Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2017 TRAFFIC STOPS IN NEBRASKAA REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE
ON DATA SUBMITTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
MARCH 30, 2018
DARRELL FISHER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEBRASKA CRIME COMMISSION PO BOX 94946 LINCOLN, NE 68509 402-471-2194
MIKE FARGENCHIEF, INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION
VALERIE MORRISBUSINESS/RESEARCH ANALYST
KEVIN DAHLMANSTATISTICAL ANALYST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION
3. HISTORY
4. RACIAL PROFILING COMMITTEE
5. DATA COLLECTION
6. DATA PROPORTIONALITY
7. DATA REPORTING CONSIDERATIONS
8. POPULATION COMPARISON
9. DISPARITY INDEX
A) STATEWIDE DISPARITY INDEX B) NSP VERSUS NON-NSP DISPARITY INDEX COMPARISON C) OMAHA PD & LINCOLN PD DISPARITY INDEX
10. TRAFFIC STOP DATA
A) TRAFFIC STOP DATA TREND B) REASON FOR TRAFFIC STOP C) DISPOSITIONS D) SEARCHES
11. ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL PROFILING
12. COUNTY SPECIFIC DATA
A) DOUGLAS COUNTY B) LANCASTER COUNTY C) SARPY COUNTY D) HALL COUNTY E) BUFFALO COUNTY
3
4-5
6-7
8-10
11-13
14
15
16
17-19
171819
20-23
20212223
24
25-40
26-2829-3132-3435-3738-40
The initial production of this report was partially funded by a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (#2013-BJ-CX-K009) for operation of the StatisticalAnalysis Center (SAC) and the Nebraska Department of Transportation Highway Safety Office Racial Profiling mini-grant.The views expressed in this report are those of the authors only and do not represent the Department of Justice nor the Nebraska Department ofTransportation Highway Safety Office.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice would like to providereasonable accommodations with respect to persons with disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation please contact the Nebraska Commissionon Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Upon request, this publication may be available in other formats.
There were 476,709 traffic stops reported to the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice(NCC) for 2017 from 199 law enforcement agencies. Of the total traffic stops reported, 67.4% were from theNebraska State Patrol (NSP) or agencies in Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy Counties. Overall, 39.4% of the totalstatewide stops were made by NSP. Omaha Police Department (OPD) made 10.1% of statewide traffic stops andLincoln Police Department (LPD) made 10.1% as well.
While both population and stops were concentrated in the largest counties, the largest metropolitan agenciesaccounted for the most stops. The OPD, LPD and the NSP accounted for 59.7% of stops. Census figures are usedto examine details of the communities in question. The general or census population only provides one aspect of thepotential group that would be stopped by law enforcement, particularly in areas with a lot of commuters or Interstatetraffic. Nonetheless, the local population provides one view of the area and is often used for these comparisons.
For 2017 the NCC received a total of eleven reports from five agencies of the public making allegations of racialprofiling. All agencies involved conducted internal investigations. In ten of the eleven instances, the officer wasexonerated, while one instance had insufficient evidence.
The reported data do not provide enough information to determine motivation or cause for any apparentdisproportionality. Although this level of data does not allow definite conclusions in those areas, it does serve as abasis for constructive discussion between police and citizens regarding ways to reduce racial bias and/or perceptionsof racial bias.
Interested parties want to know if the data can determine whether the driver’s race and/or ethnicity had an impact onthe decision by law enforcement to make the stop. Unfortunately, it is not an easy question to answer.
The Traffic Stop Data section of this report includes several basic comparisons of data that are commonly used orasked about. It also includes an overview of stop processing.
The earliest versions of this report included traffic stop activity reported by the NSP’s Carrier Enforcement Division.The NSP Carrier Enforcement Division involves stops at Weigh Stations, commercial stops (for documentation orweighing) and similar activity.
Detailed numbers by agency, as well as county-wide statistics, are available athttps://ncc.nebraska.gov/traffic-stops-nebraska
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 of 40
The Information Services Division of the NCC is responsible for reporting annually to the Legislature and theGovernor on the issues related to traffic stops made by law enforcement agencies. We are charged with collectingboth traffic stop summary data, along with allegations of racial profiling -- and analyze trends, and racial disparitythroughout the traffic stop process.
The purpose of this report is to provide Nebraska's history on the topic, examine important factors of the datacollection process, and to evaluate trends and disparity throughout the traffic stop interaction.
The criminal justice system is predicated on the notion of equality. The issues of fairness and any perception ofunequal treatment are often at the forefront of our society but particularly as they relate to justice. Great attention isdrawn to issues and reports of possible inequality in the criminal justice system. These issues can be very difficult toidentify, as well as verify, and are critical for the public as well as for law enforcement. Traffic stops are one of themost common types of contact for the public. Perceptions derived from these contacts and the need for openness onthe reasons for stops are paramount.
Potential profiling relating to traffic stops made by law enforcement has received broad attention in most states andlocalities. The Nebraska Legislature passed LB593 in 2001 to respond to possible issues relating to the way thattraffic stops are made. The act specifically prohibited racial profiling and required law enforcement to implementpolicies prohibiting discriminatory practices as well as requiring the collection of prescribed data; further details will beexamined in the 'history' section of this report.
The Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center (NLETC) is one component used to address concerns. NLETCeducates, trains, and evaluates law enforcement officers, as well as regulates statewide training academies andmandated programs to ensure all meet state certification requirements established by the NCC. Issues regardingracial profiling have been incorporated into the basic training all law enforcement officers attend for certification.Since the law took effect in 2001, and even prior to this law, students at the NLETC are taught that all traffic stopsmust be based on a legal justification and cannot be based solely upon the person’s (or driver's) race or ethnicmakeup. Any stop based solely upon the person's race or ethnicity would be unconstitutional. NLETC studentscompile racial profiling report forms with each simulated traffic stop conducted while in the training academy.
Proactive use of these data can assist in an agency's monitoring and adherence to legislation. They can provideopportunities for outreach with the community as well as examine processes and procedures. We stronglyencourage agencies to examine their data and look at what is happening within their jurisdiction.
Since data are only collected and reported in summary format, there is no way to track individual instances orproduce a detailed analysis. Therefore, disparities outlined in this report cannot prove bias or instances of racialprofiling, but can help identify agencies or locations that could possibly benefit from more advanced analysis. Adetailed review of officers, locations, populations or other criteria are essential when trying to understand a localizedsituation. Despite this limitation of summary data, the information presented in this report does provide a goodsnapshot of traffic stops.
INTRODUCTION
4 of 40
The breakdown of types of stops and related data by race has stayed relatively consistent throughout the reportedyears, with certain variations showing in searches and the dispositions of stops. The statewide breakdown of trafficstops by race parallels the census adult population breakdown as well as the general known licensed drivingpopulation. In and of itself this does not mean that there is no racial profiling. It can be said that, on the statewideaggregate, there are not apparent disproportionalities. However, this does not mean that there are not disparities.There are other variances that show up when looking at particular local populations or jurisdictions. Since minoritypopulations vary greatly across Nebraska it significantly affects the contact law enforcement would have with them.
This report presents a summary of data reported to the NCC.
INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)
5 of 40
In 2001, the Nebraska Legislature passed LB593 to respond to possible issues relating to the way that traffic stopsare made. The act specifically prohibited racial profiling and required law enforcement agencies to implement policiesprohibiting discriminatory practices as well as requiring the collection of prescribed data. Additionally, it required lawenforcement agencies to report to the NCC all allegations of racial profiling received and the disposition of suchallegations. Below are additional initiatives implemented:
1) Acknowledged the danger and impropriety of any practice that involves disparate treatment based on a person'sskin color, apparent nationality or ethnicity.
2) Defined racial profiling as the detaining of an individual or conducting a motor vehicle stop based upon disparatetreatment of an individual.
3) Required the collection of certain information relative to traffic stops, in that law enforcement agencies arerequired to collect, record, maintain and report the information below to the NCC.
A) The number of motor vehicle stops. B) The race or ethnicity of the people stopped. C) The nature of an alleged law violation that resulted in the motor vehicle stop. D) Whether warnings or citations were issued, arrests made, or searches conducted as a result of the stops.
Additionally the bill required all law enforcement agencies to provide to the commission a copy of each allegation ofracial profiling received and written notification of the review and disposition of such allegations. The bill prohibitedrevealing the identity of either the officer or the complainant. Any allegations of racial profiling are handled throughstandard policies with the law enforcement agency. To collect the data required in a consistent and cost effective manner the NCC convened a workgroup involvingNebraska State Patrol (NSP), Nebraska Sheriffs Association, Police Officers Association of Nebraska, Police ChiefsAssociation of Nebraska, and numerous local agencies including the Lincoln Police Department (PD) and the OmahaPD. This group reviewed possible data reporting formats to try to guarantee the most feasible, cost effective, andachievable method of reporting while meeting the mandates outlined above.
Data collection of this magnitude can be problematic in many ways. Law enforcement agencies have taken variousapproaches to provide complete and useful data to the NCC. Even for agencies that are automated the task ofadditional data collection by officers adds a level of complexity and additional workload that is significant. For thoselaw enforcement agencies that are not automated it means an increase in the paperwork for officers. Some lawenforcement agencies have attempted to extract the data from their records systems but modifications were typicallyneeded and often some manual work was still required. Since data have to be reported even if no action is taken,most automated systems were not equipped to report all of the required data. Even though law enforcementagencies were required to report only limited summary information, doing so increased costs and workloads.
HISTORY
6 of 40
In 2004, LB1162 amended the definition of a motor vehicle stop to exclude the stop of a motor truck, tractor-trailers orsemitrailer at the state weighing stations. This amendment allowed for the exclusion of the NSP's CarrierEnforcement Division. LB1162 also created the Racial Profiling Advisory Committee (RPAC). The RPAC is chairedby the Executive Director of the NCC and includes representatives of the Fraternal Order of Police, the NebraskaCounty Sheriffs Association, the Police Officers Association of Nebraska, the American Civil Liberties Union, theNSP, the AFL-CIO, and the Police Chiefs Association of Nebraska.
In April of 2006, LB 1113 amended the required reporting to be extended until 01/01/2010. Since the amendmentwas passed several months into 2006, it must be noted that several law enforcement agencies did not collect trafficstop data for first quarter of 2006. Additionally, some law enforcement agencies may not have been collecting datafor a short period in April.
HISTORY (CONTINUED)
7 of 40
The purpose of the Racial Profiling Advisory Committee (RPAC) is to advise the Executive Director of the NCCrelative to the reporting legislation. Shortly after the passage of LB1162 the RPAC met several times, and currentlymeets semi-annually.
In addition to the initial meetings, several members participated in a conference conducted by the Police ExecutiveResearch Forum in conjunction with the US Department of Justice. This conference brought together nationalresearchers as well as state, local and federal practitioners and experts to discuss the collection and analysis oftraffic stop data. The RPAC spent considerable time and effort discussing Nebraska’s approach to this effort as wellas the findings included in the conference and related publications.
The RPAC was contacted in 2006 to review and offer suggestions to discussion points and earlier reports. Thefollowing bullet points were identified as being relevant to Nebraska at the state and local levels of organization inaddressing issues related to racial profiling.
1) Racial profiling is a serious allegation and issue that must be dealt with at an agency and individual level.Professional law enforcement is concerned about the issue and interaction with the public. Individuals may raciallyprofile (as opposed to an agency) and they need to be dealt with in a professional matter that meets agency policyand responsibility as well as public expectations and rights.
2) The collection of mandated summary data does not allow for the detailed analysis necessary to establish bias.The aggregate analysis and observations included in the report point to areas that would necessitate closerexamination at the agency level. Such detailed examination is outside the scope of the NCC's mandate andresources.
3) For a complete analysis within Nebraska there would need to be much more detailed and mandated methods ofdata collection, as well as additional resources available to conduct such an in-depth analysis. Detailed stop-leveldata, as opposed to summary data, are necessary to provide a baseline for examining traffic stops. The costsassociated with such detailed methods of data collection , as well as its operational impact on law enforcementagencies, are quite significant. There would also be a substantial impact on the NCC to collect, store, and analyzemore detailed data.
4) Detailed analysis at the agency level is best to determine bias. The onus and responsibility for this type ofanalysis should rest with the law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency and community must cooperate inthe examination of data and potential bias.
5) A law enforcement agency examination of disparity to determine potential bias or racial profiling should includefactors such as local demographics, agency policy, and individual officer behavior.
6) There is no absolute guideline that defines profiling or bias, and in particular, it is not merely a statistical ornumerical observation. There are many factors that must be included.
The RPAC met again in early 2007 and reviewed reporting and the data that are collected. It reviewed the volume ofreporting, analyses, and potential for increasing the automated collection of this data. The followingrecommendations were made.
1) The type and detail of reporting should stay consistent with what has been in place since the passage of thelegislation. This will allow for a consistent data set over time, making it easier for law enforcement agencies tomaintain.
RACIAL PROFILING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
8 of 40
2) There should be an effort to retrain law enforcement agencies on the reporting requirement to attempt to increasereporting. This may be useful in law enforcement agencies that have a significant turnover or have made changes intheir procedures or automation.
3) Reporting requirements should be incorporated into the NLETC curriculum, as appropriate for newly electedSheriffs, Basic students and for those officers attending mandated supervisory and management courses.
The RPAC discussion topics from 2008 and 2009 mirrored much of the earlier discussions as well as suggestions ondata and how it should be presented.
1) There are many populations that are or can be used in the discussion of enforcement and its proportionality.These include not just general census types of numbers but also things such as high risk populations, licenseddrivers and criminal justice populations (jail admissions, warrants, arrestees).
2) Populations need to be compared locally. Law enforcement agency activity is best looked at in the context of thelocal or subpopulation demographics.
3) Standard comparisons can assist law enforcement agencies as well as the public and decision makers in lookingat traffic stop data.
4) Training and clarification of meaning for data collection should continue to be done with law enforcement agenciesto target the best data available.
In 2010 and 2011 the RPAC continued discussions on the presentation of the data and how to assist lawenforcement agencies and the public to understand the context and data collected. Discussion topics included:
1) Looking at local populations can help agencies understand the potential basis for drivers who may be stopped.
2) Comparisons to other criminal justice related populations can provide context for those involved with lawenforcement.
3) Law enforcement agencies and their administrators can often provide information on activities or factors whichhave affected enforcement, including traffic stops.
In 2012 the RPAC continued to examine reporting by law enforcement agencies. This included how to best engagelaw enforcement agencies as well as guarantee completeness. Discussion topics included:
1) Emphasis for law enforcement agencies to make use of the data. It is incumbent upon law enforcement agenciesto combine the reported data along with any initial analysis the NCC provides -- and explore the details of theircommunities, stops, and procedures.
2) Law enforcement agencies need to be sure they report and understand search criteria. This will continue to beaddressed with training opportunities and highlight examples such as probable-cause searches and searchesincident to arrest.
3) While law enforcement agencies and the NCC are limited by race definitions from National Crime InformationCenter, the RPAC foresees questions and concerns for other ethnicities such as 'Arab'.
RACIAL PROFILING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CONTINUED)
9 of 40
4) Costs to the agencies for collection and reporting of data are a concern of the committee. Technology solutionsare not cheap and not very feasible for all agencies.
In 2013 the RPAC discussed how to approach data collection as well as how to best analyze and convey toagency-specific issues. The discussion topics included:
1) Utilizing rates as opposed to percentages as a reporting metric. This was included in the 2013 report.
2) Implementation of online data entry for law enforcement agencies, which makes it easier to conduct datavalidation processes. The requirement for online submission of data collection methodology was implemented in2013.
3) Automation of online data collection for racial profiling allegations was made available in 2013. The NCC can nowmonitor the instances of racial profiling allegations throughout the year, instead of receiving the data annually.
4) The production of a model policy regarding racial profiling, per statutory changes, was reviewed by the RPAC.There were concerns expressed over the ability for clear language that mirrors statute and could be used by lawenforcement agencies.
In 2014 the RPAC discussed how to approach data collection. The discussion topics included:
1) The utilization of DMV demographics. The discussion continued regarding the differences between censusfigures and DMV numbers and if county figures can be used.
2) Non-compliance with Racial Profiling Policy Submissions. The discussion continued regarding how to get thevarious agencies into compliance. A model policy was developed and approved to be used as an example.
In 2015 the NCC implemented new reporting methods for reporting purposes, which were shared with the RPAC.Other discussion topics included:
1) The difference between personal bias and racial prejudice. The discussion continued regarding problems lawenforcement encounter such as poverty and the cost of recruitment and selection of future officers.
2) Partnering with University of Nebraska-Omaha to gather raw data from select law enforcement agencies foradditional analysis.
In 2016 the RPAC discussed anonymous complaints. However, due to concerns regarding the sharing of personalinformation, investigating such complaints would prove difficult. Other discussion topics included:
1) Chairperson Fisher indicated that implicit bias training has been made available for all law enforcement agencies.
In 2017 the RPAC requested receipt of the Traffic Stops Report prior to its annual publication date, which has beenfulfilled by the NCC.
RACIAL PROFILING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CONTINUED)
10 of 40
Standardized forms are provided to all law enforcement agencies in Nebraska. Summary data are reported to theNCC quarterly. Data fields include race of all drivers stopped, reason for stops, disposition of stops, and whethersearches were conducted.
Since agencies began submitting data, the NCC's Statistical Analysis Center has been working with law enforcementagencies to improve reporting and address data inconsistencies. Such a significant effort requires review ofprocesses and workflow once it begins. In general, law enforcement agencies have made a concerted effort to fulfillthe requirements. Some agencies have gone a step further and undertaken their own studies. These studies aretypically more comprehensive, allowing for more detailed analyses of racial profiling specific to their agency. Suchinternal efforts examine the law enforcement agency's data to better understand and detect the nature of disparities.
Neb. Rev. Stat. 20-504 (3)(b) states the characteristics being reported shall be based on the observation andperception of the law enforcement officer responsible for reporting the motor vehicle stop. The FBI maintains datastandards for most law enforcement data collection. To be consistent with these standards and other reportingprograms, race categories for this project were based on FBI-defined categories: White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander,American Indian/Alaskan Native, and other. However, to address ethnicity concerns outlined in the originatinglegislation, a category for Hispanic was included. While Hispanic is not a race as described by the U.S. CensusBureau, it is included this way for ease of reporting. There are many other categories that could potentially be ofinterest regarding ethnicity or national origin but the current system does not address those.
In 2017 there were 197 law enforcement agencies that fully participated in the data collection process. There were 2law enforcement agencies (1 County Sheriff and 1 Police Department) that participated but did not submit all fourquarters with of data. There were 12 Police Departments that did not submit any data and 2 County Sheriff's Offices.
The next page is a map of Nebraska outlining the counties reporting status. For a county to be designated as'REPORTING COMPLETE', the county must collectively have all law enforcement agencies report all four quarters ofdata for 2017. Blaine and Loup counties did not have any agencies report 2017 data, designated as 'NOTHINGREPORTED'. Thurston County had inconsistencies in their reported data, which were not validated at the time of thiswriting, and as such is designated as 'NON-VALIDATED REPORTING'. 'INCOMPLETE REPORTING' indicates thecounty has not reported all four quarters of data for 2017 to the NCC. 'INCOMPLETE LOCAL REPORTING' meansthe active agencies within the county have not reported all four quarters of data for 2017 to the NCC.
The 9.2% of active agencies that did not report all four quarters in 2017 represent sparsely populated areas inNebraska. Specifically, 99.3% of the statewide population was covered by the 90.8% of agencies with completereporting, compared to 98.6% of the population and 86.4% of active agencies in 2016. Below are the following law ..
4) Blaine CO SO covering less than 500 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.
5) Edgar PD covering less than 500 inhabitants, did notsubmit any data.
6) Ewing PD covering less than 400 inhabitants, did notsubmit any data.
1) Atkinson PD covering less than 1,300 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.
2) Bancroft PD covering less than 500 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.
3) Beemer PD covering less than 700 inhabitants, didnot submit any data.
DATA COLLECTION
11 of 40
12 of 40
DATA COLLECTION COVERAGEFrom 2010 to 2017, statewide data collectionefforts have improved, both in terms of populationcoverage and agency participation.
Population coverage reflects the percentage ofNebraska's statewide population covered by thoseagencies that submitted their traffic stops dataacross all four quarters. Population values forthese calculations were obtained from the USCensus Bureau website(https://factfinder.census.gov).
Agency participation reflects the percentage ofagencies that submitted all four quarters of trafficstops data, based on the number of agencies activeduring that year.
For example in 2010, 73.4% of Nebraska's activelaw enforcement agencies reported all four quatersof traffic stops data to the NCC, which represented86.9% of the statewide population. In 2017, thesefigures increased to 90.8% of active agencies,representing 99.3% of the statewide population.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
73.4%86.9%
70.7%92.6%
74.4%94.3%
67.9%91.8%
84.3%98.6%
70.4%92.4%
86.4%98.6%
90.8%99.3%
Agency Participation & Population Coverage
Population Coverage Agency Participation
13 of 40
DATA PROPORTIONALITY
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent of Total Statewide Traffic Stops
41.9 43.5 43.4 41.5 41.739.2 39.4
28.227.9 28.0 31.3 31.3
33.4 32.6
10.1
11.3
10.310.6
10.1
9.79.0 9.5
9.2 9.0 7.4 8.8 9.5
7.8
2.2 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.22.3 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.36.3 5.8 5.3 4.9 4.3 4.1 4.2
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
10
20
30
40
% of Total Statewide Traffic Stops
All Other Agencies
Sarpy County Agencies
Lancaster County (excludes LPD)
Lincoln PD
Douglas County (excludes OPD)
Omaha PD
Nebraska State Patrol
Traffic Stops Distribution by Agency
Since 2002 the total number of stops has beenapproximately a half-million each year. NSP accounts forthe largest portion of the traffic stops made by a singleagency in the State of Nebraska. Collectively, NSP incombination three county agencies (Douglas, Lancaster,and Sarpy) accounted for roughly 70% of all traffic stopseach year.
Compared to the previous reporting year, OPD and LPDhave had small increases in their percentage of stops. Alarge majority of the traffic stops were made by threeagencies: NSP, OPD and LPD.
By understanding the proportion of stops by agency, onemust realize the complex nature of identifying areas ofconcern. A majority of the NSP traffic stops occur on theInterstate system, for which no population metric isavailable that can effectively estimate the demographicmake-up of individuals traveling on the Interstate system.Without a clear quantitative method to identify thispopulation, it would be illogical to make conclusionsregarding any disparity of this specific population.
Nebraska State Patrol
All Other Agencies
Lincoln PD
Omaha PD
Lancaster County (excludes LPD)
Douglas County (excludes OPD)
Sarpy County Agencies
14 of 40
This report reflects summary data submitted to the NCC from 2011 through 2017 (seven years). The NCC haspublished data for 2002-2010, but in years prior to 2005, NSP weigh station stops were included in the analysis. Forcomparative purposes, the data for 2002-2010 have been removed from this report. Data tables throughout thisreport include several basic data comparisons regarding the race of the driver, the reason for the stop, the primarydisposition or outcome of the stop, and whether or not searches were conducted.
The data provided in this report have inherent limitations. The data collected are in summary format, anddue to this limitation, there are no feasible processes to either identify individual cases or provide advancedanalysis. For instance, while we can report how many searches were conducted regarding Hispanic drivers,we cannot report how many of these stops started with a traffic violation as the reason for the stop nor canwe determine what the outcome of the stop actually was.
There is not a standardized process for analyzing traffic stop data. Many state and national studies have beenconducted that attempt to discern instances of racial profiling. This is problematic in two basic ways: (a) the nature ofdata collection and (b) the need to conclude motivation, conscious or unconscious, of law enforcement officers. Thebasic premise in any analysis is the attempt to discover instances that display disproportional activity across races.Analysis of traffic stop data can look at whether or not the drivers stopped reflect the general racial breakdown in asociety or analysis can focus on how different races or groups were handled once the stop is made. Both areimportant to society and the management of a law enforcement agency.
To assess the effect race and/or ethnicity may have on decision-making, any study must exclude or control forfactors other than race and/or ethnicity that might legitimately explain the stopping decision. For example, mostjurisdictions disproportionally stop males. Does this indicate gender bias? Most would not jump to that conclusionbecause they can think of several factors other than bias that could explain the disproportionate stopping of maledrivers. One possibility is that men drive more than women (a quantity factor). Another possibility is men violatetraffic laws more often than women (a quality factor). A third possibility is that more males drive in areas wherepolice stopping activity tends to occur (the location factor). We do not know if these possibilities are true, but wemust consider these other alternative explanations as causal.
Unfortunately, we do not have the detailed traffic stop data that would allow a comprehensive research design thatwould rule out such other possibilities and therefore prohibits us from drawing definitive conclusions. We cannot saydefinitively whether there is or is not racial bias in traffic stops, we can only point to seeming disproportionality. Inother words, it is not difficult to measure whether there is disparity between racial/ethnic groups in stops made bypolice; the difficulty comes in identifying the causes for the disparity and whether or not it is racial biased.
The initial search data has never been seen, on the statewide aggregate, as having extreme disproportionality.There are variances in the proportionality of races once the stop has been made and action is taken. This is donewithin the limitations of the data itself. Observations are included with the data tables pointing out instances wherethere appears to be some instance of disproportionality within a category. The reason for this difference probablyhas many causes but the available data cannot adequately identify or explain those causes.
It must be noted that disparities within this report are just that, disparities. Disparities alone do not prove bias orinstances of racial profiling. By identifying disparity law enforcement agencies can and should make reasonableefforts to better understand the disparities within their data. It is recommended that law enforcement agencies andother interested parties examine disparity at the agency and local level to better understand possible reasons for thedisproportionality. Agency specific results are available at the NCC website (http://www.ncc.ne.gov).
DATA REPORTING CONSIDERATIONS
15 of 40
POPULATION COMPARISONStudies focusing on traffic stop reporting often compare data to racial distributions within a particular community orstate. Some studies compare traffic stop data to the racial breakdown of the general population, of licensed drivers,of at risk drivers or even to the racial breakdown of drivers actually observed on an area's roads by people stationedin the field. Each of these demographic comparisons has strengths and weaknesses, but there is no universallyaccepted method for analyzing an at-risk populations compared to a reference group. Some studies drawconclusions that theoretically cannot be made given deficiencies in the available data.
When comparing traffic stop data to any population, several factors should be condsidered. People often look at thegeneral population compared to traffic stop percentages, and use this comparison as the sole indicator of racialprofiling, which may result in spurious findings. However, initial results from basic comparisons may identify otherfactors needing to be controlled and analyzed, thereby enhancing the validity of the initial findings.
All population data are obtained from the US Census Bureau. Since the adult population more closely parallels thedriving population than the overall population, primary tables and counts will be Nebraska's adult estimatedpopulation when available. Race categories and classifications are not consistent across data sets. Somecombining of areas along compatible definitions was done to parallel traffic stop categories. When reviewingpopulation figures at the city level, counts will be utilizing the city population because adult demographics are notalways available.
The line graphs below compare traffic stop percentages to the statewide population and the statewide adultpopulation.
2011 2013 2015 2017
1.0
2.0
Population Percentage
NE Adult Population
Traffic Stops
NE Population
Asian/Pacific Islander
2011 2013 2015 2017
4
6
8
Population Percentage
Traffic Stops
NE Population
NE Adult Population
Black
2011 2013 2015 2017
6
8
10
12Population Percentage
Traffic Stops
NE Population
NE Adult Population
Hispanic
2011 2013 2015 2017
0.6
0.8
Population Percentage
Traffic Stops
NE Population
NE Adult Population
American Indian/Alaskan Native
2011 2013 2015 2017
1
2
Population Percentage
Traffic Stops
NE Population
NE Adult Population
Other
2011 2013 2015 2017
80
85
90
Population Percentage
NE Population
NE Adult Population
Traffic Stops
White
NE Population Traffic Stops NE Adult Population
16 of 40
DISPARITY INDEXOver the past six years our state’s population has changed in size and in specific demographics. The NebraskaAdult Population figures obtained via the US Census Bureau help provide a more accurate comparison to analyzeour traffic stop data. When available, we use annual census estimates.
By comparing the Nebraska Adult Population percentages with our Traffic Stop percentages outlined in the previouspage we are able to produce a disparity index, seen below. To interpret the disparity index, a value greater than oneindicates over-representation, a value of one indicates no disparity, and a value less than one indicates underrepresentation. The disparity index is calculated by dividing the proportion of stops by the proportion of population.As outlined in the Data Reporting Considerations of this report, there is no single explanation for the disparitiesprovided in this report.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
Disparity Index
0.96
1.06
1.08
0.98
1.69
2.41
1.07
1.63
1.491.48
1.80
2.12
1.78
0.76
1.041.03
0.69
1.43
0.690.69 0.69
0.99
1.07
0.68
0.97
1.40
0.97
1.08
0.98
0.68
0.96 0.96 0.98 0.96
American Indian/Alaskan NativeAsian/Pacific Islander
BlackHispanic
OtherWhite
17 of 40
DISPARITY INDEX (NSP VERSUS NON-NSP)The following line graphs comparedisparies for all NSP traffic stops andNon-NSP traffic stops. The 'Other'race has been removed from thesevisualizations to better illustrate thedisparity index comparison.
The disparity index is calculatedusing the Nebraska Adult Populationpercentages reported on the twoprevious pages. The index iscalculated by dividing the proportionof stops by the proportion ofpopulation.
When interpreting the disparity index,values greater than one indicateover-representation, one representsno disparity, and values less thanone indicate under-representation.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
NSP Disparity Index
1.031.01 1.06
0.83
1.171.24
1.62
0.97
1.38
1.39
0.950.99
1.151.13
0.92
0.70
0.92
0.710.69
0.68
0.82
0.67
0.92
0.61
0.910.87
1.02 1.02 1.011.03
1.00
NSP Disparity Index
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Non-NSP Disparity Index
0.93
1.12 1.12
0.97
2.09
1.90
0.89
2.24
0.910.75
1.87
2.22
1.10
0.67
1.85
0.971.03
0.67 0.70 0.71
0.73
1.83
0.68 0.67
0.93
1.13
0.68
0.97
0.93
0.72
0.94
1.00
0.94 0.94
0.95
Non-NSP Disparity IndexAmerican Indian/Alaskan NativeAsian/Pacific IslanderBlackHispanicWhite
18 of 40
DISPARITY INDEX (OMAHA PD & LINCOLN PD)The following line graphs comparethe disparity index for the OPD andLPD traffic stops.
To interpret the disparity index; avalue greater than one indicates anover-representation, a value of onerepresents no disparity, a value lessthan one indicates an underrepresentation. The disparity index iscalculated by dividing the proportionof stops by the proportion ofpopulation.
These two Police Departmentscollectively account for roughlytwenty percent of the traffic stopsreported each year. The city specificdisparity index population numbersare utilizing the city wide population,not the adult population figures.These population numbers are 2016estimates obtained from the USCensus Bureau. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Disparity Index
0.87 0.88
1.75
2.57
2.242.18
2.86
0.41
0.64
2.57
2.39
2.42
0.68
1.67
0.58
0.51
0.83 0.83
0.70 0.700.78
0.51
0.80
0.61
0.82
1.72
0.79
1.71
Omaha PD Disparity Index
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Disparity Index
0.94
0.80 0.800.80 0.86
0.65
0.70 0.80 0.85
1.22
2.15
2.50
2.54
1.33
2.41 2.56
1.16
2.58
0.90
0.960.950.99 0.95
0.660.66
0.88
2.64
0.70 0.710.70 0.66
0.97
Lincoln PD Disparity Index
American Indian/Alaskan NativeAsian/Pacific IslanderBlackHispanicWhite
19 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP DATAThe following table and area chart provide some perspective regarding the amount of traffic stops reported to theNCC over the previous 12 years. Whites make up the majority of traffic stops, decreasing across this 12-year spanfrom a high of 85.9% in 2007 to a low of 79.1% during the current reporting year. Conversely, minor growth hasbeen observed for traffic stop percentages (population growth simulates traffic stop growth) for Asian/PacificIslander, Black, and Hispanic populations across the State.
American Indian &Alaskan Native
Count Percent
Asian & PacificIslander
Count Percent
Black
Count Percent
Hispanic
Count Percent
Other
Count Percent
White
Count Percent
Grand Total
Count Percent
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017 0.73%
0.77%
0.75%
0.76%
0.74%
0.70%
0.76%
0.70%
0.81%
0.72%
0.64%
0.85%
3,489
3,832
3,731
3,886
3,663
3,525
3,908
3,768
3,930
3,634
2,609
3,918
1.68%
1.61%
1.49%
1.54%
1.33%
1.29%
1.24%
1.00%
1.00%
0.90%
0.88%
1.04%
8,025
7,996
7,420
7,891
6,522
6,512
6,407
5,378
4,815
4,509
3,570
4,801
7.86%
7.75%
7.05%
6.30%
5.82%
5.90%
6.03%
4.99%
5.53%
5.13%
5.18%
5.11%
37,483
38,525
35,095
32,249
28,629
29,819
31,096
26,877
26,724
25,762
21,100
23,671
9.40%
9.14%
8.61%
8.03%
7.37%
7.17%
7.15%
6.64%
6.82%
6.93%
6.50%
6.96%
44,794
45,424
42,846
41,142
36,271
36,223
36,888
35,734
32,942
34,806
26,484
32,253
1.24%
1.15%
1.06%
1.02%
1.54%
1.87%
2.04%
1.68%
0.85%
0.62%
0.95%
0.92%
5,917
5,706
5,302
5,241
7,584
9,430
10,545
9,068
4,096
3,099
3,860
4,273
79.08%
79.58%
81.04%
82.35%
83.20%
83.08%
82.78%
84.99%
85.00%
85.70%
85.86%
85.12%
377,001
395,404
403,472
421,800
409,465
419,972
427,237
457,472
410,761
430,317
349,809
394,215
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
476,709
496,887
497,866
512,209
492,134
505,481
516,081
538,297
483,268
502,127
407,432
463,131
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170K
100K
200K
300K
400K
500K
600K
Traffic Stops Reported
American Indian & Alaskan NativeAsian & Pacific Islander
BlackHispanic
OtherWhite
20 of 40
REASON FOR TRAFFIC STOPThe table to the right displays percentagesof statewide traffic stops made for eithertraffic code violations, criminal codeviolations, or other/unkown reasons. Thefigures below further breakdownreason-for-stop percentages in terms ofrace.
Reason for the Stop indicates the primaryreason that the traffic stop was initiated bythe officer. A traffic stop may include morethan one reason.
Traffic Code Violations are the typicallythought of traffic violations such asspeeding.
Traffic CodeViolations
Count %
Criminal CodeViolations
Count %
Other/Unknown
Count %
Grand Total
Count %
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017 90.5%
89.6%
88.8%
88.9%
89.1%
89.4%
96.1%
90.9%
94.5%
94.7%
94.3%
94.9%
431,406
445,264
441,944
455,502
438,647
451,853
496,177
489,234
456,618
475,436
384,390
439,665
6.9%
7.3%
8.3%
8.1%
7.8%
7.9%
0.9%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.6%
1.5%
33,010
36,400
41,151
41,626
38,622
40,087
4,850
6,093
5,522
5,941
6,640
7,163
2.6%
3.1%
3.0%
2.9%
3.0%
2.7%
2.9%
8.0%
4.4%
4.1%
4.0%
3.5%
12,293
15,223
14,771
15,081
14,865
13,541
15,054
42,970
21,128
20,750
16,402
16,303
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
476,709
496,887
497,866
512,209
492,134
505,481
516,081
538,297
483,268
502,127
407,432
463,131
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0%
50%
100%
97.1%
97.2%
97.5%
96.8%
95.7%
97.5%
91.4%
91.3%
90.9%
90.5%
91.4%
92.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0%
50%
100%
94.2%
94.7%
94.8%
94.9%
89.7%
94.8%
89.8%
90.3%
90.3%
91.0%
92.0%
92.2%
Black
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0%
50%
100%
91.8%
93.0%
92.3%
90.1%
90.2%
94.2%
88.2%
88.6%
88.8%
89.4%
89.7%
90.2%
Hispanic
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0%
50%
100%
84.0%
85.4%
88.0%
82.5%
86.6%
90.5%
78.2%
75.9%
79.0%
82.2%
84.6%
86.0%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0%
50%
100%
92.5%
95.2%
95.7%
94.8%
90.9%
93.5%
93.7%
94.1%
94.5%
95.7%
95.1%
93.5%
Other
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0%
50%
100%
95.3%
94.5%
94.9%
94.9%
91.0%
96.5%
89.4%
89.1%
88.8%
88.5%
89.3%
90.3%
White
Traffic Code Violations Criminal Code Violations Other/Unknown
21 of 40
DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC STOPThe Disposition of the Traffic Stop reports the primaryoutcome of the stop. A traffic stop may result in avariety of outcomes. A custodial arrest is not donewhen only a traffic violation is involved. Therefore, thestop could involve things such as a DUI arrest, a lackof identification, an outstanding warrant (discovered ina general license check) or some other criminal activityin the car or even by the occupants. However, the dataare not detailed enough to know what specific violationcaused a custodial arrest.
In 2017, 17.4% of Blacks stopped were taken intocustodial arrest, compared to 4.2% of the generalpopulation.
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
4.2%
All Races Combined Arrest Rate
200720092011201320152017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2.6%
Asian/Pacific Islander
200720092011201320152017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
17.4%
Black
200720092011201320152017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
5.9%
Hispanic
200720092011201320152017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
13.5%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
200720092011201320152017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
7.9%
Other
200720092011201320152017
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2.5%
White
22 of 40
SEARCH PERCENTAGEBroken down by race over the past 12 years, thefollowing figures show the percentage of traffic stops inwhich a search was conducted. For example in 2017,8.7% of all statewide traffic stops involving Black driversincluded a search.
Search counts do not include inventory arrests or thosedone incident to arrest. Instead they reflect searchesdone as part of the officer's processing of the traffic stop.The following trend lines allow the reader to compareeach race to each other, the overall (top-right), and overtime.
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
3.5%
All Races Combined Search Rate
200720092011201320152017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander
200720092011201320152017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10% 8.6%
Black
200720092011201320152017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
5.3%
Hispanic
200720092011201320152017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10% 9.4%American Indian/Alaskan Native
200720092011201320152017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
3.8%
Other
200720092011201320152017
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2.8%
White
23 of 40
ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL PROFILINGAn allegation of racial profiling can originate in variousways. Sometimes a driver will make an accusation at thescene of the stop. Other times the driver, or even apassenger or related party, might contact the agencysometime after the stop to make a complaint. An allegationcan also originate from a non-traffic stop.
These allegations are handled formally within each agencyand then standardized data are submitted to the NCC incompliance with LB593. For 2017, eleven allegations werereceived from five agencies, two of which involvedsearches. Of the 210 total allegations during 2002-2017,only 17.1% involved reported searches.
All involved agencies conducted internal investigations andcontacted the drivers and persons involved when possible.During 2002-2017, no agency reported an allegation ofracial profiling to be valid; agencies stated officers followedpolicy or that there were circumstances which made thestops appropriate.
There have been cases reported in which the agencystated that they were unable to disseminate specificinformation concerning the disposition of allegationsbecause of policy and the current Labor Agreement.
20032005200720092011201320152017
0
10
20
30
Number of Allegations 31
13 14 1111
11
16
17
9
18
334
22
6
21
Allegations
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
10
20
30
Number of Allegations
112024
11 1112
13
6
244
22
224
432
9 6 3
2
6 4 4 3
8 5 5 3 3 6
Allegations by Search Conducted
Conducted Not Conducted Unknown
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
10
20
30
Number of Allegations
29
16 11 17
13
2
2
2
2
95
5 35
9
6 829
5 2
4
2 3 23
42 4 2
Allegations by Race
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
10
20
30
Number of Allegations
1119 25
11 11
171411 10
5
77
4
27
3 3
3
9
3
94 3 3 3
Allegations by Disposition
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
Unknown/Other
White
Insufficient Evidence
Complaint not Pursued
Officer Exonerated
Unknown / NA
24 of 40
Previous pages of this report focused on statewide data, whereas the following pages focus on the five mostpopulous counties and each one's most populous city, broken down by race. County-level data reflect reported stopsby all law enforcement agencies within the county. City-level data reflect reports only from the local city policedepartment.
As stated previously, census figures only estimate the resident population and do not account for commuters orInterstate traffic. Nonetheless, local populations provide one measure often used to facilitate discussions regardingthe possibility of racial profiling, despite considerable variation throughout the state.
There are great differences in minority populations by city and county throughout the state. These differencesobviously affect daily occurrences for any racial groups in all kinds of activities, including traffic stops. The varyingdistributions of minority populations across Nebraska significantly affect the contact law enforcement has with thesegroups. In 2017 for instance, the Black population varied significantly across three levels of analysis within the Stateof Nebraska: 12.5% in Omaha, 11.0% in Douglas County, and 4.4% across the statewide adult population.
There are obvious differences in the stops made in different counties relative to race. There are considerations otherthan the resident population, particularly given travelers and Interstate traffic, in addition to possible officer activity.
Once a traffic stop has been made, there can be a variety of actions taken. Research often looks at the handling anddisposition of the stop for disparity. This can reflect differences in processing by race but it must be noted that avariety of factors exist.
Each breakout page includes the traffic stop counts by race so one can compare to the population table -- along withsearch counts and percentages. Bar charts include percentages referring to proportions for an activity. For instance,one can see what percentage of stops involve a search to give the viewer perspective. Population sizes of minoritygroups change across years and localities, which have direct effects on disparity calculations, particularly at thecounty or city level of analysis.
COUNTY SPECIFIC DETAILS
25 of 40
The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Douglas County, inaddition to the county’s largest city, Omaha. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Douglas County increased2.4% compared to 2016.
Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Douglas County were submitted from the following nine agencies (listed indecreasing order based on their percentage of total stops in the county): Omaha PD (81.4%), Douglas County Sheriff(12.8%), Ralston PD (4.0%), Valley PD (0.9%), Bennington PD (0.6%), Waterloo PD (0.1%), Boys Town PD (0.1%),University of Nebraska–Omaha Campus Security PD (< 0.1%), Metro Community College PD (< 0.1%), and OmahaAirport Authority (0%).
Across all Douglas County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): American Indian/Alaskan Native drivers (0.9% and0.4%) and Black drivers (27.0% and 11.0%).
On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 6.3% of all 2017 traffic stops from Douglas Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for American Indian/Alaskan Native(13.2%) and Black drivers (12.0%).
DOUGLAS COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS
26 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (DOUGLAS CO)
2012 2014 2016
20K
40K
60K
All Races
0500
1000
1500
Asian/Pacifi..
5K
10K
15K
Black
0K2K
4K
6K
Hispanic
0
200
400
American
Indian/Alas..
2K
4K
6K
Other
0K
20K
40K
White
70,116100% 56,897
100%56,202100%
54,836100%
48,875100%
58,713100%
59,176100%
1,2022.1%
1,4132.4%
1,4572.5%
9411.3%
8521.5%
8721.6%
9922.0%
13,53919.3%
14,74625.9%
16,73028.5%
11,12819.8%
11,59421.1%
11,76024.1%
16,00427.0%
4,9507.1% 3,698
6.6%3,9267.2%
4,2928.8%
4,9118.6%
5,4319.3%
5,93710.0%
1200.2% 335
0.7%
4570.8%
5470.9%
5460.9%130
0.2%
1820.3%
7,22510.3% 4,654
8.3%
4,2017.7%
1,4192.9%
1,5502.7%
1,6072.7%
1,6102.7%
43,33161.8% 35,688
63.5%34,12362.2%
30,07761.5%
34,03159.8%
32,98556.2%
33,62256.8%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
5K
10K
15K
All Races
0
100
200
Asian/Pacific
Islander
2K4K6K8K
Black
0K
1K
2K
Hispanic
100
200
300
American
Indian/Alas..
1K
2K
3K
Other
2K
4K
6K
White
11,64016.6%
11,44219.5%
11,77019.9%8,279
14.7%7,28613.3%
7,98616.3%
9,24216.2%
616.5%
495.8%
445.0%
717.2%
736.1%
1208.5%
1379.4%
3,81528.2% 2,910
26.2%2,82924.4%
3,77332.1%
4,52330.7%
5,70834.1%
5,80736.3%
1,02020.6% 681
18.4%64816.5%
90821.2%
94519.2%
1,17321.6%
1,28521.6%
3728.5%
4424.2%
3730.8%
12437.0%
16937.0%
19435.5%
22040.3%
2,36232.7% 1,575
33.8% 1,11326.5% 254
17.9%31920.6%
39824.8%
41625.8%
4,34510.0%
3,84911.7%
3,90511.6%3,020
8.5%2,6157.7%
2,8569.5%
3,2139.4%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K2K
4K
6K
All Races
0
50
100
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0K1K
2K
3K
Black
0200
400
600
Hispanic
0
50
100American
Indian/Alas..
0100
200
300
Other
500
1000
1500
White
1,2831.8%
1,8013.7%
2,1833.8%
3,5226.0%
3,7436.3%
8941.6%
9191.7%
293.1% 14
1.6%111.3%
101.0%
171.4%
594.2%
694.7%
1,84311.0%
1,91712.0%1,095
7.4%3102.3%
1891.7%
3182.7%
8086.9%
1132.3%
882.4%
792.0%
1994.6%
2294.7%
3396.2%
3746.3%
7213.2%
64.6%
63.3%
43.3%
309.0%
286.1%
509.1%
2002.8%
972.1%
741.8% 34
2.4%
644.1%
875.4%
966.0%
1,1443.5%
1,2153.6%625
1.4%5001.4%
4331.3%
7202.4%
7502.2%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
DOUGLAS CO SO OMAHAOMAHA PDRALSTON PDVALLEY PDBOYS TOWN PDBENNINGTON PDWATERLOO PDUNIV OF NEBRASKA CAMPU..OMAHA AIRPORTMCCGrand Total
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101010109999999999999999
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 70.6%
2.7%
12.0%
11.0%
3.3%
0.4%
71.0%
2.5%
11.8%
11.1%
3.2%
0.4%
71.4%
2.6%
11.6%
11.1%
2.9%
0.4%
71.7%
2.5%
11.3%
11.2%
2.8%
0.4%
72.1%
2.5%
11.1%
11.2%
2.7%
0.5%
72.5%
2.7%
10.8%
11.1%
2.5%
0.4%
COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
27 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (OMAHA PD)
2012 2014 2016
0K20K
40K
60K
All Races
0
500
1000
Asian/Pacifi..
0K5K
10K
15K
Black
0K
2K
4K
Hispanic
0
200
400
American
Indian/Alas..
2K
4K
6K
Other
10K
20K
30K
White
58,322100% 46,251
100%44,377100%
47,051100%
46,688100%
48,159100%37,648
100%
9512.1%733
1.9%
1,2102.5%
6981.2% 1,178
2.5%
6901.5%
6321.4%
12,62221.6%
13,44330.3%
15,31132.5%
14,57530.3%10,847
23.5%10,24521.9%
10,62328.2%
4,0707.0%
3,9949.0%
5,00110.4%
3,4309.1%
2,9796.4%
4,4889.5%3,212
6.9%
1010.2%
3070.8%
4321.0%
5211.1%
5171.1%127
0.3%1180.2%
7,03212.1% 4,039
8.7%
1,1603.1%
4,4969.6%
1,4082.9%
1,3832.9%
1,3032.9%
33,78257.9% 27,362
59.2%25,44452.8%
28,20960.4% 24,254
54.7%24,17451.4%
21,39556.8%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
5K
10K
15K
All Races
0
100
200
Asian/Pacific
Islander
2K4K6K8K
Black
500
1000
1500
Hispanic
100
200
300
American
Indian/Alas..
1K
2K
3K
Other
0K2K
4K
6K
White
11,20919.2%
10,87523.1%
11,25423.4%7,940
17.0%6,95715.0%
7,40719.7%
8,64919.5%
13010.7%
598.5%
447.0%
395.7%
618.3%
677.0%
1159.8%
3,76629.8% 2,868
28.0%2,77125.5%
3,67334.6%
4,40532.8%
5,59736.6%
5,66738.9%
97323.9% 645
21.7%61919.3%
83924.5%
86721.7%
1,09024.3%
1,22424.5%
3731.4%
4132.3%
3736.6%
11938.8%
16638.4%
19036.8%
21942.0%
2,36133.6% 1,573
35.0% 1,11027.5% 248
21.4%30623.5%
39328.4%
41229.3%
4,01311.9% 2,467
11.5%
2,83811.7%
3,49014.4%
3,60214.2%2,769
9.8%2,3818.7%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K
2K
4K
All Races
10
20
30
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0K1K
2K
Black
0
200
400
Hispanic
0
50
100American
Indian/Alas..
0100
200
300
Other
0500
1000
1500
White
1,3393.6%
1,6863.8%
2,9886.4%
3,1986.6%
7221.2%
4761.0%
5521.2%
30.4%
30.5%
10.1%
60.8%
80.8%
201.7%
242.0%
1,73311.3%
1,78912.3%
2472.0%
1461.4%
2582.4%
7306.9%
9997.4%
401.0%
240.8%
341.1%
1404.1%
1624.1%
2665.9%
3206.4%
7113.6%
54.2%
10.8%
22.0%
289.1%
286.5%
468.9%
1962.8%
932.1%
721.8% 31
2.7%
584.5%
815.9%
926.5%
2310.7%
2090.7%
1850.7%
4041.9%
4311.8%
8423.5%
9023.5%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
OMAHA PD
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 67.2%
2.8%
13.8%
12.5%
3.2%
0.4%
67.6%
2.6%
13.7%
12.7%
3.1%
0.4%
68.2%
2.7%
13.3%
12.7%
2.8%
0.4%
68.2%
2.7%
13.1%
12.9%
2.6%
0.5%
68.4%
2.7%
12.9%
13.0%
2.4%
0.5%
69.1%
2.8%
12.6%
12.9%
2.2%
0.4%
CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
28 of 40
The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Lancaster County, inaddition to the county’s largest city, Lincoln. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Lancaster County decreased5.6% compared to 2016.
Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Lancaster County were submitted from the following four agencies (listed indecreasing order based on their percentage of total stops in the county): Lincoln PD (89.4%), Lancaster County SO(6.6%), University of Nebraska–Lincoln Campus PD (4.0%), and Lincoln Airport PD (< 0.1%).
Across all Lancaster County agencies, three racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (10.4% and 3.8%), American Indian/AlaskanNative (0.5% and 0.4%), and Other (3.1% and 2.5%) drivers.
On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 3.8% of all 2017 traffic stops from Lancaster Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were observed to be higher than average for AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native (9.7%), Black (8.5%), and Hispanic (5.9%) drivers.
LANCASTER COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS
29 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (LANCASTER CO)
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
20K
40K
60K
All Races
500
1000
1500
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0K2K
4K
6K
Black
1K
2K
3K
Hispanic
100
200
300
American
Indian/Alas..
500
1000
1500
Other
20K
40K
60K
White
43,702100%
45,803100%
51,456100%
59,246100%
61,835100%
65,350100%56,626
100%57,299100%
54,063100%
9712.2%
1,2062.6%
1,3482.6% 1,600
2.7%
1,7952.9%
1,8962.9% 1,679
3.0%
1,8693.3%
1,6903.1%
3,5597.8%
4,9308.3% 5,595
9.0%
6,1379.4% 5,485
9.7%
6,01310.5%5,612
10.4%
3,6828.4%
3,7197.2%
2,0164.6%
2,0704.5%
2,2984.5%
2,7774.7%
3,2445.2%
3,4475.3% 3,010
5.3%
3,4035.9%
3,4816.4%
2310.4% 300
0.5%3180.6%
2670.5%
1690.4%
1800.4% 303
0.5%1820.4%
3040.5%
8131.9%
9052.0%
8691.7%
1,2042.0%
1,3032.1%
1,3572.4%
1,5492.7%
1,6793.1%1,328
2.0%
36,04082.5%
37,89482.7%
43,04083.6%
48,50481.9%
49,59880.2%
52,23979.9%
44,79179.1%44,14777.0%
41,33476.5%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
500
1000
1500
All Races
010
20
30
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0
200
400
Black
50
100
150
Hispanic
0
20
40
American
Indian/Alas..
0
10
20
Other
0
500
1000
White
1,0511.6%
1,0871.9%
1,0731.9%
1,0381.9%734
1.4%7501.3%
8411.4%
70.5%
100.6%
150.8%
191.0%
100.6%
130.7% 10
0.6%
1564.2%
1873.8%
2073.7%
2824.6% 219
4.0%
2634.4%
2614.7%
562.4%
742.7%
963.0%
902.6%
943.1%
842.5%
1113.2%
1910.4% 9
3.9%
134.3%
206.6%
289.2%
299.1% 20
7.5%
30.3%
70.6%
80.6% 6
0.5%
100.7%
120.8% 9
0.5%
4931.1%
4631.0%
5021.0%
6341.2%
7261.6%
6721.5%
6271.5%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1K
2K
3K
All Races
050
100
150
Asian/Pacific
Islander
200
400
600
Black
100
200
300
Hispanic
10203040American
Indian/Alas..
0
50
100
Other
0K
1K
2K
White
1,0622.1%
1,2042.0%
1,5042.4%
1,9343.0%
1,6552.9%
2,0203.5%
2,0763.8%
70.5%
140.9%
251.4%
422.2%
402.4%
1025.5%
281.7%
1433.8%
2414.9%
2674.8%
4106.7%
3476.3%
3996.6%
4798.5%
883.8%
943.4%
1253.9%
1604.6%
1464.9%
2407.1%
2045.9%
168.8%
156.5%
155.0%
237.6%
227.2%
268.2%
269.7%
172.0%
181.5%
272.1%
211.6%
241.8%
825.3%
432.6%
1,0452.1%
1,2782.4%
1,0762.4%
1,1712.7%
1,2963.1%791
1.8%8221.7%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
LANCASTER CO SO LINCOLN
LINCOLN PD
LINCOLN AIRPORT POLICE
UNL
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
44444444444444444444
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 82.7%
2.5%
6.5%
3.8%
4.1%
0.4%
83.1%
2.2%
6.4%
3.8%
4.1%
0.4%
83.6%
2.1%
6.2%
3.7%
4.0%
0.4%
84.0%
2.0%
6.0%
3.6%
3.8%
0.5%
84.4%
2.0%
5.9%
3.5%
3.7%
0.5%
84.8%
2.0%
5.7%
3.4%
3.6%
0.5%
COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
30 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (LINCOLN PD)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K
20K
40K
All Races
0500
1000
1500
Asian/Pacifi..
0K
2K
4K
Black
0K1K
2K
3K
Hispanic
0
100
200
American
Indian/Alas..
0500
1000
1500
Other
0K
20K
40K
White
40,131100%
49,155100%
50,527100%
54,404100%
48,326100%
47,028100%
45,204100%
1,2922.6%
1,4352.8%
1,5552.9%
1,0172.5%
1,2792.8%
1,4423.0%
1,4623.1%
3,0887.7%
4,2858.7%
4,8669.6%
5,52510.2%
5,13710.9%4,555
10.1%
5,13710.6%
1,8594.6%
2,3444.8%
2,7455.4%
2,9625.4%
2,7915.9%
2,4175.3%
3,0846.4%
1970.4%
2390.5%
2690.5%
1550.4%
2470.5%
2600.6%
2670.6%
1,0082.1%
1,1262.2%
1,1212.5%
1,2082.2%
6971.7%
1,5243.2%1,323
2.8%
40,02981.4%
40,11679.4%
42,88578.8%
36,89276.3%
36,04876.7%
33,31583.0%
35,57278.7%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0500
1000
1500
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacific
Islander
100
200
300
Black
050
100
150
Hispanic
1020
3040
American
Indian/Alas..
05
10
15
Other
200400600800
White
4621.2%
6051.2%
6671.3%
8431.5%
7611.7%
8521.8%
9021.9%
70.7%
70.5%
130.9%
151.0% 8
0.6%70.5%
90.6%
1264.1%
1603.7%
1633.3%
2444.4% 169
3.7%
2234.3%
2394.7%
392.1%
612.6%
833.0%
812.7%
733.0%
662.4%
933.0%
159.7% 8
4.1%93.8%
155.6%
238.8%
259.4% 18
7.3%
10.1%
70.7% 5
0.4%
60.5%
60.5%
100.8% 8
0.5%
2740.8%
3620.9%
3941.0%
4821.1%
4821.4%
5211.4%
5351.5%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K
1K
2K
All Races
10
20
3040
Asian/Pacific
Islander
200
400
600
Black
0
100
200
Hispanic
10203040American
Indian/Alas..
0
20
40
Other
500
1000
1500
White
1,3452.5%
1,1602.6%
1,3072.8%
1,7493.6%
5651.4%
8371.7%
9661.9%
60.6%
110.9%
171.2%
251.6%
231.8% 13
0.9%
201.4%
1073.5%
2004.7%
2084.3%
3616.5% 269
5.9%
3276.4%
4328.4%
512.7%
703.0%
782.8%
1093.7%
994.1%
1093.9%
1595.2%
2610.5%
117.1%
115.6%
125.0%
197.1%
207.7%
207.5%
121.7%
131.3%
201.8%
161.3%
181.6%
312.3%
342.2%
1,0782.9%
3781.1%
5321.3%
6311.6%
8151.9%
7312.1%
8072.2%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
LINCOLN PD
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 81.2%
2.7%
7.1%
4.1%
4.5%
0.4%
81.7%
2.4%
6.9%
4.1%
4.4%
0.5%
82.3%
2.2%
6.7%
4.0%
4.3%
0.4%
82.8%
2.1%
6.4%
3.9%
4.1%
0.6%
83.3%
2.1%
6.2%
3.8%
4.0%
0.6%
83.8%
2.1%
6.0%
3.6%
4.0%
0.6%
CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
31 of 40
The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Sarpy County, in additionto the county’s largest city, Bellevue. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Sarpy County decreased less than 1%compared to 2016.
Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Sarpy County were submitted from four agencies (listed in decreasing orderbased on their percentage of total stops in the county): Bellevue PD (50.6%), Sarpy County SO (19.8%), Papillion PD(15.4%), and La Vista PD (14.1%).
Across all Sarpy County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (10.0% and 3.7%) and Hispanic (11.4% and8.4%) drivers.
On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 6.1% of all 2017 traffic stops from Sarpy Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for American Indian/Alaskan Native(26.9%), Black (12.8%), and Hispanic (12.8%).
SARPY COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS
32 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (SARPY CO)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
10K
20K
30K
All Races
0
200
400
Asian/Pacifi..
0K
1K
2K
Black
0K
1K
2K
Hispanic
10
20
30
American
Indian/Alas..
200
400600800
Other
0K
10K
20K
White
29,395100% 24,894
100%21,832100%
20,230100%
20,186100%32,687
100% 27,548100%
3501.7%
3561.4% 291
1.3%
3441.7%
4451.5%
4771.7%
4741.5%
2,2819.2%
2,3578.6%
2,7678.5% 2,067
10.2%
2,5138.5% 2,025
10.0%2,0099.2%
2,2319.0%
2,2376.8%
2,19310.8%
2,4138.8% 2,047
9.4%
2,1817.4%
2,30411.4%
310.1%
320.2% 26
0.1%
330.1%27
0.1%
340.1%
350.1%
4241.9%
1991.0%
6182.5%
1430.7%
7232.6%
7442.5%
8132.5%
26,36980.7% 19,374
77.8%17,03078.0%
15,38976.1%
15,34476.0%21,543
78.2%
23,47979.9%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
500
1000
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacific
Islander
050
100
150
Black
050
100
150
Hispanic
0
5
10
American
Indian/Alas..
0
10
20
Other
200400600800
White
7732.4%
7382.5%
6542.4%
6602.7%
5662.6% 438
2.2%4862.4%
81.7%
153.4%
51.0%
92.5%
72.4%
51.4%
72.0%
923.3%
843.3%
984.2%
873.8%
844.2%
723.5%
904.4%
853.8%
934.3% 71
2.9%
914.1%
1004.9%
884.0%
823.6%
617.6% 3
11.5%13.7%
26.1%
38.6% 1
3.2%
39.4%
131.6% 8
1.1%81.1%
91.5% 4
0.9% 10.5%
10.7%
5742.2%
5362.3%
4692.2%
4582.4%
3702.2% 269
1.7%3032.0%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
500
100015002000
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacific
Islander
100200300400
Black
0
200
400
Hispanic
0
5
10American
Indian/Alas..
0
20
40
Other
0
500
1000
White
1,2463.8%
1,2154.1%
1,1764.3%
1,2335.0%
1,0784.9%
1,2306.1%979
4.8%
81.7%
153.4%
71.5%
113.1% 7
2.4% 30.9%
92.6%
25912.8%159
5.7%1626.4%
1787.6%
2008.8%
1688.4%
1979.5%
24510.2%
25811.6%
26613.0%
24911.4%
29612.8%204
9.1%2029.3%
412.1%
411.4%
617.6%
825.8% 5
15.6%
726.9%
27.4%
222.7%
314.2% 24
3.3%223.6% 14
3.3% 42.0%
21.4%
8513.2%
8013.4%
7183.3%
7363.8%
6153.6%
5213.4%
6574.3%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
SARPY CO SO PAPILLION
BELLEVUE PD
PAPILLION PD
LA VISTA PD OMAHA
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
44444444444444444444
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 82.3%
2.9%
8.4%
3.7%
2.4%
0.3%
82.6%
2.7%
8.1%
3.9%
2.2%
0.4%
83.0%
2.8%
7.9%
4.0%
2.0%
0.3%
83.4%
2.8%
7.6%
3.9%
2.0%
0.3%
83.8%
2.6%
7.3%
3.9%
2.1%
0.3%
84.1%
2.6%
7.0%
4.0%
2.1%
0.3%
COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
33 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (BELLEVUE PD)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K5K
10K
15K
All Races
0
100
200
Asian/Pacifi..
0500
1000
1500
Black
500
1000
1500
Hispanic
0
10
20
American
Indian/Alas..
0200
400
600
Other
0K
5K
10K
White
14,200100%
12,793100%
12,106100%
10,677100%
10,217100%
10,138100%
9,449100%
1781.4% 151
1.5%1531.5%97
1.0%
1781.5%
2001.4%
1271.2%
1,34713.3%
1,35211.2%
1,56711.0% 1,284
12.0%1,13012.0%
1,41111.0% 1,244
12.2%
1,55912.9%
1,60415.8%
1,41715.0%
1,63716.0%1,402
13.1%1,39310.9%
1,3729.7%
220.2%
230.2%17
0.2%
200.2%16
0.2%140.1%
150.1%
3253.4%
1081.1%
460.5%
5244.9%
6225.1%
6355.0%
6434.5%
10,40473.3% 9,154
71.6%8,38069.2%
7,32368.6%
7,11769.7%
6,90568.1%
6,46468.4%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
100200300400
All Races
2468
Asian/Pacific
Islander
2040
6080
Black
0
50
100
Hispanic
02
46
American
Indian/Alas..
05
10
15
Other
0
100
200
White
2721.9%
2522.0%
2351.9%
2482.3%
2492.6%
2392.4%
2082.0%
42.0%
52.8%
10.6%
21.6% 0
0.0%00.0%
21.3%
422.7%
352.5%
443.3%
403.1%
363.2%
443.3%
504.0%
483.5%
423.0%
362.3%
493.5%
704.9%
714.4% 43
2.6%
213.3%
211.8%
315.0%
00.0%
14.5% 0
0.0%
28.7%
91.4% 7
1.1% 50.8%
71.3%
20.6%
10.9%
00.0%
1691.6%
1621.8%
1471.8%
1482.0%
1412.2%
1211.8%
1101.5%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0500
1000
All Races
5
10
15
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0100
200
300
Black
100200
300400
Hispanic
0
5
10American
Indian/Alas..
0
20
40
Other
200
400
600
White
6104.3%
7135.6%
7045.8%
7777.3%
7457.9%
7877.8%
8968.8%
52.5%
116.2%
21.1%
43.1% 2
2.1%21.3%
63.9%
14211.1%
12411.0%
16612.3%
19015.3%98
6.3%1097.7%
1218.9%
14110.3%
15010.8%
19412.4%
19914.2%
23116.3%
23114.4%
26216.0%
426.7% 2
11.8%
637.5%
521.7%
735.0%
17.1%
29.1%
162.5%
304.7% 20
3.2%193.6% 12
3.7% 32.8%
12.2%
3493.4%
4114.5%
3634.3%
4115.6%
3705.7%
3805.5%
4306.0%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
BELLEVUE PD
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 72.6%
3.2%
14.6%
6.3%
2.9%
0.5%
73.2%
2.9%
14.1%
6.4%
2.7%
0.6%
74.1%
3.0%
13.4%
6.5%
2.4%
0.6%
74.3%
3.1%
13.7%
6.3%
2.0%
0.6%
74.2%
3.0%
13.5%
6.3%
2.3%
0.6%
74.9%
2.9%
12.7%
6.8%
2.4%
0.4%
CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
34 of 40
The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Hall County, in addition tothe county’s largest city, Grand Island. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Hall County decreased 20.7%compared to 2016.
Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Hall County were submitted from two agencies (listed in decreasing orderbased on their percentage of total stops in the county): Grand Island PD (60.8%) and Hall County SO (39.2%).
Combining both Hall County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (4.3% and 2.1%) and Hispanic (27.5% and26.1%) drivers.
On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 5.3% of all 2017 traffic stops from Hall County agencies.With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for American Indian/Alaskan Native (9.1%),Hispanic (7.4%), and Black (7.3%) drivers.
HALL COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS
35 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (HALL CO)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K5K
10K
15K
All Races
50
100
150
Asian/Pacifi..
200
400
600
Black
1K2K
3K4K
Hispanic
0
10
20
American
Indian/Alas..
10
20
30
Other
0K
5K
10K
White
13,726100%
14,893100% 12,908
100%10,295100%
10,242100%
9,728100%
9,245100%
1571.1%
1701.3%137
0.9%1141.1%
1131.2%
1031.0%
991.1%
4274.1%
6134.5%
6384.3%
5744.4% 441
4.3%4414.5%343
3.7%
1,91220.7%
2,64225.7%
2,56426.4%
3,69826.9%
3,96326.6%
3,62728.1% 2,812
27.5%
210.2% 17
0.1%170.2%
150.1% 11
0.1%
180.2% 13
0.1%
230.2%
100.1% 22
0.2%
350.3%24
0.3%250.2% 19
0.2%
9,22167.2%
10,11767.9% 8,485
65.7%7,07168.7%
6,85666.9%
6,85074.1%
6,57967.6%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
500
1000
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacifi..
0
20
40
Black
0
200
400
Hispanic
2468
American
Indian/Alas..
2
4
6
Other
0
200
400
White
1681.8%
1871.8%
1621.7%
5754.2%
6034.0%
5073.9%
4154.1%
00.0%
21.8%
32.7%
127.6%
21.5%
21.2%
32.9%
133.8% 5
1.2%40.9%
335.4% 23
3.6%
295.1%
327.3%
904.7%
893.4%
732.8%
2456.6%
2716.8%
2386.6% 171
6.1%
422.2%
523.8%
213.3%
215.4%
211.8%1
5.9%19.1%
416.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
12.9% 0
0.0%
640.9%
871.2%
771.2%
2833.1%
3013.0% 235
2.8%2083.0%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
500
1000
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacific
Islander
020
40
60
Black
0
200
400
Hispanic
02
46American
Indian/Alas..
2468
Other
200
400
600
White
2492.7%
3433.3%
3303.4%
7655.6%
6904.6%
7145.5% 540
5.3%
22.0%
21.8%
00.0%
138.3%
64.4%
42.4% 2
1.9%
144.1%
163.7%
122.7%
315.1%
325.0%
366.3%
327.3%
814.2%
1335.0%
1054.1%
2817.6%
2797.0%
2978.2% 207
7.4%
317.6%
314.3% 2
13.3%2
15.4%
317.6%
00.0%
19.1%
110.0%
514.3%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
14.0% 0
0.0%
1492.2%
1922.7%
2093.2%
4384.8%
3703.7%
3694.3% 298
4.3%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
HALL CO SO GRAND ISLAND
GRAND ISLAND PD
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
22222222222222222222
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 68.9%
1.4%
26.1%
2.1%
1.2%
0.3%
69.8%
1.2%
25.5%
2.1%
1.0%
0.4%
70.5%
0.9%
24.9%
2.1%
1.1%
0.4%
71.5%
0.9%
24.2%
1.9%
1.1%
0.4%
72.7%
0.8%
23.2%
1.9%
1.0%
0.5%
73.8%
0.8%
22.1%
2.0%
0.9%
0.4%
COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
36 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (GRAND ISLAND PD)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K
5K
10K
All Races
0
50
100
Asian/Pacifi..
0
200
400
Black
1K
2K
3K
Hispanic
5
10
15
American
Indian/Alas..
0
10
20
Other
2K
4K
6K
White
6,886100%
10,416100%
10,616100% 8,150
100%6,750100%4,701
100%
6,231100%
891.3%
1381.3% 107
1.0%1071.3%
911.3%66
1.4%691.1%
3334.8%
5485.3%
5415.1% 463
5.7%3725.5%
3385.4%251
5.3%
1,37529.2%
2,13531.0%
2,09631.1%
3,24531.2%
3,39632.0% 2,890
35.5% 2,19035.1%
120.1%
130.3%
170.2%
100.2%
100.1%
160.2%
90.1%
110.2%
80.1%
160.2%
210.2%
200.2%
90.1%
40.1%
4,30162.5%
6,45762.0%
6,54161.6%
4,66157.2%
4,16761.7%2,992
63.6%
3,61558.0%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
200400600800
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacifi..
0
20
40
Black
100
200300400
Hispanic
2
4
6
American
Indian/Alas..
2
4
6
Other
100200
300400
White
1032.2%
1091.6%
1131.7%
5435.2%
5465.1%
4655.7% 367
5.9%
00.0%
11.1%
33.3%
128.7%
21.9%
21.9%
34.3%
93.6% 4
1.2%20.5%
325.8% 22
4.1%
296.3%
329.5%
634.6%
633.0%
643.1%
2397.4%
2587.6%
2257.8% 162
7.4%
423.5%
425.0%
216.7%
220.0%
222.2% 1
10.0%17.7%
419.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
15.0% 0
0.0%
301.0%
370.9%
401.0%
2584.0%
2583.9% 206
4.4%1694.7%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
500
1000
All Races
0
10
20
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0
20
40
Black
0
200
400
Hispanic
02
46American
Indian/Alas..
2
4
6
Other
0200
400
600
White
1573.3%
2503.6%
2593.8%
7226.9%
6396.0%
6297.7% 484
7.8%
11.5%
11.1%
00.0%
128.7%
54.7%
43.7% 2
2.9%
124.8%
82.4%
92.4%
315.7%
295.4%
316.7%
298.6%
624.5%
1075.0%
904.3%
2738.4%
2697.9%
2669.2% 194
8.9%
215.4%
318.8% 2
16.7% 110.0%
333.3%
110.0%0
0.0%
112.5%
420.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
802.7%
1343.1%
1563.7%
4046.3%
3355.1%
3216.9%
2587.1%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
GRAND ISLAND PD
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 64.8%
1.5%
29.6%
2.5%
1.4%
0.3%
65.8%
1.2%
29.0%
2.4%
1.2%
0.4%
66.9%
1.0%
28.0%
2.4%
1.3%
0.5%
67.9%
0.9%
27.4%
2.2%
1.2%
0.4%
69.2%
0.9%
26.2%
2.1%
1.1%
0.6%
70.5%
0.8%
25.1%
2.2%
1.0%
0.4%
CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
37 of 40
The following two pages reflect traffic stop data only from law enforcement agencies within Buffalo County, inaddition to the county’s largest city, Kearney. The total number of 2017 traffic stops in Buffalo County decreased2.8% compared to 2016.
Collectively, 2017 traffic stops data for Buffalo County were submitted from five agencies (listed in decreasing orderbased on their percentage of total stops in the county): Kearney PD (62.1%), Buffalo County SO (32.2%), RavennaPD (2.3%), University of Nebraska–Kearney Campus PD (2.2%), and Shelton PD (1.1%).
Across all Buffalo County agencies, two racial groups had 2017 traffic stop percentages (first value) thatoverrepresented their population percentages (second value): Black (2.2% and 0.8%) and Hispanic (9.8% and 8.4%)drivers.
On average (across all races), searches were conducted in 1.5% of all 2017 traffic stops from Buffalo Countyagencies. With respect to race, search percentages were higher than average for Black (3.5%), Hispanic (2.4%),and Other (8.3%) drivers.
BUFFALO COUNTY TRAFFIC STOPS
38 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (BUFFALO CO)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K
5K
10K
All Races
0
50
100
Asian/Pacifi..
0100
200
Black
0
500
1000
Hispanic
0
10
20
American
Indian/Alas..
0
20
40
Other
0K
5K
10K
White
12,650100% 10,206
100%
10,254100%
10,538100%
10,000100%
9,407100%
8,930100%
1000.8% 81
0.8%
1021.0%
1261.2%
1291.3%
660.7%
760.8%
2271.8%
2612.6%
2772.6% 228
2.2%1941.9%163
1.7%1691.9%
8396.6%
99510.0%832
8.2%
9288.8%703
7.5%7077.9%
1,0009.8%
200.2% 9
0.1%120.1%
110.1%
230.2%
180.2%6
0.0%
540.4% 42
0.5%390.4%
450.5% 36
0.4%350.3%
350.3%
11,42490.3% 9,052
88.7%
9,15486.9%
8,83886.2%
8,59485.9%
8,40989.4%
7,92688.8%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
200
400
All Races
1
2
3
Asian/Pacific
Islander
010
20
30
Black
20
40
60
Hispanic
1
2
3
American
Indian/Alas..
1
2
3
Other
0
200
400
White
3152.5% 247
2.6%2432.4%
2723.0%
2742.7% 205
1.9%1881.8%
11.0%
22.6% 1
1.2%11.5%
11.0% 0
0.0%00.0%
41.8%
53.1%
94.6%
95.3%
197.3%
93.2%
114.8%
192.3%
385.4% 29
3.5%
365.1%
494.9%
444.7% 34
3.4%
218.2%
216.7%
210.0%
222.2%
00.0%
15.6%
14.3%
00.0%
24.4%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
25.6%
2912.5% 198
2.4%2022.2%
2242.8%
2032.4% 151
1.6%1401.6%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
200
400
All Races
0
5
10
Asian/Pacifi..
020
40
60
Black
10
20
30
Hispanic
0
1
2American
Indian/Alas..
05
10
15
Other
0
200
400
White
3382.7% 204
2.2%
2372.3% 146
1.6%1701.7%
1381.3%
1511.5%
00.0%
00.0%
11.2%
00.0%
65.9%
10.8%
10.8%
3618.6%
10.4%
42.5%
84.7%
62.3%
82.9%
83.5%
172.0%
202.8% 15
1.8% 111.6%
212.1%
181.9%
242.4%
00.0%
00.0%
18.3%
15.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
1023.8%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
12.9%
38.3%
3202.8% 180
2.1%1842.0% 116
1.5%1371.6%
1101.2%
1151.3%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
BUFFALO CO SO KEARNEY
KEARNEY PD
RAVENNA PD
SHELTON PD
UNK
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
1111111111111111
55555555555555554444
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 87.7%
1.5%
8.4%
0.8%
1.3%
0.2%
87.9%
1.3%
8.3%
1.1%
1.2%
0.2%
88.2%
1.5%
8.0%
0.9%
1.2%
0.1%
88.7%
1.5%
7.8%
0.8%
1.1%
0.1%
89.2%
1.5%
7.4%
0.7%
1.1%
0.2%
89.6%
1.3%
7.1%
0.8%
1.0%
0.1%
COUNTY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
39 of 40
TRAFFIC STOP REPORT DATA (KEARNEY PD)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0K
5K
10K
All Races
0
50
100
Asian/Pacifi..
50100
150200
Black
0200
400
600
Hispanic
5
10
15
American
Indian/Alas..
0
20
40
Other
2K4K6K8K
White
10,101100% 6,989
100%
7,510100%
7,706100% 6,473
100%6,369100%
5,452100%
721.1%
820.8% 71
0.9% 521.0%
671.0%
981.3%
971.5%
1972.0% 166
2.6%
1942.6% 150
2.4%1461.9% 108
2.0%
1341.9%
6296.2% 504
6.5%4726.8%
5188.0%
4947.8%342
6.3%
5657.5%
60.1%
150.2%
100.2%
100.1% 16
0.3%
80.1%
70.1%
520.5%
300.5%
250.4%
280.4%
260.5%
250.3%
420.5%
9,13590.4% 6,933
90.0%6,28089.9%
5,68087.7%
6,61388.1%
5,58787.7%
4,91490.1%
TRAFFIC STOP TREND LINES BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
100
200
300
All Races
1
2
3
Asian/Pacific
Islander
5
10
15
Black
0
20
40
Hispanic
1
2
3
American
Indian/Alas..
1
2
3
Other
100
200
300
White
2372.3%
2072.7% 149
2.1%1262.3%
1251.9%
1141.5%
1151.8%
00.0%
22.8%
00.0%
00.0%
11.4% 0
0.0%00.0%
31.5%
32.1%
43.0%
65.6%
116.6% 6
3.1%
85.3%
91.4%
336.5%
122.5%
144.1%
163.1%
203.5%
204.0%
220.0%
225.0% 1
10.0%1
14.3%00.0%
16.7% 0
0.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
28.0%
2252.5% 167
2.4% 1312.1%
1052.1%
961.7%
871.3%
851.5%
TRAFFIC STOP ARREST COUNTS & PERCENTAGEOF ARRESTS BY RACE
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
200
400
All Races
2468
Asian/Pacific
Islander
020
40
60
Black
010
20
30
Hispanic
0
1
2American
Indian/Alas..
05
10
15
Other
100200300400
White
2842.8% 183
2.4%
2193.1% 110
2.0%1211.9%
1231.6%
1272.0%
00.0%
00.0%
11.5% 0
0.0%
56.9%
00.0%
11.0%
3626.9%
10.5%
42.7%
54.6%
63.6%
63.1%
74.7%
121.9%
204.0% 13
2.8% 92.6%
142.7%
132.3%
204.0%
112.5%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
1038.5%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
14.0%
28.0%
2713.0% 159
2.3%1682.7% 86
1.8%961.7%
1031.6%
971.7%
TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES COUNTS &PERCENTAGE OF SEARCHES BY RACE
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
2013 Q3
2013 Q4
2014 Q1
2014 Q2
2014 Q3
2014 Q4
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
2016 Q1
2016 Q2
2016 Q3
2016 Q4
2017 Q1
2017 Q2
2017 Q3
2017 Q4
KEARNEY PD
Grand Total
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
Produced by the Nebraska Crime Commission
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
American Indian/Al..
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White 87.3%
1.6%
7.8%
1.2%
1.9%
0.3%
87.1%
1.4%
8.2%
1.4%
1.7%
0.2%
87.1%
1.9%
8.1%
1.1%
1.7%
0.1%
87.7%
1.9%
7.8%
1.0%
1.5%
0.1%
87.6%
1.7%
8.2%
0.8%
1.5%
0.2%
88.0%
1.5%
8.1%
0.9%
1.4%
0.1%
CITY POPULATIONDATA SUBMISSION
COUNT
40 of 40