4 of 5
C.The motor vehicle stop reviews will be documented and submitted
to records.
D.The department will retain video and audio of all traffic stops for a
minimum of 90 days. Any traffic stop which meets reporting criteria
resulting in a custodial arrest shall be noted in the records
management system arrest module custom tab.This includes any
video and audio made while using a body worn video system.
E.Any motor vehicle stop which meets reporting criteria resulting in a
citation being issued shall be documented by completing all citation
fields requiring any racial profiling dataor if a ticket writer is not
available, by entering the information into the court records
management system.
5.Motor Vehicle Recording (MVR) Equipment.
A.All marked patrol vehicles are equipped with video cameras. The
video and soundshall be activated before all motor vehiclestops, to
record the actions of the vehicle and/or behavior of the person, and
shall remain activated until the person is released. (Refer to 7.27.01–
Mobile Video Recording)
B.Patrol Officers are responsible for ensuring patrol car and BWC mobile
video recording is functionalor report the malfunctiontothe on-duty
shift supervisor.
C.Videoand audio will be maintained for a period of ninety (90) days
before being deleted.
6.Reporting
A.The Office of Professional Standards will submit a quarterly and
cumulative report to the Chief of Police concerning citation and arrest
data, and supervisory oversight of MVR recordings.
PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Subject: Policy Number:
Bias Based Profiling
2.01.01
Effective Date:Distribution:AmendedDate:
01/31/2010 All Police Officers 01/01/2018
Review Date: TPCA BPRP Number: Page:
Annually 2.01 5 of 5
B.The Office of Professional Standards will perform a comparative
analysis of the data collected.
1.Analysis will be based on a calendar year
2.Summary reports of the analysis must be submitted to the Chief of
Police
3.The report must include:
a.Adetermination of the prevalence of racial profiling;
b.An examination of the disposition of motor vehiclestops,
including searches resulting from the stops; and
c.Information relating to each complaint within the department
alleging racial profiling.
4.The report may not include identifying information about an officer
or about the person stopped.
C.The Chief of Police shall submit to the City Council, an annual report
concerning citation and arrest datacollected in the preceding yearand
according to statute to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standardsand Education.
D.Complaint Process
Any individual who believes that a peace officer employed by this
department has engaged in racial profiling with respect to the
individual, may file a complaint with any supervisor of the
department.In accordance with Article 2.132(f) of the Code of
Criminal Procedures, anofficer whois the subject of a racial profiling
complaint will be provided a copy of the recording of the traffic or
pedestrian stop in question, upon written request by the officer. The
complaint will be received, processed, investigated, and adjudicated in
accordance with chapter (2.02) of the ParisPolice Department Policies
and Procedures.
Appendix C
Racial Profiling Laws and Corresponding
Department Policies
TexasCCP ArticlePARISPOLICE DEPARTMENT Racial
Profiling Policy2.01.01
2.132(b)1Section 3Definitions
2.132(b)2Section 1 Policy Statement
2.132(b)3Section 4 (1-2)Procedures & Section 6 (D)
2.132(b)4Section 4 (1-2) Procedures
2.132(b)5Section 6 (D) Complaint Process
2.132(b)6Section 3 Definitions (Racial Profiling Data
Collection)
2.132(b)7Section 6 (C) Reporting